Getting AIDS

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Is AIDS based or cringe?

  • Total voters
    23
Solid Snek said:
So I started typing up something about whether or not n act or an object can be intrinsically based or cringe, from my own perspective as a lukewarm deontologist. However, while drafting it out, I realized I was getting on to, like, five paragraphs of sheer autism, which given the shitpost nature of the GD forum, is in itself quite cringe. In accordance with the categorical imperative to act in a based manner, I shall instead present a brief outline of my current position vis-a-vis the question of intrinsic basedness:

  1. For a given act or object (x), I believe the condition of basedness and not-basedness (cringe) to be extrinsic to x itself.
  2. The basedness of x is derived, not from the inseparable qualities of x, but from a set of rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe.
  3. I believe that the basedness of x can be analyzed objectively, in the sense that - for a given a set of rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe, we might evaluate whether x satisfies those rules.
  4. However, in regards to the moral dimension of basedness, where we assume that "the based" is synonymous with "the good", I tend to agree with GE Moore in that "the based" would an emotive judgement and indefinable. (is the based the good? Is the cringe the bad? How can we resolve things when, for example, a soyboy would define "the woke" (i.e. "the cringe") as the good, and "the based" as "the cringe" (or the bad)? I am not a moral relativist, but I must admit, as a non-philosophy major myself, it is a complex question that I may be unequipped to fully answer.)

As for the question, "is getting AIDS based or cringe?", I think the most obvious answer is cringe. I think a case can be made that AIDS itself can be based, in the sense that AIDS - actually, shit, you know what? Hang on. Let me just finish this point - AIDS itself can be based, in the sense that AIDS can, and most often does, fulfill a set rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe. i.e. killing troons is based, AIDS kills troons, ergo AIDS is based.

Now, I was about to say that getting AIDS is cringe, on the grounds that the act of getting AIDS almost always involves actions that fulfill a set of criteria for cringe. While there may be certain rare outlier actions (again, I maintain that basedness is extrinsic to the act; each act much be evaluated for basedness on its own), the majority of actions proximate to AIDS contraction (or more specifically, proximate to HIV contraction) are cringefests like sharing needles, getting blood transfusions, and buttsex in a San Francisco bathhouse.

However, as I'm writing about AIDS itself being based, it dawns on me that getting AIDS might be a really elegant case of consequentialism vs non-consequentialism. After all, while the virtues underlying the acts which precipitate AIDS are mostly cringe (sinning against God is cringe, getting pozloaded is a sin, ergo getting pozloaded is cringe), the consequences of getting AIDS tend to be based (they are not universally based, as for example, the need to increase taxes or insurance prices in order to offset the costs of AIDS medication, which is cringe and even cucked, but I think of the balance it's fair to say they are based).

I guess the answer will hinge on how you construct your Theory of Basedness. Are you a utilitarian? A virtue-ethicist? In order to evaluate the basedness of getting AIDS, we'd need to settle this first (or at least be clear on what Theory of Basedness we are using in any given post; as per my earlier points regarding intrinsicity above, it may be fruitless to seek a universal answer. If we have different sets of rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe, then each set of rules may have it's own distinct answer).
Click to expand...
If there is anything we can take away from this thread, it is that the based-cringe dichotomy is a fluid, non-static prescription used to judge actions, and is relative to the individual/group casting the judgement. This should be intuitively obvious to anyone in online fringe political circles. Radlibs/breadtubers will call mass immigration based, and inversely, the alt-right cringe. And vice-versa for immigration restriction.

With this in mind, it should be an obvious revelation that the based-cringe dichotomy as a tool of measurement exists exclusively in the political realm of competing groups. And therefore, based-cringe is less an objective moral-ethical delineation of actions in isolation and more a simple political mechanic used by both the far-left and far-right to enforce their dogma from within and maintain cohesion.

Other than that, good post.:achievement:
 
Last edited:
Łimønča said:
If there is anything we can take away from this thread, it is that the based-cringe dichotomy is a fluid, non-static prescription used to judge actions, and is relative to the individual/group casting the judgement. This should be intuitively obvious to anyone in online fringe political circles. Radlibs/breadtubers will call mass immigration based, and inversely, the alt-right cringe. And vice-versa for immigration restriction.

With this in mind, there it should be an obvious revelation that the based-cringe dichotomy as a tool of measurement exists exclusively in the political realm of competing groups. And therefore, based-cringe is less an objective moral-ethical delineation of actions in isolation and more a simple political mechanic used by both the far-left and far-right to enforce their dogma from within and maintain cohesion.

Other than that, good post.:achievement:
Click to expand...
Well, is it, though? The based-cringe dichotomy may function as a political mechanic to enforce dogma and maintain cohesion - basedness/wokeness is certainly something with an ethical dimension, and ethics (or perceptions of ethics) certainly function in a socially normative fashion. In that sense, yeah, definitely, I'd say based-cringe can be a normative political mechanic.

But is it more a mechanic? I mean, in some contexts, in certain discourses, maybe. Like, I would theorize that, if you were to go to a Breadtubey site and posit the question to them - "is AIDS woke or cringe?" - then most of those wokie fucks would take their analysis no further than the standards of the community in which they exist. That is why Breadtubers are so cringe; they cannot think for themselves, and do not have the tools to question or challenge their dogma.

But

1. I think the based-cringe dichotomy is MORE an objective delineation of actions than anything else (and if it isn't, it can and should be). While it may not often be so in practice or even in common usage, the fact that the far-right and far-left use it less as an objective delineation of actions, is an issue with them, not with the based-cringe dichotomy.​
​
2. Even if it's true that BCD functions as a normative political mechanism, I think we have to be very cautious in how far we take this observation. I don't wish to sound like I'm impugning motive on you for posting Foucault earlier, but this is something I've noticed a lot, especially with cringe Continental philosophy and non-based Critical Theory - it tends towards institutional ad hominem, wherein pointing to the function (or even just one of the possible functions) of a position is, in itself, enough to discredit that position. Wokies and fashies may both have flawed, intellectually compromised understandings of BCD, but that is an epistemological problem that they would have to deal with on their own (or at least, an epistemological question that a sociologist studying them might have to deal with, on his or her own). From a purely philosophical standpoint, however, the assertion that wokies and fashies engage in normative political discourse, in and of itself, is insufficient to show whether any given interpretation of BCD is valid or sound.​
AND, as Kiwifarmers - and thus, members of a community beholden to a higher intellectual standard - I think it is incumbent upon us to focus not on identifying normative discourse, but on whether that discourse might assert sound positions, regardless of normativity.​
​
Anyways, this is why I said earlier I didn't want to get sidetracked from the discussion on AIDS. I have now written roughly two pages of material, for a single post, in a thread on AIDS, without mentioning AIDS more than once. This is a philosophical thread about AIDS! How can we get anything done about the basedness or cringeness of AIDS, if we can't even get to the discussion about AIDS in the first place!!!

This is why I hate philosophy and refused to major in it. Philosophy is cringe af.
 
Solid Snek said:
Well, is it, though? The based-cringe dichotomy may function as a political mechanic to enforce dogma and maintain cohesion - basedness/wokeness is certainly something with an ethical dimension, and ethics (or perceptions of ethics) certainly function in a socially normative fashion. In that sense, yeah, definitely, I'd say based-cringe can be a normative political mechanic.

But is it more a mechanic? I mean, in some contexts, in certain discourses, maybe. Like, I would theorize that, if you were to go to a Breadtubey site and posit the question to them - "is AIDS woke or cringe?" - then most of those wokie fucks would take their analysis no further than the standards of the community in which they exist. That is why Breadtubers are so cringe; they cannot think for themselves, and do not have the tools to question or challenge their dogma.

But

1. I think the based-cringe dichotomy is MORE an objective delineation of actions than anything else (and if it isn't, it can and should be). While it may not often be so in practice or even in common usage, the fact that the far-right and far-left use it less as an objective delineation of actions, is an issue with them, not with the based-cringe dichotomy.​
​
2. Even if it's true that BCD functions as a normative political mechanism, I think we have to be very cautious in how far we take this observation. I don't wish to sound like I'm impugning motive on you for posting Foucault earlier, but this is something I've noticed a lot, especially with cringe Continental philosophy and non-based Critical Theory - it tends towards institutional ad hominem, wherein pointing to the function (or even just one of the possible functions) of a position is, in itself, enough to discredit that position. Wokies and fashies may both have flawed, intellectually compromised understandings of BCD, but that is an epistemological problem that they would have to deal with on their own (or at least, an epistemological question that a sociologist studying them might have to deal with, on his or her own). From a purely philosophical standpoint, however, the assertion that wokies and fashies engage in normative political discourse, in and of itself, is insufficient to show whether any given interpretation of BCD is valid or sound.​
AND, as Kiwifarmers - and thus, members of a community beholden to a higher intellectual standard - I think it is incumbent upon us to focus not on identifying normative discourse, but on whether that discourse might assert sound positions, regardless of normativity.​
​
Anyways, this is why I said earlier I didn't want to get sidetracked from the discussion on AIDS. I have now written roughly two pages of material, for a single post, in a thread on AIDS, without mentioning AIDS more than once. This is a philosophical thread about AIDS! How can we get anything done about the basedness or cringeness of AIDS, if we can't even get to the discussion about AIDS in the first place!!!

This is why I hate philosophy and refused to major in it. Philosophy is cringe af.
Click to expand...
Okay, instead of posting several more paragraphs responding to your point I shall instead conclude my position in the following manner:

Getting fucked in the ass, contracting HIV, developing AIDS and dying is cringe.

Fucking a 'man' in the ass, transmitting the HIV virus, and some years later developing AIDS and leading to the death of another faggot is based.

Nuff' said. :soap:
 
Łimønča said:
Okay, instead of posting several more paragraphs responding to your point I shall instead conclude my position in the following manner:

Getting fucked in the ass, contracting HIV, developing AIDS and dying is cringe.

Fucking a 'man' in the ass, transmitting the HIV virus, and some years later developing AIDS and leading to the death of another faggot is based.

Nuff' said. :soap:
Click to expand...
Those are two different questions, though. The first is getting AIDS, the second is giving AIDS.

While I would agree with your analysis in those two situations - the first scenario is cringe, the second scenario is based - I am not sure I can adequately justify these answers at present. The first seems to come from a position of virtue ethics, and the second seems to be utilitarian, so we've got two different ethical systems answering two different questions about AIDS; a complicated problem, to be sure!
 
The disease itself is pretty based, given that it almost exclusively affects Blacks, fags, trannies and intravenous drug users (plenty of overlap there).
Getting the disease is cringe because, again, Blacks, fags, trannies and intravenous drug users.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom