ethos

an ethos for coomer memes is honestly pretty silly because, y'know -- it's a meme.

memes aren't really all that serious, but i reckon showing you what happened to my favourite meme could create a better future.

"dude, stop being a coomer."

when we're distracted, we're not thinking thoughts; so, when we're alone -- without screens, music or words -- our thoughts have to catch up, leading to increases in thought speed.

when directed online, people ego-escalate in reaction to inflammatory information, and then have more erratic thoughts as a result.

thought speed, leading to ego escalation, then erratic thought -- darting from thread to thread -- is pretty much the entire problem.

changing this means critically thinking and having calmer conversations, and, you can't control the internet, but i think that the coomer meme could be a force for good.

if you're reading this you probably don't like pornography -- and even if you do, i'm sending you honest love, honestly -- its impacts upon the world have been tragic, and the average age of exposure is now eight years old.

so it's bigger than all of us, and if we don't create an actual conversation about it, then we'll be un

after all, r/coomer died too soon, it was banned because people ego-escalated, because porn has become politicised, which is sort of insane -- porn's just addictive after all.

whatever your viewpoint is, there's someone completely the opposite, and you don't have to be -- and we live as purely and calmly as possible, and let the best ideas win, peacefully, together.

i run the biggest, and completely free resource to help people quitting pornography, and i want to create a conversation about pornography, and then cure people of it and direct people to create change against it locally.

locally, where we're coming together with the things in front of us, not

together, conversing, we create a more peaceful world.

this is what it looks like online.

coomer

okay, so let's pretend that we've met at a party, and we're having a lovely conversation on many topics all evening, before somehow we start discussing the death penalty. yes or no.

you're already thinking of some good points for your view; though whichever side you've picked, i've picked the opposite.

so as we're discussing it, you lay out your case to me.

well, consider someone who...

and what about someone else who can't...

and how about cases where..?

you make a really good argument about your views on the death penalty, and you're actually pretty impressed with yourself, but after you're finished -- i say "well, i don't agree with that."

at this point, a three-step process happens.

stage one, is that you think "oh, he must not have understood me", so you reiterate your points.

and i say, "yeah well i understand your points, but i just don't agree with them."

in response, stage two, is that you think to yourself: "oh, well he must just be an idiot."

but, we've been having pleasant and nuanced conversation all evening, so that mustn't be it either.

so finally, stage three, is that you think to yourself -- "oh, he's a bad person."

in my view, this is broadly due to centralising, creating ego-escalation for people.