FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4mo ago
The reason it is silly is because it is not, in fact, worth getting upset about. The quality of one's life is not reduced in any meaningful way.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
As I noted the last time this was brought up, these are normal conditions. If you have a problem with how Jan 6 rioters have been treated in detention, you have a general problem with how the detention of accused criminals is handled in the US.
This presumes that the Jan 6 protesters are in fact criminals. If they are not, and are being treated like criminals anyway, that is objectionable.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11mo ago
HBDers are ideological descendants of the Eugenics movement, which was as progressive as it gets. The Jim Crow South did not invent racism against Africans, and it did not have a monopoly on it in its own time. That being said, I am pretty sure the Jim Crow South did have a fair amount of ideological cross-pollination with the racialist end of the Progressive movement.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11mo ago
Having watched a number of these, I think it's entirely possible that she will get her job back, and that within a month this will mostly be behind her. I've seen no evidence anyone is actually trying to kill her. The hospital definately will not face consequences, as they've done nothing really wrong. It's not entirely clear that the young men did anything wrong either.
The hate mob is absolutely the problem, and its existence says woeful things about our society's future. Still, it could be at least a little worse.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Rather than asking questions you don't want answered, how about you do a little background reading?
Unkind. The background reading doesn't really answer the question to my satisfaction. This is a case where the words written down are projecting an image to the reader that they don't actually, specifically support. I happen to be fairly confident that the image projected is, in fact, quite accurate, but these sorts of ambiguities drive a lot of our worst conversations here.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Just so. And each lickspittle presumes themselves the herald of true Rightousness made manifest, composing paeans to the amoral, unaccountable, sociopathic power by which they derive some vicarious delusion of adequacy.
And who knows? Maybe they'll even be right this time. Even the most degenerate of gamblers can still roll boxcars every now and again. The revolver can't have every chamber loaded, can it?
Is the issue that the right takes offense with censorship itself, or would the right if it actually gained back power censor in a much more strict and comprehensive way?
It depends on the people in question, I'd imagine. I doubt there's currently any shortage of moderate Reds, your Rod Drehers and so forth, who still cling to "enlightenment values" and "Constitutional Principles", who derived great pleasure and satisfaction from the dash and élan of the middlegame. I think there's less and less of them over time, though, because they lose too goddamn always.
Censorship is a constant. Free speech, to the extent that it has ever existed as anything other than a polite fiction, is unstable and unsustainable. It destroys itself. Progressives are correct that they are only doing what everyone everywhere has always done: setting bounds on acceptable speech, and then policing violations thereof. Reds failed at this responsibility when last we had a workable amount of social control. This was a mistake, and we suffer now for it. If we should secure power in some eventuality, it would be regrettable in the extreme to fall victim to the same foolishness again.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
10d ago
Which seems more vile to you?
"We should maximize the devastation of the war to get more women outside the war zone"
or
"we should maximize the devastation of the war to maximize the number of Russians killed and Russian wealth destroyed"
...Like, where is the "vileness" supposed to be coming from? We're well past the point where people here make straightforward arguments in support of maximizing the misery of others because it provides benefits for ourselves.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3mo ago
Your need
You rage
you're upset
hey, turn it down a couple notches. This is getting close to personal attack territory, we don't allow those here.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5mo ago
That and the existence of the universe are two fairly important natural phenomena which remain unexplainable, and which the potential role or attribution to God Science has failed to minimize. In fact, Science resorts to unfalsifiable stories for the one, and resorts to solipsism for the other. This doesn't prove Christianity or Heaven true, but the standard materialist narrative on this topic is fundamentally dishonest.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9mo ago
You condemn the Enlightenment, but you ignore and refuse to defend the actual enemies it was up against : the ancien regime and its privileges, the absolutism of Louis XIV and Nicholas II.
Why do the features of the people the revolutions defeated matter? The revolutionaries won. They took absolute power. They built the societies they wanted, unconstrained by what came before. If they built abattoirs packed with human misery, how is that the fault of the people they overthrew?
Does that make the American revolution anti-enlightenment?
No, it makes it a less central example of the Enlightenment, and it weakens claims that Enlightenment values are responsible for American outcomes. This is important to do, because there is a very clear ideological core of the Enlightenment from its inception to the current day, that core is what America largely passed on, and that core has an abysmal track-record elsewhere.
I too prefer my revolutions with as little blood and terror as possible. The only interesting dilemma here is, revolution with blood, or ancien regime.
Ancien regime. How is this even a question? The Revolution killed a shitload of people, failed to solve the problems that propelled it to power, and collapsed into a military dictatorship that plunged Europe into a generation of brutal warfare before plopping the Bourbons briefly back on the throne, before continuing to modernize more or less alongside the rest of Europe. Why should we consider any of that remotely necessary? What possible silver lining are you seeing here?
Only way to dispell the magic “We will cut off his head with the crown upon it.” The King’s trial by ordeal. That lesson, and others, centuries of progress, france had to speedrun, while at war .
They failed, though. The whole thing failed. They accomplished nothing but mutual fratricide and mass murder, and then were swept aside by a tyrant who got a considerable portion of their population killed attempting and failing to conquer the world. They didn't dispel any magic. they didn't build a legacy. They didn't speedrun shit, other than than the pointless atrocity counter.
Those rascals, one crazy idea after another. The sheer hubris to think they could solve this problem, a venerable institution vetted by our ancestors and the bible.
It's another example of how the French Revolution was more Enlightened than the American. I wish the American revolution had abolished slavery as well, but the fact is they didn't, and had to solve the problem the hard way a century later. I think the French abolishing slavery was a great idea! ...But they also collapsed their whole society and got many millions of people killed through the secondary effects, and that happened precisely because of their hubris. So the hubris seems like kind of a problem!
Not defending it, but he was executed for being a top tax farmer, viewed as a Crassus , not a Galileo.
Maybe if their ideology had been a little less bloodthirsty, it might have been a little better at actual science?
HBD is not a political movement.
You can argue the label if you like, but "person who believes in meaningful racial differences in intelligence, and thinks it's a good idea to implement racial discrimination on this basis" is a notable cluster here, and a lot of the ones furthest out on the "fan of racial discrimination" axis are in fact former deep-blues and still retain many of their blue values, or else current deep blues with a different set of preferred races.
Meanwhile, one of the best distinguishers both of Redness and of opposition to this sort of racial politics here is "do you regularly go to Church?"
D3R is a meme because it's ineffective against blues in most contexts, due to double-standards. There's no rule against racism here, though, and there's little likelihood there will be. We point it out simply because it's true and needs to be said. If you disagree with racism as a value, you should cultivate an understanding of where it comes from, and a big part of where it comes from is Progressive social engineering ideas mixing badly with scientific fact.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
The problem here is that you have a large chunk of the population who's experienced circumcision first-hand, and consider the anti-circumcision arguments vastly overblown. If you don't like the practice, don't practice it with your kids. There's no need for laws, you can just let people make the decision for their own children as they see fit.
If on the other hand circumcision were being mandated, or secretly being encouraged for children to get themselves while hiding this fact from parents, that would be a rather different matter.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
28d ago
Honor cannot be dispensed with, and treating the dishonorable as honorable is not itself honorable.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
You can suspect whatever you want about what kind of autistic power level hiding fatlords everyone is, but you have to respond to posts that exist. You have to participate in the conversation people are actually having.
You can also not do that because you decide it is beneath you, and accept a ban as the consequence. Each person makes their own choices, and I would be very surprised if Hlynka did not fully expect the ban and at least weakly agree that it was justified based on his behavior.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3mo ago
After mod discussion, we're bumping the original mod harrumphing into an actual warning, which seems entirely appropriate to me. If you think someone is being rude, report them. You've been here long enough to know how this works, sir.
For what it's worth, I'll second @self_made_human below; I think your hostility meter is set a bit light. I can see how you'd read it as an attack, but the solution is to keep your cool and report, not break out the flamethrower.
For what it's worth, @Eetan, you should tone it down too.
The flood
People throughout the world grow extremely wicked, God destroys them as punishment while protecting a righteous man and his family. Not capricious.
sodom and gomorrah
People in two cities grow extremely wicked, God destroys them as punishment while protecting a righteous man and his family. Not capricious.
the binding of isaac
God demonstrates that his chosen patriarch is willing to sacrifice his son, and also that such sacrifices are not desired by God; that is to say, the absence of child sacrifice is not due to a lack of fervor or obedience on the part of God's people, but rather because God himself considers child-sacrifice abhorrent. Not capricious.
being a dick to job
The point of Job is that God is under no obligation to justify his actions to his creation. It is not claimed that God acts arbitrarily, only that we are not owed an explanation for specific things that happen. This is as close to capricious as your list gets, but throughout God insists that he has reasons for what he does. Not capricious, any more than any other need-to-know system is.
the killing of egyptian first-borns
The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews, and attempted genocide against them by ordering the execution of all their male children. Their own first-borns are killed by God as punishment, after they are given repeated opportunities to relent from their actions. Not capricious.
Exodus 4 : 24
Moses, while acting as God's prophet, has violated the covenant by not circumcising his sons in direct violation of God's command. Not capricious.
Kings 4 : 23
The youths treat God's representative with scorn, dishonoring God, and an example is made of them. Not capricious.
Judges 11
The capricious actions are all Jepthah's, not God's. Jepthah is a cautionary story about swearing foolish oaths, and Jephthah himself is no more an example of a righteous man than Samson is.
None of these citations involve a single capricious action on God's part.
Again with Freud.
Stop claiming that expert-based consensus settles arguments, and I'll stop citing the gold-standard of evidence that expert-based consensus absolutely does not settle arguments.
Look, it’s not a binary. All else equal, an adult being convinced by arguments is more evidence of them being correct than a child believing something.
And if Christians were only made by convincing children, this would be relevant. But they are not, and those convinced as children grow up and have ample opportunity to change their minds. Likewise, adults being convinced of something is not good evidence that the thing they're convinced of is true. There is no such thing as proof by social consensus, so stop citing social consensus as evidence.
The Enlightenment celebrated reason, it was a move away from unconditionally accepting orthodoxies about things like science, religion, and the supposed rights of monarchs.
"Reason" doesn't mean embracing "The Truth", but rather embracing "whatever I can't personally think of a good counter-argument for, possibly while being actively deceived." The Enlightenment moved away from Christianity; it immediately and enthusiastically adopted novel orthodoxies about science, religion, and the supposed rights of social classes, frequently to disastrous results. The places where it delivered good results are also the places where its push away from Christianity was largely neutralized. The places where it did move away from Christianity, it produced slaughter and oppression.
The basic problem is that human reason is not, in fact, a very good way of figuring out the world around us. If you're familiar with economics, think about economic Central Planning, why it was attractive and why it didn't work. The Enlightenment failed for similar reasons: it assumed it had the answers to questions that it did not, in fact, have the answers to.
See here for a debate on the subject.
I don't think that describes the ordinary HBD type, though it does describe some of the louder ones. The ordinary HBD type believes in meaningful racial differences in intelligence and thinks it's a bad idea to implement racial discrimination to correct for this.
It's probably worth making a distinction between "political HBDers" and "factual HBDers", but as you say, the political ones are the loudest here, by far. I don't think this says anything about the factual HBDers, other than that they're relatively invisible in most conversations where HBD comes up, so they aren't the central example of an HBDer that comes immediately to mind.
I used to use the label "alt-right"; it was a snappy, effective label, and there was a time when one could reasonably argue that the 1488 types really were a small minority within it. But the media and the 1488 types worked together to grant the latter de-facto control of the label, so I stopped using it. I could make a strong argument that the 1488 types have no claim to the label, but at some point other fights take priority.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Demonstrate that more moderate stances can solve or even significantly ameliorate the problem, and I'll happily concede.
What's different this time, in the main, comes down to tech centralization, mutual reinforcement of Blue-Tribe centers of power, and the unusual fervor generated by peculiarities of the Progressive worldview. Progressivism has been a serious contender since the founding of the nation, but the fight didn't have to go this way, and I think it evident that it did go this way in large part through naïve trust in "enlightenment principles" that were never, ever going to hold.
And sure, there are a great many disagreements within all tribes or political camps. Have faith in human nature, give it a little more time. The escalation spiral works its magic, and such disagreements resolve themselves.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
...And the reply to you, of course, is that "not hating" does not obviously preclude burning cities to ash together with their occupants. Christianity is not a pacifistic religion.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4mo ago
I find this willingness to apply 'deranged' label to resentment over getting mutilated unsettling. Can't help but see it as a defense mechanism first.
We've experienced it, and do not consider it worthy of the term "mutilation". No perceptible loss of function has been observed; while I'm sure there is a quantifiable difference, that difference appears to be entirely swamped by other factors.
It is, in fact, possible for a person to fixate on something minor and blow it up out of all proportion. One of the best ways to tell whether this is happening is to look at whether their experience generalizes. The experience of circumcision-objectors observably does not generalize very well. You can tell people that they've been mutilated, but many of us do not in fact perceive ourselves to be mutilated. You can claim that sexual pleasure would be greater; okay, so instead of it being the most intense physical pleasure we ever experience, it is instead the most intense physical pleasure we ever experience. Like, you get that sex is primarily a trigger, right? Do you think if you shave a few millimeters off a gun's trigger, it makes the gun less powerful?
Build a parallel status economy.
Every social system should either work for us or not work at all. Actively attack enemy-held institutions by any means necessary.
reject and subvert systems that work against our interests. Deny their power, hamper their operations, refuse their legitimacy, appropriate or destroy their resources.
Focus on outcomes, not process. Process is for coordinating cooperation, and that is not a thing our present society is capable of maintaining.
The goal should be a breakdown of federal authority, and acceleration in the decay of existing systems of social control such as the media ecosystem, educational system, academia generally, the courts, and the federal bureaucracy. Delegitimizing these institutions in the eyes of as much of the public as possible is a good first step.
More options
Context Copy link