@druid Don't consent to it if the EULA is unfair.

@matrix My point is that consent is a fucking stupid idea. "By using this program you consent..." "by parking in this space, you Consent..."

What if I fucking made a sign saying "by being passed out drunk near me, you CONSENT to me feeling you up?" would that shit fly?

Yet it flies when states, state actors and companies do it.

As I said in the other post, every interaction is fundamentally based on lack of consent. You don't consent to hear shitty music when you enter a store or ride in your friend's car. You don't consent to having your ear talked off by some boring cunt. You don't consent to having your well of ideas poisoned by some moron's opinion.

Fundamentally, every second of existence is a battle, an assertion of self against world. We decide which parts of the world to allow in and which to attempt to deny. Coercion - everything from "You listen to me, young man" from your mother in your childhood, to the BULLSHIT hoops we jump through to get money, is coercion. And it only makes it worse.

There's no solution to it. There's no path to fairness, to equality. There's only victory and defeat, in myriad combinations. And that's why I hate apologism for it.

@druid
Yes you do, because nothing stops you from leaving that store, nothing stops you from not riding in your friends car. I would even argue that sign should fly, because nobody forced you to get drunk.

@matrix This argument relies entirely on a violent definitio of force.

@matrix Besides, if you read what I said properly, I wasn't arguing there was any way for any of this to be "fine". It's not a political position. It's a metaphysical position.

@druid
Yes. It relies on how you define force, because those sound waves from shops radio are a force and you didn't consent to having it exerted upon you. If you use this logic to it's full extent you end up with "I didn't consent to Earth applying it's gravitational force on me" or the typical "I didn't ask to be born". This is entirely useless. You are here and life is a struggle, against the universe and against yourself and you need tools to make it. Phylosophy is one of those tools and those tools can't be useless.
Am I even addressing your point or am I doing a unrelated rant?

@matrix I agree, I simply argue that the first step on the road to philosophically tackling it is the abandonment of "rules that work for all." This means the de facto abandonment of politics, and the acceptance of the world as "The Arena", a place where the price of existence is eternal warfare.

Basically what I'm saying is that from that perspective, it doesn't matter how Voluntary⢠a company's contract or terms of employment are, you're sitll engaged in warfare with them. Like you are with everyone, even your lover. Except with no investment in you beyond pragmatic nurturing of your skills and value, the incentive for each party to fuck one another over is considerably higher.

Thus, I advocate giving no quarter to any who wouild treat with you. Becuase they won't give you any either.

@druid
The short term incentive is indeed to fuck the other party over. The purpose of those contracts is to try and limit ability of both to fuck each other over. The rules that work for everyone are required, because we do indeed live in a society, bottom text, and even when purely pursuing your own short term desires, you are going to have to interact with someone else along the way and you need a common language to do so.

@matrix It's actually really easy to see how mutual aid (which isn't a spook) intersects directly with the slave morality of belief in society here

cc: @yr (not to be nasty, not trying to brigade, it's actually academically interesting because here matrix is basically just stating a commonly held belief but this explains a few things about human development into the modern mind)

@druid @yr By society I just mean other people