@fuckduck9000's banner p
BANNED USER: /comment/183678

fuckduck9000


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:15:52 UTC

				

User ID: 93

Banned by: @naraburns

BANNED USER: /comment/183678

fuckduck9000


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:15:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 93

Banned by: @naraburns

  • 38 downvotes

And some claim themotte doesn't downvote opinions. And this is from a centrist regular, not a truly progressive opinion. It appears you still have enough credit with the userbase, and you're socially conservative enough, to avoid the bad faith and strawman accusations for now, Ashlael.

This is some bullshit relativism. There is no honor in serving an evil cause. Although I suppose one can avoid heaping evil upon evil. It is really a perversion of honor and duty to use them for evil. Moral judgment applies to the master and falls on the servants, the tools by themselves have no moral valence.

People who just follow orders mistakenly think they can abdicate their moral responsibility. In voluntarily surrendering their humanity to act like a “good” cog, they ironically ensure that the machine’s work is the only true measure of their morality.

You should value this because no cause, no nation, no people, not even individuals are ever truly virtuous, as the line of good and evil runs through every human heart.

Perhaps, but not down the middle. If you refuse to discriminate between gradations of grey, you cannot condemn anything.

I’d rather they pick the moral side to begin with, instead of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of men for the sake of their ‘honor’, and then be honorable. With gentlemen like these, you don't need scoundrels.

Sounds like in your anecdotes the rationalist casually DESTROYED stupid people with FACTS and LOGIC, but felt it was beneath him to elucidate and impart his wisdom to his lessers. The mormon missionary and friend are clearly uncomfortable with the ambiguity and grey moral area of bribes and use of force. The neighbour doesn’t understand that her intent has no causal influence on events. And it’s true, common people do not understand the finer points of why they should follow the king, his officers, the law or the ten commandments, it’s the cliff’s notes of morality, of course they haven’t read the book like you, oh enlightened one.

I am familiar with their logic, I think it poor and self-serving, but you're welcome to try and explain it. I don't believe men and women, the rich and poor, or you and I, are the same either. You need more than that to carve out an exception to a rule. The apparent reasons for the old exception have fallen away: the link between sex and pregnancy, the uncertainty of paternity.

Is everyone satisfied with the moderation here? For me, it’s getting to unacceptably high levels. For some reason, they recently felt the need to almost double the mods to take care of the shrinking userbase.

Our old charitable custom was to treat strangers as if they were worthy of good faith. Increasingly the mods treat those whose good faith has already been established (such as the recently modded Kulak, Hlynka, Burdensomecount) as if they were strangers.

Like reddit, you can start off as a bastion of free speech, but inevitably mods identify with their function and see mod action as an end in itself, until they become more prison guards than janitors.

So are there good alternatives to the motte out there?

All else equal, all wealth should be taxed equally (say, flat 1%/y) , not income from wealth. Current tax laws encourage bubbles and poor investing. Just buy a garbage bond or shitcoin and uncle sam will barely touch it, but god helps you if you invest in a company actually making money. And don’t give me the hard-luck grandma story.

It’s like a poll tax on wealth, and like a poll tax, it’s very tax efficient. The problem with income tax is that it discourages economically beneficial behaviour, like working or good investing. Every time you engage in it, the state wants a piece, and possibly, an even bigger piece, the better you are at it. So the state, counter-productively, eggs you on to be a bum and to stack your wealth under the mattress (ignoring inflation). Your lazy bum money should be taxed at least as much as superstar cancer-curing money.

It’s still the same one-JQ-copypaste-post per day guy, and he immediately posted another top-level after nara nuked this one. You appear uninterested in policing this behaviour from your side, you’re content to swim in the sewer he turns the sub into. You’re right, it does not reflect well on your ideology.

I thought it was well-made female-centric garbage. However, redpillers types like you and @Sloot need to decide what you want. She did produce children for the nameless husband, that ought to be considered a worthy contribution. I get it, you want everything, children, reverence, eternal sexual and emotional exclusivity, and of course, to be „loved for who you are„. But „everything“ is hardly in the cards for mere mortals, now is it? Let me put it this way: would you give all that to your garden variety woman?

I mean, switching the sex of the protagonists, our boy Rosario going for the poor hot girl over the stuffy fiancee seems very easy to identify with. Women have enough flaws (like rose‘s selfishness in accepting the sacrifice of his life) , there is no need to stack on their failure to meet your unrealistic, hypocritical demands.

Unkind.

I suppose you can just marry the first four (or ten). You can fuck them as children, or murder men to marry their wives. Plus all the sex slaves. That would be the honourable thing in your religion, as per your prophet.

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.

In the past I've described antisemitism as anti-fragile. So let's say Jews are going to respond to antisemitism. What are they going to do that isn't going to further and visibly validate the arguments made by antisemites?

Indeed, there is nothing they can possibly do that would bring antisemites to change their position. There's another word for that sort of belief: unfalsifiable. Any action 'the jews' take that isn't obviously in line with the antisemite view is just evidence of ever more complex trickery. And so it is found that both 'pushing for greater authoritarianism' and 'staying mum' all leads to the same rotten conclusion.

If bringing them capitalism and the pleasures of modernity does not innoculate against jihadi mind viruses, what would?

Blasphemy. That’s how we got the christians to calm down. Certainly not by respecting their beliefs and community, or by celebrating their historical accomplishments. Islam’s stupidity and failures should be constantly rubbed in the face of its believers. Of course all muslim immigration to the west should be stopped on purely practical grounds, the insult is just a bonus.

Usually free speech can deal with those superstitions. The problem is that Islam has a built-in counter-strategy, death for apostates and critics. As sheikh qaradawi says, if not for the death penalty for apostates, Islam would not have survived to this day. This is the mechanism islamophobes need to target first, because it’s utterly poisonous to free expression. Free speech of muslims should be curtailed on that point, anyone preaching that doctrine should be deported or imprisoned. Apostates and critics should always be protected by the full force of the state, and get into a sort of witness protection program if they so desire.

Israel should bulldoze al-aqsa on live TV while ceremoniously asking Allah to do something about it. Muslims should be given the chance to reflect more often on their impotent rage and impotent god. Spurn the symbol and spare the man.

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.

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.

Do you or anyone else believe that delaying that event changed who is president, or who won the election?

No, it did nothing. But it may have emboldened the next mob, the next coup , and that is reason enough to crush it.

Seems like you’re implying I ruined things, but I’m not blue tribe, american, or progressive. And you owe me one ring. Sex is sex, but money is cash.

I don’t get your point. It’s over, democracy means nothing anymore, is that it? Boogaloo Day? Can’t tell the difference between the worst civil war and your day-to-day life? Wouldn't have pegged you as a blackpill overdose patient.

This is relativistic nonsense. A master’s/noble’s relationship to his slave/serf, according to this view, is no less exploitative than that between a uber client and his driver, perhaps even more ‘authentic’ and ‘personal’. It equates with ‘exploitation’ two radically different relationships, and creates a parallel between the state of mind/contempt of the slave master and the uber customer, as if that mattered. Whatever one thinks about someone, they need to be treated as a person and not as a dog.

One had right of life and death over the other. It was really a boon to the brotherhood of man when nobles flogged serfs for a perceived insult or a failure to perform adequately. Much empathy was borne from those interclass interactions.

There are three basic types of human relationships: friendly, transactional and hierarchical. Don’t pretend they used to be friendly. The relationship evolved from the harshest kind of hierarchical to transactional, and that has been a great thing for humanity.

I appreciate your usually well-supported MRA-ish arguments, but isn't this below your pay grade? Endlessly litigating who said what about whether he posted his own stuff on fourchan, going through all the rationalwiki sources and so on, does it really matter all that much?

I think far too much ink has already be spilled on that subject for something so trivial. Best case, it's about ethics in game journalism, and I don't even care about that.

Was gamergate your first time, is that why? For me, elevatorgate holds that special place in my heart. I'll always remember it fondly, but I know I have to let it go.

Hypergamy is a vacuous concept. People want to maximize positive attributes in their partners, you don’t say. It’s the male version of the female fear ‘all men want to do is replace their wives with younger models’.

Many moons ago, on old reddit, when the ultra-progressive subs like SRS started banning certain words like ‘retarded’, everyone laughed at the futile attempt to stop the euphemistic threadmill. Now, even here, new words are regularly put on the index.

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.

It’s undeniable that the status of their partner is more important for women than for men. If you want to call that hypergamy, fine, but to me it’s trivial, and doesn’t translate to the vitriol that usually accompanies the term.

That this way of choosing partners is worse than men’s is not clear. I don’t see much evidence that women would rather stay single than men, for example women are often asking men to commit more, ie be less single. But in any case this is also a legitimate preference, condemning an entire sex on that basis doesn’t make sense.

What difference does it make? He may have invaded because he thought the moon was made of cheese, it’s not a legitimate grievance.

Either might doesn’t make right in which case russia’s security needs do not trump its former satellites’ needs to join rival alliances, or it does then russia is the weak one and its wants are subordinated to the US-EU’s.

because as my evidence prof put it "Either Rape law is wrong or evidence law is wrong, but they can't both be correct." The standard of evidence demanded in rape law is so far below the standard demanded in virtually every other felony that the result is absurd

Right.

I want to highlight a stark ideological divergence on the motte: people here often vaguely criticize the modern ‘framework of consent’. It brings to mind feminist consent-a-outrance ideas, where second-to-second affirmative consent in the presence of a notary is the current_year standard for wholesome sex. Haha, so ridiculous, let’s all bond over another pinkhair joke. Wrong. We are not the same. We’re bitter enemies, laughing from opposite sides.

In one corner, the defenders of the rights of the accused , like your prof. They think the exceptional burden on the accused to prove innocence, and therefore consent, is already far too heavy. That people now routinely record consent on their phones before sex out of fear, is a clear sign that the state is way out of line, taking liberties with people’s liberties.

In the other, radfems and traditionalists, who don’t think women’s consent matters at all. Women may keep the neighbours awake with their enthusiastic consent, but they don’t know what’s good for them (abstinence) , they’ve been brainwashed by the patriarchy or coerced by men’s greater physical force . Any non-lesbian, non-procreative sex is prima facie proof of grave societal failure, all hanky-panky pacts are null and void, all people who had unauthorized fun should be punished period.

So the first group laughs at pinkhair’s onerous consent norms because the accused should long have been acquitted, and the second laughs because the accused should long have been condemned.