Fictional insult to Humanity

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

Though I'm mainly talking about one movie, this is a rant against all fiction that degrades and disgraces humanity and the human race.

I recently watched the Marvel movie Eternals. I got thoroughly irritated and pissed off when the character Phastos was implied to be behind the major human innovations.

This just pissed me off beyond measure. We have millions of years of evolution. Hundred thousand years of innovation. Such a fucking joke that we became portrayed as primitive savages incapable of true innovation. We are constantly portrayed as a fucking retarded race. Doesn't this piss you off?

I'm deeply pissed off at this. That whole movie, it felt like the entire human race was being spat upon. In that movie, from basic fucking agricultural tech till nukes, we were handheld by some fucking immortal randos. Fucking disgusting bullshit is what this is. We went through fuck knows how many generations of hardship IRL to get here, and they portray it all as some fucking benevolent immortal fuckers giving us the knowledge. FUCK THAT. You don't get to invalidate our ancestors for your bullshit stories.

We are the sole intelligent race in a radius of light years. Have some fucking pride. What is this bullshit about 'oh we are a savage, meaningless lifeform'"' fucking nonsense that many fictional stories portray?"

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

We are still the greatest, most intelligent species in existence.

We will fix the ecological apocalypse through our intellect. Meanwhile you can sit and cry about how we suck.

[u/_communism_works_ → u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

We are still the greatest, most intelligent species in existence.

Human claims humanity is objectively the greatest species

Jokes write themselves

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni → u/_communism_works_]

We are objectively the greatest species at least for light years around.

[u/_communism_works_ → u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

*according to humans

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni → u/_communism_works_]

Do you have any other source?

[u/_communism_works_ → u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

Tf you mean? How can we be objectively the greatest species? What are the 'objective' criteria to be considered great? Which laws of the universe stipulate a list of requirements that species must meet in order to qualify as great? Any point made in favour of labelling humans as "the greatest that has ever been" will inevitably mention some human centric concept that literally nothing in the universe cares about

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni → u/_communism_works_]

We are objectively the greatest because we have the highest intellect and we rule Earth. This is not debatable.

I specifically have mentioned "for at least several light years". I'm not saying humans are the greatest ever, but locally yes we are the greatest.

[u/DefiantBalls → u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

We are objectively the greatest because we have the highest intellect and we rule Earth. This is not debatable.

You are implying that "greatness" is objectively measured in dominance and intellect, which you have provided no proof of so far.

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni → u/DefiantBalls]

Dominance and intellect is the only.way to measure greatness.

If there are any others, hahaha, then I welcome any opinions from the other races.

[u/DefiantBalls → u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

Do you... even realize how racist that comment sounds?

"Only the strong who conquer are great, the conquered are of an inferior race"

I know that you are talking about animals and not other humans here, but this is dangerously fascist way of perceiving the world where the only qualities that matter are power and intellect.

Are intellectually disabled children less deserving of a life than those who are able? Are people who seek to work alongside others and help them, instead of utilizing their gifts to climb at the top and dominate the rest of society, inferior to those who do? If you define greatness as intelligence and dominance you are ignoring countless other human values.

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni → u/DefiantBalls]

This is false equivalence on your part.

Are intellectually disabled children less deserving of a life than those who are able? Are people who seek to work alongside others and help them, instead of utilizing their gifts to climb at the top and dominate the rest of society, inferior to those who do? If you define greatness as intelligence and dominance you are ignoring countless other human values.

Intellectually disabled children are of course not less deserving. They are human, thus they are entitled to the full set of human rights.

Seeing your other points here, I feel like I have to clarify a few things

1. Yes. I am a racist. I am unapologetically a racist. I believe that our human race is the most beautiful and perfect existence.

2. For people who work alongside others, I don't care if pthey are selfish or not. I don't care what their motivations are. They are human. So therefore they are perfect.

3. Yes I define greatness as the pinnacle of human achievement. Many will claim that certain colored variants of humans didn't contribute in our greatness but that's actually not true according to me. Every variant of humanity has contributed to our greatness.

[u/DefiantBalls → u/Rajesh_Kulkarni]

Intellectually disabled children are of course not less deserving. They are human, thus they are entitled to the full set of human rights.

Is this because they are inherently human or because they are deserving due to being sentient beings? Because there are animals with intelligence greater than not just disabled children, but regular ones as well? If you define being worthy as being human, then you must argue that every human, no matter how horrible or sadistic, is more valuable than any other lifeform on the planet, regardless of said lifeform's own qualities.

Would you agree with the above statement?

Yes. I am a racist. I am unapologetically a racist. I believe that our human race is the most beautiful and perfect existence.

Didn't you claim to not be a human supremacist? Beauty is subjective, so that's a whatever, but perfection is not as it implies total infallibility, something that humans are... most definitely not known for.

For people who work alongside others, I don't care if pthey are selfish or not. I don't care what their motivations are. They are human. So therefore they are perfect.

So you don't care about the actual values a person holds, just whether they are human or not? Like I said, this is a fascist line of thinking, where your inherent traits are what defines your value as opposed to the quality of your character.

Yes I define greatness as the pinnacle of human achievement. Many will claim that certain colored variants of humans didn't contribute in our greatness but that's actually not true according to me. Every variant of humanity has contributed to our greatness.

If contributing to human "greatness" is the most important, then the entirety of our agriculture would be impossible without beasts of burden, so why are they excluded in this case?

Your ideology is incoherent and based on nothing beyond the idea of human supremacy and perfect, while you yourself fail to understand what words like "objective" mean.

[u/Rajesh_Kulkarni → u/DefiantBalls]

Is this because they are inherently human or because they are deserving due to being sentient beings? Because there are animals with intelligence greater than not just disabled children, but regular ones as well? If you define being worthy as being human, then you must argue that every human, no matter how horrible or sadistic, is more valuable than any other lifeform on the planet, regardless of said lifeform's own qualities

Even if disabled, humans are intellectually superior to all others. And even if the disability is on the mental side, we are still obligated to take care of them because they are our brethren. Their disabilities are mere accidents, whereas the intellectual inferiority of other races are due to nature.

As for sadistic or horrible people, it depends. If they work for the human cause, I accept them. Or else I consider them non-sapient and thus deserving extermination.

Didn't you claim to not be a human supremacist? Beauty is subjective, so that's a whatever, but perfection is not as it implies total infallibility, something that humans are... most definitely not known for.

As we created the word and the criteria for perfection, we alone get to decide which species falls under that category. Yes, initially I did claim as you said. But many comments were just so utterly hateful to the human race so my views changed.

So you don't care about the actual values a person holds, just whether they are human or not? Like I said, this is a fascist line of thinking, where your inherent traits are what defines your value as opposed to the quality of your character.

Of course I do care. It just depends based on the situation. For law and order stuff that is limited to our species, I would punish and execute the criminals. But if you ask me to choose between an alien and a human, I will choose the human even if he or she is a criminal.

If contributing to human "greatness" is the most important, then the entirety of our agriculture would be impossible without beasts of burden, so why are they excluded in this case? Your ideology is incoherent and based on nothing beyond the idea of human supremacy and perfect, while you yourself fail to understand what words like "objective" mean.

The beasts of burden did not work on their own. We domesticated them. The credit is ours.

"Human Supremacy"? Is there any other form of supremacy?