KimKardashian Wrote:anthony Wrote:I believe that a lot of social issues, interesting as they are to discuss in depth, would just roll up and go away if the libtards got rolled up and put away.
So libtardism is the root of the evil that we need to get rid of. Okay, so what exactly are we reversing here? How far does libtardism go and where do you draw the line? Obviously troonism and the alphabeticals are included. What about the Civil Rights? Feminism? Enlightenment? Protestantism? Roman Christianity? Neoplatonism? How separable are these? What ills can we ascribe to libtardism? Wave of mental illness? Divorce rates? Infertility? Atomism? State expansion? Mass politics? Ideological persecution? Totalitarianism? Immigration? Of who, niggers? Southern Europeans? Papists? But all that began a long time ago. What drove it? Are you sure all this fits inside “libtardism”? At what point are you fighting all of modernity? Something even bigger? These aren’t rhetorical questions. You have an entire life history of a civilization in front of you, and you are the doctor. How do you delineate a disease? What if the worsening decline is just aging? Should you be really entertaining reversal here, or prophylactics? I see not even an attempt at putting forth a cogent case. Oh, it’s the “dull wide-open zealot eyes” that’s the driving factor... Some untermenschen with their addictions that sprung from the woodwork… Come on...
I would like to think this image would be sufficient. But I believe that a
sufficient case has been made several times over by now, so let's just keep going to see if anything of interest happens.
As I was saying in the shoutbox, these questions are unnecessary. One can easily imagine some faggot in the El Salvadorean parliament condescendingly putting these questions to Bukele between the heaviest sighs you've ever seen and implying that it's all doomed because of his lowstatusunseriousness in this approach. But it is unnecessary. I know libtardism when I see it and so does everyone else, just like they know us. They don't fuss around with the obvious connections of "extreme" and "racist" beliefs to the foundations of civilisation, or their necessary connections to the functioning of important things we still have. They have far more important questions that would actually
need answering for clear practical purposes, and they just
don't.
What are you suggesting? I have to find the first libtard impulse before I'm allowed to do anything about it? Why? What are you going to do, call the referee? Of course that's basically what "human rights" is, a global referee who says it's not allowed to disagree with libtards, with anything said beyond that point being excuses. Certain El Salvadoreans
are trying to call the ref, and if anything stops Bukele's steamroller of peace, it'll be them. That's the thing, it entirely comes down to politics and this fundamental and obvious division. It's on you to explain the relevance of these questions you raise.
And as for your tone, I am growing increasingly impatient. The strained attempt at maintaining an impression of tired superiority, patience, condescension. You aren't calling me a faggot nigger, but that does not make you polite. I consider weaponising an affected status you haven't earned to be very rude. You either feel very, very superior to everyone present and aren't afraid of showing it at all, that is rude. Or you are getting anxious and feeling cornered, and are trying to weaponise an affected superiority to make your opponents doubt themselves, that is even worse.
This is why I banned Green Groyper. Not over any particular thing he said.
Quote:anthony Wrote:Tell us why. What has your superior will to see revealed to you which is lost on me?
Well if you look at the big picture Western history, you can clearly see a progression take place: Christian universalism lifting group-based restrictions, protestantism those of a religious hierarchy, capitalism traditional restrictions, Enlightenment political, socialism economical, feminism gender-role related, and now troonism biological. (To some extent these overlap.) A gradual shedding of all external limitations and particularities in favour of a universal yet individual inner “abstract human,” comparable to the “soul,” but going way further than just Christian eschatology. What this is, is socio-technologial progression gradually dissolving previous modes of living with their previously necessitated restrictions, which become perceived as violently oppressive immediately upon becoming outdated. It's just scalar stresses (archaeological term) from new modes of complex living (eg. modernity) that propel people towards social innovation (eg. feminism, troonism). But it's not some neatly packaged "libtardism" that you can flip on/off by banging the heads of a few apparatchiks against the wall. It entails all of society and reaches as far as one cares to look. There is no delineation to be found. How do you reverse "libtardism"? Just how much of the genie would you have to be attempting to put back in the bottle? Even hypothetically, if you rewind the society 20 or 40 or 140 or howevermany years, what makes you think it's going to be any different? You've no positive program, remember? What remains, blind hope?
This progression you propose doesn't look clear at all. Biological differences are not something that just fades away as culture becomes less fixed. Gender ones, yes. Again, I am an Illich man. He wrote in 'Gender' that the progression of cultural decay had reduced things to the point where the difference between a man and a woman was "the presence or absence of a bulge in their blue jeans". To this point the progress sort of holds. But biological restrictions
are biological. We cannot lift them. A woman can wear pants, she can even exercise your touted "technology" to cut her tits off and take male hormones until she grows a pooner wisp-"beard". But this is not a simple fading away of another restriction like people recognising that christianity no longer meant anything in their lives. People do this because their sex matters
a lot to them. It requires active decision and active maintenance and work. It is not an effortless falling away. It is a strained newly constructed identity and institution. One which is very difficult and demanding. You propose an inevitability to this in order to cast me as a crude, brutish moron trying to fight the tide like the dad from footloose or something, but nobody is buying it. In the most free age humanity has ever experienced FtM remains a very small minority phenomena, spreading following the pattern of a subculture, not a new wave of consciousness.
I am quite certain that by banging the heads of a few apparatchiks this could be pretty much stopped dead with minimal resistance. But let me quote you a little further
Quote:This may sound way more abstract than what a green-haired acne-ridden pooner would seem to warrant, but go tell them their brain structure is determined by their evolutionary role as a baby-machine, and then go figure how far back the roots of the resulting backlash of a response exactly go. What is this if not someone protesting being constrained into an outdated mode of life? If you interviewed them, that's what their sentiment would reflect. And it's very visceral!
You get off on imagining that you're arguing with the dad from footloose. This isn't a movie. I am not angry boomer dad yelling at his daughter that she simply IS A GIRL. I am an observer on the internet with no FtM acquaintances (do
you have a dog in this fight? You sound like you might actually be a woman. You have the irrational complex against an idealised tyrannical dad to match one). If I were fighting in the name of asserting woman's rightful evolutionary status as breeding stock I would be discussing practical plans for mass rape camps or polygyny, with this being an irrelevant sub-issue of the woman question (what do their particular neurosis matter if they're all destined for Camp Elliot Roger?).
Beyond that, again, fuck yourself, I would be justified in killing you at this point if I could, etc.
Quote:What is this if not someone protesting being constrained into an outdated mode of life? If you interviewed them, that's what their sentiment would reflect. And it's very visceral!
If you have read up to this point and believe that you are the only one aware of pressure upon girls you are retarded. But I don't think you are, I think you just have no respect for me or anybody else present who is giving you their time. You prefer to get off on the idea of owning footloosedad than talking to us, but the fantasy works better apparently if you use us as blanks upon which to project your preferred opponent. In your head you're owning him so hard that these twee little exclamation marks are now appropriate. At least you're having fun! If I ever gain the means I am going to have a team of large men sent to your home to scalp you!
Quote:And I'm not saying this is some endless progression either, for there is nothing sustainable here. It’s energy-intensive and regularly overextends itself, requiring cyclical “corrections.” This is something all civilizations go through, somewhat equivalent to the Behavioral sink. But despite the regular corrections, the overall trend has been proceeding upwards since prehistory.
The trend is towards female subcultures and greater participation in mass culture in general. That is the thing that occurred naturally and irresistibly with all women.
Quote:Now this is just an interpretation of mine. But I think it gives quite a decent explanatory hypothesis, and allows for causative analysis, without assuming irrationality, absurdity on any other inexplicability on the actors' part. Socio-technological advancement is the backbone of the changes. Conservatives are simply representatives of whatever's the last "previous mode of life with its previously necessitated restrictions." This is why their arguments don't sell, except maybe during "corrections." Progressives OTOH are those most hard-pressed by the restrictions and thus who dismantle these as soon as made possible by socio-technological advancement. One could say the current psychological degenerates are the canary in the coalmine of just how constrained people are becoming between the rock and a hard place of socio-technological pressure and lagging behavioral restrictions.
You believe that the entire human race is tending naturally towards mass transsexuality and anybody who disagrees is the dad from footloose impotently screeching and shrieking and stamping their feet and spitting their dummies while you calmly own them over and over again, yes. Very highstatuschristlikeeugenics. Pointing out the extraordinary support lent to these (still rather minor in the grand scale of things) tendencies and force leveraged against all competing social forces is lowstatusunchristlikedysgenics. The right has truly been outmaneuvered. Libs were the real overmen all along.
Obvious point against transsexuality as any kind of natural
progression, is that it's
very obviously not a superior solution to any present problems. Of course this is also true of certain past instances of
progress too, which obfuscates the issue somewhat. Did feminism really make women's lives better? Sort of short term at extraordinary long term cost for every. You can pour excess social capital and money into maintaining a bad idea and creating an illusion of progress for only so long. Psyching up girls to believe that they'll only be happy if they cut their tits off is expensive and unsustainable. It does not constitute a social revolution or a new way of life. It's just a fucked up thing to do to individual people.
How does "way of life" significantly change if we basically just
ignore the trans issue and let it carry on as is. Every generation there are just loads of miserable people coping by joining trans communities, trans flags everywhere, is society seriously different, or do we just have the same world plus what are basically really violent and expensive social clubs that sterilise their members all over the place maintained by taxes? Again, technology has not actually solved the nature of biological sex. Maybe we work out artificial wombs or whatever one day, but
if that happens
that would be something that we could expect certain responses to. But you can't say that this is happening in anticipation of that. Because you haven't yet. If you say you had this in mind all along, again, once I become Bukele SCALP Team Six is coming to your house.
We would expect responses, but even then not necessarily this one. It would not be an easy or effortless transition into mass troon and poonery. And even then assuming it's artificial wombs (the most plausible post-biological means of reproduction) what people do to their bodies would have no bearing on or relation to reproduction. It would in fact remain a lifestyle and subculture decision. Now I'm just trying to predict steelmans for you and knocking them down anyway. This is getting dumb. You are dumb. Scalps. Etc.
Quote:anthony Wrote:Libtards are not an inexplicable factor. They are an irrational one. Again, they're like drug addicts. They have a very destructive satisfaction feedback loop set up for themselves and they're addicted.
Well first of all irrationality is inexplicable. Secondly, there’s nothing irrational about addiction, neither from the addict’s nor the observer’s viewpoint. Addiction for the addict: addiction vs pain; addiction for the observer: susceptibility x environment. An understanding from both perspectives is necessary to fix and prevent addiction. Thirdly, addiction is destructive compared to what? Are you sure removing the opiate from the pained results in less destruction? The knife, the emo.
Again, despite how DESPERATELY as you wish it to be so, I am not in fact John Lithgow's character from the hit motion picture
'Footloose'. You can find records of me arguing with people on the internet going years back now that most psychological disorders and serious social problems have their causes in the lives people are subjected to. I believe this. Probably more soundly and thoroughly than you do.
I believe this and also believe that we should cut the fentanyl change. Yes, that doesn't fix all users or potential users on the spot. It should be taken for granted by intelligent people not driven by strange pathic drives that in any hypothetical where I have the power to cut the fentanyl chain I also have the power to enact other changes in society. And if my motivation for cutting the fentanyl chain is human flourishing I will not leave these people to rot the moment I have taken away their poisonous palliatives.
"But what IS your solution? Define crime. Define scalping me with a dull knife."
Step one. Annihilate libtardism. I believe the rest can kind of emerge from there. If I'm actually on track to become a Bukele I figure I'll be working out more practical answers as I get closer.
Quote:anthony Wrote:Is Fentanyl "superior" to literally every other possible human activity because people choose it?
I think you’ll find the people opting for fentanyl are very constricted in options. In a similar vein, one could ask why do people kill themselves if they could be doing literally anything else? I think you know this.
If you already know the answer, then why ask the question YOU PIG FUCK?
Quote:anthony Wrote:I've heard every point you're making here before coming out of the mouths of hard drug use apologists. People who tell you we should let people inject krokodil until they rot to death outside our homes if they want.
The nature of the example should make it clear enough how a mere negative program of dismantling big krokodil isn’t going to solve the problems facing these people. At best, you will end up with another drug. At best.
You either believe I would take away the krokodil and then leave its users exactly as is because I believe literally the only thing wrong with drug use is the drugs, or you don't believe that but act as though I do for the sake of argument. I don't know which possibility makes you more deserving of scalping.
Quote:anthony Wrote:We're on the same forum having the same discussion. There is no superior outcome earned by superior insight.
Insight is crucial. Ask Hitler or Stalin, who shared bunks with numerous historical non-entities during their cellar years.
Sure, with this level of insight you could one day leave us behind and get Richard Hanania's job.
Quote:anthony Wrote:speculate on the existence of a conservative elite movement […] Unlike theories of conservative civilisation-serving global elite networks pushing poonerism to save the world.
Why speculate? Why conservative? Why movements and networks? Was Constantine the Great conservative when he adopted Christianity? What are you even attempting to say here? That elite interests are entirely separate from those of their society?
Speculate because there is no positive evidence that this stuff is AGGRESSIVELY PUSHED for the reasons you suggest. You don't even try looking for any because any investigation into this only finds secular religious mania (irrational) and malevolence.
As for Constantine, depends who you ask, even in this thread there is disagreement. And again, your Rome comparison is offensively retarded. You have yet to explain how poonerism is an inevitable force that must be integrated by those interested in social harmony and the continued progress of civilisation. Pooners are sterile and almost incapable of surviving beyond small networks of individual eccentrics without enormous top-down support. Your shared understanding of inevitability is extremely weak and unconvincing.
"What are you even attempting to say here?"
You don't get to play at good natured bewilderment. You have proven over and over again that you are not willing to engage with this subject in a good natured way. One way or another you simply won't look straight at what's happening in front of you. I don't know if you're emotionally invested to the point it's making you blind and stupid, or if you have some deranged idea that you
need to convince people here of this and so are willing to get dishonest about it, either way you are impossible to talk to. This is all mental exercise. I consider you unreachable and believe you have nothing to offer any of us.
Quote:Drusus Wrote:Because committed liberals gained positions of power which they used to harass their opponents and stigmatize the spread of their views.
Wow stimulating. Now riddle me where had all the committed non-liberals gone? Why were positions of power open all of a sudden? “LOOK STUFF JUST HAPPENS OK??” Get glasses for that myopia.
[perhaps they lost due to lowstatusunchristlikedysgenics. nietzsche said might makes right after all!]
Quote:Sakana Wrote:Every addict would have a fairly well-improved life by kicking the habit. [...] The TorchTheEarth Nietzschean gigachad who is able to rationally consider the cost-benefit analysis of fentanyl addiction or suicide is incredibly uncommon.
Just because people don't break out the SWOT test doesn't mean they're not applying jugdgement. In fact most of judgement is intuitive, automatic. Addicts self-medicate their pains. You've nothing to offer them.
We offer a world without libtardism. I believe this would solve most pain. We can draw far more rational lines between crushing libtardism and better life outcomes than we can from further enabling of poonerism.
Quote:Sakana Wrote:You are retarded. Your entire worldview rests on an incredibly ridiculous assumption that people will be left worse off if anyone takes decisive action against societal ills. You haven’t provided any proof of this, nor have you explained why you believe so, besides invocations of “le Chestertons Fence”. Defend this principle.
Which ills? (See first point) What decisive action? "Umm ok guys STOP taking drugs. And STOP being miserable. No I will not put forth any positive program of what the fuck you should be doing instead. TTYL love you." Would someone put Sakana in office? His ingenious methods may yet solve countless problems...
Since you seem to have decided you like this analogy now (because it enables you to make these scalpingworthy dodges), how
would you deal with drugs? Safe injecting rooms and tolerance-campaigns in advertising space?
Of course my answer is a question, if I pushed my magic red button and annihilated all hard drugs on the planet tonight, and let's say it also breaks existing chemical addictions in the brain and so on immediately, no dependency, what do all the drug users do? Do they all immediately kill themselves with the first method available like
'The Happening', or do people in pain adapt and cope based on what is available and presented?
This whole post should have just been a picture of Kantbot. Fuck you. I'm genuinely disgusted with you.