Announcements: Universe of the Month! » Finding Universes to Join (and making yours more visible!) » Guide To Universes On RPG » Starter Locations & Prompts for Newbies » RPG Chat — the official app » USERNAME CHANGES » Suggestions & Requests: THE MASTER THREAD »

Latest Discussions: Presuppositionalism » Aphantasia » Skill Trees - Good, Bad & Ugly » In-Game Gods & Gameplay Impact » Cunningham's Law » The Tribalism of Religion » Lost Library » Game Theory » The Hidden Void » Removing CS From an Indy Universe : Solution » On the Matter of New Players and Orphaned Plays » STOP BLAMING US FOR RPG BEING SLOW! » Polytheism » The Game of Life » Just War » Science and Philosophy » The Bible as Literature » Humans in the MV. Questions and thoughts. » Surviving the post-holiday apocalypse. » SL: 1097 Bestiary of Monsters »

Players Wanted: Looking for roleplayers » A Fairytale World in Need of Heroes & Villains! » Are You a Crime Addict? » Wuxia RP » Looking for roleplayers » New Realistic Roleplay - Small World Life ٩( ´・ш・)و » Mentors Wanted » MV Recruiting Drive: sci-fi players wanted! » Veilbrand: The Revolution » Gonna do this anyway. » Looking for Kamen Rider Players » Elysium » Looking for roleplayers for a dystopian past! » Revamping Fantasy Adventure RPG, need new players » Here, At the End of the World (supernatural mystery drama) » Seeking Role Players for a TOG Based RP » so I made a Stranger Things RP idk why not come join » LFP - New Roleplay » Gifted/Mutant individuals escaping the gov » Spaceship Zero! A retro horror sci fi RP with rayguns :D »

Death of Philosophy

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Moderators: dealing with it, Ambassadors

Talk about philosophy, politics, news & current events, or any other subject you're interested in!

Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:50 pm

Everyone plays language games. These are the rules by which we communicate. A football player broadcasts his language game in his performance on the field. A professor entrusts his language to his students. But the most challenging language game is the Truth. Speaking of Truth in natural languages can often feel like being the aforementioned football player, giving his performance to his spectators. At no point does his language game approach something we might call Truth. It represents nothing but the sheer physical signs of a game well played and rules properly obeyed.

As the pragmatist Richard Rorty put it, Truth is something that we collectively agree with. It's a stamp of approval, a sign that one has passed a certain test, a compliment.

Someone who plays language games well can go on to learn many signs in many different rule-sets. Only arbitrarily do we decide which is the best. Why should we favour a game that leads us to Truth? Truth understood is a sign that other signs refer to, the last in a link of signs. What guarantee do we have that our signs lead to more than simply other signs? Has Descartes' task of finding a foundation for all beliefs given us any firmer foundation than any other intellectual pursuit?

I am willing to learn the language games of others. I have a general awareness of how my words and actions affect others, and I try to be politically correct. I may be terrible at it, but I learned the language game (the syntax, if you will) of a game of basketball. Even though writing creative fiction is not my strong suit, I learned the basics of roleplaying. I spent years learning about religions. Through it all, I remained keenly aware that absolutely none of this leads to Truth.

However, I am also aware that there is no alternative path I could have taken that would have had lead me to capital-T Truth. Not only is there nothing that is True behind the scenes, there is no lower-case truth that we can all agree on. And it should be that way. The melting pot corrupts thought. Perhaps the best case scenario is the one which we have, an infinite multiplicity of viewpoints.

Maybe Richard Rorty is correct, and Philosophy is dead. We may as well grow up and watch football.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Kurokiku on Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:03 pm

I mean, there’s an extent to which views like this are like any other kind of skepticism—non-refutable at the really basic level. There’s always another “how do you know?” question to be asked, and at bottom, the answer can’t be any more sophisticated than “I just do.”*

But if you’re willing to set that really fundamental question aside, it does seem like there are some beliefs and belief-making practices that serve better than others. Generally speaking, having coherent rather than incoherent beliefs gets one through life better, even if you completely reject the notion that it points you at some kind of capital-T Truth.

Likewise, people who in general accept commonly-held scientific “truths” like “vaccines do not cause Autism and all children who are healthy enough for it should be vaccinated” end up better off in the sense that fewer of them have dead children.

I’m very much against appeal to types of skepticism as an attempt to say that philosophy is dead or useless or has nothing more to do, because I think that going from what the skeptical arguments actually establish to such a conclusion is unwarranted, and could just as easily be used to reach the (also unwarranted) conclusion that science or sociology or whatever is also dead or useless. Philosophy can still tell us what kind of reasoning gets us through life better, among other things.

Even if (apocryphal) Pyrrho was right and his friends were wrong about the deep capital-T question, they’re still the ones who stopped him from walking out into traffic and getting himself killed. Or something.


*I take Wittgensteinian/pragmatic skepticism to be a particular case of a general form of argument that usually works the same way. Feel free to fight me on that, I guess.
The Canticle of Fate: Silver Lion Stanza
Image
"Though I am flesh, Your Light is ever present,
And those I have called, they remember,
And they shall endure."

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Kurokiku
Administrator
Member for 11 years
Beta Tester Contributor Author Promethean Conversation Starter Inspiration Conversationalist Novelist Millionaire Completionist Greeter Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver Person of Interest

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Aniihya on Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:53 am

Philosophy aint dead. There is always place for it as with progress, new ideas must be observed.
Everybody! Unless you have been in a roleplay with me in the past and were loyal to it, do not PM or text me about joining your RP.

I do NOT do Pokemon, Yugioh, WoW or any such RPs.

Please be aware of this.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Aniihya
Member for 12 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration World Builder Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Novelist Greeter Tipworthy Tipworthy Visual Appeal Person of Interest Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:26 pm

Kurokiku wrote: There’s always another “how do you know?” question to be asked, and at bottom, the answer can’t be any more sophisticated than “I just do.”
The problem of postphilosophy emerges when we turn our philosophical gaze at philosophy. There is an inescapable irony of asking for truth from our truth-finding project. I wouldn't call it Pyrhonnic, however, or else all of philosophy is just a dog chasing his tail for the last two thousand years.

Postphilosophy is impossible without the millenia of philosophy before it. Poststructuralism killed it.
Kurokiku wrote:Likewise, people who in general accept commonly-held scientific “truths” like “vaccines do not cause Autism and all children who are healthy enough for it should be vaccinated” end up better off in the sense that fewer of them have dead children.
The death of philosophy is not the death of science. Just because philosophers don't have much of anything to say doesn't mean we need to stop vaccinating children. We don't have to throw out babies with the bathwater. We can still show our appreciation for philosophy as literature.

We just don't have truth on our side. But why would you want truth when every religious nutjob has truth? Let them pat themselves on the back, or pat their friend on the back in the case of the public orgy of church.
Kurokiku wrote:Philosophy can still tell us what kind of reasoning gets us through life better, among other things.
Philosophy has already told us what is good reasoning. Complete systems like Kant or Hegel don't work. Descartes' attempt at creating a firm foundation for truth failed.

Nor does science lead to truth, except accidentally: it works by trying to disprove its assertions. Without Truth, now, the philosophical task is reduced to Beauty and Good. Heidegger, that appalling Nazi, expressed it well in his comparison of Philosophy to Poetry. The best philosophy is poetic. He is a representation of beauty; political philosophy represents the Good.

Philosophy has traced all its cirles in the air. It is a great journey, but as I said, it's "just" literature.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Sambea on Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:09 pm

I honestly don't think Philosophy could ever, in a sense, die. You still have the human mind to process. There are things that science clearly can't touch. Morals...will forever be discussed. Things like right and wrong will always be there hanging above us. In today's era we want proof in front of us right here and right now. Science only touches so much and we are left questioning.

And if you look at it from this angle, science in a way IS a type of philosophy. Science makes us question what is. In a way, to me, they kind of overlap.

As for Truth...I don't know if there could ever be a firm foundation for Truth. Reasoning being, you have people who don't believe in things like God. There is no truth in that, yet you go to Christians and there is a God. So you see, truth has no concrete standing, it moves.

As for philosophy being just literature...I honestly can't say if it is or not. I mean, are words just words? I guess in a sense it is literature, but if so...is history? Is anything in a book? What about the things from our mouths? Is the past just literature if we write it down?
Image

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Sambea
Member for 5 years
Contributor Promethean Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist World Builder Beta Tester Arc Warden Storyteller Streamwatcher Historian Novelist Person of Interest Visual Appeal Salesman Greeter Tipworthy Property Buyer Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:52 pm

Sambea wrote:Science only touches so much and we are left questioning.
The big question is what happens when the questioning becomes the question, like in this train of thought. Can we safely deconstruct philosophy? Or do we end up with an infinite gibbering views all vying for attention?

I do agree that morality is non-scientific. I'd agree with Heidegger (I'm paraphrasing) in that social progress comes from poetry and technology. Hamlet teaches us as much about human life as the Communist Manifesto.

Sambea wrote:Science makes us question what is. In a way, to me, they kind of overlap.
Many sciences have arisen from philosophy, and over time, this has ahrunk the domain of philosophy considerably. In the last 300 years, there have been multiple attempts to make scientific philosophy itself -- Hume, Kant, Hegel. Have these failed because of some feature of philosophy that makes it immune? Or, perhaps because metaphysics is only a mirage?

Sambea wrote:I don't know if there could ever be a firm foundation for Truth.
So we can't do any better than relativism?

Sambea wrote:As for philosophy being just literature...I honestly can't say if it is or not. I mean, are words just words? I guess in a sense it is literature, but if so...is history? Is anything in a book? What about the things from our mouths? Is the past just literature if we write it down?
It only makes sense to ask this in terms of the Dewey Decimal System. If philosophy is non-fiction, it belongs in the 100's, like psychology. I'm thinking it belongs in the 800's, since it is as close to autobiography as fiction can get. A good philosophy book is the story a lifetime, If you have the eyes for that sort of thing.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Spearheader on Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:29 am

Sambea wrote:I honestly don't think Philosophy could ever, in a sense, die. You still have the human mind to process. There are things that science clearly can't touch. Morals...will forever be discussed. Things like right and wrong will always be there hanging above us. In today's era we want proof in front of us right here and right now. Science only touches so much and we are left questioning.


I mean, moral nihilists would claim that it does answer the question of morality, that it isn't right in front of us and therefore doesn't exist except as a set of constraints humans place upon themselves. But...

I think the main use of philosophy would be refining science--there are always margins of error and alternate explanations for phenomena, and there would need to be an agreed upon point at which we cut off those things and declare a thing true. It can also present moral codes to people seeking them out, giving them potential things to live by.

There also might be a third use when talking about things that are so complex and varied (e.g. societies) that they can't really be predicted from previous data with pure 100% accuracy. At a certain point theory has to come in for how things will turn out. However, the types of answers we'd see here are much less eternal and lofty than what philosophy traditionally aims for, so I'm not sure if they count.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Spearheader
Member for 5 years
Conversation Starter Author Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby philosophotter on Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:55 am

Ugh, if the alternative of philosophy is watching football, I'll stick with philosophy, thanks!

The main interest of philosophy isn't even what it's about but how you go about to get there. It keeps the mind open and requires critical thinking, which is something most people are severely lacking. If anything, I think philosophy is needed more than ever. I mean, yeah, most of the time, the questions posed in philosophy haven't been answered, but I'm hesitant to say that the point of philosophy is to answer 2000 year old questions. I mean, I get that the search for truth is a thing, but philosophia is the love of wisdom, not the search for truth. Any time you suspend beliefs fastly held in order to critical examine them and the world around you... I can't see how that would be a bad thing.
Image

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
philosophotter
Member for 5 years
Conversationalist

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Sench on Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:06 pm

I will start off by making a movie quote. "You can't handle the truth!"

And that is, ironically, one side of "the Truth". There are many who claim they wish to know the meaning of life, good from evil, or some other equally abused concept. But they do not. What most people wish for is absolution from the responsibility of thinking and making choices.

The "truth" people can collectively agree on is actually very far from "the Truth", proportionate to the size of the group that agrees on it. Why? It's fairly simple, really.
Let's assume a person is capable of reaching the Truth. It is also indisputable that people are different and have different opinions.
Then, let's assume all people are equal, thus all opinions are also equal. A common truth is achieved when all parties discard all conflicting beliefs. But there can only be a single "Truth", thus it is inevitably lost in the acquisition of a "common truth". The "common truth" itself cannot be the "Truth" as it is far too small.
If we assume people are not equal, making opinions unequal, then the "common truth" becomes even less "True", because beliefs certainly closer to the "Truth" than others are being discarded in the process.
If we assume a person is incapable of reaching the Truth, then any further debate is irrelevant.

Returning to my earlier point, the "common truth" does provide a reprieve from the responsibilities of sentience. Instead of deciding for themselves, people seek approval from others. Instead of properly debating a point, people use numbers. Instead of owning up to their actions, people blame them on circumstances. From a rational standpoint, none of those things have relevance.

What's dying is human intelligence on average. I don't mean people are getting stupider, but they are getting more thoughtless. Public education did as much good for it as bad. On one hand, it enabled countless people to think. On the other hand, some of the most enforced ideas are "right" and "wrong". People are being taught to follow and not think.
If you want an example, think of any two groups with conflicting ideas, like any "-ism"s and their opposition. While one allegedly fights the wrongs of another, they behave in identical or almost identical ways. This makes the biggest difference their slogans, a.k.a. the "common truth" prevalent within each group.
From a slightly different angle, why do you think certain behaviors are commonly exhibited in groups and rarely when a person is alone? Right, because if everybody's doing something, they don't have to feel nearly as bad about it. "Those other guys were doing the same thing, why am I being the one being held responsible?" It's impossible to hide behind a "common truth" when there's nobody who shares it.
Irony is lost on those whose behavior is ironic. Isn't that... ironic?

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Sench
Member for 11 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Novelist Arc Warden Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Madame on Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:07 pm

I'd like to bring up capitalism.

Why would anyone concentrate on a subject that can't make them money, and those that do have to bend over sideways to find a way to monetize it. Because money equals survival now and very very very few people reward or hire philosophers, or scientists for that matter (unless the study directly relates to a product that can be sold). We've been raised to value capitalistic views, and the formula for that is work + money = things = entertainment = get back to work.
Image

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Madame
Member for 5 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:10 pm

Madame, not everyone values paid labour. The reward is not high enough. Institutions are prisons.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Madame on Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:17 pm

Well people try not to I'm sure. But they still have to make money to survive, and that definitely takes time and energy from progressive pursuits like science and philosophy. How are you supposed to come up with breakthroughs when you're exhausted from work?

Capitalism kind of keeps the collective dumb and tired. Which is really sad and why I think we're not moving so fast forward anymore

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Madame
Member for 5 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:28 pm

There's always welfare. If you are feeling dumb and tired, you can definitely get off. Just get ready to be called a kook, like everyone who matters.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Madame on Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:40 pm

Welfare is an individual option, and not even a good one, but not an option for all of the populace. Everyone can't be on welfare, and if the solution can't be applied to everyone when talking about a societal problem then it's not a solution at all.

I know everyone cringes when the word socialism is thrown around, but listen comrade...

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Madame
Member for 5 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:01 pm

There have been highly successful experiments into Guaranteed Minimum Income. Society doesn't fall apart when everyone gets enough to live off of by default.

I've been living off of welfare for a decade now, and the argument usually ends with "of course you can do it, but not everyone can". Honestly, it's just a matter of pride. Waste your life working until you realize you don't need to work at all? No, thanks!

I'll break it down. Think of all the books you will read -- and write -- if your time belongs to you. Don't worry about what your neighbour is doing, especially if his time does not belong to him. Prisons take many shapes: office buildings, schools, hospitals, factory, the whole military-industrial complex, and of course prisons.

Recently I realized why Jean-Paul Sartre refused the Nobel Prize in Literature. A writer is not an institution. His writing was anti-establishment... and here was the establishment patting him on the back.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Madame on Sun Jan 01, 2017 1:57 am

....

There is not enough money in the welfare program for everyone.

That's why people keep telling you it's not an option for everyone. Physically, actually, legitimately, not everyone can be on welfare. It's just not possible. And say it did happen. It wouldn't be sustainable. Who is going to generate the money that gets put into the system in the first place? Or run it? Gnomes? Entertaining as that would be I'm pretty sure the gnomes would tell us to fuck off and manage our own damn lives since they're very busy being gnomes and all.

I personally love working with animals and refuse to trade that in for anything. I make less than someone on welfare. But that's irrelevant. You could offer me millions to do something else and I wouldn't be interested. So no your work isn't always about the money or the institution. In my field you often end up your own boss eventually anyway.

Not everyone, in fact I'd say most people, would be ok with not working. A lot of people actually like what they do.

The problem comes in to the cost of living and what they're being paid, causing them to work ridiculous hours and harder and be more qualified and go into debt in order to be more qualified and choose to do something else because they can't afford to do what they love and etc. etc. All of that kills things like creativity and leaves you tired. It makes people take a singular interest instead of many. It means that we won't fund NASA but will fund pill research.

It we became socialist those problems could be fixed and everyone could do what they want to do and live comfortably and read and write be be philosophers and scientists and do wonders. The difference being that they'd have to share when they generate income, or rather the rich would.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Madame
Member for 5 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:47 pm

Madame,
The amount of waste we produce under profit-orientated capitalism is more than enough to feed, shelter, and clothe the world's population several times over. Goods are poorly distributed. The rich spend their time buying different pairs of shoes. Bertrand Russel estimated that if each person worked 4 hours a week, there would be more than enough survival-level work, and we could do more important things like watch cherry blossoms.

What would it take to get me to work? For starters, it would need to seem like the sanest option. How ironic that being a schizophrenic seems more logical than being a worker bee.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Madame on Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:24 am

1) everyone on welfare = no more profit-oriented capitalism = welfare not able to run itself < socialism
2)i didn't ask
3) aint nobody trying to get you to work
4) schizophrenia is not an ideal or a joke

Image

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Madame
Member for 5 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby dealing with it on Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:07 pm

1) Maybe if I called it Guaranteed Minimum Income, you won't be confused with what is essentially universal welfare.
2) Why argue if you don't know what it would take to change your mind? That's just pig-headedness.
3) I have an imagination, and it's incredibly useful to play devil's advocate with oneself.
4) I'm schizophrenic. I know what it is. A damn fine excuse not to fall into the best-laid traps of mice and men. Nobody expects me to do anything. I'd recommend someone who doesn't want to work to look into the mental health system. It's a crumbling bureaucracy of ridiculous welfare laws tied to subjective mental states.

I have a friend in Australia who got out of working by seeing a psychiatrist and telling the psychiatrist up-front that he did not want to work. That's apparently a sign of schizoaffective disorder.

So yes, if you have the right sense of humour, it is a joke.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
dealing with it
Groundskeeper
Groundskeeper
Member for 10 years
Contributor Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Donated! Greeter Beta Tester Tipworthy Concierge Lifegiver

Re: Death of Philosophy

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Madame on Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:32 pm

1)That policy idea isn't what welfare is. Perhaps that where the confusion lie. Also see: socialism, which is what that would be
2) 2 tied in with 3, as in I don't care about your personal situations/choices, I don't know you at all and I certainly don't want to be responsible for anything to do with you.
3) Cute excuse, but that's a whole other topic that I don't care to into
4) Great, you don't get to make blanket statements for everyone with a mental disorder, especially when we work so damn hard to do the opposite of what you're doing. Having a mental disorder doesn't give you a free pass to say offensive crap.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Madame
Member for 5 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Lifegiver

Next

Post a reply

Make a Donation

$

Become a Patron!

RPG relies exclusively on user donations to support the platform.

Donors earn the "Contributor" achievement and are permanently recognized in the credits. Consider donating today!

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest