Women looking at this meme: so am I supposed to be a lesbian?
women? on the internet? looking at memes?
Lemmy silver 🥈
Is it colloidal?
?
The silver
Sorry I don’t understand
(English isn’t my primary language :/)
Creepy. I just watched this scene seconds ago after not watching the film for years…
Yes I was scrolling while watching, I’m sorry.
Weird, I just watched this year’s after not watching the film for years…
Its crazy how unlikely things happen frequently with enough participants.
Yes I was scrolling while sitting in the toilet, I’m sorry.
Weird, I don’t even know what film this is from. And yet here I am, replying to this comment.
Yes, this is a blatant shitpost. I’m sorry.
In case you aren’t joking: Blade Runner
Here I thought it was some bad homophobia propaganda, with “replicant” being a diagetic slur for straight people
Old saying in is: In Internet men are men, women are men and children are FBI officers.
Edit: 4chan rules of the Internet:
Rule 29: On the internet men are men, women are also men, and kids are undercover FBI agents.
GIRL
guy in real life
Sounds pretty gay.
Yes, you have to reproduced by impregnating a woman or you are an evolutionary failure.
Yup, we are now gay :3
Yes.
Yep. Sorry hetro women, the meme has spoken; you’ve got to be gay now.
Well, at least bi.
deleted by creator
Way ahead of you
It’s not necessarily a POV…
No you don’t understand. Women don’t matter.
her eye game is absolutely on-point
Join us!
Congrats on one of the gayest usernames I’ve ever seen
Also best pillar
TIL that we evolved opposable thumbs for feeding our loved ones
Hungry for thumbs
Pretty much.
This meme was made better for me by provoking the thought that all the great philosophers were just aces
Am a biologist, can confirm.
I’m a philosopher. I can confirm the biologist seems right
Procreo, ergo sum
Pater tuus est?
Ita, fili mi.
A biologist who ignores asexually reproducing organisms, clearly.
Humans have tried reproducing asexually. It’s called wanking. It doesn’t work.
Getting your finger bitten off by a person who is wearing a lot of make-up? Pls explain, I’m not a biologist. /j
Yes, you nailed it. You really fingered the issue.
Speaking of nailing.
removed by mod
As another comment identified, that’s itshannahowo. You can find images including her vagina at your own leisure.
It’s only a trap if you’re trying to avoid it…
At uni the biologist parties were always the ones with the most sex. So that checks out.
The least sex was electrical or mechanical engineering. Just the couple of ay dudes had some fun.
Weirdest sex was for sure psychology student parties.
Comp sci?
NaN
LAN parties.
And there was me, who entrapped himself in a terrible relationship and had neither sex nor fun
I used to live with a biology student who would constantly have house parties. Those parties weren’t the most sex-filled ones I’ve ever been to but they absolutely attracted the wealthiest party goers.
Agreed. I was at a party and I got blackout drunk and regained my awareness as I was sitting on a log barfing. To my right is a psychology student holding my shoulders and stroking my hair. She then walks me home, invites herself in, empties the entire contents of her purse in my shared living room, then takes me back to my room and rides me for an undisclosed amount of time.
Psychology student sex was weird that one time.
And don’t even get me started on civil engineers…
Physicists: the meaning of life is to increase entropy. Global warming let’sssss goooll
That’s the meaning of the universe and everything, not specifically life. Easy mistake to make.
It’s not meaning. It’s just a mechanism. It’s the canvas to what we do and ascribe meaning to.
Then again, our “meaning” might simply be a mechanism to another system
Help, I made conscious life material in nature!
So I was setting up my constants but wasn’t paused so I added energy andand the universe exploded??? in this huge biiigi bang and it won’t stop! Pls help, it’s my first universe, it’s already like 15 billion years old and I can’t figure out how to fix the “material minds” they’re crazy! It’s so depressing.
Pynchon from Gravity’s Rainbow:
“Don’t forget the real business of the War is buying and selling. The murdering and violence are self-policing, and can be entrusted to non-professionals. The mass nature of wartime death is useful in many ways. It serves as a spectacle, as a diversion from the real movements of the War. It provides raw material to be recorded into History, so that children may be taught History as sequences of violence, battle after battle, and be more prepared for the adult world. Best of all, mass death’s a stimulus to just ordinary folks, little fellows, to try ‘n’ grab a piece of that Pie while they’re still here to gobble it up. The true war is a celebration of markets. Organic markets, carefully styled “black” by the professionals, spring up everywhere. Scrip, Sterling, Reichsmarks, continue to move, severe as classical ballet, inside their antiseptic marble chambers. But out here, down here among the people, the truer currencies come into being. So, Jews are negotiable. Every bit as negotiable as cigarettes, cunt, or Hersey bars.”
I struggle to read these days and I couldnt get through gravity’s rainbow. Worth a read? Should I get the audiobook?
It’s one of the more difficult books to get through frankly but it is rewarding. The thing to appreciate when attempting it is that mid-30s Pynchon was inventing his own English grammar. Some sentences are a full page long and it will challenge your memory. So the best approach I think is to just let it wash over you. After a while your mind adapts. You’ll miss a ton the first time through and that is OK. I think I had to start it three times before I eventually got through it and I was younger then. I have reread it a few times since, once with a companion book that annotated each chapter and offered commentary on the book’s structure which is actually impressively plotted. But don’t let it intimidate. Just let it wash over you and enjoy the funny parts. There are a lot of funny parts. The audiobook route sounds less fatiguing. Fickt nicht mit dem Raketemensch!
The thing to appreciate when attempting it is that mid-30s Pynchon was inventing his own English grammar. Some sentences are a full page long and it will challenge your memory.
He always seemed like a more modern take on James Joyce or something (coming from someone who’s never read Pynchon)
They’re similarly complex for sure. Even encyclopedic.
It wasn’t until I got to the cigarettes and cunts as currency that I realized this was not a particularly hardcore monologue from Gravity Falls, a popular show I had not watched, but Gravity’s Rainbow. Great excerpt though.
I’ve read nothing by Pynchon, so I have no real context… Is this meant to be in his voice? Or is this a character in the novel speaking? Thx
Its been years so I dont specifically recall. My guess is that it is the voice of a sort of omniscient narrator. It does seem to be a stand-in for Pynchon’s perspective to some extent. It’s such an exuberant novel. There is definitely a sense I recall that this (at the time) young man was stretching to the limit of his prodigious ability and wanted to show that ability off.
…god wants dollars, god wants cents, god want pounds, shillings, and pence; god wants guilders, god wants kroner, god wants swiss francs and god wants french francs; god wants escudos, god wants pesetas, don’t send lira, god don’t want small potatoes…
So who is that on the right
Seconding, source (NSFW) is an onlyfans post on 2022-05-24 titled wish it was u? ;D
Ok, so who’s that on the left?
The skeleton? Well, that would be me. I am a bit underweight.
No clue. Saved it to my meme folder back when I was on Reddit and decided to put it up here to keep the community going.
Thank you for your service
Someone about to be strangled by a ghost’s hand.
Saved this for later
42
Well, now I should take this meme down. You’ve given me a counterpoint so complete I have no retort. I will now go grab my towel.
If you suck on the end it’s lemon flavored.
Universal Sereal Bus
That’s what she said
that’s not the meaning of life, that’s the answer to the ultimate question about life the universe and everything…
But what’s the question?
Hmm, that requires Deep Thought.
if you haven’t read that book yet, i won’t spoil it
The meaning of life is when catholics do a song and dance number about how every sperm is sacred.
Zark that, it’s actually about finding a place to eat
Where all the hoopy froods meet!
Bust a nut, pass your genetics and perish. Thats it. What you do in between that is up to you.
How about I do something which will make life better for people who are actually alive already instead of increasing total human suffering by making new people.
That’s the philosophy group to the left
Having kids can be extremely fulfilling, doesn’t increase human suffering at all. Having kids subjectively improved my life and the lives of many people adjacent to me, e.g. the lives of my family members and friends and my kids’ friends.
I don’t understand how the Internet is so anti kids, it’s pretty baffling.
Virtually every sentient life experiences a non-zero amount of suffering. Progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t suffer; progeny that does exist is virtually certain to suffer to some degree. The hedonist argument that progeny may get to experience some joy falls apart because progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t experience any lack of joy (i.e. that would-be joy is not mourned by that which does not exist).
Ensuring the certainty of the sum total of suffering in another person’s life just for one’s own self-fulfillment is incredibly selfish. Procreation is a cycle of blithe selfishness that perpetuates universal suffering and is at best wrought by apathy for others’ suffering and at worst wrought by enthusiasm for others’ suffering.
I’m anti-kid because I didn’t consent to the sentience that I have experienced and I have the empathy to want others not to suffer.
Sure, life is imperfect, but is that really a reason to espouse something as radical as nonexistence? I find that the imperfection and thereby dualism of existence is part of what makes it beautiful; we get to experience both the good and the bad, pleasure and pain.
I guess in some sense what I understand you’re saying is that to you, being thrust into the pain inherent of becoming and being alive, is the consequence of a bad moral or ethical (selfish) action and therefore wrong even if the children are able to adapt, because there is always more potential suffering throughout the course of a life. I get that, I think most of us would love to be in situations where we could have no-suffering-guarantees for our children.
Maybe the point of friction is that it seems to me like you believe that there should be no suffering at all for it to be ethically permissible to have children (lest it be selfish) while many of us believe that the “base level” of suffering inherent to life (eg. death of parents, the setbacks of infancy, social interaction, etc.) is permissible, and it then falls on us as parents to make sure that there is no or as little additional or unnecessary suffering as possible by means of safe environment, education and tools to cope and overcome so that what could potentially be suffering doesn’t become so. When it comes to that I believe it to be more reasonable to discuss who ought and who oughtn’t be a parent than whether it’s ethical or not to have kids.
When it comes to that I believe it to be more reasonable to discuss who ought and who oughtn’t be a parent than whether it’s ethical or not to have kids.
Eugenics is not going to reduce suffering in the world.
I’m anti-kid because I didn’t consent to the sentience that I have experienced and I have the empathy to want others not to suffer.
Maybe you should find the empathy to see that your experience is not everyone’s experience, then?
Refer to the first sentence of my comment.
Non 0 amount of suffering is a meaningless statement.
You say it’s improved your life and the lives of those adjacent to you, your family members, friends, and your kids’ friends. But you haven’t said its improved your kids life. I think that’s what the OP was talking about. A being who doesn’t exist doesn’t desire to exist so making new life isn’t doing them a favor and only exposes them to harm.
Don’t project your own depression onto others, and non-existent beings.
If you think existence “only exposes [living things] to harm” and nothing else, nothing even potentially good?
If you truly believe that, I’ve got no nice way to say this: You need therapy.
I mean I’m not depressed and I love living, so I wouldn’t be projecting depression on to others.
I agree that people can experience good things as well as harmful things, but it’s not a risk worth taking. Giving birth is gambling with human life. You never know if someones life experience is going to be overwhelmingly positive or negative. But if they are never born, that’s not even an issue to worry about.
I don’t understand how the Internet is so anti kids, it’s pretty baffling.
Because people who are chronically online are chronically online because they had shitty childhoods which gave them chronic depression. Thus they associate the creation of children with the creation of suffering.
Source: me
Come on, it’s worth it but it certainly brings a lot of suffering that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Telling my teenager that he needs to shower 5x, every day that he does sports, is suffering for both me and him.
Human suffering is caused in part by overpopulation (as is the suffering of all creatures - we are invasive, destructive and afflicted with a superiority complex) and in part by religious indoctrination, so while you procreate, as long as you don’t force offspring into a single and restrictive belief system, I suppose it’s okay, and all the best to you.
No, social behavior has always been a party of biology. Even after you reproduce how you care for your young and your extended family has a huge impact on the species. Herd animals or anything that flocks can’t function solo. If all the adults just left after they reproduced the species wouldn’t survive. Reproduction is key for the individual, but it’s never that simple. The version you’re told in school is always a highly simplified version of the truth.
We did evolve grandmother’s. That was an evolutionary pressure response. Deep knowledge and long growth have lead us through doors of perception far beyond the reach of all life we have yet precieved.
We did evolve grandmother’s.
Grandmother’s what? What’s implied by the “'s” after “grandmother”?
You probably haven’t been off reddit long, but breath easy friend, no one proofread’s around here.
Apple pie.
The entire purpose of life and evolution up to this point was to evolve grandmother’s apple pie.
Tangential nitpick—the phrase “evolutionary pressure response” evokes the idea that there is an intelligent or benevolent purpose behind the process. When a beneficial trait randomly occurs and gets passed on, that is a release from evolutionary pressure, not a response to it.
Honestly the entire idea that the only purpose of humanity is to make the next generation or support that process in some way just feels gross in a very eugenics adjacent way. If you start with that premise, it’s just too easy to conclude that anyone who isn’t working towards that end is disposable.
Evolution is just natural eugenics.
Is it though? Because evolution is only really concerned with a thing living long enough to reproduce. It’s not planned like eugenics would be.
That’s why there’s tons of examples of dumb as hell stuff in biology because as long as an organism is “good enough” to keep reproducing and spreading their genes that is fine and that species will continue to evolve.
Eugenics would be more like if evolution somehow could select only for specific traits and then made sure to only let things with those traits reproduce. Evolution is much messier than that.
Yes, but also it’s more complicated than that. Most species die off before being grandparents, and certianly they don’t participate in the rearing of grandchildren. We specifically live long enough and have emotional connection to keep being part of a family structure past that point. It helps retain and pass on knowledge that proved valuable for us. Likewise, younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual, and it’s hypothesized this was to build redundancy into family structures. If both parents die off in a hunting accident, you have a gay aunt/uncle who can step in; much better than being an orphan.
Yes reproduction is the GOAL as far as evolution is concerened, but contributing does not require direct participation.
From a biological point of view everybody is disposable
Not just humanity. That is the purpose of all living things, insofar as we can be said to have a purpose at all.
No, it’s not purpose. It’s just a process that perpetuates itself.
It’s how you make the next generation, but if that generation doesn’t have a purpose, then neither does yours, nor the act of reproduction.
I’m in the “there is no purpose,” camp. It seems like a bit of a mental disorder to me to (without any evidence) assume that oneself or one’s species isn’t just hanging around by random happenstance. Wouldn’t that simply be narcissism? People have long asked the question, “why are we here?” Yet there’s never been and never will be a definitive answer.
…well in the long view, that’s how we got here and eventually that’s all that matters: it’s a bit nihilistic but that’s the essence of nature in the cosmos…
deleted by creator
If reincarnation were real, I’d hope that people who think the meaning of life entails procreation end up getting stuck as mayflies forever
Some philosophers agree with biologists on this one.
Wait, where do I recognise her from, I’m sure I’ve seen her face before
asking for a friend I see
Somewhere in your area is a doorway. Please walk through that, and do not return. Thank you.
uWu
Imo, the meaning of life is to experience as much as possible. Simple as that.
The meaning of life is to live.
And to live is to experience. 😝
Not necessarily, living longer could be at odds with experiences like sky diving or bull running.
Are you saying that it’s all about how long we live? If so, I disagree. I think it’s about how -much- we live.
I don’t think that, but saying ‘the purpose of life is to live’ implies more life is more better.
Then we agree, lol. “Living” more is experiencing more, right?
I didn’t think living=experiencing.
Someone’s channeling their inner Caligula…
I swear I was just checked last week and it came up clean!
Seems like that’s how you’d get murder, cannibalism, sadism, and things like that if you don’t put limits on it somewhere.
No one can experience all things, and there are plenty more things to choose from than what you listed.
Totally unrelated, but what does this ink blot look like to you…? Just curious! 😜
How would you prioritize what to experience? By novelty? Or would you be happy to watch every movie ever made?
I mention those because it’s a common trope in fiction for curiosity of experiences to lead down disturbing paths. Slanesh in 40k comes to mind.
It’s all up to the individual. Whatever makes your motor run. But I’d universally suggest traveling to other countries to experience different cultures first hand. Other than that… Just interact with and experience as many new things as you’ve got the bandwidth for.
On the other hand, if you go with reproduction as the main goal, then that gets you to eugenics from an uncomfortable number of very different paths.
Absolutely, that’d lead you to as many partners as possible while discouraging birth control. Plus tangentially it’d incentive trying to reduce the number of children other people have to increase your share of the gene pool. (Which I think is one of the paths you were getting at with eugenics)
That’s the meaning you imbue life with; it’s not inherent to its state.
Nihilists hate this one weird trick!
As much of what the biologist is having as possible
That’s 100% valid, too! Whatever makes your motor run.
Unfortunately I’m getting none of that
