Twatter Drama Megathread

[Trevor Bauer]

Today Destiny and Logo had some kind of debate after Destiny had a conversation with Haz and Nick Fuentes. Here's a timestamped link to the debate (if for some reason the timestamp doesn't work it begins at 1hr14mins):
https://youtu.be/KKDt2KdFHlg?t=4440

After the debate occurred, Destiny tweeted this out:

https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal/statu...1163884544

He doesn't mention LD by name, but it seems to obviously be about him. Found the comparison to Charlie Kirk especially funny because of the absolute disdain LD has for people like him, brings mind him calling Carlsbad a 'stupid Charlie Kirk or a stupid Stephen Colbert' in one of his spaces. It seems like even by-the-book liberals can easily see through his pseudo-intellectual schtick.

Referencing famous or canonical works means you can't understand them and are avoiding critically engaging with something? Something about adhering to liberalism makes one a detestable midwit.

[Leverkühn]

Referencing famous or canonical works means you can't understand them and are avoiding critically engaging with something? Something about adhering to liberalism makes one a detestable midwit.

If your primary mode of engaging in an argument is listing off references to thinkers and works without explaining how they even relate to the topic at hand, yes, you probably aren't critically engaging. If you can only reference a work in the abstract, and not explain the arguments therein, yes, you probably don't understand the work, and may not have even read it. At the very least, you're not doing anything to PROVE you've read it. 

Edit: I'll flesh this out. If I've read a lot of Kant, and engaged with his work critically, knowing his arguments and being able to list them off is the absolute baseline. Arguably, I should be able to do much more than that: I should be able to list off counter-arguments to his views, places where I think he argues poorly or doesn't flesh out his position enough, and possibly even know how he would respond to such criticisms. If all I can do is say "well Kant says X..." there's really no proof I've done anything more than read a wikipedia summary of the work.

[Trevor Bauer]

Referencing famous or canonical works means you can't understand them and are avoiding critically engaging with something? Something about adhering to liberalism makes one a detestable midwit.

If your primary mode of engaging in an argument is listing off references to thinkers and works without explaining how they even relate to the topic at hand, yes, you probably aren't critically engaging. If you can only reference a work in the abstract, and not explain the arguments therein, yes, you probably don't understand the work, and may not have even read it. At the very least, you're not doing anything to PROVE you've read it. 

Edit: I'll flesh this out. If I've read a lot of Kant, and engaged with his work critically, knowing his arguments and being able to list them off is the absolute baseline. Arguably, I should be able to do much more than that: I should be able to list off counter-arguments to his views, places where I think he argues poorly or doesn't flesh out his position enough, and possibly even know how he would respond to such criticisms. If all I can do is say "well Kant says X..." there's really no proof I've done anything more than read a wikipedia summary of the work.

I ended up watching that convo. Logo to me didn't come across like someone who was trying to use bad faith rhetorical tactics to 'win' in some fashion as Density described. He was just big-timing Logo the whole time and being condescending and dismissive while Logo wanted to be 'taken seriously as an intellectual,' in keeping with his usual wont. Logo is a bit stimmed out and discursive, but he does read things sometimes, while Destiny doesn't read at all and yet makes a living debating serious sociopolitical issues. He was far more bad-faith than Logo. Any time he wasn't going 'uh okay' and feigning disinterest, he diverted the attention to supposed rhetorical fouls specifically in order to prevent exploring any topic/idea/authors which could make him look bad or unlearned, and then he went online to complain about 'critically engaging' with interlocutors. 

I'm not any kind of fan of Logo, but I dislike Density more because liberalism is so wrong and evil, you have to be those things in order to shill for it, and, unlike Logo, he has a lot of speaking talent, so will be effective in whatever he chooses to push.

[BillyONare]

Liberalism is awesome, you are a coal negro, and there is no need to shit up the thread by block quoting entire posts that are right above yours. Reading nonfiction books is not very enjoyable and once I had a taste of real philosophy (the Wikipedia pages of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, icycalm, etc.) I realized that most intellectuals are extremely stupid compared to me.

Name dropping obscure books is a shaming tactic. The goal is to make people think twice about criticizing you by instilling shame that they are not as “intellectual” and “well read”. It adds nothing to a conversation. Logo has never said anything coherent. All of his fans pretend he is coherent because they are highly narcissistic and susceptible to shame.

Something about adhering to liberalism makes one a detestable midwit.

All of the smartest people I know describe themselves as classical liberals, either seriously or jokingly. “Anti-liberal” podcasters and tweeters are always the dumbest sickest anti-human charlatans in the room. Spicy communism.

---

Now, back to Elden Ring.

[Trevor Bauer]

Liberalism is awesome, you are a coal negro, and there is no need to shit up the thread by block quoting entire posts that are right above yours. Reading nonfiction books is not very enjoyable and once I had a taste of real philosophy (the Wikipedia pages of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, icycalm, etc.) I realized that most intellectuals are extremely stupid compared to me.

Name dropping obscure books is a shaming tactic. The goal is to make people think twice about criticizing you by instilling shame that they are not as “intellectual” and “well read”. It adds nothing to a conversation. Logo has never said anything coherent. All of his fans pretend he is coherent because they are highly narcissistic and susceptible to shame.

Something about adhering to liberalism makes one a detestable midwit.

All of the smartest people I know describe themselves as classical liberals, either seriously or jokingly. “Anti-liberal” podcasters and tweeters are always the dumbest sickest anti-human charlatans in the room. Spicy communism.

---

Now, back to Elden Ring.

Introducing books in a conversation is also something smart people who read books do. If you're shamed by it, maybe you're not well read, or not curious. Why would you interpret this as a shame tactic if this were not so? That doesn't even cross my mind. Though if your smartest acquaintances are liberals, I guess it all makes sense.

[BillyONare]

If you’re so smart and good at reading, why are you still quoting entire posts for no reason?

[Svevlad]

Introducing books in a conversation is one thing, just randomly throwing book names and authors around seemingly manically is another

[Leverkühn]

Introducing books in a conversation is also something smart people who read books do. If you're shamed by it, maybe you're not well read, or not curious.

Smart people who read books introduce authors and books into discussion when talking with people who have a similar knowledge background to them. To continue my Kant analogy, if I'm talking with someone who has read a lot of Kant, eg a philosophy professor, I can just mention "The Categorical Imperative" or "The formula of universal law" instead of taking sentences to describe what those terms mean. Referencing serves as shorthand in verbal communication. In that sense, it's no different than scientists or electricians using jargon that's common to the trade. But if I'm talking with someone and "just randomly throwing book names and authors around seemingly manically" as @Svevlad said, is a whole different matter. 

People throw out references to great thinkers and works to bolster their own position. Perfect example in this debate, I have timestamped it just for you:
https://youtu.be/KKDt2KdFHlg?t=5415

I'm more of like uhh...like you know John Milton? The poet? I was just asking, do you like literature? But like, John Milton wrote this book, the Areopagitica...It's like his defense of the value of having, allowing misinformation in the public square, because he believed in like the triumph of you know, ideas, like through like single combat of dialectical engagement...

 
Edited out a lot of likes and uhs, but you get the point. 

So why does he bring up John Milton here? The argument he finally makes, after this long digression, is a standard 'Marketplace of Ideas' argument. Everyone has heard this a thousand times before. It's incredibly, incredibly basic to any argument about free speech vs censorship. Any mildly intelligent person in highschool could come up with this argument on their own. So why does he go on this digression? Did it push the discussion forward in a unique way? Of course not, it's simply so he can signal he's read a lot of books, and try to make Destiny take him more seriously. It was entirely unnecessary to bring up Milton or ask D if he reads, comment on his 'Discord Books Group,' etc. Only a fucking pseud does things like this.

[Guest]

https://twitter.com/KronosAsvestos/statu...0935904256

Intelligence agencies are a million times cooler than Waco and everyone who cries about them are the biggest balding homos. Mikka's words remain eternal: 

[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/gigameds/status/1493986385509892099]If I were alive in the 1980s and the CIA said that I could become an international drug smuggler with impunity I would've told them to stick it up their asses and become a management consultant instead.

[Opossum]

I've talked before about bap elevating a developmental phase to the purpose of all life, and was reminded this morning of his promotion of the phrase "live fast, die young, leave behind a good-looking corpse", something that loser high school friends would say that always struck me as totally idiotic. Maybe the intent is just to promote a fearlessness concerning death and an inclination to do with one's life all that one can while one has it, which is fine and good, but it also comes across as this fear of growing old in the same flavor as boomer women dying their hair and getting botox, an inability to accept the natural processes of life, and (coming full circle) fixation on a youthful period forever unfulfilled. That he ends up surrounded by middle-aged men trying to act like teenagers is then maybe no surprise.

---

Or, alternatively, they just hate their dads, which explains a great deal of behavior in certain crowds.

[cats]

BAP's fanbase has never been middle-aged men who act like teenagers, and if it was, it would only prove his point about old age being a time of impotence and undignified decline. Lots of people say they are BAPists because of a surface level appreciation for physical fitness or because they think his idiosyncratic way of typing is funny but actually fundamentally disagree with his work, don't take them for their word.

This isn't some sort of esoteric or unfounded take -- ask any old person if they wish they could have their youth back. It hardly matters if its a "natural" process. Most people used to die around forty anyway, even if you factor out infant mortality. Man is something to be overcome.

[Opossum]

Many of his loudest associates and imitators do seem to be gen-xers (as far as I know, I don't really follow this scene stuff), as he presumably is himself, though that's not to be reflective of his fanbase generally, sure.

Do they wish they could have their youth back, if asked? Yes, of course. Can they? No. One reaction to this on their part is more undignified than the other.

I'm talking here about the sports car boomer vs tweed-wearing grandpa who gives candy to local kids. Maybe the former, up to this point, spent his life jerking around in an office, and the latter spent his youth in a series of wars (and in fact this seems more likely, of the two options, as one fulfilled the calling of his youth when he had it, while the other is still trying to when it's too late).

In any case you don't see a cat trying to larp as a dog, they are just different things, different forms of existence. I'm not even usually a fan or advocate of old people, but if Mr. John wants to die young specifically for the purpose of preventing Old Mr. John from ever coming into existence, Mr. John probably just hates his dad (and God). Old age is ugly, but not as ugly as the eternal angsty teen.

[BillyONare]

What’s with this whole “hates dad” narrative? Maybe some people have good reason to hate their dads? It’s like you are saying all fathers are the same and some people dislike their fathers for no reason at all and that it’s all in their head. Internalizing an external problem.

[Opossum]

Daddy issues tend to manifest themselves in distinct ways, in both sexes, which I've had the displeasure of seeing too often. Having "good reason" to dislike your father as a person isn't an excuse for obnoxious... well, "internalization of an external problem". Abused as a child? Sucks, guess you're a broken person, all the more reason for me to disregard and keep my distance.

[cats]

What’s with this whole “hates dad” narrative? Maybe some people have good reason to hate their dads? It’s like you are saying all fathers are the same and some people dislike their fathers for no reason at all and that it’s all in their head. Internalizing an external problem.

Norwood thought-terminating cliche. Don't pay it any mind.

Bronze Age Pervert's hatred of his father, if he even does, is completely irrelevant. Elderly life is impotent and lesser as a matter of fact. Whether it's a "sports car boomer" or a "tweed-wearing grandpa who gives candy to local kids", both are undignified existences when compared to what they did in younger life. I don't see why this is controversial.

[anthony]

BAP might be the only rightward talking head who doesn't seem to have any kind of serious neurotic dysfunction. The only thing I'll ever fault him on is leading on and indulging morons while acting like he's a serious ideological policeman.

[Saker]

https://twitter.com/braxton_mccoy/status...8196271107

All Soldiers Are Faggots.

[parzival]

https://twitter.com/cmasonphoto/status/1...9767665664
i have been thinking about this thread all day and i have so much to say about it, but first some minor exegesis is in order to bring to the fore subtleties which one might have missed.

the first thing we're told in the thread is "my parents married my deeply sheltered 18-year-old sister off to a much older man" but two posts later we have:

The "relationship" began when my sister was only 16 years old and this man was in his mid-20’s, when my family was praying at a Catholic shrine. He approached her after Mass. He told my parents that he had "been praying for a wife" and then when he opened his eyes, he saw her.

this "much older man" is no older than 25 (if he were 26 or older he'd have said "late 20s") and this is enough to set off red flags in the poster's head. we can't be sure the poster isn't abridging this first interaction disingenuously but i'm inclined to believe those were the words that were said, and i have no doubt of their earnest sincerity.

This was apparently enough for my deeply religious parents, and they welcomed him into their lives with open arms and astonishingly few questions.

one post after tacitly admitting that the man spent 2 full years getting to know the parents and the family, he laments that they were too welcoming; apparently in his eyes the correct reaction would have been to shoot the suitor on the spot. in reality the parents seem to have gotten fully acquainted with our hero and deemed him a perfectly upstanding gentleman.

This man showed abusive and controlling tendencies from the start. His online presence was a war zone of racist/homophobic/sexist rhetoric (before he deleted it entirely).

translating from soyspeak we get a bit of an idea about this guy. the "abusive and controlling tendencies" are surely imagined and if they correspond to any events that took place it was something minor like letting slip a comment about not being 100% on board with women's liberation movements. the second sentence immediately suggests the man is a chud like us, but it is more likely that he simply posted on 4chan or said "nigger" a few times, which our adversarial narrator would consider the same thing. either way, he is clearly a man of virtue and valor.

it's worth noting that the man who posted this thread is not in any capacity (except for his hairline) norwood. he is a completely ordinary soy libtard who nonetheless professes catholicism and yet, here we have perfect consonance between him and the norwood rightists: https://twitter.com/noordinarysocks/stat...6419760129 (to this poster i have only one thing to say, "the night of the long knives came long before the holocaust.")

this, along with the fact that the ones responsible for allowing this marriage to happen are tradcath faithful, so clearly demonstrates that catholicism is in no capacity an essentially norwood religion. the traditionalist contingent is extremely keyed and in fact one of the only remaining ways to facilitate marrying teenage girls. that "norwood catholicism" and "soy catholicism" are identical, shows there is no aspect of catholicism which is in some way specially compatible with norwood tendencies.

however my first reaction to the thread was one of immense optimism. not only is something like this possible but--to the chagrin of soycaths and norwoods alike--there still exists (albeit minor) institutional and communal support for it. "As far as any church representative was concerned, this entire relationship was cause for joy and celebration." indeed i am extremely happy for the blessed man who had the good fortune of marrying this girl and it brings me no small joy and hope for the future to know couples like this are out there. my friends, the cunny is within reach. 

this also presents a real repudiation of BAPs idea that "reactionary porn" and "meathead chads fucking hot sorority girls" are the only viable alternative to sodomy and feminism. clearly, there is no need on a personal level for anyone to settle for these longhouse sexual proclivities, and it is perfectly viable for one to pursue higher love because it is neither extinct nor impossible to find.

in the end, God wins.

[Svevlad]

"I am against large age gaps because it will mean the teenage girls will get hogged by older men instead of more vital, energetic youth males of their age."

[BillyONare]

You all need to quote tweet and ratio that goblin guy.

---

@Svevlad There are more teenage girls than non-faggot teenage boys so there is plenty to go around for everyone.