Wignats
BillyONare
[Image: B09-E739-C-8-C6-A-45-DE-A60-F-95-E4-D715-E0-A9.jpg]

The edit that makes this Judaism vs Anime is pretty funny but it should be Anime vs Judaism.
anthony
(02-24-2022, 10:32 PM)BillyONare Wrote: [Image: wKRLYV7]

The edit that makes this Judaism vs Anime is pretty funny but it should be Anime vs Judaism.

Your image didn't work but I still know what you're referring to and look forward to a continued discussion of this subject. We've really got to work out the technical kinks in this place.
Trep
(02-24-2022, 10:32 PM)BillyONare Wrote:
The edit that makes this Judaism vs Anime is pretty funny but it should be Anime vs Judaism.

Yes I agree the left side fits anime better and the right Judaism. Everything exists in history of course, but anime feels relatively abstract and timeless in its themes and in its artistic style. Anime characters also are often ethnically ambiguous. Its obviously Japanese, but not provincial.

As for the original chart. I don't understand how liberalism is apparently both "minoritarian" and "rule by plurality". Also nationalism is "rule by identity"/"general will", but somehow less abstract. I suppose they think those are more "naturally" occurring or something.
The "individual produces society" vs "society produces individuals" thing is a false dichotomy as it is both. Both within one person but also between people. Each person constitutes a part of the whole but most are unimportant and replaceable products of society. Few actually "produce society" or can think outside of it.
This also recalls for me the "race is a social construct" vs "society is a racial construct" lines. I'm surprised they didn't go with "peoples produce societies" instead of something that hints at nuturism, but I suppose they want to say that societies exist always, and the concept of the individual is a later development (Joel is into generative anthropology which asserts this).
anthony
Who's Joel? The guy on the left?
Trep
(02-25-2022, 01:06 AM)anthony Wrote: Who's Joel? The guy on the left?

Yes, Joel Davis
BillyONare
The image still doesn’t work CHUD.

@Trep All of the traits on the right could be correctly described as LONGHOUSE which is the true form of Chungus anti-liberalism. I wonder if there is some sort of Freudian mommy issues that explains the widespread appeal of these feminine beliefs. Wignats are just a subset of Chungus anti-liberalism; there are also the Neo-Never Trumper fake badass Catholic integralists that Scott Greer has warned us about, the “Hail fellow right wingers!” socialist Mexicans on twitter, low IQ podcasters who smoke weed and have Marxist women as guests, and contrarian Christian Dark Lords like EMJ and Vox Day. All of these people converge on a queer hatred for capitalism, inequality, meritocracy, freedom, technology, individualism, elitism, luxury, futurism and anything masculine, and rightfully sniff out the Gilded Age of Classical Liberalism as emblematic of these things, but then blame all of the current year’s problem (actually caused by communist anti-liberalism) on too much freedom, too much luxury (goes with the badass Spartan hard times create strong men LARP), etc. The only difference between Adrian Vermeule and Keith Woods is that Adrian Vermeule doesn’t wake up in a cold sweat after having a nightmare about black guys fucking his daughter and this makes him a much more effective grifter in the current world order.
FruitVendor
"We need to reclaim socialism from the left"

Had some downtime and watched part of a debate between these 2 in the op against Logo/Haz and it's an utterly pointless pursuit. The Left doesn't even give a shit about "theory" ex: when Keith will quote marx like a perceived silver bullet it just falls flat.

Mentally all communists are just people who got picked last for sports during gym class and never really got over it. Showing them the true definition of a word/meaning of things and they'll just deny and claim it's really another "system" of oppression.

There is no point going deep into enemy territory trying to logic trap against them.
BillyONare
@FruitVendor I watched the same debate. All 4 of them are leftist communists who agree about everything except hating Jews and race mixing. Almost the entire four hours were them arguing about whether Hitler was a communist (described as fascist or socialist by the wignats, for them communism is distinguished by being “degenerate” and Jewish, which according to them is not true of fascism, socialism, or third positionism) good boy or an evil MI6 agent controlled by British capitalists. There was a 15 minute section interlude where Keith Woods was screaming “I WANT MY CHILDREN TO LOOK LIKE ME” and Haz calmly replies “love works in mysterious ways my friend, you may fall in love with a nonwhite girl and eat your words”. Then they went back to arguing about whether Hitler was a capitalist.

Oh and Keith and Haz had a dick measuring contest about who understood “Hegelian dialectics” more profoundly, which was somehow important in determining whether Hitler was Marxist.
@moderate_hitler_groyper
that video was hilarious, 

debunking the lie that Hitler was some reactionary is good to "own the libs" and to point out that the "far right" doesnt start and end with hitler, but on some level, who gives a fuck,  why is it so important what the economic policies of Hitler was or even his opinions on slavs? I do nazi shit to trigger people but Im not dedicated to muh Hitler, I mostly dont care. completely pointless debate, the left will NEVER accept that there is any difference between a Nazi, a Trumpist, a Fascist or a Reactionary of any stripe, and no matter what hitlers policies on the fucking environment was it is completely overshadowed by racism in their mind. why would we try to recruit from fucking commies instead of your average MAGA middle class person or people who are already racist?

MAGA train will keep chugging, no need to waste time theorycelling about how tax cuts in the 80s produced troons or made niggers riot

(02-25-2022, 07:12 PM)BillyONare Wrote: @FruitVendor I watched the same debate. All 4 of them are leftist communists who agree about everything except hating Jews and race mixing. Almost the entire four hours were them arguing about whether Hitler was a communist (described as fascist or socialist by the wignats, for them communism is distinguished by being “degenerate” and Jewish, which according to them is not true of fascism, socialism, or third positionism) good boy or an evil MI6 agent controlled by British capitalists. There was a 15 minute section interlude where Keith Woods was screaming “I WANT MY CHILDREN TO LOOK LIKE ME” and Haz calmly replies “love works in mysterious ways my friend, you may fall in love with a nonwhite girl and eat your words”. Then they went back to arguing about whether Hitler was a capitalist.

Oh and Keith and Haz had a dick measuring contest about who understood “Hegelian dialectics” more profoundly, which was somehow important in determining whether Hitler was Marxist.

its literally 100% theorycelling, keith woods is the greatest pseudo intellectual on the planet behind henry levy

(02-24-2022, 10:32 PM)BillyONare Wrote: [Image: B09-E739-C-8-C6-A-45-DE-A60-F-95-E4-D715-E0-A9.jpg]

The edit that makes this Judaism vs Anime is pretty funny but it should be Anime vs Judaism.

The woke left actually view individualism and liberalism as REACTIONARY because it ignores the differences between people and how liberal "neutrality" is actually constructed by a white society and is racist/sexist, IDW are completely correct that the left is no longer liberal in any sense and they certainly reject the enlightenment. they reject objectivity and believe every race has its own truth (kinda like hitler lmao)
Vitilitagation
I will never be able to understand what is the appeal, if it has anything, of watching up to four hours of some of the most stupid people on the internet "debate" about absolutely banal topics like "was Hitler... a capitalist". It's not even that they're entertainingly dumb: they're just dull and humorless. They can't even finish a sentence properly. Yeah, I am sure that someone in here can give me a long and intelligent answer to this, but it's still like describing a completely alien culture to me. It's like describing the rites of papuans. I will never be able to understand it even if you detail all the social and theological reasons for it.
Vitilitagation
InfraHaz is the most stupid person I've ever seen online. MovieBob is Immanuel Kant compared to him. So I assume that Keith Woods "won" this debate by default.
Sharmat
It's not worth a lengthy sociological analysis, it's actually a very simple phenomenon. Many young people have an interest in politics as a grounding of identity and purpose but are willing to invest the time in reading. Watching someone explain to them what they should believe in a fun but seemingly intellectual manner is enough to stimulate most people. It's important to recognize that Hasan Piker is the most popular streamer on Twitch; the politics stream format is incredibly popular and is NOT (before anyone tries to claim this) some millennial holdover.
Rodin
(02-25-2022, 06:39 PM)FruitVendor Wrote: "We need to reclaim socialism from the left"

Had some downtime and watched part of a debate between these 2 in the op against Logo/Haz and it's an utterly pointless pursuit. The Left doesn't even give a shit about "theory" ex: when Keith will quote marx like a perceived silver bullet it just falls flat.

Mentally all communists are just people who got picked last for sports during gym class and never really got over it. Showing them the true definition of a word/meaning of things and they'll just deny and claim it's really another "system" of oppression.

There is no point going deep into enemy territory trying to logic trap against them.

The Left at this point will be reduced to supporting animism, shamanism and west African witchcraft in a bid to find something more subversive to back against the embers of civilization
Vitilitagation
(03-14-2022, 12:50 PM)Sharmat Wrote: It's not worth a lengthy sociological analysis, it's actually a very simple phenomenon. Many young people have an interest in politics as a grounding of identity and purpose but are willing to invest the time in reading. Watching someone explain to them what they should believe in a fun but seemingly intellectual manner is enough to stimulate most people. It's important to recognize that Hasan Piker is the most popular streamer on Twitch; the politics stream format is incredibly popular and is NOT (before anyone tries to claim this) some millennial holdover.

I get wanting to get into politics over identity reasons, not wanting to put time and effort into it, all that stuff... I get someone like that searching "what is marxism?" in youtube and watching PhilosophyTube video about it. Of course, I don't think this is "good", I only say that I can understand it.

But what is the point of political twitch? It's not really informative. It's basically just staring at someone scrolling through his timeline and commenting on it. You can get the same experience by just creating a twitter account and following the "crème de la crème" of Chud slayers. The format is often ugly and clearly not thought for politics, whoever is speaking is always on the bottom corner while most of the screen is filled with more shit than a porno website. I just don't get it. I have an idea why people would listen to a 5/10 sluttish gamer girl play poorly Elden Ring, I don't get how anybody can listen to InfraHaz for hours.
cats
It's just the zoomer version of watching cable news.
BillyONare
Yeah it’s high time preference dopamine consumption. You can put it on while doing other things on your computer, having ten tabs open, posting on twitter, and playing a low-brain-power “indie” game. I am somewhat guilty of behavior like this which is why I have seen some of these debates (*though* I would never touch an indie game, a 2D game, or a turn-based game). These political streamers basically behave in the exact same way as their viewers. They will grind away at Terraria while “reacting” (half paying attention to) to their Twitch chat and a 1.25x speed video of another Twitch celebrity reacting to another political debate. It’s just a dopamine injection for low-energy people who don’t want to put effort into anything. I agree it’s like the Zoomer version of cable news.

Here is a sample; this about the peak of effort that Destiny will put into any of his streams; you can tell he popped six adderall pills. Most of the time he is just lethargically clicking away the newest “indie” game and barely paying attention to anything.

https://youtu.be/lPEKIi43oMg

The Internet is better than cable news because cable news puts a cap on your intelligence since there isn’t any content for higher IQ people. On the internet you can graduate to higher and higher content. Hopefully this means zoomers will turn out better than boomers. Boomers with 130 IQ will watch 95 IQ people on CNN and MSNBC cast magic spells meant to propagandize people with a third grader’s reading level and still hamster themselves into believing the stuff simply because the bright flashing colors gives them dopamine and they don’t want to give it up. I have seen it with my own eyes. If a zoomer is too smart for MSNBC then he can at the very least watch Destiny or listen to Chapo Trap House, or even better, just check out of politics and play video games and watch anime for the bright flashing colors.
Vitilitagation
I think one of the main virtues of the internet, contrary to television, is that it allows for actual engagement. Television was seen as this culturally cataclysmic event (as I mentioned yesterday on twitter) during a great part of the 20th Century, even before it became a household item; it was seen as this medium that would lead to an extinction of civilization as it gradually penetrated into people's homes and make people dull, angry and lonely. As it has been a cliche to point out, you cannot talk with a television, it's a medium adapted so you stare at the screen uncritically as images pass in front of you. You can see examples of this fear in, for example and most famously, 1984, which I honestly consider an essential book to understand the psychology of the postwar era.



A lot of trust in other mediums were lost. Writers have to dealt with the suspicion that nobody may read books in a hundred years, filmmakers lost confidence - have in mind also that, specially back then, movies were expected to be butchered so they could be put on tv - or tried desperate to make a kind of cinema capable of connecting truly with "the people" by showing them a reality that couldn't be broadcasted on television, but in most cases, saw their struggle as futile.

This armageddon was simply skipped over by the invention of the internet. Now you can talk with the people behind your screen, there's little reason to accept any passive stream of content. As I ARGUED many times, we're still on maladjusted times but the future for culture and art looks bright to me. The boomer cultural collapse has been averted. So it disheartens me a bit that some forms that should just be residual still are popular. I blame it, still, on the maladjusted transition period we are in.
Sharmat
(03-16-2022, 02:00 AM)Vitilitagation Wrote: I think one of the main virtues of the internet, contrary to television, is that it allows for actual engagement. Television was seen as this culturally cataclysmic event (as I mentioned yesterday on twitter) during a great part of the 20th Century, even before it became a household item; it was seen as this medium that would lead to an extinction of civilization as it gradually penetrated into people's homes and make people dull, angry and lonely. As it has been a cliche to point out, you cannot talk with a television, it's a medium adapted so you stare at the screen uncritically as images pass in front of you. You can see examples of this fear in, for example and most famously, 1984, which I honestly consider an essential book to understand the psychology of the postwar era.



A lot of trust in other mediums were lost. Writers have to dealt with the suspicion that nobody may read books in a hundred years, filmmakers lost confidence - have in mind also that, specially back then, movies were expected to be butchered so they could be put on tv - or tried desperate to make a kind of cinema capable of connecting truly with "the people" by showing them a reality that couldn't be broadcasted on television, but in most cases, saw their struggle as futile.

This armageddon was simply skipped over by the invention of the internet. Now you can talk with the people behind your screen, there's little reason to accept any passive stream of content. As I ARGUED many times, we're still on maladjusted times but the future for culture and art looks bright to me. The boomer cultural collapse has been averted. So it disheartens me a bit that some forms that should just be residual still are popular. I blame it, still, on the maladjusted transition period we are in.
What makes you think we're in a transition period? The proliferation of passively consumed streamer content seems to only be on the rise, I dont really see any reason to assume it's going away anytime soon. The only positive part of "streamer culture" is that integration of the community through streamer-chat interaction is still a thing, though that's a far fetch from the authentic and critical interaction you're alluding to.
Verl
(03-16-2022, 02:00 AM)Vitilitagation Wrote: I think one of the main virtues of the internet, contrary to television, is that it allows for actual engagement. Television was seen as this culturally cataclysmic event (as I mentioned yesterday on twitter) during a great part of the 20th Century, even before it became a household item; it was seen as this medium that would lead to an extinction of civilization as it gradually penetrated into people's homes and make people dull, angry and lonely. As it has been a cliche to point out, you cannot talk with a television, it's a medium adapted so you stare at the screen uncritically as images pass in front of you. You can see examples of this fear in, for example and most famously, 1984, which I honestly consider an essential book to understand the psychology of the postwar era.



A lot of trust in other mediums were lost. Writers have to dealt with the suspicion that nobody may read books in a hundred years, filmmakers lost confidence - have in mind also that, specially back then, movies were expected to be butchered so they could be put on tv - or tried desperate to make a kind of cinema capable of connecting truly with "the people" by showing them a reality that couldn't be broadcasted on television, but in most cases, saw their struggle as futile.

This armageddon was simply skipped over by the invention of the internet. Now you can talk with the people behind your screen, there's little reason to accept any passive stream of content. As I ARGUED many times, we're still on maladjusted times but the future for culture and art looks bright to me. The boomer cultural collapse has been averted. So it disheartens me a bit that some forms that should just be residual still are popular. I blame it, still, on the maladjusted transition period we are in.

It's amazing how the internet has been both the best and worst thing to ever happen for the 'Elites'. I wouldn't normally expect such risky behaviour from them. They usually play it safe.
Massacre
(03-16-2022, 02:00 AM)Vitilitagation Wrote: I think one of the main virtues of the internet, contrary to television, is that it allows for actual engagement. Television was seen as this culturally cataclysmic event (as I mentioned yesterday on twitter) during a great part of the 20th Century, even before it became a household item; it was seen as this medium that would lead to an extinction of civilization as it gradually penetrated into people's homes and make people dull, angry and lonely. As it has been a cliche to point out, you cannot talk with a television, it's a medium adapted so you stare at the screen uncritically as images pass in front of you. You can see examples of this fear in, for example and most famously, 1984, which I honestly consider an essential book to understand the psychology of the postwar era.



A lot of trust in other mediums were lost. Writers have to dealt with the suspicion that nobody may read books in a hundred years, filmmakers lost confidence - have in mind also that, specially back then, movies were expected to be butchered so they could be put on tv - or tried desperate to make a kind of cinema capable of connecting truly with "the people" by showing them a reality that couldn't be broadcasted on television, but in most cases, saw their struggle as futile.

This armageddon was simply skipped over by the invention of the internet. Now you can talk with the people behind your screen, there's little reason to accept any passive stream of content. As I ARGUED many times, we're still on maladjusted times but the future for culture and art looks bright to me. The boomer cultural collapse has been averted. So it disheartens me a bit that some forms that should just be residual still are popular. I blame it, still, on the maladjusted transition period we are in.

True, but the current trajectory of the internet is towards greater and greater user passivity, and vastly diminished user agency with regard to content selection/engagement - the model of facebook, twitter, instagram is a single, algorithm-generated endlessly scrolling feed (from what I understand tiktok is even worse, but I don't know because I've never used it) - you can like and comment on posts/videos, but 95% of the user experience is just mindlessly imbibing the content-stream. The combination of this with ultra-heavy moderation on virtually all heavily trafficked platforms has basically turned social media into TV with more channels and personalised content for the vast majority of internet users.

btw this has a large ripple effect on non-ZOGged platforms, e.g. gab going with a twitter-style feed model, the mass death of non-4chan imageboard websites (and the cultural subjection of surviving imageboards to mainstream social media content/crossposters), the decline of specific interest-based BBS forums, etc.

Having won freedom from passive, generic ZOG-approved content-delivery due to the internet replacing TV, I think the next phase is to try to resist the re-encroachment of that same passive experience by cultivating and maintaining strong prejudice against normie and non-racist eceleb content (the main vectors of a centralising, increasingly passive/receptive internet user-culture).
Reply 



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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)