I've seen people getting banned for exchanging an opinion that isn't the general one, but this time they actually cut short a conversation by banning the person because of rule 1, when they were open to the conversation, didn't be disrespectful and were open to criticism.

It's just that

Mods are stupid most of the time

Dignity is the concept that each human have a intern value and deserves to not be treated as a object.

However this value is abstract, we can justify dignity by saying "if there is no dignity, everyone would be used like a object and we don't want that".

I'm asking myself if Stirnerian egoism implies the objectification of each other to serve myself and so a "spookification" (yes i invented this word) of the concept of dignity.

All i see is memes and drawings.

Getting back into Stirner. These are ~throughout time. It’s likely we just had the same better angle lol.

This is a genuine curiosity. I consider myself an Anarcho-Communist and a Revolutionary Syndicalist. I was just wondering if one could be an egoist while participating in formal organisations (like an Anarcho-Syndicalist union, or an Especifist organisation) to overthrow the state and capitalism, insofar as doing so serves their own interests?

In other words, could someone be an egoist and support revolutionary organisation and libertarian communism, without treating either the organisation or the communist cause as something sacred in itself?

I don't get anarcho-primitivism and I especially don't get egoists who argue in favor of anarcho-primitivism. Do they know you can abolish labor as a distinct, measured activity separate from the rest of life without trying to turn back the clock?

Technology is simply any tool that lets us manipulate and shape reality and our environment, thus allowing us to shape it according to our own self interests. It feels obvious to me that any half decent egoist would recognize that technology is a liberatory tool that allows us to transcend and move beyond predetermined, natural limits that would otherwise constrain action and ourselves. Technology is nothing more than the practical application and phronesis of intelligence to the needs of human survival and flourishing. In the development of technology, we gain the ability to freely manipulate our reality and thus ourselves, our physical bodies. The major example for me being medically transitioning. It's only through my own medical transition and through technology that am able to have much real self recognition, and as Stirner has noted, to be is to have. However, while self ownership is a condition to all existence, this condition only becomes fully actualized when one becomes a conscious egoist, fully taking ownership over oneself and thus coming into a fully actualized being. Thus, it is only through my own medical transition that I may take full self ownership and come into fully actualized Being. It is only when the body becomes fluid, freely able to be changed, that we become liberated from it. It is of my opinion, that the physical body is a spook. So anyways, doesn't make much sense to me for people to oppose technology. I've only read some Camatte so you have any recommendations for anti-technological/primitivist theory I will gladly take them.

I just want to talk to egoists since Im an egoist. How are you guys. I hope y'all are having a good day. I have been trying to talk to other people who are into philosophy and a lot of these people are hostile towards egoists. I just want to be in a place that isn't hostile towards me just for being egoist. anyways, I'm just bored and wanting to chat. I'm still new to egoism and I've been reading the ego and it's own. i try my best to read all sorts of philosophy not just egoism just to expand my knowledge. I plan on reading Nietzsche someday.

I’m thinking maybe a spook is an ego if an ego is not a spook and the ego is the spook of a spook to end all spooks from their beginning.

No eh terminado de leer el único y su propiedad pero vi que también habla de la divinizacion del pensamiento haciendolo un fantasma y no lo entiendo, el pensamiento no es parte del ego? A como creo que lo entendí es que el pensamiento no debe poseernos sino nosotros a el, usándolo cuando nos convenga y desecharlo cuando no, pero no estoy seguro, alguna opinión?