@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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."

All wives are trophy wives

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.

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?

Firstly I will say I don't have a camel in this race because I don't care much what two strangers do to each other. I don't think Israel is Good but its tough to convince me they're Bad:

It seems to boil down to: (1) they're bad allies to the US; (2) they treat their enemies as enemies. Now I will grant you (1), since you're probably right and I don't care either way. But I'd like to push back on (2).

So Israel is Bad for valuing one citizen over a hundred Arabs. Does Gaza value the life of a Jew equally to one of its citizens? Does Iran? I haven't researched what Gazans and Iranians think of Jews, or read anything their governments say about various attacks and grievances. I have however seen some Gazan propaganda television teaching their kids to hate Jews, so I know where I'd put my money.

Finally, I agree with you that Iran and Palestine are entitled to take their revenge on Israel. It seems Israel already thinks their enemies want that anyways. So, I also don't begrudge Israel turning their neighbors into glass. Actually I'm quite impressed with their restraint.

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

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.

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 think people are giving money to her because she called someone nigger. I certainly don't get money when I do that. I think people are giving her money because she was put into the crosshairs of the Low Orbit Cancellation Cannon.

That is to say, the child isn't the antagonist, that would be Omar. I almost included a sentence here condemning what she did, but I realized that it would be off-topic.

Yes, mine is in fact a one-dimensional analysis that eschews any kind of nuance in favor of a simple protagonist-antagonist narrative. I am just following their lead!

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.

Let's assume videogames and porn do not satisfy the reportable (conscious) mind as well as sex does, such that everyone agrees sex is much, much better. Could it still be that they satisfy the mechanistic actuating drive (chemicals and what not) just as well, so that it is still right to say porn and videogames obviate the need for sex?

The "You also value my property more than your life" meme but its Israel aiming a missile reading "You also value my citizens more than your own"

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

Destructive how? Presumably methamphetamine destroys the body, or is gross, so I should not do it. I suppose if someone is in a social circle with enough social pressure then it might be worth the tradeoff to partake though (see also alcohol).

Being selfish and NEET on the other hand doesn't seem as obviously destructive. Maybe the kids would think so if they replaced the anti-drugs PSAs with anti-Fortnite ones.

Saying he "reposted" a swastika seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch. Matt replied to a guy's tweet. (The guy could have been a troll, whatever).

Arguments over if Matt noticed the swastika; and if not, should he apologize; are all assuming that the swastika imagery has some sacred evilness that means Matt needs to drop whatever he's doing and point it out and condemn it. He doesn't. You know those silly Facebook engagement bait posts that say, "children of the Devil will scroll past this" and its a picture of Jesus or whatever?

This whole swastika discourse is just the libtard version of that. Matt scrolled past a picture of Jesus and people are hounding him over it. I guess you're right that he is flaunting the norms. I wish he'd make a Shiloh-tier video about this instead of just putting out the one tweet.

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."

I did not read the entire discussion in detail and only skimmed it. I guess the other poster at some point admitted his "evidence-based-belief" in materialism is in fact just social consensus vibes? If so then that is a helpful example of "science-belief" as social consensus.

In light of your testimony that your axioms changed, the entire discussion seems even more relevant now, so thank you. I've noticed, and so have others -- in fact IIRC your interlocutor for that discussion pointed this out rudely -- that the Motte has more religious posters than Scott's blog or the original CW Roundup threads ever had. I skimmed your recent post history to double check my gut. This also helps explain why you think Materialism is controversial. My central examples of controversial Science would be recent, like the importance of BLM protesting to health; or would be controversial-according-to-me, like that race is just a social construct or whatever.

Is Noticing Science, Inc.'s political capture the reason why you you're Christian then?

And as you grow older and realize that Science actually has a lot of flaws and lies quite a bit, you lose confidence/faith in their answers.

I think I understand now, thanks for saying it with more words.

This reminds me of the back and forth between Robin Hanson and Scott on the effectiveness of medicine. I tried tracing the conversation but it involves links to so many papers and blog posts that I couldn't find the exact quote in a timely manner. But Hanson said (or Scott had speculated) that the real reason people go to doctors isn't because medicine is effective, but because doctors are the local culturally-respected authorities about health.

I think that's right because ancient peoples and uncontacted tribes today obviously go to their local culturally-respected authorities, too. And if our local culturally-respected authorities do happen to be effective (let's assume), that fact doesn't necessarily correlate with the true reason we go to them.

(I wrote this before I saw the other reply to me, so I feel good that I am understanding the discussion)

There is a kind of liberal sneer that groups QAnon, a rejection of the liberal political order, and science-denial as a Trumpian mind-virus. If science-believing really is just social signaling, would you say that cluster really is correlated, and we will be seeing more of that? (Ignoring the value-judgement of the sneering)

Yes, some people assume materialism from a position of faith. Other people make no such assumption. I was more interested in why someone would change their axioms based on seeing the politically-compromised Science-as-Institution, since that was the literal reading I took from the OP. Maybe the OP was not trying to draw a causal arrow and was just doing the Journalist thing putting words together in a vaguely grammatically correct way.