fuckduck9000
5mo ago
And jews for hitler was a thing, so there.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
ask them their relative opinion of the Wehrmacht vs. the Red Army.
Well who doesn’t love the germans. Those slavs could have taken solace in the fact that they would have starved to death in a very orderly manner.
The point is that people like you are known to turn non-evil causes into evil ones.
Which causes, slavery, nazism? Anyway, we are not even disagreeing on the sides here.
Obedience, a sense of duty, loyalty, professionalism, those things are not good in a vaccuum. When they are present in people who serve evil, they become evil. They make things worse. It is morally blind to evaluate Lee’s qualities as if he had served the good. Had he been a cowardly, dumb, lazy drunkard, thousands of lives would have been saved. His honor has been a net negative for humanity. He failed morally as very few people fail. A mean-spirited, sadistic soldier in his army only has a small fraction of the blood on Lee's hands, he's an angel compared to Lee.
It’s like Scott’s ‘asymmetric weapons’ concept. Obedience, or, say, loyalty to your home community, helps both Hitler and Roosevelt, it’s a symmetric weapon. Otoh, disobedience, ie, asking the question ‘am I really doing the right thing here, should I give my loyalty to this guy?” is asymmetric, it is more likely to help the good guy and harm the bad guy.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
or just let them have the buildings and reconvene elsewhere.
I can't tell if you guys are blinded by partisan bias or if you actually believe this. Might as well hand them your ‘monopoly on force’ card right there. What if they start putting people in ‘prison’ like the bolsheviks 1917? Just negotiate for their release by granting the rebels taxing rights over fisheries in northern maine?
And this from people who are vociferous supporters of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in any other context.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
The public has one strongly-held belief, like the practically unanimous consensus to not intervene in WWII against Germany.
That itself is in all likelihood a result of narrative-crafting by jews., since gentiles are apparently too stupid to have legitimate opinions. If their 1945 view bears no connection to the truth, then neither does their 1939 view.
Let me summarize your points. Smart people can create narratives that influence people (also they contribute to science etc) . Sometimes they have specific personal reasons for doing it.
Okay? Who cares? If people enjoy Superman more than conan the barbarian, if anti-hitler arguments win out in the court of public opinion in New York 1945 as well as in practice in Berlin 1945, if ‘jewish science’ produces better results than ‘purely aryan science’, then that is a far better test of their worth than to try to divine the ulterior motives of the creators through their identity. Everyone has an identity and ulterior motives.
Critical Theory today which formulates the basis of criticism against "whiteness" is derived from the ideas Frankfurt School academics
You are an avid practitioner of their critical theory and standpoint epistemology. I possess the uncorrupted Truth while you eat the garbage the Jew feeds you.
Freud said a lot of shit, and Hannibal is cool. I dislike the catholic church too. You dislike the church yourself, judging from your ‘paul jewishly corrupted it’ comments. So the church is alternatively a creature of the jews and a pillar of aryanness depending on the needs of your argument. Your broken epistemology can justify anything. As long as jews are involved, and given their long cohabitation with westerners and their intelligence, they are involved in everything, including far right anti-semitism. It allows you to pick and choose what is ‘a jew lie’ and what is the Truth, when they look exactly the same, thanks to their ‘storytelling abilities’.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Wouldn’t bother me, it was a great thing. I think any german with a conscience had a moral obligation to help the allies and murder any and all authority figures from 1939 onwards, kulak-style. I could argue that the nazis were the ones who really destroyed germanness and caused the deaths of germans, but honestly some things are more important than nationality. I can’t adequately express the disgust I feel towards the worms who thought their duty to the state, or their oaths, trumped morality.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Right, that’s another hole in the theory. They are apparently attracted to a lack of sex and ability to say no to suitors, but that characteristic is soon gone, and yet they keep at it. Promiscuous irrelevancy does not run into such rudimentary problems.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
There’s two justifications for those preferences, pick one:
A) It’s hard wired. Counterexamples: men don’t act like it’s all that important, especially in their sexual desires, the most hard-wired of all, desires that bypass the brain entirely. Women do have problems with promiscuity in men.
B) There are rational reasons for those preferences. Answer: Those mostly went away with modernity.
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
Right, if you have a million haters who are willing to go to prison for a day to get rid of you, you deserve to die, nothing anyone can do, you should be thankful to the state for allowing you to live for as long as you did.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
I think the punishment for minor, occasional infractions should be capped at a few days ban.
But if you want to keep the system uncapped, your authority unbounded: when you refer to a permaban in a warning or day-ban, it’s such an outsized threat that it comes across as a taunt and a dare. Like a cop pulling a gun after he caught you speeding.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
I think you confuse consensus building with appeal to consensus. The latter pits an external authoritative perspective against the opponent, the former excludes a perspective from the debate entirely, and is characteristic of echo chambers.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
rather than throwing random sneers that it impossible to tell what your objection even is.
What is there to understand? Blaming boomers or brussels for immigration is simply wrong. If an anti-immigration voter then supports an anti-boomer or anti-brussels law, which fails to stop immigration, that’s not a failure of democracy.
How is "third world immigration was never popular anywhere in the west, there was no referendum on this" not doing exactly that?
Let's say the population is 60-40 opposed to immigration, but the governent still effectively allows immigration. That’s not proof that the people’s will doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean you have to look elsewhere for the ultimate cause. Perhaps the 60 do not care as much. Perhaps the government thinks the people’s will on this issue is not reconcilable with the people’s will on other issues (like maintaining the retirement systems). In any case, I guarantee that shrinking that 40 will be more effective in stopping immigration than blaming all the external boogeymen.
I’m not saying elites, the pro-israel lobby, russia and its interference, etc, do not have any power. But the paranoid right denies all agency to the people. And so you get this situation where they fail to see a moral difference between israel (nay, an israeli, nay, a jew) asking for something, and stealing. Because america, as they see it, is a retarded giant whose lunchbox you can steal by just asking for it. In reality he’s not brainless and he can say no.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Same thing. Why is this proposal supposed to make people hate israel, why does it make israel a bad ally? Just say no thank you. If you say yes, it's your problem.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Who's opinion I was do you think I'm asking you to ask for, if not Slavs'?
Slavs. I think slavs who prefered germans to russians were a bit blindsided by the neatly polished hugo boss boots and would have died in much greater numbers under Generalplan ost than under any 5 year plan.
Nazism seems to fit nicely into the "would not have happened were it not for people deeply convinced they're on the Right Side Of History" template.
Show me people who fought for any side, anywhere, who thought they were wrong. I implied my side is morally good, that must mean I’m a nazi. Please. You said ‘people like me’ turn good causes into evil causes, then use nazism as an example, but of course, there was nothing good about nazism from the start. It was always on its predetermined path towards genocide and war. This was apparent. Alas, germans by and large chose loyalty to their country over morality and obedience over conscience. Like lee, like you and hlynka argue, is only right and proper.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Oh, but the german army was full of such honorable, patriotic men. They had made an oath, and they had a duty to their state and people. And by God they carried it out.
It doesn't matter if I'm a horrible person so long as I'm on the right side is an ok thought in theory
Complete misunderstanding of my point: It doesn’t matter if I’m a decent person as long as I serve an evil cause.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
May I ask what your moral framework is based on?
Mostly utilitarian, but golden rule with some bells and whistles also works. As in: Do I want people to behave honorably when serving an evil master that is harming me and others? No, I want them to be as dishonorable as possible, and stab the guy in the back.
He wasn't talking about how it absolves anyone of moral responsibility, he was saying you might want to think twice before you wish for armies that don't follow orders.
I don’t see the argument. How would the world have been worse off if Lee, and the rest of the confederacy, had decided that their cause and this war was a stupid, disgraceful affair?
Saying "we shouldn't purge the world of statues of honorable men fighting for the wrong cause" is not "refusing to discriminate between shades of grey".
He spoke generally, and I was responding to those claims. Such as:
one can[not] simply "do the right thing"
I can give him this line every time the woke do something he doesn’t approve of.
‘they see morality as a solved problem’ and ‘[as] obviously and eternally correct ‘
strawmannish.
fuckduck9000
9mo ago
Is it your contention that even if he was bad faith through and through, you should still pretend that he wasn’t, because the mods didn’t do anything, or because the discussion is ‘good’ ?
You don’t need mod powers to call him out. ‘bad actor ‘,’ ignore the troll’ etc. work. Yes, I expect you to do this, out of basic fairness. I understand that your views may therefore be less represented, and your favourite authors less discussed. It’s irrelevant. Through his illegitimate posting, everyone else’s views are less discussed.
The only reason why he isn’t banned more quickly is because you and the others treat him with the respect he clearly isn’t deserving of.
fuckduck9000
9mo ago
Are you accusing me of having some involvement with the link-spamming?
No.
Several people here have expressed suspicion and concern that these low-effort right-wing link-spams are actually the work of someone trying to make either the sub in general or right-wingers/identitarians look bad.
Yeah I think they’re wrong, and some of them have changed their minds after reviewing the evidence. Besides, the proof is in the pudding, the resident DR people don’t act like he’s making them look bad, they seem to enjoy the softballs.
Like I said last time:
Just so we're clear, you guys are done with the line that he was a simple centrist worried about antisemitism and the rise of the far right, like he claimed?
I’d appreciate it if you presented a coherent scenario, instead of throwing your hands in the air and going ‘he could be anything’.
Do you think it’s my solemn duty to refuse to engage because I don’t totally trust the provenance of the original poster?
Yes it is your duty to identify and denounce bad actors, especially from your side. This guy is abusing the charity and kindness we show your side (technically, every side, but since the defector is in your ranks, it’s more your problem, you have the legitimacy to call him out). We’re trying to have a ceasefire here, one of yours keeps shooting, and you refuse to reign him in. Think of him as your antifa, the unacknowledged presence of a defector destroys the trust in that faction. So if your opponents retaliate by either their own astroturfing or censorship, I’ll have to wash my hands of your woes.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
Narrative-crafting ability (a complex form of deception) is correlated with falsehood in the speaker’s statements.
My assumption is that narrative-crafting ability is correlated with the ability to influence public perception. Just like I'm not calling Superman a "false narrative" or whatever, the "truth or falsehood of Superman" is not my point, the ethnically-motivated influence on American public consciousness is my point.
IQ correlates with knowledge, but it can also correlate with a talent for deceiving other people with false or self-serving narratives. If you accept identity-driven bias, you have a responsibility to try to discern truth from deception or motivated reasoning
You're contradicting yourself in the same comment now. You just said truth and falsehood is not your point.
I should do these syllogism-type traps more often, they're neat.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
I cleaned up your narrative-crafting argument a bit:
-
Narrative-crafting ability (a complex form of deception) is correlated with falsehood in the speaker’s statements.
-
IQ is correlated with narrative-crafting ability.
-
Jews have high IQ.
-
Therefore, jewishness of the speaker is correlated with falsehood in the speaker’s statements.
Logically sound so far?
-
Knowledge, as well as science and art ability, is correlated with truth in the speaker’s statements.
-
IQ is correlated with knowledge, as well as science and art ability.
-
Jews have high IQ.
-
Therefore, jewishness of the speaker is correlated with truth in the speaker’s statements.
I'd like to know exactly which of those statements do you disagree with. We'll call the two sequences A and B. (1A, 2A, etc)
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
Argue then, pal. The redditor welcomes your smackdown.
Although your theories of all-powerful elites often venture into the same epistemic trap, I didn‘t think you would take offense to this. I guess they were (((elites))) after all. Disappointing.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
What does talking tough have to do with it? I believe murderous rebellion was justified, and this is presumably what you object to. Or do you agree that it was justified, but assume you would have done nothing out of cowardice? Because Lizzardspawn seemed to imply that it was right and proper for germans to die for Hitler, and my suggested course of action would be "traitorous".
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
We need to agree on the moral map of the conflict first. Then when all else is equal, we can talk about respective responsibility of soldiers and commanders. All his excuses apply to wehrmacht/IJA grunts too.
I don't know him well enough, but if he's your average ukraine-war-skeptic there's a good chance he actually does not agree that russia is in the wrong, and if so, the general excuses he finds for the common soldier are not his true objection.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You can take your potential universal saveability and shove it. If it is a crime to think me lesser and wrong, it’s not up to you to judge your beliefs, but to me. Else you should bow down before my assessment of utilitarianism. Its universal saveability is far less conditional. Bentham loves you, man.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
My point is that you try to use the sexual jealousy of men as the backbone of your 'men want non-promiscuous partners, women want the opposite' theory. Obviously if men and women do not differ on jealousy, your theory goes down the drain. But it's even worse than that, because your theory predicts a sort of anti-jealousy for women.
The second contradiction, and this stands undisputed even by you, is that men do want to have sex with promiscuous women.
The third one is that our ancestors did not have the institution of monogamous marriage. It's clear they wanted to have sex with promiscuous women, and since the hormones released during sex lead to pair bonding, we can assume they were pair bonding with them. Anyway, if you have sources, I'd like to take a look.
I'm not talking about some alabaman WN who’s never heard of him, I'm talking about you, reader of this forum. Your view is shaped, in this case corrupted, by what you read here.
Because it isn’t what happened the previous eight thousand times he did this.
More options
Context Copy link