So are you creative or uncreative, noncreative?
Nihilism is no different from any other ideology (it’s anti-reality); anyone on Earth is formula, therefore everyone should just negate all violence by simply recognising each other as formula.
Again, it was lost on you. Sighs
Some people are more nihilist than others that are less but it doesn’t diminish that everybody to some degree is nihilistic.
What?! 
What do you interpret by my comments?
You guys are a bunch of nerds. Walking around calling yourselves nihilists and whatever other “ist” that you want to be this week. I mean…I mean…
Now nihilism is defined as the absence of any objective meaning to life or the universe
I am a nihilist because I do not think there is any objective meaning to life or the universe
But for me that absence of objective meaning means that I can give meaning to my own life
And so because that meaning is a positive one then I am a positive nihilist [ existential one also ]
Joker is also a nihilist but more specifically a negative one so he is at the opposite end of the spectrum
Whereas Satyr by complete contrast is a positive one and so him and I are at the same end of the spectrum
How one behaves (what is observable by others) often contradicts what one claims to believe/think/known (this contradiction should be examined).
What exactly is the difference between positive and negative nihilism again?
Damn right it is lost on me, your gonna explain this shit.
How can Nihilism be diluted if everyone is a nihilist, or inverse, how can people be more so.
And to Heinz57… your saying you take the same end of the stick as Satyr does?
as I have said several times so far, any ideology that sustains either side of the spectrum is but an illusion. Not worth advocating nor fighting for. Fighting an illusion is self-defeating.
Would you agree, that the obstacle faced by the individual is that by not vocally opposing others, they’re letting others to be free to hijack reality, and that perhaps this is what motivates many people to adopt an ideology (not because they actually believe in it, but because it allows others to be stopped)?
I wonder if ideology can actually be avoided, and still make a difference to the world.
The irony of asking such a question about individuals that ascribe to moral nihilism.
You are unintentional ironic, this is true.
Glad you agree your wrong finally.
the core issue is simple: the only choice is between
benevolent/voluntary actions
(sovereignty, real diversity, optimization of liberty)
vs
statism
(which rages from fascism, socialism to capitalism managed by the state, hence are all the same ideologies, optimization of slavery)
Voluntarism will never take sides because it refutes coercive monopolies.
You are a negative nihilist who desires nothing less than the total destruction of society. Whereas positive nihilists like Satyr and I want to
use the lack of objective meaning to life to give subjective meaning to our own lives. You want the Apocalypse to start right now and then
carry on for the rest of time or till the human race has been completely eradicated. Whereas Satyr and I want to preserve what we think is
worth preserving [ not the same thing incidentally ] In your scenario I would be executed straight away but in his I would be allowed to live
Yes, statist governed societies destroyed. I mean if it was destroyed the goal would be to create nongoverned societies in replacement. Besides, governed societies are going to destroy themselves eventually so it is little difference if something else does it first beforehand. Apocalypse? No, I prefer to call it a cataclysmic transformation.
And what exactly is worth preserving anyways?
Execute you? You know, I don’t want to kill everybody, just people that interfere with what I perceive to be the natural order of things, existence, and life in general. That’s of course a generalization so there’s more to it than that simple proclamation.
In Satyr’s aristocratic noble state you would be allowed to live? Well now, that would all depend on specific criteria, wouldn’t it? In his ideal world only the superior are allowed to live and reign where the inferior are executed or are made into subservient slaves to the perceived betters. The ancient Greeks and Romans he idolizes certainly held that distinction.
What makes you think in such an environment you wouldn’t become a human pet?
Sure, I’m a violent chaotic anarchist by comparison but at least I don’t seek to enslave my adversaries in chains. 
Satyr would be more likely to enslave or incarcerate me although he could also execute me. But you would execute me straight away to stop me competing with
you for food. There is no reason to let me live when I am a threat to you. In fact you would have to kill everyone you came into contact with for this very reason
This would only stop either when you kill everyone or someone kills you. For you cannot give anyone the benefit of the doubt as they may take advantage of you Remember in this scenario [ your scenario ] society has totally collapsed. There are no more rules. It is literally everyone for themselves but after this there will
be nothing. There will be no I Love Philosophy. There will be no Joker. There will be no democracy. There will be no America. There will be only one thing : the
Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse riding forever across a lifeless world
I’ve already stated that in my vision of the world I wouldn’t kill everybody but instead only specific kinds of people. Big difference. Have fun being Satyr’s pet or prisoner.
Why wouldn’t I grow my own food or breed my own livestock?
I seem to remember saying societies would still exist in an anarchist environment also.
This thread reminds me of my argument that we should be allowed to eat vegetarians.