Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
"...Perhaps laughter will then have formed an alliance with wisdom; perhaps only 'gay science' will remain."
User ID: 342
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
22d ago
· Edited 22d ago
Yes but it's only correlated with those things. It itself isn't really a bad thing. Much like how a college degree is correlated with professional skill, but it's not equivalent to professional skill, which is why it's not unheard of (especially in say, tech) for people to get hired to highly-skilled positions without degrees.
(You also don't need to measure single motherhood by proxy. It can be measured directly. The child has a correlation of 1 with itself, and the absence of children has a correlation of 1 with the absence of children.)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
23d ago
5 or fewer sex partners (‘bodies’).
This seems like the first criteria that you'd want to relax.
I don't actually understand why other men care so much about body count. I mean, I can understand it on an intellectual level, but not on a visceral level. Perhaps that's just a side effect of my general pattern of sexual deviancy. I also have no instinctive revulsion towards incest between consenting adults, for example, although many other people swear to me that they most assuredly do.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
27d ago
Oh sure. But with ethical/political questions, you can keep going round and round forever with new arguments because there's no hope of ever reaching a final settlement.
AI capabilities are largely a straight empirical question. We can know exactly where AI will stand 10 years from now. We just have to wait 10 years to find out.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
28d ago
Funny, I was just looking at this a few minutes ago.
What do you think of this current crop of news?
Talking about AI, especially with regards to capabilities advancement, feels kind of pointless right now because the battle lines have clearly been entrenched. Any discussion of the shortcomings of current models or potential limitations of deep learning is met with "ahh, but just wait 1/5/10 years, then you'll be sorry!"
Very well then, let's wait 1/5/10 years. I'll check back in 2030.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
28d ago
I think if we're talking about the classical antecedents of modern leftism -- the anarchism of Proudhon, or the work of Marx and Engels -- I don't think that stuff can be described as anti-natalist or anti-life. I think the humanist tendencies in Marxism are generally underestimated and underappreciated by critics of Marxism. But it's clear that now, today, there's a strong link between anti-natalism and leftism: you can't have kids because it's destroying the environment, you can't have kids because it's racist and colonialist, etc.
It's harder to think of examples of anti-life attitudes on the right. Maybe you could talk about the sorts of Gnostic and neo-Platonist Christian sects that were popular in late antiquity and the early middle ages: you must abhor the flesh, abhor reproduction, abhor pleasure. But were they really "rightist" just because they were religious? Does religion automatically make you a rightist? Or is the left/right spectrum inadequate to describe their views?
And then there is Nietzsche [...] he probably would not have found it that hard to get married and have kids if he had really wanted to.
Nietzsche was by most accounts what we would call, in modern parlance, a "weirdo autist". His few romantic advances towards women were rejected. (Famously, a woman named Lou Salomé spurned him in favor of their mutual friend Paul Rée.) Allegedly he was once alone with a prostitute and he fled from the room when she exposed her genitalia, although that story may be apocryphal. In his later years he seems to have consigned himself to the fact that he wasn't marriage material:
"Which great philosopher, so far, has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer – were not; indeed it is impossible to even think about them as married. A married philosopher belongs to comedy, that is my proposition: and that exception, Socrates, the mischievous Socrates, appears to have married ironice, simply in order to demonstrate this proposition."
In the opening pages of Twilight of the Idols, he addresses your central question directly:
"You really have to stretch out your fingers and make a concerted attempt to grasp this amazing piece of subtlety, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, who are an interested party, a bone of contention, even, and not judges; not by the dead for other reasons. - It is an objection to a philosopher if he sees a problem with the value of life, it is a question mark on his wisdom, an un-wisdom.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
-- Lenin
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
I don’t know enough Aristotelian (I assume) philosophy to speak fittingly in terms of essences, properties, and qualities
No background in Aristotle needed. The word "quality" is just being used in its ordinary sense. Intelligence is a quality. Beauty is a quality. Nothing fancy going on.
But I can point out that in Christian belief all men possess the image of God, which gives them value in itself
Sure. But then, all people would be the same in that regard. Love has to single out a particular person (or a particular thing) in contradistinction to others.
In my own view, universal love is at worst incoherent, and at best it's a particularly tepid form of love. There is no love unless you can draw a distinction between those who are loved and those who are unloved; and so universal properties shared by all people cannot be the basis of love.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
Recently from Slavoj Zizek: THE POPE IS DEAD, ANTI-CHRIST IS ALIVE AND KICKING
I'm curious what the actual (theistic) Christians here think of Zizek's "Christian atheism" and his conception of Christian love.
More precisely, in the Scriptures there are four terms for love: eros (sexual love), storge (parental/familial love), philia (asexual affection/friendship), and agape (the unconditional love that unites individuals who dedicate their lives to a Cause). At the level of agape, feelings (sexual or not) no longer matter; what remains is just the Holy Spirit, an egalitarian community of comrades dedicated to a Cause. Terry Eagleton, a Catholic Marxist, was right: agape should be translated as political love. As a comrade, I can involve myself sexually with another comrade, I can become his or her friend, but this doesn’t really matter: if the situation of a struggle demands it, I should be ready to betray him or her, because only the Cause matters. And if my comrade is a true comrade, he or she will fully understand me and even despise me if I allow any weakness for him or her to overcome my fidelity to the shared cause and am not ready to betray him or her. My position here is that of Louis Althusser, who in 1980 gave an interview to Italian TV in Rome, where he said:
“I became a Communist because I was Catholic. I did not change religion, but I remained profoundly Catholic. I don’t go to church, but this doesn’t matter; you don’t ask people to go to church today. I remained a Catholic, that is to say, an internationalist universalist. I thought that inside the Communist Party there were more adequate means to realize universal fraternity.”
I don't expect Christians today to be lining up to join the local Communist Party. It is my view that, more often than not, actually-existing communist movements have been little more than a thin veneer of respectability over the ambitions of power-hungry sociopaths. But isn't there still a kernel of truth here? Isn't there something, as was articulated in last week's discussion, "quasi-communist" about Christianity? Is not the doctrinal communist ideal -- the universal fraternity of man, sacrifice for those who are in need, "the last shall be first" -- ultimately just an expression of universal Christian love? Should Christians not view communists as fellow travelers who are correct about certain fundamental principles, but misguided on method?
[...] That’s why love should be paradoxically commanded. “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you” (John 15:12). The key resides in the last words: “as I have loved you”—here the vanishing mediator is located. Padre Nogaro is right to emphasize that true love is not mediated, that it links us directly to a neighbor. I would only add that this is why Christ is a vanishing mediator: only through Christ as a vanishing mediator can we love our neighbor directly, without mediation. At its highest, love is not a spontaneous feeling (which, of course, cannot be commanded); it is a practice of how I deal with others. True love is cold, not sentimental. To attain true love, we have to reach beyond humanism: even loving all of humanity directly is not enough—Christ has to be here. Why? Because we are fallen.
There is a certain basic paradox that presents itself when one begins to interrogate the concept of love: do you love me for who I am, substantially, in essentia, or do you love me for my qualities and properties? You say that you love me because I'm smart, because I'm funny, because I'm beautiful; but suppose that I were not smart, nor funny, nor beautiful. Would you still love me then?
Either horn of the dilemma presents an issue. If your love for your beloved is contingent on them possessing some particular quality, then you are liable to the charge that you don't really love the person: what you really love is that quality. You are a lover of intelligence, or humor, or beauty, but not of that particular person. But if you say that you would continue to love the person regardless of any qualities they possess whatsoever, even if they were stripped of all qualities and left only as a "bare particular", then it would seem that your choice is entirely arbitrary and without justification; for what could be motivating your choice if it is made in the absence of all qualities? And a baseless arbitrary choice cannot constitute love either. The conclusion we draw is that, if there is such a thing as "love" at all, it belongs to the domain of the unsayable.
Thus Zizek suggests that true love should be "cold" rather than "sentimental". Powerful sentiments suggest that one is fixated too strongly on the secondary qualities of the object, rather than the obligation of love proper. Love is seen to have an almost Kantian character: the bloom of pleasure is a stain on the perfect austerity of duty. Christ is then interpreted as the formal condition of possibility that both binds us to this duty and makes its realization conceivable; Christ must not be "made into a direct object of love who can compete with other objects", for otherwise "things can go terribly wrong". (In particular, it opens the door to transactional thinking; if He Himself told you that all of humanity was saved, but you alone were damned; would you still love him? Would you still love him even if he wasn't living up to "his end of the bargain"? An authentic conception of Christian love has to confront this possibility.)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
I think covid proved that the majority of humans are in fact very easy to persuade. You don't even need to present any particularly persuasive arguments, you just need to be able to credibly present your position as the social consensus. So it's not just a "redditor" thing.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
There's always an unsavory character using it at the same time as me, but absolutely nothing has ever happened.
And then there are some of us who have been violently assaulted in front of our own homes by precisely these same unsavory characters.
Not that I'm saying that having or not having experienced this or that personal anecdote gives one special epistemic privilege when it comes to policymaking. I'm just saying that violent crime is in fact a real thing that people can have legitimate concerns about.
I get that cars are convenient and make people feel powerful and in control, but they impose such a big negative externality on the rest of us non-car users (pollution, taxes, use of public space, not to mention the very large amount of deaths caused by accidents, far higher than that caused by urban villainy on public transit)
Perhaps you need to learn to be a bit more inconvenienced and uncomfortable?
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
It depends on what you're looking for and what your interests are.
I've been part of a lot of tight-knit communities in /vg/ over the years, where we play games together, watch streams together, etc. I've made actual friends based on our shared interests in certain games. Lots of very memorable anime watch-alongs on /a/.
/pol/ was a magical place during the 2016 election, and also during early 2020 at the start of covid, although it's declined a lot since then. But even then I still check the Ukraine threads there sometimes.
I agree that TheMotte is a very valuable and unique forum. Certainly the highest IQ general-purpose forum I've ever encountered on the internet. There's no other place where so many people are willing and able to speak eloquently and at length about politics/philosophy from an anti-woke perspective (you can discuss similar topics on 4chan's /lit/ and /his/ boards, but the level of discussion doesn't match what you get here). But I still feel that ultimately, TheMotte would be easier to replace and there are more alternative venues that serve similar functions for me. 4chan occupies a very unique place in internet culture that nothing else could ever fully replace. A lot of small indie projects that eventually got big, started out with just word of mouth on 4chan. It's the central communication network of the counter-culture; it's the last major online forum that isn't fully controlled by the mainstream narrative.
Basically, TheMotte is like a beloved local pub, whereas 4chan is Renaissance Florence. If I had to choose, I'd rather sacrifice the pub than the whole city.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
Nah it doesn't say anything bad about you. 4chan is great. An anon put it exactly right the day the site came back: "I feel like you guys are more spiritually pure than normies."
I love TheMotte, but it theoretically could be replaced. There are lots of smart people in the world who you can have smart people discussions with. But there's only one 4chan.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
The philosophical foundations of culture war issues are also considered culture war material.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
What's good writing to you?
Much like pornography, I know it when I see it.
What do you just hate?
There are certain works of art that cause one to lose faith in art as such. You have to just get away from them, or they end up dragging you down and making you doubt yourself. I suppose, if we can speak at all of "hatred" for ink on a page, it would be all the writing that induces this feeling.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
DEI seems to be viewed more favorably than not.
I mean, yes? Duh?
DEI is racial spoils politics for non-whites. And, to some degree, depending on context, spoils for white women as well. People like it when you give them free stuff. The majority of people alive are not white men. So, most people by default will be predisposed to viewing DEI pretty favorably. And a lot of white men have been convinced that it’s a good thing too, even though it actively and explicitly harms them. So that tilts the scales even more.
It takes a rather strong principled ideological commitment to arrive at the position that DEI is a bad thing, so it’s unsurprising that it’s a minority view.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
So… you think Chinese parents would all be fine with trans books for 8 year olds?
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
Philosophy is “because I said so”.
Religion is “because my God said so”.
Rightly or wrongly, more weight has historically been accorded to the latter.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
I don't think that suggesting that the SCOTUS should have the power to summarily execute people (because that's what his suggestion amounts to) counts as being "mellow and less of a firebrand".
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
the Trump administration seems to be refusing to comply with a 9-0 Supreme Court order to bring back a specific deported immigrant.
The administration was ordered to “facilitate” his return. That’s different.
It’s unclear why SCOTUS should be able to order the president to take a citizen of El Salvador, who is currently residing in El Salvador, and bring him to the US. What if El Salvador just doesn’t want to give him up? Given these facts, it’s reasonable to read “facilitate” as “facilitate only to the extent possible”.
Even SCOTUS has limits on their powers. I don’t think we should expect them to be able to order the president to bomb another country, for example. Their power diminishes rapidly outside of US borders.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
Season 2 was funny in a so-bad-it’s-good way. I watched it with a friend and we had a great time memeing on it.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
Saya is only a few hours long, so it’s a low risk investment!
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1mo ago
You wrote this as a pretext for asking Dean to finally explain what his ideology is, didn’t you?
Nah, no way. Otherwise they wouldn't, you know, spend so much time having sex with men, often times in semi-public places (bathhouses, orgies, etc) where they also watch other men interact sexually with each other as well.
More options
Context Copy link