@Tanista's banner p

Tanista


				

				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 11:38:24 UTC

				

User ID: 537

Tanista


				
				
				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 11:38:24 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 537

Did Hamas debunk the "Bronze Age Mindset"?

There has been a lot of discourse among the American Right about the recent Hamas attack on Israel. This specific attack has caught this attention of the "vitalist Nietzschean" sphere of the Right, often followers of Bronze Age Pervert.

This sphere is known to be against moralizing and all "slave morality" coming from either the liberal establishement, the left or religion. An example of this would be the meme culture of the BAP sphere, which openly celebrates murder, rape and death. However, with an ironic twist of reality, Hamas is precisely getting accused of what these BAP rightists vitalists uphold. But when they are faced with Hamas's "barbarian vitalist attack" on Israel, utilizing non-modern warfare techniques, they suddenly all cowered out.

All of the BAP sphere has stopped celebrating "vitalism" when it came to Israel. This is because it is now "low IQ Muslims" that do it. It is very clear that Islam challenges the ontological foundations of the Nietzschean worldview. They can not explain Hamas on their terms.

Since you are forced by the rise of the world market to take a position (the American people's money is going into this), the Nietzschean BAP sphere can not say anything. They are practically rendered politically irrelevant. Thus, their position is reduced to fence-setting or straight zionism, a position completely and utterly in line with the political establishement in America. All of this to claim to be "right-wing dissidents". All of the rejection of moralizing now became an endorsement of moralizing. BAP openly retweeted a post denouncing "the rape & genocide" of Hamas (unproven by the way) while he himself, a couple days earlier, celebrated the killing of a leftist journalist saying it turned him on.

This reveals a huge hole in BAP's worldview. A gap between his "complete surrendering to natural instinct" and "transcendetal Platonist moralizing". He has now suddenly decided to start moralizing! He has found the exception to his Nietzscheanism! This single event has proven the complete bankruptcy of the Nietzschean outlook. It can never explain REVOLUTIONS, it can only react to it in its own moralizing sense through its metaphysical lense of "will to Power". It is fundamentally a whining ideology.

The Nietzschean outlook does not understand that high culture is only secondary to material harmony of society. Only when inherent tensions are solved in modernity can "high culture" be produced once again. Harmony is directly derivative of political & economic realities. Thus, taking the metaphysical lense of "will to Power" becomes non-sensical when faced with a pre-modern (non-aristocratic) revolutionary force. It is what creates (or destroys) aristocracy itself. Faced with the deep ancient Islamic spirit, the Nietzscheans have no answer. In the same way that the revolutionnaries of the 20th century rendered Nietzschean fascism politically useless (this was done by Mao and the creation of Neo-China), the same is happening with the new Hamas partisan. This is material Being asserting itself against ideology.

This has forced the online political sphere, specifically the Right, for a re-alignement. You either oppose the current political establishement (left-wing) or you support it (right-wing). BAP has chosen to support it.

The choice is clear.

Fundamentally, the scary thing about Trump is that he behaves as if American elections are kayfabe on top of an underlying system of raw power politics, and his supporters love him for it.

It's pretty strange to see so much discussion here about why liberals hate Trump - a lot of "sore loser" theory - without Democrats or progressives pushing back on why they think he's particularly norm-breaking.

It actually makes me worry about the skew of this site and if we left a lot of left-wingers back on Reddit.

It's not just that "Trump wasn't supposed to win". He violated a lot of norms - not just red and blue norms like unconditional support for the nominee - starting with not releasing his taxes and escalating to things like playing footsie with not acknowledging the outcome of the election.

THIS was the particular red rag that was theoretically avoidable by a generic GOP candidate (as opposed to being anti-immigration - or rather: anti-some immigration)

There is obviously a thing where liberals (this can be of the left AND right variety - especially if you look at Europe) conflate their particular politics with democracy and freedom as such - which is how things like populism, Brexit, being anti-immigrant all end up being marked as "dangerous" or threats to freedom - but, in this case, Trump tied the connection himself.

We don't even need to look at the lib reaction - look at some of Tucker's leaked texts from the Dominion case if you think this reaction is purely lib derangement at a "blue collar billionaire".

I also don't quite know how to fix this.

"˹O Prophet!˺ Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do."

The current trajectory is pointing towards boring adjustment, where even in exciting situations people consciously suppress their emotions and play it cool, which we already do in most other, especially work, situations.

Or stable and internalized norms will mean that people won't even consider that particular expression of their emotions, instead of it being a constant struggle to not do a certain thing.

Take the Sharia pill.

major marketing pushes are not "jokes".

Was it major though? Isn't this the exact sort of low-effort campaign influencers do all the time? It's one step above having a random "Instathot" pose with a bottle of Bang. It wasn't like he was the face of Bud Light on billboards.

I mean, it's still an ad and they're still responsible - would handing a can to a "racist" Instagram influencer get a pass? - and it was deeply unwise but I also see how this didn't even seem like a potential brand/career ender.

The reaction seems like the perfect storm of building resentment and an easy target for a boycott. Hard to predict.

so I have to suspect that "taking care of asylum seekers" is really a pretext for serving some other ideological belief, like "increasing diversity" or "destroying white hegemony" or "free market absolutism."

Or it's a product of post-war hangups: a bunch of people refused to take as many Jews as they could have, and they'll never be allowed to forget it (see the infamous "none is too many" from Canada)

Just as no one can attack the entire DEI infrastructure when faced with its extremism because doing so places you against the Civil Rights Act, people can't just dismiss the entire concept of asylum even though it's impossible to live up to the claims it makes (as you say: it's actually a suicide pact if taken to its conclusion) and it is used to basically smuggle in economic migrants by blurring the lines between them and asylum seekers (probably because they are blurred in the minds of the pro-migrant class)

Some people may simply be willing to pay some cost to live up their values, even though obviously there's more refugees than viable spots and their values simply cannot fully be implemented.

There's no norm that says "don't call on Russia to release hacked emails".

There is no law. Just as there is no law that you have to release your tax returns.

I think it's more of a stretch to claim there's no norm against calling for a foreign entity to help you win the election.

There isn't now though, that's for sure.

There certainly no norm against complaining that elections are rigged

Yet losing candidates are expected to congratulate their opponents and concede (it was noteworthy that Clinton didn't have a concession speech).

Again, less of an expectation with Abrams' thing + Biden pre-complaining about the midterms.

It's not a truth finding expedition being made in good faith, but rhetorical culture war.

I'm sorry, but Rufo of all people doesn't get to complain about this. He is engaged in an explicit political project, to win the culture war. In fact, despite all the seething, that's what's attractive about him: he knows this. No way he walks into a debate with Robinson and doesn't get the game.

If his counter was inadequate that's on him.

Islamic Republic of Iran was, for each person killed in 9/11, ordered

By a federal judge in New York.

Alex Jones lost in Connecticut.

Can we leave some room for regional variation as a thesis?

Because, tbh, this feels like the comparisons that Leftists do whenever one black person gets a lower sentence (or is harmed more) than some white person somewhere else. It's a large country with lots of laws, all sorts of reasons people could behave differently in different cases.

how do you refer to non-binary, anyway? "guy" is offensive, yes?

If they can commit a stereotypically male sex crime they can be referred to as a male is my view.

Because democracy isn't just an arbitrary principle, it's a political technology for nonviolent resolution of unrest. People who live in your country but don't vote can still riot, can still strike, and can still join insurgent groups.

Which is why the Gulf States are a hotbed of insurrection?

Trying to trap your opponent between heresy and concession is a dick move in my opinion.

Another way to frame it is "trying to find out your opponent's basic beliefs and how they interact . Which is essential to debate. Not even for "gotchas"; you have to know why Lance is pro-choice and why to even have a productive discussion.

It's Lance's fault he's so bad at organizing his beliefs that he trips when he has to consider them holistically.

As for whether it's "heresy": I mean, whose fault is it if your side considers it so? Not Tim's issue.

Personally I don’t think you can have a truly fair debate in any position where there’s an audience.

Maybe not. But we'll have to make do.

Why is it stated as self-evident even by supposed ideological dissidents like Hanania that romantically unsuccessful men are the only men holding so-called misogynistic views?

Because at least some scholars who study such men seem to think (e.g. William Costello) that they do tend to be more misogynistic (which, as pointed out, is different from them being the only misogynists)?

Standing up for the national anthem is culturally universal phenomenon

Nationalism isn't universal, let alone being for the national anthem of your (again, not a universal sentiment) country.

I'm sure there's some Irishmen who don't feel too kindly about the national anthem of the United Kingdom, for example. To this day iirc there are elected Sinn Fein members that'll never sit in government cause they can't accept the trappings of the UK government.

The official honest-to-God NATO account posted that. Not some third-rate dingbat functionary, like the execrable Karen Decker who posted about how Afghanistan needs more “black girl magic”. No, this is the public-facing voice of a war machine that controls hundreds of billions of dollars, and it decided that the best way to make its case to skeptical world was to spam references to media primarily targeted toward middle-schoolers.

Can't appeal to the dead white patriarchs , they're racist. Can't appeal to a defense of Christendom (even if that weren't verboten, Russia is still Christian), the only civilizational throughline left are platitudes we get from cultural consumption of deliberately watered down and simplistic media.

2.those civilizations were far more adept at social engineering, such that they could far more successfully integrate people like this into their social fabric and find roles for them which utilized their strengths and defanged their more dangerous and subversive tendencies.

You could argue it the other way: those personalities didn't exist because they were far less adept at social engineering.

The increase in modern state capacity has dovetailed quite well with the Rousseauian/early liberal impulse that society is responsible for many of man's ills and these ills can be cured with more intervention and the general optimistic view about the perfectibility of man.

The state today is ludicrously more powerful and has aided along major changes in daily life, so the thinking goes: why could it not just fix all those other endemic social ills like inequity in dating? Beyond that, modern systems' tolerance for deviance may allow these people to fit more appropriate niches than before*

I think this is silly for a variety of reasons, but I imagine that's a major factor in making people like the above who blithely assume enough "raising awareness" or "activism" will resolve any issue they don't like.

* It's hard to determine how much freedom merely releases people to do what they always would have wanted or creates new impulses they then mistakenly see as immovable

He's just also an asshole, whose idea of disagreement with people is just turning the "be a dick" dial up to 11.

I think @Fruck is looking at this from today's perspective with "SJWs" having the whip hand and making more and more deranged claims. So the assholishness of people like Dawkins and Amazing Atheist seem less important.

But they were assholes at the time and it mattered. There's "good" assholes - i.e. anally nitpicking expert types who don't care to "read the room" which is good. But there's also the "asshole"' in the more colloquial sense. Atheism had both, sometimes in the same person.

I recall AmazingAtheist engaging with Anita Sarkeesian before she was (in)famous and, instead of just "destroying her with facts and logic", going on a tangent about how she was broken because she was fidgeting. Even then, it seemed a bit fucked to me.

It's also worth remembering that Watson was actually relatively toned down compared to the absurd SA claims being made today, and the reaction was OTT and mocking. Watch the video, it's actually a relatively offhand thing and there was context; she stated that she had spoken about not liking this sort of thing in the conference which adds a point in her favor.

... All of you except for the one man who didn't really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because, at the bar later that night — actually at four in the morning, we were at the hotel bar, four a.m. I said I've had enough guys, I'm exhausted, going to bed, so I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" Um, just a word to the wise here, guys, don't do that. I don't really know how else to explain that this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at four a.m., in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I, don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I've finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualise me in that manner.

This wasn't a general puritanical thing like today. Nor did she try to humiliate him by naming like the recent video of a woman getting mad at a gym "creep" for staring. She explicitly says she had made her preferences clear here.

Then people like Dawkins jumped on it in an assholish way and this led to the other side responding (I can see how this was seen as male nerd rage and entitlement) and it became way bigger than it ever should have been.

"Democracy" when used in these contexts essentially means rule by the global professional managerial class.

"Democracy" is important to liberals insofar as they want the legitimacy that comes from allegedly representing the populace.

Once they have that they then go about tying the people up in all sorts of ways that actually prevent them expressing their will.

Where it differs is Christianity made the slave equal to the emperor whereas woke seems to want to put George Floyd above the POTUS and the black transvestite above George Floyd. A reverse pyramid instead of equality.

The last will allegedly be first in Christianity too, this is just pushed till the eschaton. Wokeness obviously doesn't have this luxury and so tries to make a theological claim manifest in politics, with ludicrous consequences.

The other thing is that it seems Christianity has a more substantive concept of the Good, which acts as a guardrail. The "meek" may nominally be praised (or at least seen as opportunities to display Christian charity) are not allowed to demand a blank cheque because there are other priorities.

Wokeness is a revolutionary ideology that almost celebrates not just the violation of old norms but the upcoming obsolescence of even previously progressive versions. Which leads to weird, unconstrained ideologies and outcomes.

Trump punishing and gutting establishment GOP leadership would do wonders for the rightwing and the GOP. Trump won because he saw a winning hand on the ground on a bunch of issues which were wildly popular but which both political parties were doing nothing about, e.g., Trade, Immigration, Wars. He was able to win because the GOP had been talking about those things-ish, for years and have done nothing at all to make them more in line with their voterbase.

He barely won. And, as others have said in this thread, it was arguably the case that any Republican candidate had an advantage on the ballot at the time.

Trump absolutely blazed a new trail.

But, truth is, we don't know how a neolib, "we love migrants now" (this was the suggested shift in the GOP's 2012 post-mortem iirc) would have done.

People can hold their nose and vote party line. Look at the Democrats; a lot of people prefer someone like Bernie but I think Trump putting three judges on the Court has broken a lot of sore loser/third party-adventurism.

Why? What's so worrying about it?

Because I don't want to be in an echo chamber - which splinter-sites of witches like this can be. It felt like the original motte was skeptical of a lot of woke points (since naturally wokes had a billion subreddits to hang around out) but you still got a pushback and back and forth. It is concerning if we've lost a lot of those people in the move.

Here we have a question of "why was Trump - the most polarizing figure in recent memory - hated?" and most of the answers seem to flow in one direction, as if it's obvious.

It's quite possible I'm just wrong and it is obvious. But it's concerning that something so divisive seems to swing in one direction.

EDIT: And yes, the fact that it's cutting against me may play a role. It's natural to not want to be outnumbered.

Also, how do you maintain your faith in democracy in the light of all the madness we could observe over the last 10 years?

Easy: I don't.

but it could well have been the accidental prototype that people picked up and ran with

I've seen others making similar claims in this thread and I think it reverses cause and effect. That brand of atheism was pushed by mainly urban, educated, cosmopolitan, secular humanist types, i.e. already progressive. If it represents anything it's just that they were more likely to be subject to those ideas earlier than the rest of us, they didn't spawn it.

"If you ask her out, what's the worst that can happen? She says no?".

I think there is a clear difference here: Watson didn't publicly humiliate the man or claim she was abused and she had allegedly made it clear beforehand that she didn't like being approached that way. Basically, she did say no.

Russia has no reasonable fear that NATO would launch some sort of land invasion of their internationally recognized territory because they have nuclear deterrent.

During and after the Cold War both powers had credible deterrent. Yet they maintained large conventional forces. Why, if war was so unthinkable? My take: so they didn't get pushed on the conventional front until they were trapped in a nasty nuclear dilemma.

As I said: nations don't like to take chances or give inches.

Proximity of missiles mattered way more in 1962 when nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs we're just getting started.

The US was ahead in missiles. There was no way the Soviets would "win". The Soviets weren't trying to "win" a nuclear exchange, they were trying to balance against Jupiter missiles in Turkey.

Kennedy knew this: IIRC there's record of him using that exact example to highlight how escalatory Russian behavior was and he was told "um...yeah, we did that". He had to have known why Russia wanted balance (not annihilation)

He...didn't change his mind. No inches.

Russia has a totally reasonable fear that NATO is in the process of turning them from a global super power into an impotent commodities provider

They're not a global superpower, though it flatters them to think they are. But yes, they are afraid of being knocked out of the ranks of the Great Powers.

That is a serious strategic fear. Wars have been fought for less and the US would raise holy hell it got knocked down to a Great Power, let alone out of those ranks altogether. Look at the absolute paranoid and forceful behavior it engaged in when it had marginal losses in the Cold War when some random Third World country flirted with communism (Which often harmed their own people more than anyone else)

Again: states don't like to give inches.

If the US can knock Russia down that far, they can try to knock them even farther down. While I'm sure there's a normative argument to the effect of "you deserve it" or "it wouldn't be necessary if Russia wasn't imperialist", states don't want to be at the mercy of other states if they can help it. Regardless of whether that state thinks it's more benevolent and knowing.

But I also think it's totally unreasonable for Russia to expect to remain a regional hegemon in light of it's economic weakness.

Maybe. As I said: I disagree less with the normative argument. But I don't think it says much about how Russians see this (the denial in the OP was about Russian perceptions of the threat - which is a very common thing, especially now )

What percentage of their earnings do you think average mega successful athlete/musician is keeping vs their agent and manager?

Interesting that I said record exec and you said manager.

One outcome of this is that you seem to be debunking my point by saying that agents and managers were likely acting in good faith but the rapper was negligent. But you really aren't because a manager and record executive are different. A record executive is, imo, widely accepted to have his own set of interests which intersect with making an artist successful but can diverge in other, crucial ways, while a manager is supposed to work for the interests of their lord.

Beyond that, another outcome is that you completely pass by my point that complaints about record executives are universal in the music business to tell a different story about ungrateful financial naifs blaming their managers.

Those people obviously exist, but the point is that everyone shares the same disdain here - even successful artists. Blacks just seem to get away more with making it racial. Though they seem to be running out their string now.

Nobody puts that into practice, not even MLK.

It was a mere rhetorical tool to guilt white people who might otherwise dismiss the issue as not their concern.

He's saying the same thing black conservatives have been saying for decades, that blame whitey, blame slavery, blame whatever you like, the real thing holding down black people today is a culture of apathy which tells them living on the edge of poverty is as good as they can get.

And I don't have any problem with that? The point is that what he actually, explicitly said is banal at best or stupid.

Kaepernick was also trying to make a similar sort of point. What a shame that he felt the need to use slavery eh?

You run into this with Kaepernick too where people defend him because he's attacking a group they like or they like what they believe is under his figurative speech I feel that the people defending both Kaepernick and Kanye are defending what they see as a nugget of a point in their ramblings and absurd comparisons.

I don't even disagree with many of those potential nuggets (empires do have systems to assimilate people and make them accept it, apathy is a thing, we today have been sapped of a certain amount of...I dunno, feeling of control over the destiny of our civilizations?). But that's not what Kanye said.

Black people on some plantations outnumbered whites.

At the time of Spartacus there was a huge glut of slaves. They rebelled. How did that go? Nat Turner rebelled. How did that go? Plenty of peasants around, yet often peasant revolts ended horribly.

The fact that any order comes up with social systems to take up some of the work of force doesn't mean that force isn't lurking, isn't a dominant consideration in people's minds or that force isn't actually effective.

This is giving me "why didn't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?"

I'm imagining us entering into a weird low-level equilibrium trap where the psychological differences remain but a combination of tech and laws (which already exist) make it so that we can't distinguish.

It's...going to be bad for everyone, like a form of societal face-blindness. We'd know people are doing things but we have no way to drill down on the group responsible.

Well..maybe not everyone. It really simplifies the DEI drive to find "women" for any job predominantly favored by men.