"Acceptable Targets"
#21
On the topic of bullying, there is absolutely a correct kind of bullying, and the wrong kind proliferating might just be a result of adults not being allowed to assert themselves. Dogs also start to bully both people and other dogs if they don't have an assertive presence around.

I remember a bully in school who had been tormenting people: the bully wasn't popular or cool, everyone hated him and just let him be because he was bigger and kinda scary, and one day he got beat up by an older kid who people liked, which everyone experienced as a sort of justice. The phenomenon of freaks trying to get status out of picking on lower status freaks is just the absence of good people dealing out appropriate punishment.
#22
(05-12-2022, 11:15 AM)aquawin Wrote: On the topic of bullying, there is absolutely a correct kind of bullying, and the wrong kind proliferating might just be a result of adults not being allowed to assert themselves. Dogs also start to bully both people and other dogs if they don't have an assertive presence around.

I remember a bully in school who had been tormenting people: the bully wasn't popular or cool, everyone hated him and just let him be because he was bigger and kinda scary, and one day he got beat up by an older kid who people liked, which everyone experienced as a sort of justice. The phenomenon of freaks trying to get status out of picking on lower status freaks is just the absence of good people dealing out appropriate punishment.

I don't really feel like the latter scenario meets most peoples' idea of what constitutes bullying.
#23
(05-15-2022, 02:10 AM)anthony Wrote: I don't really feel like the latter scenario meets most peoples' idea of what constitutes bullying.

Beating someone up in order to punish them for dysfunctional behavior feels like bullying to me. Maybe we need better and separate terminology for "appropriate punishment" on the one hand and "retards terrorizing people" on the other.
#24
(04-17-2022, 05:51 AM)Chud Wrote: A quintessential Norwood trait, particularly pronounced in SomethingAwful alumni and "Weird Twitter" goons, is the tendency to look down on (or up to) groups of people that are vanishingly small, extinct, or based on screenplay cliches. Some examples of this include:
[*]Dunking on "Euphoric Atheists" / "Fedoras"; "Hipsters" post-2010; "Epic Gamers" post-2014
[*]One group that falls in with the rest of these but not explicitly stated would be Libertarians. For a time during the 2000s and early 2010s it seems like there was a big revival in libertarian thought, and of a number of different varieties: standard rw big business libertarians; normie 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' libertarians; left-leaning chomsky types; minarchists; and maybe even some more right-wing Hoppe fans. I guess I'd also add in 'classical liberals' here, because in common (normie) discourse it's sort of a distinction without a difference. The most common of these types which also expressed the 'euphoric atheist' and 'fedora' attributes quickly fell out of favor on the left and the right and became major punching bags for a number of reasons. On the left, it became untenable to hold onto the 'No Sacred Cows' position as they made sacred cows out of faggots, tr00ns, and racial minorities. I think that what did libertarianism in on the right was a sort of religious revival. Whether that be TradCaths and Orthobros or the retvrn pagan types, none of them had any love for the fedora tipping, atheist libertarians. 

Among liberal and conservative normies alike, libertarians have became a thoughtless punching bag that both sides can come together and agree are retarded. You'll hear Democrats bemoan the libertarian streak in the Republican party for why they can't give more money to illegals and blacks. You'll also hear 'nationalist conservative' figures like Sohrab Ahmari and Adrian Vermuele blame the Libertarian-Conservative alliance in the GOP for why we have so much degeneracy today, and for why the fertility rate is so low. The hatred of libertarians and blaming them for the world's problems are a total relic of the past. Even when there was a rise in people professing to be libertarians online, such people never had much political power. A real return to libertarianism, or a kind of Randian objectivism, would mean an actual push for a deregulation of businesses, freedom of association, and a total repeal of any and all affirmative action programs throughout the West. As far as any of those things go, there hasn't been strong representation for such plans in decades. As time goes on, I am also disliking the pushback libertarians received more and more because I think some of them (the more rw, based kind) were actually correct about a lot. The Randian individualism and moral egotism they espoused seems preferable to the Longhouse-Worshipping Tradcaths calling for some kind of populist, multiracial movement. I'll take Sargon (or even Molyneux) over someone like GoodTweetman and Yoram Hazony any day.
#25
I think we're all guilty of normie sadism to a degree. Someone here made a great post on that video of one of those pedo bait youtube videos where a guy had been tricked after showing up to meet an underage girl and gets humiliated. Basically someone taking advantage of an "acceptable target" tho I think the hatred people have for trannys falls into that category. Obviously the acceptable part is different but it's still sadism endorsed by the group. Just a social group instead of society as a whole. Fundamentally tho I don't think they're much different. Not that I think there's anything wrong with it but let's not kid ourselves.
#26
(07-05-2022, 09:26 PM)Guest Wrote: I think we're all guilty of normie sadism to a degree. Someone here made a great post on that video of one of those pedo bait youtube videos where a guy had been tricked after showing up to meet an underage girl and gets humiliated. Basically someone taking advantage of an "acceptable target" tho I think the hatred people have for trannys falls into that category. Obviously the acceptable part is different but it's still sadism endorsed by the group. Just a social group instead of society as a whole. Fundamentally tho I don't think they're much different. Not that I think there's anything wrong with it but let's not kid ourselves.

I disagree. 

This "Acceptable Target" phenomenon reminds me of the way many libtards will only attack/endorse a certain position with a specific argument once their favorite late night talk show host gives them the go-to. To use an insect analogy, the bugpeople only act once given the pheromonal command. External factors (social pressure + a constant stream of propaganda) have programmed them to do so, and they act accordingly. This is the way normies function. 

Generalizing this topic to "sadism endorsed by a group" is silly. The "Acceptable" part of "Acceptable Target" is a big deal. Nearly every driving force of our deeply sick civilization is pushing to make it unacceptable to target transsexual freaks. Why does the average chud torment trannies? To be contrarian? To be "based?" 

I think you'll find that it's incredibly easy to tip the scales and push a normie into chud levels of YWNBAW discourse when discussing with them in private. This is because it's only natural to be viscerally disgusted with something so flagrantly perverted and unnatural. Scott Greer never commanded me to hate trannies. Tucker Carlson didn't tell me to post that troonjak. My ancestors from thousands of years ago would respond with the same disgust I hold in my heart today because it's only natural.
#27
Its probably quite obvious and someone in another thread has probably touched on this but this phenomenon of "acceptable targets" manifests itself more broadly in the acceptable races/ethnicities to dunk on as well. I see Tr00ns and normgroids joke/dunk on/make memes about European ethnicities like the Italians, British, or French, since such ethnicities are an acceptable target for the joke, they would never do this about protected classes like niggers or trannies. It falls in line with what OP stated, "they want to be 'on top of the culture'", in this case, "meme culture", which is downstream of generally rw spaces in which the racism is directed at niggers, but they are too cowardly to make memes or any sort of criticism about a protected class.

Ties in with this whole idea I've seen promoted in any discussion of satire of "punching up or punching down", essentially the idea that satire should always punch up at some historically empowered class, (ie. whites or rich people), and if you punch down at some minority, then therefore its "bad satire".

Look at another example of #Swedengate that was trending some time ago. Dunking on Swedes is acceptable target because they're white and aren't seen as an oppressed class. There would be riots if #NiggerGate trended on twitter.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)