PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
This post is definitely a nu-Scott post: It's unclear, short, and boring. His bottom line is that violence (so far it seems) would not help make anything better. It is so short he didn't exactly argue why (not that I disagree with him). Whatever part of his audience he is trying to persuade, I am not sure how this is supposed to do it.
If I squint, I can kinda extract a Scott-like interpretation, but it's not particularly insightful: he argues that Fascist is just a boo-word, and so premise #1 isn't even factual in the first place (this also explains why he doesn't even attempt to argue that its true). Having defused the word that provides moral cover, the one is left to "show their work" that things are so bad that violent revolution is necessary. Unfortunately, Scott didn't stoop into the object-level of ICE taking people off the streets or whatever so it won't be changing any minds. Probably, he doesn't know how to construct a verbal argument to pacify the militant anti-fascists that the wants to reach.
that both sides say extreme things and that both sides get indignant at the other does not prove the situation is symmetrical. How do you prove that someone is joking or if they are being serious?
Rendering counterfactuals is how I make decisions. How else am I supposed to know if it is a good idea to marry a girl, if I do not imagine our future? Unless, by "render" you literally mean visually generate an image? I admit perhaps seeing AI-generated counterfactuals could move me in a way reading your post didn't.
I think I am so thoroughly desensitized to my counterfactuals -- or I've never been in love -- that this kind of thing can't possibly make me more sad.
I did realize years ago though that this kind of reasoning is why -- I think -- I listen to edgy divorced dad rock. People project their own personality onto me and ask "doesn't that make you sad? You should listen to [pop-slop about lust, love, and status]." No, on the contrary, listening to Taylor Swift would just depress me.
What similar problems do drugs have? If videogames cause similar brain signals, aren't those basically drugs? Maybe it's my wrong-headed reductionism speaking, but the reasons why societies treat drugs differently seem like boring practical reasons, not high-minded spiritual ones.
A little offtopic, but has there been much discussion about why Marx's theory is called Materialist-Dialectic or whatever? The word "Dialectic" is almost exclusively used by (my) outgroup so I don't care much about what it means specifically -- much of its use is probably shibboleth. Why the word "Materialist?" That Marxists do not believe in God seems unimportant to me. You might as well call wokeness Materialist, or the Nurture Hypothesis also Materialist. Is it too uncharitable if my first instinct is that it is the same phenomenon as postmodern writing appropriating physics terms? That is, using the term "Materialist" makes Marxism sound descriptive and scientific? This wouldn't surprise me, especially since my read of the discussion here is that LTV seems obviously like a moral prescription.
Slightly more on-topic, I think Zagrebbi is more correct than Cofnas. We actually went over this a few weeks ago. The deleted comment in this thread originally linked to here. Perhaps the equality thesis has not been falsified already. But if it ever were, I fully expect those facts to be memory-holed.
I guess that means we should expect the actual undoing (if it should ever happen) of woke will be mocking it and making it low status (somehow? This is left as an exercise to the reader).
People got mad at WC for 1 sentence. His sin was failing to flatter our sacred sensibilities about race. That sentence was NOT saying "outsiders [to White society] are bad" it was saying "outsiders [to the family] are bad." The traditional deference to race is to triple-proofread your post to ensure it can't be misinterpreted in a bad way.
AT and (to a lesser extent) BC write paragraphs of emotion-slop that shouts the vibe on a neon sign. As far as I know, nobody is misinterpreting what they say though. Indeed, with AT and BC often time the vibe is the point.
We may take your "genocide" observation and ask: why discomfort with white solidarity manifests in calling its repugnant feuds "genocide."
I wonder if the focus on white solidarity truly is misguided. Indeed, as we have seen this year, accusations of genocide are not exclusive to white people. (Depending on if you think Jews are racial shapeshifters, I guess)
I still haven't a clue why specifically the discomfort some of the time. It probably is different for different people. For many, I imagine the colonialism and power imbalance really is a big deal. For someone like Toruk, obviously it isn't. Others still are surely just reciting tribal deepities.
Is he? Cofnas implies that facts will persuade EHC to flip sides, and Auron is saying facts and arguments have failed to do that. Is there an objective debate moderator who can determine if Cofnas is right because evidence wasn't presented; or if Auron is right because the evidence was presented, and ignored?
You're right that Auron does not give an alternative plan to co-opt EHC, but do you have one?
Yes, discomfort with white solidarity often manifests as labeling it "racism," but it's not clear this can said to be a cause.
An example cause: Historically, white solidarity has lead to genocide, so people are uncomfortable with it.
Very perceptive of you. Yes, Toruk is mixed I think, so any racial solidarity movement would exclude him.
Probably the reason he is obsessed with white identitarians is not that they are currently powerful, but that they are up-and-coming. Also, its probably the only actual racial identitarian movement in US politics that anyone talks about. I'm not even sure you can say woke is properly a racial identitarian movement, since it makes concessions to a long list of non-racial coalition groups.
The traditional meaning of "Trophy wife" (something like "someone married as a status symbol instead out of love") implies a false dichotomy. Or at least, it ignores the fact that a man gains status by having a wife. I would maintain that an alone Jeff Bezos is lower status than one with a suitable wife.
All wives are trophy wives
It's not even clear to me how that fantasy is supposed to work. If I'm a pro football player, who is the female equivalent? If I'm a programmer, who is the female equivalent? If I'm scrawny, who is the female equivalent?
The purpose of inventing the term "emotional labor" is to justify why nurses etc. deserve more wages or more status. It would be strange for them not to be complaining about it
My guess is he (and others?) consider 'traditional conservative sexual morality' to be the female-biased opposite of Hookup Culture. They would describe it as men giving commitment to women for a long time and the woman not putting out. Presumably, this is what the substack author would want.
Of course, you and I both know that's a secular perversion of the Christian sexual morality. Isn't the actual Christian sexual morality the middle ground where couples move from "no commitment, no sex" into "commitment and sex" in one fell swoop?
We might call her a "sex-communist," although I prefer "sex-conflict-theorist." Specifically, the faction that advocates for the woman's class interest is feminism. I think she has all her facts right, too. I didn't get through the entire article (or her first one) but I suspect I got the gist of it.
I admit I can't explain why "feminist" in the public imagination is sex-positive. Was it a shadow campaign by the Chadiarchy to trick woman into Hookup Culture? Did feminists falsely believe sex-positivity was in woman's interest?
Assuming (for the sake of this question) that the end goal of this administration is to establish a type of authoritarianism where people are kidnapped and disappeared because of vocal opposition to the regime, what should be the response by the opposition that would want to prevent that?
Maybe this is just my biased right-wing brain thinking, but my answer is the 2nd amendment. Government needs the ability to do violence, but it needs the people's overwhelming force to keep it aligned.
Private individuals should arm themselves. Officially, the opposition should expand private militia. If the government doesn't allow this, then the authoritarianism has already been established.
The right-wing in this case need not be emotionally attached to the language of "good-faith." Put simply, if today's movement quacks like yesterday's movement, then it's yesterday's movement. Today's movement must distinguish themselves from yesterday's movement if they wish the right-wing to compromise with them. An unwillingness to distinguish themselves is an admission that they are, in fact, yesterday's movement. Personally, I think "good-faith" is simply the name given to this concept, since as a show of good faith is the standard English phrase for what I am calling "distinguish."
Surely ICE deporting people is actually just normal? And everyone's overreacting because everyone's emotional setpoint has adjusted to the last administration.
Isn't "martial law" the US-equivalent of your list here?
I don't see how "consequences" is the right model here. The current administration (and future ones with the same goal) would enforce immigration law regardless of what Democrats do in power.
Unless harsh consequences is actually a thought experiment/answering the question? Do you have any ideas for harsh consequences?
Without a principled reason to assume materialism (the Sequences attempts to get that worldview across), we all have a simple and obvious knock-down argument against materialism: consciousness.
It is not to say that the Christian worldview is robust against evidence, just that materialism, like blank-slatism or any other axiom that Science, Inc. passes down to the laymen, is ultimately a matter of faith and not purely on the basis of evidence.
It seems a bit sad to believe his own wife loves him only in the way he believes in God (which is to say, not at all)
This reminds me of a comparison I made recently between faith and love, apparently not well-received by the audience.
The comparison is: "I don't believe in God like the way I believe in gravity. Likewise, I don't love my wife the same way I loved her when we were dating." That sounds terrible, and it's more romantic to label the tribal-fork "love" and the properties-fork something like "infatuation."
For me, the pleasure of the sex seems dependent on if I can bench press her or not. This reality means I haven't enjoyed having sex in years. It has nothing to do with not having any sex; or with not having new partners.
I will volunteer and raise my hand and say the reality is porn is just better than my sex. This also doesn't seem like my fault.
Edit since people are taking me very literally: sex does not include bench presses, instead it is a funny euphemism to mean, "i enjoy it if she is not obese." It has the added benefit of ironically warding off accusations that I should go to the gym more. If these women were as active as I am (and I've gone through cardio and weightlifting phases) then I would be able to bench press them.
limited by real social interactions
Come now, when you rig the game like this then of course porn is better than sex. I don't think that's under debate

hoesnormies. Since what is normal changes over time, you find that some signals and slogans will enter the mainstream and it is no longer necessary to code-switch. What we are witnessing is Vance's attempt to shift the Overton window (or perhaps evidence that it has already shifted). Violence has nothing to do with this, at all.More options
Context Copy link