fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I treat those as casual staff conferences. “Shut the fuck up! Btw, whose job is it to repair the copier on 2nd?”
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
You can’t complain that society turns against your ideas if you never bother to express them. You don’t get any points for secret thoughts, the purity of your internal morality. For other people and politicians, you are indistinguishable from a supporter, and bear the same responsibility.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Ah, it's in winter? Adieu skook. Seriously, don't do this. Go to donner lake, at least you can survive by eating your arms while you wait for the thaw.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Oh please, this entire thread is you enjoying them being trolled, even though you agree with them. You want them “squeezed” and humbled, for the crime of pretending to be your equal. You accuse them of hate, but how pure is your elite heart, amigo?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Simple: The noblesse oblige speech was always anachronistic bullshit( whether it came from him, cima or any other reactionary), but it is especially bullshit from Count, who not only does not feel obliged towards, but actively hates and resents the lower classes of his western host country.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Oh, I believe some are, the opposite would be surprising. But as you say, antisemites are stupid, their opinions tired and not worth discussing. But there's always some guy trying to bring them up.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I hope you’ve noticed what those countries have in common. The conclusion here is that every common man in the world is a decent ruler, with one exception. One muslim, one vote, one time.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I think killing an animal just for views is antisocial. Now if it’s a documentary on farm life, and perhaps they even eat dogs, that’s fine.
Who even defends the NAP? At this point it’s just a club to attack classical liberal opinions generally, who of course did not wait for the NAP to come into being. And said ideas do not need to be implemented wholesale, they usually work fine and debate well one-on-one on the issue du jour.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Yeah that was a tough one. I did put okay, because the not okay route runs into the problem of unenforceable thoughtcrime. There’s an ambiguity in seeing ‘okay’ as either the most commendable course of action, or just an act which does not require any kind of punishment.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Oh but I do strongly opine. Sorry, ‘a little bit okay’ is just okay. I could redo it, but the results would be those of a wishy-washy, incorrect version of me.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Care 83% Loyalty 17% Fairness 67% Authority 0% Purity 33% Liberty 100%
Your strongest moral foundation is Liberty. Your morality is closest to that of a Libertarian.
nice, 0 auth, 100 liberty. I did treat every question as binary. Didn't know I was that caring, but I guess if there's no cost involved, I technically care.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Neither Rommel nor Lee thought they were fighting to perpetuate evil
Disagree. I just stumbled across this survey, which says over 50% of americans agree with “we should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong.”Source . You’re constantly making it seem as if I’m imposing my 21st century morality on people, and who am I to say that my morality is correct etc . But lee and rommel , like the people in the survey, know they are perpetuating evil when they do it. Do you agree with them on the survey question, and if you do, how can you claim that valuing lee is valuing peace? They value neither peace, nor morality. I do.
Yes, it is a "both sides" argument, because no war I can think of has ever been a straightforward contest of Good vs Evil. If you believe that wars are commonly Good Guys vs Evil Guys
My point is, if you truly believe that there is no good side, the correct course of action is simply not to fight. Otoh, if there is a good side, the least you can do is not to fight against it.
I do not particularly value the right of blacks, women, or for that matter myself to vote, nor the right to vote in general.
I feel like the reason I can’t pinpoint your political position is that you’ve been cagey about what your position actually is. When I was defending the Enlightenment and classical liberalism during our discussions, I asked you more than once, ‘so are you an absolutist monarchist then, a theocrat, an anti-enlightenment reactionary? ‘ , and you just refused to answer, content to take potshots at other positions and implying that there was an undefined third way. You often present and act as an ally of @HlynkaCG ’s, who sees himself as a besieged supporter of the american republic, a position incompatible with the one you take here.
As I understand it, your position is that I could in good conscience join in on the bombing of New York City, or I could stand aside and do nothing, but defending New York City would be straightforwardly evil; they've embraced and perpetuated evil, and they'll continue to do so if they aren't defeated, so fighting for them is unconscionable, correct?
No. First, I don’t understand why the ‘good’ side in your hypothetical is killing civilians by the millions. I don’t endorse that, it’s pretty much the worst thing you can do. That kind of atrocity reverses the moral polarity. So it’s fine to fight for the new yorkers. I think you should consider the possibility that you have misinterpreted my position. Condemning lee does not imply crushing “evil” by any means necessary.
Of course in our real-life examples, in the civil war no one was doing that, and in WWII it was the ‘bad side’, rommel’s side, which was doing it. That’s why I called your hypothetical a convenient, massive stretch.
To illustrate my moral position on the killing of civilians, I think Hiroshima was justified because an invasion or just a blockade of Japan would have caused even more civilian deaths. And for examples of the failures of monarchy, and of the worship of a monarch’s authority as the impersonation of the state, you don’t need to look further than the staggering incompetence and casual evil of such figures as Nicholas II, Victor Emmanuel III, and, especially, Hiro Hito.
No one could accuse the japanese of not valuing “honor”, duty to their fatherland, and obedience. And yet, even the crimes of a stalin pale in comparison to theirs. So contra your ‘the honor and obedience that you scorn are to me hard-won social technologies that ward off an unspeakable array of atrocities‘, those social technologies have not only failed to ward off that unspeakable array, they contributed to it. While it is true that some atrocities have been committed for morality, people have done at least equally terrible things for god and country. And at least the moral man thinks about what he's doing and gives himself a chance to catch a mistake, instead of blindly obeying orders 'whether it is right or wrong'.
If you aren't concerned with racism and the legacy of slavery, why do you care about Lee at all?
I told you why, because of the analogy to rommel, to the Imperial japanese army , and to the butchers of WWI. Lee’s defense is rommel’s defense.
I have no problem heaping scorn on their political leadership; Davis and his associates were very fortunate not to have been hanged.
I reject this political-military distinction, every man bears his own cross, he doesn’t get to pass it on to the president/ Führer because he wears a uniform. He’s not a responsible moral actor in one sphere, and an irresponsible tool in another. Somehow a common southerner should be condemned for his political decisions, but praised for his actions as a soldier? The decision to fight is eminently political.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
OP is not going to defend his statements, he never does. OP is actually far right and I'm sure he thanks you for your service. You just keep walking into it, people.
Yeah even the quokka stuff was lame. You have to be pretty limited to take a worthless insult and go: right, all these other guys in my group are like that, I’m the cynical player who sees the matrix.
edit: Although I was once entertained by one of HP's depressed paranoid ramblings.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Of course he was extremely unpleasant generally, but I felt you were kinda reducing it to: he wasn’t showing the girls proper consideration, therefore he couldn’t get laid, as if that was the true measure and cause of all things.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
They generally don’t go out, be assholes, and then come back saying that being an asshole doesn’t work. They just stew in the belief that they would be successful if they were assholes. And I have to defend their view again a bit here.
To be successful, they’d have to play the social game, which is essentially zero sum. So they’d have to step on a few toes, clip a few wings on their way to the social middle. Very social, inherently high status people can get to and maintain their righteous place in the social hierarchy with minimal breakage, but that’s not in the cards for the bitter rejects we’re talking about here. They’d have to crudely beat up on some other losers and social inferiors just to get to the social center.
That's just how the game is played, you have to say 'me first' a little.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Sometimes, often, they genuinely aren't assholes though. It's just that their way of not being assholes is not attractive. And that's okay. It's not women's responsibility, anyone's responsibility, to reward kind unassuming people with sex. But from a just world theory standpoint you can’t say that, so the demonizing and counter-demonizing follows.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Ah yes they must have sensed it. It’s the old vaginatron morality detector versus women like assholes theory. I will say that nastyness towards social inferiors is not disqualifying men as sexual partners. I think both sides overrate morality as a factor in sexual success.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
They fought to preserve the lives and prosperity of millions of their tribe, despite the fact that their tribe was committing a great evil
Right, they failed, and if they had succeeded, it would have perpetuated a great evil. Hence my question: what decent man would fight and kill his countrymen for that payoff matrix?
This is not because we are moral relativists, but because we recognize that all societies contain significant amounts of evil and injustice, and that attempts to solve large-scale injustices can have absolutely horrific unintended consequences, especially when those attempts bulldoze positive-sum norms.
This is a ‘both sides’ argument for refusing to fight in any war, it doesn’t justify lee and rommel’s actions.
Really what bothers me the most is the complacency with which otherwise decent men said ‘let’s go to war then’, over their own moral reservations (not mine!) . It would be of great benefit to humanity if the ideas they used to justify it (‘honor’ and duty to your state) would decrease in prestige so that this never happens again.
I do consider them traitors, but not in a formal sense, not to a state (as I said I care very little about duty to the state when it conflicts with morality). No, to their own conscience, to the side of good, to which their natural inclinations would have guided them without the aforementioned memes. If rabid nazis or the southern gentlemen culture which supported the caning of senatur sumner goes on an evil path, that’s business as usual, I expect that. But good men were not supposed to follow them there.
So have yours and Hlynka's.
In what way?
Cthulu swims left, and your opinions and Hlynka”s are considerably more progressive than that from an an american from 70 years ago, let alone grant and lee. Examples: blacks and women’s right to vote, your views on misgeneation , homosexuality, personal freedom, what constitutes fighting words, etc.
If the anti-abortion side is credibly threatening to bomb New York City into the stone age, are my choices either to join them or to sit it out, or might I conceivably conclude that their ends aren't worth their means, and fight against them?
So the north are now terrorists killing millions of civilians unprompted. This is how ridiculously far you have to stretch your analogies to maintain your defense of lee.
And likewise, Abolitionism resulted in a civil war where the deaths were front-loaded
That's one way to frame it. Is abolitionism alone to blame for the civil war? If friends Jack and Joe get into a fistfight over a disagreement, it's not Jack's fault alone for disagreeing. Both chose to escalate. And sure they were both equally insulted, their honor was on the line. And perhaps it would have been better if they'd bury the hatchet and avoided bloodshed. But if Jack was morally right, he had no duty to yield first.
But your preferred outcomes didn't happen in the North either, because your theories are in fact wrong. Slavery and Racism are bad in and of themselves, and we are well-rid of them, but they are not the reason why Blacks More Likely. You don't want to admit that your theories are wrong, or that you have no idea what to do now, and so you attempt to scapegoat those different from yourself.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Did you confuse me with somebody else? I never implied slavery and racism make blacks more likely, you and I have discussed HBD and other possible causes of black underachievement. Do I also refuse to admit that resisting the nazis was wrong and that their victory would not have changed anything?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
That's right. For an example, see the nordic model of prostitution. Only the buyers are punished . It's clearly sex negative, even though the women are "free to engage in sex work without being punished".
This approach to criminalising sex work was developed in Sweden in 1999 on the debated radical feminist position that all sex work is sexual servitude and no person can consent to engage in commercial sexual services.[7] The main objective of the model is to abolish the sex industry by punishing the purchase of sexual services.
Notably, the National Organization for Women supports it.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I find your present idyllic view of our elders difficult to reconcile with your callousness towards them during covid, which was basically, why should society care at all about the economically unproductive?
Not only am I less anti-free-speech than the woke, I'm more honest than the median non-woke. What is your actual objection, and why do you think some other plan is going to do better?
Are you accusing me of dishonesty? My objection is simply that you support censorship in many cases where I don’t, the woke support even more, and Hitler pol pot medieval popes and stalin even more. Your equivocating about how seemingly universal and eternal censorship is can’t obscure this simple fact.
To put it very reductively, Lee and Rommel are valuable because they contained both the competence to control armies, and the character to restrain them, to keep the scale of conflict bounded.
You know what would have kept the conflict truly bounded? If honorable competent men hadn’t fought for the losing evil side.
I'm uncomfortable calling WWII bounded from the german side. If rommel had been a vile sadist, it would perhaps have resulted in a few hundred more dead POWs, puny in the grand scheme of things. Whereas his competence, and that of lee, killed thousands of enemy soldiers directly (without getting into the 'prolonging the war' aspect, which is counted in hundreds of thousands, and tens of thousands respectively).
I rather doubt that your personal definition is both a) rigorously consistent, and b) capable of being popular enough to get itself implemented and enforced at scale. Assuming I'm wrong, you should find like-minded people to form a community with, and enforce the rules as you see fit within that community.
I think I'd rather find a community of somewhat like-minded people, and try to explain to them why my universalist moral system has the best results, and why their particularist, small-minded view of morality doesn't make sense.
Failing that, if there has to be a single rule that is enforced on everyone, I think it should be my rules.
But which rules? If you, like arjin, refuse to answer the fundamental moral question here (what lee and rommel should have done when they got their marching orders), there is no rule. Please realize that this is a different position than to argue that 'yes, they should have acted in accordance with their honor and do their duty, even if the cause was evil', which seems to be the "moral system of small decent things" you guys are gesturing towards.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
If they're still in good shape, the childless can keep doing what they'd been doing the previous 70 years of their life. I'm talking about the time where they can't look after themselves, let alone grandchildren. When they become a burden, the fact that they can have their children share that burden is not really a plus. Maybe you haven’t experienced old age dementia. People who can’t walk ten paces unassisted without falling, who have no idea what you’re talking about most of the time, and who linger for years in pain and confusion.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Technically Hlynka's salad also lumps in all of the center, social democrats, neoliberals, classical liberals, in with the wokes and reactionaries. Basically it's just him, the ghost of hobbes, and the soul of america, versus everyone else.
I must still be missing context, because that protester seemingly equates the rerouting of a parade with genocide.
More options
Context Copy link