this picture will never not be funny

just the absurdity of donald duck putting out that statement (which even makes some sense and fits donald’s overall depressed mood) and mickey mouse being the sly one and contradicting donald, coming out with the upper hand from the argument, is just so amusing.

  • Skrinskas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 minutes ago

    this is so funny seeing this image again. Like 10 years ago when I first saw this image itchanged my perspective on life and really helped me calm down

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Donald duck states a fact, Mickey Mouse says some off the wall shit someone in a mental institution would rant about. OP agrees with Mickey.

    Perfect shit post.

    • Aniki@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      this but replace homer laying on a sofa with a shitpost thinking of a shitpost

  • Maroon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This sounds like the kind of stupidass discourse you get when Jordan Peterson sits with Ben Shapiro with Joe Rogan trying sniff both their butts.

    • JangleJack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Seriously. Why are chemicals absurd? Answer: They are not absurd. They are arranged and tuned to your relations with your surroundings. They are sensory organs. Ignoring your senses is a choice I guess, especially when they are badly calibrated or misinformed by fake inputs (social media, rage bait, w/e)

      • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I think most people have gotten over this fallacy when it comes to organic intelligence these days, but people still make it with regards to machine learning. They say LLMs are reducible to an equation (which is an oversimplification) and therefore they can’t have any subjective experience.

        But if your math is complex enough to reduce an LLM to an equation (something no human has ever done, but is theoretically possible), then you’d be able to do it to humans too. Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, and all that. So yeah, humans are just a mathematical equation. A human brain is just a machine that predicts the most likely action to help you eat food and have sex.

        And if you believe talking creatures can lack subjective experience, well congratulations, you’ve invented p-zombies. Which I think is dangerous. We don’t need millions of people walking around who seriously believe in p-zombies.

      • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah - reducing things to material components isn’t absurd and doesn’t destroy subjective meaning.

        Like, I don’t believe in free will, but that doesn’t mean I don’t find life meaningful - it’s just a fact about how the world works. I still perceive choice, I perceive meaning - it’s a subjective and phenomenological matter, not an objective/material one.

        • JangleJack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I think it is also about the terms of the debate and definitions of self. For me the absurdity is to propose invisible essences that transcend physical reality. My body is my self and I kind of own or rent the material that makes me work. The processes are physical as well, but they are mine too. I freely make decisions all the time, all by myself. There is no other self worth talking about.

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Always hated this meme because Mickey’s dialogue is set up to give the confident and condescending “vibe” of correctness but actually makes no sense if you stop and think about it. "Trusting the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals " when declaring emotions to have material basis isnt hypocrisy, it’s self consistency, essentially the reverse of hypocrisy. And if the universe is just a material thing with no basis for intrinsic value, what even is there to “fight” about that? You cannot exactly punch the nature of reality into submission, or change the behavior of the universe through sheer force of will. And if you could, there isn’t even a reason given for why you would even want to do so, it’s just implied that human values and emotions being a result of material reality is undesirable because what? “chemicals bad” I guess?

    • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I used to agree with you, but then I realised why it works:

      Mickey is basically repeating the old absurdist critique, “if nothing matters, it doesn’t matter that nothing matters”. He’s saying why are you despairing that everything in your brain is chemicals? Is it because the chemicals in your brain told you to? Then stop giving a shit, they’re just chemicals!

      And then he goes on to take up an Existentialist position in the vein of Sartre and declare that to live a meaningful life is to struggle against your base urges and cultural indoctrination, and to instead live a life whose meaning is determined by your own choices.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Ah, then I see my point of confusion: I do not see “nothing matters” as a fundamentally undesirable position (actually kind of the reverse), so to me Donald’s statement does not read as despare at all, it just reads as a neutral explanation of his stance on it. As such, Mickey’s statement doesn’t read to me as absurdist reassurance, rather, Donald’s reads more as something an absurdist might say and Mickey’s response reads more as “how dare you believe that, that idea must be somehow made false even if it is true and I wish to use violence to bring that about”

        • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Yeah, it’s all in the facial expressions. The duck is unhappy about there being no intrinsic value, because he wants the universe to tell him what to value. He’s got that kind of authoritarian mindset where you want to be ruled by a big strong leader who tells you what to think and what to value. Which most people do! Most people believe in a higher authority, even if it be mother nature or the universe. You and Me, the kind of creatures who want to be our own masters and would rebel even against the universe itself, are a rare kind. Most have to be talked into independence.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        What does that even entail though, you cant exactly force things to objectively matter if they don’t already, there’s no mechanism by which we could influence that. If you just assert values that you hold personally, you’ve merely created subjective meaning and done nothing relevant to nihilism’s truth value. Meanwhile If nihilism turns out to be objectively false, then you can’t fight it because it wouldnt even exist to fight. You can fight nihilists I guess, but then you’re in the generally disliked position of fighting people based on a belief of theirs that does not require them cause any harm to you or anyone else, because it doesn’t require anything at all.

        Its about as bizarre a call to action as declaring that you dislike some branch of math and want people to help you fight it.

    • Aniki@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      no, the joke is that you don’t actually know that the chemicals inside your brain are actually chemicals. for all we know, we could all be living in a big computer simulation, and your feelings are actually caused by bits and bytes on a computer. so, we only think that we’re driving on a brain powered by chemicals because of the things that we can observe from within the simulation, in other words, the simulation makes us believe that we’re only feeling love because of silly chemicals doing things. meanwhile our feelings could be much more universal and come from the simulation itself (which could itself be universal), while the chemicals are only a pretense to make the simulation more believable.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Congratulations, I never thought I would meet someone that could convince me that the simulation paradox was absolute garbage in the way you did here.

        Can I borrow you to help destroy other paradoxes?

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        That hypothetical doesnt really change what I said though. It would make the materialist position incorrect, but it still wouldnt be hypocritical because it would still be consistent with itself, and it still wouldnt give you any course of action with which to “fight” the nature of the universe.

        • Aniki@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          and it still wouldnt give you any course of action with which to “fight” the nature of the universe.

          well, i’d say, deeply embedded into many of us is a deep sense of magic; that the world can in fact be changed if we give up the materialistic worldview. so, the moment we stop thinking in terms of chemical processes happening, is when the true change/magic happens. at least that’s my view of it.

          i think lots of people have that worldview, including the mouse in the comic and probably also many american capitalists, because as long as the world is materialistic, you are bound by its laws and reality, meanwhile the core concept of a lot of tech bros’ worldview is that we will eventually be able to transcent that material nature; transhumanism, that we will make the (supposedly) “impossible” possible (thinking outside the box), “singularity”, etc.

          • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 hours ago

            transhumanism isnt transcendent of material reality though, its literally just the idea of using technology, which runs on the rules of nature to modify humans into some more desired state, its not that it does impossible things so much as that the limits of what the material universe allows are actually much grander than our current abilities are up to.

        • wabasso@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I can’t even get past Donald’s statement which is absurd to me. What actually has “intrinsic value [in the] universe” and what difference does it make if my experiences are “intrinsically valuable” or not?

          • Aniki@feddit.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            What actually has “intrinsic value [in the] universe” and what difference does it make if my experiences are “intrinsically valuable” or not?

            i think what donald is referring here is the concept of the universal, which is a very important concept throughout all of humanity’s history. it says that there are ever-lasting, always-present laws (the so called universal laws) that everything is derived of. As such, there are clear ways to act and that distinguish right from wrong. This is the basis of all morality and therefore also of the legal code, politics, philosophy, and everything that guides our societies.

            This is also frequently brought into connection with natural law, which states basically the same thing.

            The reason why it is important is because it is really the only thing holding society together. You can’t have a country of a billion people if the people think that you can just make your own laws and do whatever you want. The reason why world-spanning connections exist is because we believe in coherency, i.e. that things are the same way, more or less, everywhere, and it is therefore possible to establish communication and provide something like a connectivity tissue across the whole globe. Without that, you wouldn’t really have one humanity at all but a whole lot of very small tribes all probably fighting each other, no state building or higher society. So it’s a really important concept to think of.

    • Aniki@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      yeah actually that’s the only critique that i have about mouse’s comment. mouse is a machine, knows only productive output but no relax and chill.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        When he says “fight or perish”, maybe he means fight for your right to party. Dog of course refers to I Wanna Be Your Dog by the Stooges. The ego perishes under the weight of uncontrollable love.