I swear to god if you imply that we're supposed to say "Peep"....

Edit: Oh shit, he literally is.

So far as I have been shown:

People ask not to be born.

People ask not to be born to the parents they are blessed or cursed with.

People ask not for the environment within which their formative formative years occur.

So far as I have been shown, no angel descents from the heavens to bestow upon everyone equally the magical gift of just knowing right from wrong. Indeed, the very idea of right and wrong are wholly dependent on the circumstance of one's birth. Did their mother whisper them tales of evil men who would lay with another, or did a kindly neighbor teach them the value of kindness and friendship? Or were they beset by men addled by inherited hatred and were they taught to wield a gun before they even knew love? 'Tis true most people will know pain from pleasure, but even what you perceive as pain and what as pleasure depends upon how you formed before you set eyes on the world. As we share most other features that make us human, we can assume what hurts you will hurt another, what pleases you will please another - but there is ever an exception to every rule. It is but a human tendency to associate most pleasure with good, and most pain as evil. Useful one to be sure, if one values the well-being of one's kin. But an universal truth it is not.

If you say some people turn to evil no matter how they were taught: how then could they choose to be different? If you say some people turn kind regardless of any suffering they had to endure: how then could they have chosen otherwise?

Furthermore, you yourself do not even know the nature of the next thought before it has already revealed itself. Think now of an animal.

Did you know what animal would manifest in your mind before it already found purchase within it?

If you say you may deliberate a thought before a choice is made, how did the choice to deliberate come about? You do not know if you will ponder a choice for an eternity before you have already done so. You may say "I'll think about it" but you do not know if you have thought about it, before you have thought about it. You did not choose the tendency. And if you say, you chose to learn: how did you know you were going to choose to learn, before you were learning it?

No, I do not believe in free will. It is but an artifact of ideologies that cater to our more base desire of being utterly beyond reproach of other women and men. It pleases the zealot in our hearts who wants to think of itself as the paragon of virtue. For if there is no absolute good or evil, and no inherent ability to choose one from the other, how would it partake in the joy of judging others to be lesser than it? It could not. It would have to see itself as no better than the most heinous of criminals, but for the circumstances of its life. This is the bitterest of pills to swallow, and thus even those of us most conscious to these realities gag when faced with that which truly offends us. Which is why this is no mere lever you pull in your brain and have it be set once and for all. No, it takes lifelong vigilance, facing the zealot every time it reaches for the gavel and fixing it with your unrelenting attention, until it recedes back into the darkest corner of your heart. There is may merely be an advisor to your desire to do good in the world, but no more.

Those people calling other aren’t bad for calling someone stupid or lazy if they don’t have free will.

You have grasped it.

If you assume free will doesn’t exist, evil or good doesn’t either.

Correct.

Murder or curing cancer, it’s like the sun shining, and inavoidable, neutral fact.

Correct.

Of course you may dismiss this as rambling idiocy, but I won’t hold it against a clockwork automaton.

No, you have grasped exactly what I said, at least on the level of the intellect. I realize of course you resist as it goes against what you merely WISH to be true. This I cannot do anything about, as you said. But you have understood perfectly. Well done!

One person decided that I lack empathy (he doesn't know what the word means) based on this. He said as much. Possibly others read it and decided it must be true, and thus I am worthy of burial.

You state that words like "stupid" or "lazy" are mere descriptors for common traits, and in this, you are correct. But let us be explicit: these words are not neutral. They are not clinical. They are not even accurate. They are judgments masquerading as observations, and their function is not to describe, but to dismiss, belittle and shame.

It is not the existence of laziness or folly that demands scrutiny, it is the impulse to label a human being as such, as though their value hinges on productivity or flawless reasoning. When you call a person "lazy," you are not documenting a transient state; you are rendering a verdict. A judgment from a throne no higher than theirs. You ignore the depressed individual for whom movement is a Herculean task, the neurodivergent mind locked in executive dysfunction, the exhausted worker crushed beneath systems designed to extract labor without regard for humanity. The word "lazy" does not describe a choice. It erases a context.

Likewise, "stupid" is not a measure of intellect, it is a weapon. It presumes intelligence is a moral achievement, not a confluence of biology, environment, and luck. It assumes that those who fail to meet an arbitrary standard of competence deserve contempt, rather than inquiry. If a machine malfunctions, we do not call it "stupid"; we examine its design. Why, then, do we reserve such charity for objects, and withhold it from people?

The question is NOT whether we should "ban" these words. It is whether we recognize their purpose: to punish, not to understand. Language does not merely reflect reality, it constructs our perception of it. When we default to scorn, we architect a world where struggle is met with derision, where complexity is flattened into moral failure, and where the burden of proof always lies with the accused. This is not how justice works. This is not how compassion works.

Furthermore, if one desires a change in the conduct of one they would deem a fool, has shaming been shown to work? NAY! It has been demonstrated time and time again that shaming yields not the behavior of a distinguished individual but a seething hatred towards those that inflicted the wound. A resentment that easily turns what was once a mere human folly into a vitriolic conviction. You may then have no hope of opening this fortress of bitterness to see the harm their actions wrought, indeed they may feel justified in their actions. So as have been done unto them, they will do unto others.

https://drdevonprice.substack.com/p/laziness-does-not-exist

https://www.uva.nl/shared-content/uva/en/news/press-releases/2025/08/guilt-makes-us-more-prosocial.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216671499_The_longitudinal_links_between_shame_and_increasing_hostility_during_adolescence

https://neurosciencenews.com/guilt-shame-behavior-neuroscience-30065/

Of course, if your desire is merely to feel good for a moment as you unleash an insult upon another, by all means. But this is not the behavior of a paragon of virtue, rather it is base.

Accountability? Yes, accountability is good. It’s proper and necessary to address harmful actions and ensure steps are taken to prevent recurrence. This is entirely possible, and likely more effective, without resorting to insult.

Insults are just punitive justice in a social context: a counterproductive way to discharge outrage rather than foster change. It is to temporarily soothe the egoic zealot lurking within the hearts of all. The research is clear: whether in criminal justice or interpersonal conflict, rehabilitative approaches (clear boundaries, restorative dialogue, support) reduce harm more effectively than punishment alone.

To believe that hate may be remedied with further hate is to mistake fire for water.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8196268/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00938548251335322

Oh if only humanity did have an universally agreed upon meaning and point, so much strife could be avoided. Alas, such a thing does not exist in reality, but only in the minds of people. Those ever malleable and shifting minds.

I do as I do because because I am compelled, indeed! Because I wish to see less cruelty in the world. It is simplicity itself. And if I spoke in full truth, I would never say anything at all.

What if you can't learn?

Also by whose dictionary are you defining empathy? I wish people well, would seek to alleviate their suffering, I practice compassion. I do not need empathy for any of it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

::: spoiler paljastus empathy noun em·​pa·​thy ˈem-pə-thē Synonyms of empathy

1 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another Lead by example and demonstrate the power of empathy and compassion.— Shari Bailey There's no love in this character, no hidden empathy or tenderness that surfaces late in the story.— Julie Hinds A little politeness, respect and empathy go a long way toward making our online experiences enjoyable and fulfilling.— Jim Sabataso Seen from the protagonists' worldview, the film becomes an earnest call for empathy in a country that is witnessing an unprecedented influx of immigrants.— Emiliano Granada also : the capacity for this … the bully shows a lack of empathy and may joke at another person's expense. — Sherri Gordon We often think of empathy—people's ability to share and understand each other's experiences—as a hard-wired trait, but it's actually more like a skill. The right experiences, habits and practices can increase our empathic capacity … — Jamil Zaki

2 : the act of imagining one's ideas, feelings, or attitudes as fully inhabiting something observed (such as a work of art or natural occurrence) : the imaginative projection (see projection sense 6b) of a subjective (see subjective entry 1 sense 3a) state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it To have empathy, in the early 1900s, was to enliven an object. … Some of the earliest psychology experiments on empathy focused on … a bodily feeling or movement that produced a sense of merging with an object. One subject imagining a bunch of grapes felt "a cool, juicy feeling all over."— Susan Lanzoni

:::

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/care%20for ::: spoiler paljastus care for phrasal verb cared for; caring for; cares for

1 : to do the things that are needed to help and protect (a person or animal) : look after (someone or something) She cares for elderly patients. Who is caring for your son while you are at work?

2 : to feel affection for (someone) I got the feeling he never really cared for me.

3 somewhat formal : to like or enjoy (something) —often used in negative statements I don't care for jelly beans. I don't care for your tone of voice.

4 somewhat formal : to want (something) Would you care for some pie? :::

Huh. That's a very cool idea. I hope creatives occasionally include her in their works! It's just that the licensing line can make that a bit awkward.

If one values the well-being of people, and if one has time and resources to be on Lemmy, I'd say reflecting upon one's conduct in the world is a fine place to put attention in.

A bit besides the point of what I had in mind. That's just... casual conversation. I'm focusing on positivity.

Yes, woman is a human. Humans are human. But we tend to only care about those we hear of. A woman in a dire circumstance without someone putting her on insta is still suffering just as much.

also, low empathy is a cognitive issue one cannot help. Refrain from ableism if you care for neurodivergent people. I do not need empathy to care for people.

https://youtu.be/JAV9Q_c82M4?list=RDJAV9Q_c82M4&t=60

No.

The question is not whether every insult is aimed at the neurodivergent, it is whether we accept that our language, carelessly or maliciously deployed, reinforces a world where those already struggling are further ground beneath contempt.

You assert that policing language is futile, that insults are a "basic part of human language,". This is the refuge of those who mistake tradition for truth. If language is merely a tool, then let us ask: what does it build? Does it foster understanding, or does it erect walls? Does it invite reflection, or does it demand submission?

You say, "It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words." But who, pray tell, is asking for bans? I am not advocating for the eradication of words, I am advocating for the examination of their purpose. You are correct that words are ever shifting and changing. Sever the verbal head of one hydra and witness as two new nouns emerge. This is precisely the reason for my conviction.

"100% policing language"? It is 100% asking for accountability. If you insist on wielding words as weapons, at least own the carnage. But do not pretend that this reflects anything but a commitment to a cruel world.

Cruelty is merely a label we put upon an action we find harmful. Like every word, it is made up.

No word is the thing it points to. Except perhaps the word, "word" itself. Every word I have written is a small lie.

One does not go around licking recipes in order to taste the dish.

You suggest I see a psychologist, yet psychology confirms my point: we are the products of our neurobiology and our environments.

If you believe there is a part of the human mind that exists outside of cause and effect, I’d love to see the clinical study that located it.

Please feel free to get familiar with semantics.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics

Now if you have an actual argument for why free will exists, please do argue that. Else, I have said as much as needed.