>>660
Most people have hobbies. Nobody actually only talks about finances and health. You may not find sports or fishing or tv shows interesting, but there's a lot of average people who could talk about those things for hours. Most people aren't that intersting, but your view of them is totally innacurate. I doubt you spent much time with average people. I don't find most of your links particularly interesting, but i'm sure there's some completely average car enthusiasts who would.

Post edited on 2nd Aug 2019, 3:44pm

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that it's a vacuously true statement. Of course the average person is likely to have an "average" hobby (one that is conventional and mundane).

>>661
It's accurate. Finances and health really is what they talk about, almost exclusively.

Cars are a very common interest here, people talk about them all the time. Most people do have some interests like that, the problem I have is that when they do coincide with my own they often know very little about it, which isn't all that surprising, most don't but most also like to think they do.

>>660
Common sense is quite an oxymoron

>>661
>Most people have hobbies.
HOBBIES, not INTERESTS. They like to keep busying with stupid shit like golf and skiing because they like to feel oh-so-special, but a hobby is not the same as a genuine interest in an engaging subject. Football trivia and cars do not count by a long shot.
>You may not find sports or fishing or tv shows interesting, but there's a lot of average people who could talk about those things for hours.
Because those are vapid vacuous pursuits, the only interest of which is insofar as there's a bunch of other people interested in it.
>I doubt you spent much time with average people.
I would kill myself if I spent more time than necessary with them, jesus christ
>I don't find most of your links particularly interesting
Wow, you sure did beat OP there. "I'm not interested, therefore I win"

>>918
Vanity of vanities; all is vanity

>>920
>other people are shit = I'm da best
wut

>>938
read my post again without your ego hiding the meaning of it from you.

>>941
Apparently you yourself did not understand what I meant in my post, so I'll spell it out for you: I'm under no delusion of my self worth, I am among or indeed even am the most worthless of humans to ever live in history. Wow, holy shit, what a big fucking ego, that's definitely what I said or suggested in any way in the slightest in any of my posts. Because I hate normal people that must mean I think I'm better than them, right? Even though that's the metric by which I hate them? Bottom line is either kill me so I don't have to live in the same world as them or kill all of them.

>>943
Yes, i didn't understand what you meant in your post, it had seemed as if you mockingly quoted my post when actually you were quoting yourself. We'll forget about those two posts and continue with the discussion. Still you did not understand my post about vanity which meant that all pursuits and interests are vanity. Throwing a ball around and thinking about philosophy are the same at the end of the day because both are vanity. What does it matter if someone is extraordinary or normal? Both of them will die in the end. Unless you have included yourself in the category of boring uninteresting people, which you have definitely implied you aren't in, then yes you do think you're better than other people. Your interests are no better than anyone elses because interest is subjective. If someone likes football trivia and talks to another person with the same interest, then that is an interesting conversation (relative to the participants), regardless of whether you are interested or not.

>>945
There's nothing wrong with vanity. There's also other metrics to compare one interest to another, like how mentally strenuous it is, or how disconnected it is from reality. It seems like you're trying to make some nihilistic point about equality. I don't really buy it.

>>945
>which meant that all pursuits and interests are vanity.
in the abstract yes, but it is the nature of groups that I in the group that hates football will also be seen as similarly dull and uninteresting by those who play football, the point ultimately is that from the point of view of those in the same group as me there is no purpose to interacting with a foreign and hostile group.
>What does it matter if someone is extraordinary or normal? Both of them will die in the end.
The purpose is self-determined, just as you determined to spend time making the post. All choices in this regard are objectively equal, I agree, but very little of human existence is governed by consideration of the objective.
>Both of them will die in the end. Unless you have included yourself in the category of boring uninteresting people, which you have definitely implied you aren't in
The point I meant to imply is that I am not in the category of people who are exciting and interesting to other people, which is to say that they are the opposite to me just as I am boring and uninteresting to them. Because they hate me I hate them, that's the crux of the matter, and I wouldn't have it any other way, I'd sooner die than be one of them.
>If someone likes football trivia and talks to another person with the same interest, then that is an interesting conversation (relative to the participants), regardless of whether you are interested or not.
Objectively, sure. Subjectively, I'd wish they'd die so they'd leave me alone.