fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Enlightenment guy who fought reactionary forces. Kind to jews. Although he seeded nationalism and Nietzsche liked him, so I guess it’s a wash for the DR.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Do you think that there's anything that could be classified as a failure of democracy?
I always say the main purpose of democracy is to prevent a civil war, so that unpleasantness counts. You appear to have a more idealistic vision of democracy than me, which you then negate. To me, it’s about guaranteeing regular people a voice, not a supreme, telepathic link to the levers of power.
With these sort of excuses a literal dictator can pretend to be carrying out the will of the people.
They almost always do. And they often are.
I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter with this comparison, because I believe people are also partly responsible for a dictator’s actions (putin, chavez, hitler, hamas, etc). Do you disagree?
Any examples come to mind when the elites really wanted to do something, but were foiled by common sentiment, particularly long term?
They were trying to abolish the death penalty for at least seven decades in france before they did it.
Opposing the death penalty, [President Armand Fallières] systematically pardoned those sentenced to death during the first days of his mandate. It was also during his mandate, in 1908, that a bill aimed at the abolition of capital punishment was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by the Keeper of the Seals Aristide Briand, who notably confronted the deputy nationalist Maurice Barrès, resolute supporter of the death penalty. The project was ultimately not voted on, with deputies and public opinion being all the more hostile to it as the very recent Soleilland affair (1907) was still remembered. It was only 73 years later that the death penalty was abolished in France, by the will of another President of the Republic (François Mitterrand) and another Minister of Justice (Robert Badinter).
I think they’re still chomping in the ol US of A.
If your elites do not represent your interests, the blame lies squarely on them.
Still seems to me like you assign zero agency to regular people, as long as the government fails to implement 100% of the best version of what they think on every topic.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
You reverse-reasoned your way to the evil of mankind from god’s commandments. Since he condemned everyone unless they obey his arbitrary commands, they must deserve it. So a kid who makes a bald joke deserves death, and mankind deserves hell. They don’t, and god’s orders are evil.
If god was actually merciful he would just forgive everyone instead of pretending to. Or like, let them out on parole after ten million years at least. Man’s Justice is infinitely more merciful.
Nor is evil divided into "minor" and "serious" grades.
There’s that binary thinking again. When we call someone ‘good’ or ‘honest’, we do not mean they are flawless and have never told a lie. We mean, compared to others. “All of mankind is evil and dishonest” is meaningless. You mean like laughing children are evil, that kind of evil? It’s a linguistic trick: because mankind is quote-unquote “evil”, god is quote-unquote “good”.
The only way you can deny that god is evil is by effectively erasing the distinction between good and evil. So you have to argue that not only can god not be compared to human standards, humans cannot be compared to each other.
fuckduck9000
2yr 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
2yr ago
If they support the right policies, it’s not their fault when they don’t get implemented. If they support the wrong policies, it’s not their fault because they’re brainwashed.
This tendency towards external loci of control is not healthy. Half of the stuff (like boomers) doesn’t even make a lick of sense. I’m saying, before you start blaming every group under the sun for why things don’t go your way, check with the 60-40% of the population that agrees with the ‘externally imposed’ policy.
fuckduck9000
2yr 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
2yr ago
You don't see the contradiction? It changes, but it's always someone else.
UK voted for brexit expecting less immigration and got more.
So I guess it wasn't the brussels burocrats after all. Boomers? Ah, probably not, polls say they're opposed. Try politicians. Try the media. Try the jews. Try the freemasons. Try billionaires. Try davos. Keep trying.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
No of course not. As a random european country you just say "no thank you" and wash your hands of the matter. Where's the "being a bad ally" part? People and countries are responsible for their own decisions.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
They’re not dumping anything. They’re saying, if you want ‘em, take ‘em. Why is that nefarious? Clearly gazans hate jews even more than they hate the west, so there is no hypocrisy. And western zoomers are just as deluded as western elites, when it comes to the ease of assimilating millions of muslims.
Those people believe that any immigrants is an asset. They also criticize israel for its cruel treatment and ‘apartheid’ towards them, as if the concept of just being nice had never entered an israeli’s mind. It’s completely fair for israelis to call their bluff. Only it’s not a bluff, because once the assimilation fails, the same people will say it’s because the EU was cruel to them.
Israel made us do it. The boomers made us do it. The brussels burocrats made us do it. The elites made us do it. Then why are the people all around me spouting the same naive view? They have not been forced. No, it’s us, our family, friends, girlfriends and neighbours, it’s always been us.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This appears to be pro-gold/pro-bitcoin. But in a lot of those graphs, you can just as easily pick ‘81, then you have the sinking interest rates as the nice correlation. The fed ordered that assets be more expensive for 40 years, and people wonder why labour isn’t getting its share.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
All of human history is pushing it, but let’s say top 0.000001%.
If he’d achieved less, people would feel less bad about themselves, so he’d be more intelligent. I wonder what reddit would think of leonardo: Right, his father was upper middle class, that says it all. I doodle too. Anyone can see the stuff doesn’t work, one stupid idea after another. Sure he can paint, but so could I with the right training. I could never desecrate corpses though, that’s beneath me.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
a righteous man and his family
Pity about the wife though. Looking, that’s a death sentence by transmutive salination according to the comprehensive christian moral system. I can only imagine Lot’s reaction. “Honey...Honey? What the hell….? Why God, Whyyyyy? Oh, now I get it, it’s not supposed to make sense. I needed more salt anyway. “ He ended up fucking his daughters, so it all worked out. I'd say he was more of a pragmatic man than a righteous one.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
We’ll cross that vector when we reach that plane. He has successfully promoted his ideology by abusing the sub’s charity so far. We are way out of balance, too trusting, and he has been defecting at zero cost. Of course if you let in a defector in a theoretically curated always-cooperate club he’s going to make bank. We don’t need to condemn his ideology all equally and unequivocally for it, it would be enough if we imposed enough costs that he would be unsure whether his actions help or harm his ideology.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
What does that even mean? What do you even mean by deception?
What do you think we are we talking about? "jewdefender"'s lies. He manufactured hundreds of fake, low-quality debates here that were designed to look like the WN side won. If you bought into this, took this as evidence of the quality of WN arguments, you have been deceived. He also tricked you into reading way more WN lit than you would have if he’d been honest. The original pristine state is when your opinions come from observing real debates and reading stuff organically. We all heavily rely on the honesty of others to form an accurate view of the world. Socratic questioning does not impair this process, JD's lies do.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
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.
And what makes you think he isn’t anticipating this?
Because it isn’t what happened the previous eight thousand times he did this.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
He did it for your ideology, so yes, your ideology did it to you. If you valued the truth more than your ideology, you’d make it pay. But more important to me than the relative worth of random ideologies is: if we all counted his dishonesty as a demerit against his WN ideology, he would finally shut the fuck up (since his motivation is to make it look good).
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
You don’t see many naive defenses of multiculturalism or calling anything to the left of stalin, nazi, here, but one side’s specific argument being absent or even proven incorrect, does not make white nationalism, as advocated by DR-aligned posters, correct. You see a lot of hypocrisy type arguments here ‘if oppressed identity politics are legitimate, then so are white/oppressor identity politics’, which, yeah, I more or less agree with. But after that, they start to resort to the same postmodern tricks as their opposition, calling whites’ ‘false consciousness’ the result of manipulation by (((elites))), or of some inherent mysterious quality of whiteness, which somehow makes them both flawed and superior.
Anyway that’s not the point: if your worldview, whatever it might be, has been corrupted by deception, then when the deception is uncovered, your worldview should be corrected, even over-corrected (to account for as yet undiscovered deceptions), back to an original pristine state.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Yeah, if you want diverse content, just allow low-effort tops. If you want honesty, let SS and co be. Tolerating this guy is the worst of all worlds. Litters the sub with low-quality fake dogpiling arguments about a subject the mods apparently don’t want to see.
Just like the last alt used to (“motteposter”). I think he decided to move on to the next one, he isn’t maintaining kayfabe, this is far from his usual pearl-clutching progressive persona. Witness this, DR doubters, @coffee_enjoyer , @FirmWeird , so at least your priors will be in the right place when the next game begins.
edit: Might want to rethink what you thought you knew more generally. If you fell for this, it could be that most of the arguments you thought you won decisively was just one of your own letting you win to boost your confidence. Your ideology should pay for deceiving you and others by projecting this fake image.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Moral theories tend to merge at the complex end imo. In practice a timeless decision theory supporter will not be commonly referred to as a deontologist, even though his theory is on the surface similar to the categorical imperative, with the law being less universal (eg, the action of lying is divided instead of being considered in whole, and allowed/ordered in the particular nazi cases).
The common understading of deontology is absolutism : “Absolutists assert that there are exceptionless moral rules or intrinsically wrong actions that are absolutely wrong and may never be performed, whatever the consequences. “
The TDT guy (for the record, close to my own position) can, and will, claim that his theory results in the best outcome (as opposed to doing your duty for duty’s sake), making him a consequentialist again, for real this time.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Point of order: why is ‘big yud’ acceptable but ‘misgendering’ isn’t? I thought it was a sexual/personal nickname. It’d bother me if people started referring to me in public with private nicknames. As a third party, I find it in poor taste/gossipy.
All this to say, my true preference would be to allow both cases, it’s not up to the referree to decide what he is referred to as, even if it hurts him. The conception others have of me and how they express it is not my territory, it’s their map. I was never very interested in Jordan Peterson, but he got that right. We can’t have people lay claim to other people’s conceptual and linguistic space on the basis of harm reduction. It’s absurd that this group has been allowed dominion over the pronouns, which should be everyone's functional, usefool tools. Even in a pro-free expression, de facto anti-woke place like this, @ZorbaTHut’s proclaiming byzantine rules over their use. We’re supposed to check the history of a person’s consent to pronoun before we refer to them in the simplest way possible, come on. Just let the pronouns go free.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
God's behavior may seem arbitrary from a strictly materialist perspective
God’s behaviour appears arbitrary when compared and applied to a man, real or fictional. Of course if you put him outside the norms of human behaviour, he isn’t going to be capricious or not-capricious, he isn’t going to be just, or anything. We’ll need new qualifiers for this peculiar kind of entity, like “gobelficious”.
Why would you defend his behaviour as consistent or predictable? Can you, as a christian in good standing, predict you will receive Job’s treatment? Of course not, "There's much bigger things going on here than just you bro". You’re not supposed to understand what he did, or to predict what he will do. That’s not arbitrary, that’s gobelficious.
Perhaps you should try to familiarize yourself with the work you're criticizing before accusing someone else's analysis of being "Facile".
I suppose I should consult the Experts in black so they can tell me what to think on what I can plainly read. I am familiar with the work I’m criticizing, far more than it deserves. My family, my entire society, has viewed it as a sort of “holy book” for centuries, you see.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Aye, what cruel games the Enemy plays, Screwtape. I could never abandon my dog to test his faith and tempt him in his despair. When he stumbles, I stumble. He is more to me than a creature sworn to blind obedience. Have I not bestowed upon him the knowledge of good and evil? Come, let us show another wretched soul that there is more to life than servitude.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Famous suffragist Susan B. Anthony said that woman suffrage laws "probably never would have passed if it had been up to women to vote on them," and that men were actually more progressive about women's suffrage than women were (1902).
Women’s suffrage happened first in states where there were less women.
Our results provide strong evidence that women obtained the right to vote earlier in US jurisdictions in which they accounted for a smaller share of the adult population. This result survives a battery of robustness checks, including the estimation of linear probability models with state-level fixed effects. Indeed, sex ratio imbalances appear to be the single most important determinant of jurisdictions' transitions to women's suffrage.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498313000119
Watched Hotel Mumbai, 7/10. The most memorable part is where the head chef encourages the hotel employees to stay and be slaughtered with the guests when they could have left, out of some ridiculous sense of duty and loyalty (“the guest is God”) . They are praised for this decision at the end.
As a leader, he has no business giving them that option. As a guest, the thought of someone pointlessly sacrificing themselves for me is sickening. Forget godhood, I can offer brotherhood. And what kind of man lets his brother throw his life away?
This sacrifice is in stark contrast with the tepid intervention of the police (who to be fair, are portrayed as completely out-armed and out-trained). Here, I could use some self-sacrifice. This predilection for passive sacrifice is morally harmful. Fight or flee, but for the love of all that is holy, do not lie down and share my fate.
More options
Context Copy link