WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Red Pill Collection

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:46 PM
DoggedDavid (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 125
Thanks: 13
Thanks 41
Default


I think I may have noted on this web site that I have written several hundred pages of essays in which I explain and express what I think are my original ideas.

Here is one of my ideas regarding an ENORMOUS INCONSISTENCY IN CONTEMPORARY LEFTIST THOUGHT

So many leftists are certain that:

A) certain psychological traits, namely intelligence, are caused by the environment and that black lags in scholarship, standardized testing results etc. are caused by deprivation, discrimination and poverty

and that

B) sexual orientation is caused by genetics.

I know that many people believe that science has proved that sexual orientation is caused by genes, but most of these people only know the headlines in the New York Times and have paid scant attention to the specifics of the studies.

Also, there are many factors which tend to debunk the notion that the dismal results of many blacks, on tests designed to gauge reading ability, mathematical acumen and general intelligence are simply the result of an unfavorable environment.

I happen to be gay. I detest the notion that I am genetically programmed to somehow be less virile than straight men, and I contend that if one looked at the studies closely-- particularly some of the studies of monozygotic twins -- one would readily understand that sexual orientation is caused by a whole lot more than genetic construction.

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:29 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Nope, not that nuts... yet...
Really? That's a shame, I'm pretty sure I became that nuts ages ago

He's another one actually who is routinely shut down for hate speech, largely because of his view of 'Rothschild Zionists'.

As always I say let the guy speak. I find it thoroughly entertaining if I'm honest. His fundamental problem I think is a quasi-Marxist one.

His outlook is based on a fundamental inability to comprehend the human capacity for evil. Or for that matter his own capacity for evil. Therefore these folks in charge must be evil aliens, and are manipulating us towards their own ends. Which is kinda true -- until he says that we humans are really nice a cuddly deep down if we could just extricate ourselves from the alien mind control and learn who we really are.

If humans could throw off the yoke of the aliens... if the proles could throw off the yoke of the capitalist class...

That is, if the prole had control of the state, or there essentially was no state save for some efficient system of resource allocation, and they were properly conditioned in the ways of the Jedi, or were to 'remember who they are', then we'd reach utopia and stop all this silly fighting.

BTW I totes agree that if the amount of people who express concern for an issue actually did something about it most things would be sorted.

This is actually an anarchist argument I've heard. When you say there should be no government, the objection is who would look after the poor? The objector invariably cares about the plight of the poor, hence the question, and therefore the answer is them, and anyone else who objects in this manner, which is everyone.

stick with me here, the universe is so many billions of years old, give or take, and so many light years across, give or take, and while this is interesting and, for example, a cosmologist can make a career from this, is this in any way relevant to our lives (Goldilocks theories aside)? We can live happily not even knowing this. But say if you or I do not pay our taxes, we be fucked.
So there is a relatively disproportionate effect that i) the Universe has on us (our lives), and ii) what society has on us (our lives). Ergo, questions such as, Who built society? Who runs society? How much agency do we have within society? These questions are more to the point w.r.t. our Universe, the one in which we live.
Yeah taxes atm be more important than lofty questions about the universe -- although sometimes these converge. I mean someone's ideas about the universe (such as the creator of it doesn't want you to masturbate or whatever) impinge upon daily lives.

This is probably straying away from the point. But presumably in order for the universe to trump the urgency of taxes it would only have to alter by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 percent?
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 02-21-2018 at 01:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnConstantine For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (02-21-2018)
  #33  
Old 02-21-2018, 01:01 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 453
Thanks: 29
Thanks 123
Default

I can never recall who says these things - I don't celebrate people but ideas - but it was an Australian politician I think:

"If you start out in politics and you aren't on the left you have no heart. If, after twenty years, you aren't on the right, you have no brain".

I don't totally agree, but as you age you gain more experience of the bad side of human nature, and it becomes harder to maintain leftist idealism in the face of it. I still fell in the extreme liberal left on the political compass last time I checked, but it's becoming increasingly hard to rationalise the idealistic position given my experience of human nature. https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-21-2018, 01:13 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Every white person is racist and every 'cis-person' is transphobic. Blaire White comments

https://youtu.be/5q4kwxwf0wU

76 - a million genders, give or take. OK I mean we're just equating gender with identity. Identity is infinitely unique so we might as well do away with categories in that regard and gender no longer really has anything to do with sex it would seem, meh:

https://youtu.be/N22VNI7oPMI

Btw for the record I'm not really pissed. This stuff is mostly funny to me the vast majority of it is completely harmless and silly. Just y'know, it's not necessary to factor 76 genders into legislation.

@DD

Since Sam Harris has been mentioned he's actually been brave enough to address this issue. Variations in intelligence do matter. I don't think it's necessary to section this out according to race or any other grouping. But it is a fundamental problem with the idea that hierarchy is a social construct:

https://youtu.be/WGp06vMPERE

(apologies for the emotional speech at the end)
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 02-21-2018 at 01:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-21-2018, 01:42 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
"If you start out in politics and you aren't on the left you have no heart. If, after twenty years, you aren't on the right, you have no brain".
Funny. I've always heard this attributed to Winston Churchill.

I have to say it resonates with me but realistically I honestly can't say I fully identify with either or. And it all gets utterly muddled.

For example. People might say Hitler is on the right.

Yet what would we say of one professor teaching the virtues of Marxism and one teaching the virtues of libertarianism. Which of these is closer to Nazism?

For me it is absolutely the former, it's indubitable. So what does that make me?

Totalitarianism and fascism require total state control, which is anathema to libertarianism.

So people who argue for the de-escalation of state control are fascists? Just doesn't compute.

I'd like to see a fascist state with no state power... just a lonely dictator sitting in a shed somewhere twiddling his thumbs.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:13 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 453
Thanks: 29
Thanks 123
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Funny. I've always heard this attributed to Winston Churchill.

I have to say it resonates with me but realistically I honestly can't say I fully identify with either or. And it all gets utterly muddled.

For example. People might say Hitler is on the right.

Yet what would we say of one professor teaching the virtues of Marxism and one teaching the virtues of libertarianism. Which of these is closer to Nazism?

For me it is absolutely the former, it's indubitable. So what does that make me?

Totalitarianism and fascism require total state control, which is anathema to libertarianism.

So people who argue for the de-escalation of state control are fascists? Just doesn't compute.

I'd like to see a fascist state with no state power... just a lonely dictator sitting in a shed somewhere twiddling his thumbs.
I've always leaned toward anarchism (without ever having read a single thing about it except the definition). I think it's the idealist's ideal.

Unfortunately, with the world population what it is, it seems incredibly difficult to imagine any kind of social harmony without some form of imposed organisation.

As a compromise I'd support the continuation of capitalism with the imposition of a wealth cap. If we cap wealth at, say, 10 million in concrete assets and 40 million in liquid I think it would be enormously beneficial without really compromising the "American Dream" or terribly imposing on the luxury of the wealthy.

You set it up so that when a person has 10 mil in hard assets (real-estate and the like), they have to start accumulating liquid assets. These would earn interest. When the liquid assets reach 40 mil the person can:

1. Continue to work, but they don't get paid.

2. Take on some kind of charitable/volunteer work to fill their time and remain productive.

3. Spend some or all of their money, which would redistribute it into the community, and start building it anew.

4. Start working on research/design/innovation/exploratory/environmental/etc things that won't necessarily return any kind of profit but will nonetheless be of benefit to society.

5. Retire and live off the interest: 5% interest on 40mil is over 200k a year, which is nothing to sneer at, and easily enough for every reasonable extravagance you can imagine.

The benefits would be many. The corporate ladder would become a climber's delight due to high drop-out rates in top positions. The cap would compel most greed-driven persons to constantly spend in order to remain below the cut-off, injecting money back into the economy instead of tight-fisted hoarding by an elite few. The low threshold for concrete wealth, such as real-estate, would force landlords to sell their excess housing, which would force the price of real estate down to more affordable levels for the struggling majority. Many people who reached the threshold would simply retire, which would mean more high-level jobs for others. Those who chose to contribute their time, out of boredom or social conscience or whatever, would mostly be intellignet successful people with the capacity to advance society
with their input.

One of the things that seems attractive about this idea is that people don't like change, and with this almost nothing changes except for a select elite minority who already have more than any person has any right to have. Ideally I'd prefer more idealistic systems, but this is a decent compromise.

Edit: the quote could have been Churchill - I'm hopeless with that kind of thing.

Last edited by eripiomundus; 02-21-2018 at 02:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-21-2018, 03:05 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
I've always leaned toward anarchism (without ever having read a single thing about it except the definition). I think it's the idealist's ideal.

Unfortunately, with the world population what it is, it seems incredibly difficult to imagine any kind of social harmony without some form of imposed organisation.
The best literary recommendation I can offer is Mutual Aid by Kropotkin which is a brilliant historical/anthropological analysis of the human capacity to organise naturally. It's a brilliant read.

Personally I believe that the reason we can't perceive a world without force is because we don't actually want it. It's too scary to put ourselves and everyone else in a situation where you really do have to think and act in order to survive. We'll hand over everything to a paternalistic organisation rather than risk it.

And there is a leap of faith required here to a degree. I certainly wouldn't argue for anarchy without two things:

1: That through a democratic process the power of the state was slowly diminished to such a degree that we could consider our society Minarchist.

2: People by and large in this Minarchist society believed in anarchy. Because so long as you believe that tax etc is your duty any issue which befalls you in an anarchistic setting is going to compel you to grab some guns and start demanding taxes.

This is the thing. Most of society is actually anarchistic, ie: voluntary.

In Syria, you'll have some village ravaged by war and subsequently untouched by government. Mutual Aid takes form almost instinctively and people find ways to trade and survive. ISIS comes along and tells the traders they owe a tax... this last bit is the bit people have to reject wholesale.

Right now we just don't, we say government is a moral imperative so it would take a deep paradigm shift before anarchy was possible. Because otherwise any group intent on establishing a state would find it easy to gain support and then we're straight back into the same position.

It's the usual argument, 'well what's to stop any group just getting guns and becoming a new state'. There are a few convoluted anarchist arguments for how this might be prevented contractually but ultimately my answer is nothing, so long as that is an idea which could gain traction.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-21-2018, 03:51 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 453
Thanks: 29
Thanks 123
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
The best literary recommendation I can offer is Mutual Aid by Kropotkin which is a brilliant historical/anthropological analysis of the human capacity to organise naturally. It's a brilliant read.
Don't get me wrong. I fully agree that humanity is self organising. The fact that we are now organised attests to this. I just can't see how, with world population at over 7 billion, we could ever get everyone to agree to anarchy. With enough education of the right kind - the kind that doesn't so much teach as much as it encourages people to think/learn for themselves - I think people would naturally become amenable to anarchy, but how do you expect 7 billion people, most of whom live in utter poverty without even the rudiments of a decent education nor the time to pursue it on their own terms, to see the value of constant self-organisation?

Personally I believe that the reason we can't perceive a world without force is because we don't actually want it. It's too scary to put ourselves and everyone else in a situation where you really do have to think and act in order to survive. We'll hand over everything to a paternalistic organisation rather than risk it.
Sure. Fear of the unknown, and of constant effort in the face of waning energy (for those who are aging into their twilight years) are strong motivators for the maintenance of established systems.

And there is a leap of faith required here to a degree. I certainly wouldn't argue for anarchy without two things:

1: That through a democratic process the power of the state was slowly diminished to such a degree that we could consider our society Minarchist.

2: People by and large in this Minarchist society believed in anarchy. Because so long as you believe that tax etc is your duty any issue which befalls you in an anarchistic setting is going to compel you to grab some guns and start demanding taxes.
Yep. Sound implementations.

It's the usual argument, 'well what's to stop any group just getting guns and becoming a new state'. There are a few convoluted anarchist arguments for how this might be prevented contractually but ultimately my answer is nothing, so long as that is an idea which could gain traction.
The state of the world right now, or any snapshot in history you care to make, are testament to the fact human nature is both good and bad.

I think if you could solve all the world's problems with a magic wand today they'd be back via human nature in a few generations. What's the answer?

We could very well be inside it:

Imagine an advanced race of beings who desire their citizens to be enlightened prior to admittance. They place their infants in a computer simulation wherein they live their lives over and again until they live a life in which they attain to enlightnement, after which they are freed from the machine and admitted to the real world. Some king of Matrix inspired Buddhism or some shit I guess.

After each failed attempt at enlightenment the memory of the failed life is wiped and the infant is sent back in for another go, starting out according to the quality of the life they left behind. Perhaps those people who claim to recall past lives don't get properly wiped? Perhaps the "soul" that many people believe they have is the underlying consciousness that endures throughout many virtual lifetimes? Perhaps angels and demons and guiding spirits and all that crap can be explained by programs designed to guide people toward the "light"?

You might ask: Why wouldn't an enlightened species just genetically engineer enlightened people? Because that wouldn't allow for the richness of subjective experience and the quirky eccentric individual who undertook it. It wouldn't allow for the journey with all it's teachings and trappings. It wouldn't allow for a being to emerge from ecstasy and unimaginable pain into a world of understanding and acceptance. Genetic clones would make for a boring civilisation, basically.

I by no means think this is definitely the actual state we live within, but I heard Elon Musk pose an interesting situation (paraphrased): as we get more technologically advanced we become increasingly capable of producing convincing virtual worlds. The virtual worlds of today are many times more convincing than the worlds produced a decade ago, and the technological increases appear to be exponential. It seems likely that in a very short period we will be capable of producing a virtual world indistinguishable from the real world, and if the natural tendency for a conscious species is to produce convincing virtual worlds (as human beings have demonstrated), and the universe has been around for many many times the amout of time it took for the Earth to produce life, it seems very likely that we might already be inside a virtual world. More likely, in fact, than the alternative.

I think he argued it better than I did just now, so I encourage you to google it, but nonetheless, it's a compelling idea.

Last edited by eripiomundus; 02-21-2018 at 03:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:34 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
Don't get me wrong. I fully agree that humanity is self organising. The fact that we are now organised attests to this. I just can't see how, with world population at over 7 billion, we could ever get everyone to agree to anarchy.
Well you don't. That's never really how ideas take hold. They spark up somewhere and spread to wherever their limits are and either fade away or continue to coexist with competing modes of thought.

It's not like everyone believed in parliamentary democracy even 100 years ago. I mean we've still got a bloody monarchy ha!

And then how a belief in democracy manifests is typically human, ie: completely all over the place and varying in every way imaginable. Case in point 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea'.


With enough education of the right kind - the kind that doesn't so much teach as much as it encourages people to think/learn for themselves - I think people would naturally become amenable to anarchy, but how do you expect 7 billion people, most of whom live in utter poverty without even the rudiments of a decent education nor the time to pursue it on their own terms, to see the value of constant self-organisation?
Oh well they do it anyway, constantly self organise. Like I said most of society is anarchist -- anarchism is just every interaction which isn't enforced, the difference between sex and rape. Y'know all those people in utter poverty? Most of them are also not looked after by the government or the police -- but the fact that the population keeps growing shows they're surviving all the same.

I think if you could solve all the world's problems with a magic wand today they'd be back via human nature in a few generations. What's the answer?
I've never really wanted to do that, solve the world's problems, partly because it's impossible, and partly because I don't think problems are necessarily a negative. I'd rather see to it that everyone earned based on what they could extract from willing customers. Just that would be enough for me. At least I could then say whatever happens we wanted it to happen enough that we were ready to reach in our pockets and willingly pay for it. If we're all as compassionate as we say we are... then that's all we've ever needed.

I'll come back to the Buddhism stuff.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:30 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Really? That's a shame, I'm pretty sure I became that nuts ages ago

He's another one actually who is routinely shut down for hate speech, largely because of his view of 'Rothschild Zionists'.

As always I say let the guy speak. I find it thoroughly entertaining if I'm honest. His fundamental problem I think is a quasi-Marxist one.

His outlook is based on a fundamental inability to comprehend the human capacity for evil. Or for that matter his own capacity for evil. Therefore these folks in charge must be evil aliens, and are manipulating us towards their own ends. Which is kinda true -- until he says that we humans are really nice a cuddly deep down if we could just extricate ourselves from the alien mind control and learn who we really are.

If humans could throw off the yoke of the aliens... if the proles could throw off the yoke of the capitalist class...

That is, if the prole had control of the state, or there essentially was no state save for some efficient system of resource allocation, and they were properly conditioned in the ways of the Jedi, or were to 'remember who they are', then we'd reach utopia and stop all this silly fighting.

BTW I totes agree that if the amount of people who express concern for an issue actually did something about it most things would be sorted.

This is actually an anarchist argument I've heard. When you say there should be no government, the objection is who would look after the poor? The objector invariably cares about the plight of the poor, hence the question, and therefore the answer is them, and anyone else who objects in this manner, which is everyone.





Yeah taxes atm be more important than lofty questions about the universe -- although sometimes these converge. I mean someone's ideas about the universe (such as the creator of it doesn't want you to masturbate or whatever) impinge upon daily lives.

This is probably straying away from the point. But presumably in order for the universe to trump the urgency of taxes it would only have to alter by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 percent?
Yes, also there is the whole need of someone / something to be in control. The reason when other people look for God and cannot find Him, yet I look for God and find Him straight away is the other people are obviously looking for something more divine, but the reality of the situation is God is a degenerate thug and not even the slightest bit intelligent, and has as much control of the situation as we do.

As to your last point;

Yes, but if Universal laws change they will affect everyone equally.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:53 PM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
God is a degenerate thug and not even the slightest bit intelligent, and has as much control of the situation as we do.
Yeah -- but isn't his son supposed to be a pretty good guy?

Last edited by Myers; 02-21-2018 at 01:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Myers For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (02-21-2018)
  #42  
Old 02-21-2018, 04:24 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Yeah -- but isn't his son supposed to be a pretty good guy?
Yep, and that's why He got fucked over. Unfortunately the same thing will happen to anyone who also follows His path, that is, for a person to be good, they have to be, for example, meek, forgiving, poor etc etc

Now I am not claiming that people should be assholes, but just not give the assholes a free ride on top.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-21-2018, 06:12 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 436
Thanks: 3
Thanks 46
Default

Sorry for the late reply its been hectic.


This is just another way of saying the abdication of an ideology sounds confessional. It doesn’t explain why that’s a problem. It seems unavoidable. Unless we’re simply saying that the act of renouncing Marxism is wrong. Perhaps that’s more to the point.


Its not what ya say its the way ya say it But really it is. The emphasis on the depths of the belief is meant to, whether intended or not, to bring focus on the development of the individual as one having obtained enlightenment.

Renouncing Marxism isnt really the point because were talking about the archetypal confession of the converted. But I feel like this borders on an ad hominem so Ill drop it and say Im in the wrong and should not have brought it up.

The point of the thread was really to explore some absurdities within modern leftist, ‘politically correct’, say, thinking. And I actually used a well-known socialist to make a point about free speech and thought crime -- which leads me on to Milo…

I know you did but the recognition of the talking points prompted me to comment and I felt that turning this into a circle jerk wasnt good for anyone. As Ive said while I agree with many points that JP makes I feel as though the earlier, and far broader message, has been diluted. So in a way Im vicariously debating JP through you.

Because I said that Milo is routinely shut down by liberal institutions? That's just true. I could say Ben Shapiro, or anyone of that ilk because they all face a similar issue. Ben Shapiro is a Jew who people label as a Nazi. We’re just throwing these labels around without thinking it's just nonsense.*


You could have said Shapiro but you didnt and I must go by what people say. If you meant to say Shapiro and all that entails we would have had grounds for agreement or at least not immediate argument but you said Milo with all that entails and so the response is to that. In a moment of what Jung would call synchronicity this article was recently published on the weekly standard.

In what fascist state in the history of forever did you have the ability to say whatever you want with impunity? I’ll refer back to 1984.


Yes well heres the doublethink then. Freedom to say whatever the government approves. Its a misconception to think that fascism is totally without merit. It benefits a large portion of the population, usually, as the expense of the minority factions. It gives the populace freedom to express views that would otherwise be unacceptable in polite society. In this case the current administration has half dredged the 4chan world into the light and made its policies, and a much watered down version of its vernacular, dare I say mainstream. It doesnt mean by any stretch of the imagination that all voices are permitted to speak. Even in republics and democracies cause is atimes found to censor speech but I think fascism is in part characterized by outright hostility to anything outside its own dogma and this begins by attacks on the independent press. The lugenpresse. Fake news. A rose by any other name.





That’s all fine and all but I haven’t said I yearn for the 50’s. Or that I love Milo or whatever. We have a tendency to become that which we fight against, in fighting against misogyny feminism has shown a strong capacity for misandry and hypocrisy. Sin is not heritable.



And while you are right you havent but by affinity you have. And maybe its wrong of me to make that assertion. Its certainly a dangerous thing because I would agree with you to a great extent that grop guilt is reprehensble but not with movements. Because a movement is something you must voluntarily join. I think the obvious rejoinder is what if youre born into a movement and my answer is life isnt fair. Its not purely a double standard but its pretty close.

To yearn for freedom and to cry out for the centralisation of power is paradoxical

I laughed when I read this because I'm screaming Yes! Yes none of this needs be rational. In fact I think a prerequisite of fascisim is irrationality. Nothing needs be consistent. And to me this is maddening because for all my love of chaos I love it in myself only but it doesnt it any less true.




In the words of Robert Mugabe, if this makes me Hitler, then let me be Hitler tenfold.

Reminds me of a line from Watchmen:

He stood up for his country, Veidt. He never let anybody retire him. Never cashed in on his reputation. Never set up a company selling posters and diet books and toy soldiers based on himself. Never became a prostitute. If that makes him a Nazi, you might as well call me a Nazi, too.

-Rorschach

If you havent read the comic I highly recommend it. I wont point out the relevancy of the quote because that would ruin the story in my opinion but if you do read it come back and we can discuss it. Id love to have a discussion on Watchmen and it does pertain to what were talking about here.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-22-2018, 02:37 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Its not what ya say its the way ya say it But really it is. The emphasis on the depths of the belief is meant to, whether intended or not, to bring focus on the development of the individual as one having obtained enlightenment.

Renouncing Marxism isnt really the point because were talking about the archetypal confession of the converted. But I feel like this borders on an ad hominem so Ill drop it and say Im in the wrong and should not have brought it up.
OK yeah maybe best to drop it. I think I know what you're getting at -- there is a trend of people doing this I would say on the interwebs. I say good for them. For what it's worth I don't think Im converted to anything in particular it's probably just part of growing up that things become too complex to continue to be intellectually intransigent. Letting go of ideology and allegiances just allows you to be more flexible and speak freely without being called a bad Marxist, or a bad Christian, or a race traitor.

So yeah there are plenty of young people coming to this realisation -- I probably did around my mid-twenties.

I know you did but the recognition of the talking points prompted me to comment and I felt that turning this into a circle jerk wasnt good for anyone. As Ive said while I agree with many points that JP makes I feel as though the earlier, and far broader message, has been diluted. So in a way Im vicariously debating JP through you.
I think you're best off dropping the JP thing as well. I really don't need him to make these points.

You could have said Shapiro but you didnt and I must go by what people say. If you meant to say Shapiro and all that entails we would have had grounds for agreement or at least not immediate argument but you said Milo with all that entails and so the response is to that. In a moment of what Jung would call synchronicity this article was recently published on the weekly standard.
Ah OK well what I'm saying here is that it doesn't make a difference whether I say Shapiro or Milo. I'm not throwing my lot in with either or, only defending in principle their right to speak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCmhZ-1gGc

Long debate but here is the best argument for free speech that I know of. As you said you have to go by what I actually say, which is that there's no reason to ban Milo other than a feeling that students are delicate snowflakes who shouldn't be exposed to controversial, potentially offensive content.

I don't know whether we disagree about any of Milo's views -- you might find that we feel more or less the same about them, so far you're just assuming. We probably do disagree on the efficacy and legitimacy of his banning.

Yes well heres the doublethink then. Freedom to say whatever the government approves. Its a misconception to think that fascism is totally without merit. It benefits a large portion of the population, usually, as the expense of the minority factions. It gives the populace freedom to express views that would otherwise be unacceptable in polite society. In this case the current administration has half dredged the 4chan world into the light and made its policies, and a much watered down version of its vernacular, dare I say mainstream. It doesnt mean by any stretch of the imagination that all voices are permitted to speak. Even in republics and democracies cause is atimes found to censor speech but I think fascism is in part characterized by outright hostility to anything outside its own dogma and this begins by attacks on the independent press. The lugenpresse. Fake news. A rose by any other name.
I see a bunch of people saying fairly uncontroversial things like, I dunno, there are only two genders, or black violence is as much a cultural phenomenon as anything else, and being silence, banned, labelled Nazis and so on.

These people simply argue for the right to offend, because that's the only thing which guarantees your freedom of speech. Being offended is entirely subjective.

The problem with characterising anyone in this camp (it's a bit difficult to lump them together, and I think most if not all wouldn't even align themselves with the 'alt right') as fascist is their outlook is essentially laissez faire (the same approach Hitchens, a traditional socialist, displays in the debate). They defend the freedom to say what they want, and therefore by definition must accord the same freedom to everyone else. This simply doesn't work in a fascist setting.

In the early history of mankind, the totalitarian principle was the regnant one. The state religion supplied a complete and "total" answer to all questions, from one's position in the social hierarchy to the rules governing diet and sex. Slave or not, the human was property, and the clerisy was the reinforcement of absolutism. Orwell's most imaginative projection of the totalitarian idea—the offense of "thought crime"—was a commonplace. An impure thought, let alone a heretical one, could lead to your being flayed alive. To be accused of demonic possession or contact with the Evil One was to be convicted of it. Orwell's first realization of the hellishness of this came to him early in life, when he was enclosed in a hermetic school run by Christian sadists in which it was not possible to know when you had broken the rules. Whatever you did, and however many precautions you took, the sins of which you were unaware could always be made to find you out.
Think unconscious bias

This is from God is Not Great.

One of my favourite books is Alone in Berlin. I haven't watched the film. The atmosphere in Fallada's novel could only be a positive for those who truly believe in the doctrine of the party wholesale. Because anything contrary to that is so brutally suppressed that should you embody a dissenting action or thought you are bound to a continuous state of cognitive dissonance and you must act out a role against your conscience. It would be like living in the head of Winston.

The character well adjusted to this environment was Parsons -- the man who is totally devoted to the cause, loves the dear leader and chants slogans with glee and conviction.

“Parsons was Winston’s fellow employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms--one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the thought police, the stability of the Party depended.”
This is one of my favourite quotes from the book -- how many people do we come across who remind us of this?

And while you are right you havent but by affinity you have. And maybe its wrong of me to make that assertion.
Pretty much yeah. If you want to check the extent of my affinity you'll have to ask some questions. Other than that I think our only actual disagreement so far is the extent to which free speech is a utility. I don't think we deny its value but probably have different points at which free speech becomes a negative and should be inhibited.

Me... unless you are genuinely inciting violence (or engaged in serious threats or harassment... I should sneak these in here) then you can say whatever you want. Your views cannot be forced upon anyone -- but should they wish to listen, that's their right.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 02-22-2018 at 04:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:51 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Full Doc here: https://tubitv.com/movies/399199/the_red_pill
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:54 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Ukulele: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iF_sq5O6SQ
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:08 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Postmodernism as an instrument of power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQA0e0UYzI

I should mention that Chomsky has always be positioned within the 'new left'. So although I've been attributing postmodernism to the left because that is the political sphere in which it finds most expression it is a collection of notions which does stand alone. Criticising it doesn't automatically change your political leaning; I'd almost go as far as saying it doesn't much bear upon your politics by default.

In the thread about truth we can make a convincing technical argument for why objective truth when travelling through human senses and being expressed can only be an approximation of that truth.

How do you respond to that information? Well here Chomsky says you can deflect any cogent argument simply by saying there's no objective truth, and if you're verbally acute enough you could spin your way out of any critique using this technique.

Or as was contended do you assume for practicality's sake that truth exists in the form described and that when we speak of truth this is what we mean, ie: the closest approximation we have to objectivity given all the reason and evidence?

Without this assumption I think we're at the mercy of any old nonsense and left without a foundation upon which to contest it.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:53 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

... empirical evidence ... plenty, objective truth or an approximation, um ... ohh yeah indeed ...

all them bloke ballads, thousands of them


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofSnsGkops

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qj9sk354PGs

https://youtu.be/efXbcfxiDnM

Last edited by anna; 02-22-2018 at 07:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-22-2018, 07:33 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,857
Thanks: 402
Thanks 1,054
Default

@JC: you’re right about postmodernism being its own entity, surely. And I think you can’t put too fine a point on that matter. As such, it was adopted by the left first, but has now spread to the right in the form of the “fake news” argument, and all the other Alt-Right, populist crap that we see now. Yeah, some of the people being accused of being alt-right, or worse, Nazi’s or fascists are nothing of the kind. On the left or the right. Mostly this argument is used to shut down the conversation, or “win” it for the day.

And on something else you mentioned somewhere here (I think) is the toying with anarchy. I too enjoy toying with ideas. I’d love nothing more than to discover an idea that would radically alter the political and social and economic situation the world now finds itself in. A break from the destabilizing path of feast or famine, and the brutality that accompanies it.

Some painful realities emerge when you study game theory, though. It’s fascinating stuff, but doesn’t give one much hope for lasting peace and prosperity. Marx and the architects of Nazism knew this which is why, in order to implement these systems there must either be violent bloody revolution, or blitzkrieg. There has to be a strong buffer between a “peaceful, prosperous” nation/entity, and others who would exploit or corrupt said system for gain. And then there’s that question of “who” and with what means are the protectors willing to defend the system (even against its “own” people).





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-23-2018, 12:22 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
Some painful realities emerge when you study game theory, though. It’s fascinating stuff, but doesn’t give one much hope for lasting peace and prosperity. Marx and the architects of Nazism knew this which is why, in order to implement these systems there must either be violent bloody revolution, or blitzkrieg. There has to be a strong buffer between a “peaceful, prosperous” nation/entity, and others who would exploit or corrupt said system for gain. And then there’s that question of “who” and with what means are the protectors willing to defend the system (even against its “own” people).
Yes and this is really where Marx's terrible place in history is unearthed. It's always mind boggling to think that he died in obscurity and never could have known the degree to which his ideas inspired so much human devastation.

Always reminds me of that Rumsfeld quote when speaking of Milton Friedman “Milton is the embodiment of the truth that ideas have consequences.”

No significant group of people really took Marx seriously in life. Which just goes to show you really can't just ignore ideas -- you have to try and map our their course and imagine what it would really mean if they were adopted to the fullest degree.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-23-2018, 12:41 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
but has now spread to the right in the form of the “fake news” argument
I think it's difficult to really pin down what is going on with this whole fake news phenomena.

You could, I suppose, link it back to post modernism -- no interpretation is any more valid than another etc etc etc.

But part of it just seems to be a total red herring. The idea that news isn't entirely factual seems to be as old as time -- yet it's presented like it's something new which just makes zero sense to me.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-23-2018, 01:12 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

The idea that news isn't entirely factual seems to be as old as time -- yet it's presented like it's something new - which is this whole fake news phenomena.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-23-2018, 02:40 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
The idea that news isn't entirely factual seems to be as old as time -- yet it's presented like it's something new - which is this whole fake news phenomena.
I mentioned this to a lady at a party not that long ago and she just started malfunctioning all over the places. Pirouetted robotically for about half an hour screaming 'post truth!' and then her head exploded. Weird.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-24-2018, 02:39 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Someone explain this for me I'm lost:

https://youtu.be/ltZdciL3R6I
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-24-2018, 03:49 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

hue hue

there’s a confidential hotline apparently, wait, no, um ... (if I locate the number I’ll jot it down for you in the back of your journal, right-close-to-that-spine-there, real small) ... no, no! you jot it all down in the front, this conversation didn’t take place, right, stfu
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-24-2018, 05:33 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

OK fuck the red pill. Just delete whatever programme I'm on and upload me onto something else.

One where Matt Damon isn't called upon to make confusing, shifty, lame apologies for reasons nobody can comprehend but everyone just goes along with lest they be next.

Or better yet, one where I'm not stuck in a sinkhole of never ending Kafkaesque YouTube Vids so that I can actually do something productive.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-24-2018, 06:25 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkW2xGCOLvw

nah, JC, you be just fine x


Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-24-2018, 06:35 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,103
Thanks: 370
Thanks 693
Default

I was at a Barnes and Noble and someone had stuck this https://rhystranter.com/2017/02/13/a...ancial-crisis/ next to Ayn Rand's overly thick novels.

I thumbed through it, but the premise seemed pretty stupid to me.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-26-2018, 12:34 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I was at a Barnes and Noble and someone had stuck this https://rhystranter.com/2017/02/13/a...ancial-crisis/ next to Ayn Rand's overly thick novels.

I thumbed through it, but the premise seemed pretty stupid to me.
Yeah I think it's a bit of a stretch. I haven't read Rand's novels partly because of these types of evaluations. Supposedly they're just really badly written so regardless of the underlying philosophical themes chances are I just won't enjoy them.

But I have checked out a large collection of articles and essays which I do enjoy and find myself nodding along with more often than not (there's an audio here: https://youtu.be/A6m9s9cwKUE). I didn't find that Rand focussed on economics a great deal. When she did she emphasised on the primacy of the entrepreneur and the dysfunction caused by inflationary government policies, which was just a continuation of her theme that the individual's happiness and success is an end in itself and should not be subject to the tyranny of the group or collective:

The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
Through quantitative easing, lowering the base rate and fiscal policy (more government borrowing and spending) governments will devalue the currency usually to service the debt they accumulated by previous borrowing. And the so the cycle continues until inflation gets out of hand and the economy has to contract.

It's not like this is an unsound criticism. Government induced inflation has caused untold amount of suffering.

I think it's telling as well that we won't be told about the dangers of socialism or communism by someone who really experienced it first hand -- albeit somewhat vicariously through her father.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-27-2018, 01:28 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/tech...ion/index.html

Math is racist
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Give Your Kid A Pill masontrc Poetry 0 03-23-2013 06:34 AM
BOOM! Countdown to my poem collection Juilingstar177 Classifieds 0 02-29-2012 11:33 PM
Spillway Review Jay Writing Markets 0 06-04-2006 02:59 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:30 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.