Fediverse

Yes. Gravity does not ask one's consent before pulling. If one has arthritis or chronic fatigue, gravity will hurt them. I believe in building technology to challenge the dominance of this law, such as wheelchairs, fitness programs, and science fiction antigravity machines.

I skimmed the manifesto because I felt like I was about to waste my time. Since reality is to be rejected, the only thing that matters is your perception, which you should subjugate to your will in order to.... well that's what the manifesto doesn't really answer. At least not satisfyingly.

Their objective is to spread kindness, so subjugate your perception to your will, in order to be more kind to others. An example was rejecting your perception of gender in order to be more kind to trans folks. It was a lot of words to basically say "change your views to accommodate other people's feelings abd make them more comfortable.

But finally, from my understanding of this ideology, yes, murdering others is okay, you can simply reject your perception of their rights. Hope that helps!

The manifesto fails to define any sort of metric of what is considered "kind" or "moral" (doing so would require a reality). But they do define "magic", and then declare that money isn't real, thus commerce is magic.

EDIT: The manifesto is kind of a ramble, hard to follow and doesn't even answer the question of what the hell this philosophy wants from me. Usually a philosophy implies an MO I can adhere to, but this one doesn't really do that. It lists examples of how this philosophy helps queer, trans and neurodivergent folks, but doesn't explain how. Just that it's possible. It doesn't explain why I would want to do that.

I'm not a soulist like the user you replied to, but for another perspective, mine is that rights are imaginary constructs which mean nothing if unenforceable.

People have some rights to not be murdered; that's not an opinion if we have a compatible definition of 'rights', it's written in law, it's ingrained into mainstream liberalist social norms and ethics. So the right exists as a social idea which sometimes manifests in real consequences. However:

• I can get murdered by the government or law enforcement who proclaim to enforce my right to not be murdered! It's a conditional right, not the idealistic universal right it's often made out to be.
• And there are some people who I wouldn't really care if they were murdered. I don't weep for Wnssolᴉuᴉ's lynching. I don't mind that Ken McElroy's murderers weren't charged. Sometimes we just don't have the luxury or power to go through the ideal routes of justice. And to be clear I also don't advocate for murder for a big long list of reasons, many of them are obvious. For example, I think the assassination of Brian Thompson was morally just and cathartic, it stopped an antisocial social murderer who would not have been held accountable by law, and the fear it created may feasibly have saved some lives of UHC customers in the short term, but ultimately I do not advocate for such adventurism as it's proven historically to do little to create long-term systemic improvements, and can easily go wrong and cause more damage than benefit, as we saw with the "golden age of Propaganda of the Deed".

Going against bilionaires is going pretty left though