This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not as hard as it has seen, and I think it says something about you that you seem to care more about being on the "winning" and "losing" side than being on the right side, but then I should have guessed as much given your user name and flair.
My flair aligns me with an entirely obscure and wholly powerless at the moment political ideal. I only chose it because I think it's the ultimate right side (hardly the winning side at the moment I must admit, though we've got momentum and potential in many areas), even though even I recognize that a conventional organized political movement is unlikely to be the primary mechanism by which its subordinate principles gain any real social influence (should they) and is far more likely, in proportion to my commitment to pursuing it (luckily I've been reasonable thus far about my investment in it, restricting myself solely to online/anonymous rhetorical dabbling in its favor), to make me a martyr than a victor.
Of course it also promises great reward (which is no moral crime*!) beyond "You'll feel good because you... avoided making your enemies feel bad?" It seems to me like that's kind of the natural lottery principle of politics. The more of an immediate long shot (as I actually think at least the partial supremacy of pedofascist-adjacent ideals is not all that unlikely in the semi-mid-to-far future) your goals are, the more you have to offer in return. "Join us in the counterintuitive plan of wishing fortune on those who oppose us, so that if it succeeds regardless... well, we won't do anything because we're the party of mercy." doesn't seem like a winner to me.
To me, a good and just world is one where the correct wish for the incorrect who stand unjustly in their way to reform in time if possible and ideally make as many reparations as possible for all that they've impeded or, absent a reasonable consummation of that, be brutally subjugated and/or destroyed, and have that wish come true. (We have this now; it's just that in my view it's happening in the reverse, with the incorrect persecuting the correct.)
In this world, all sins would be promptly rectified by the fallen if possible in a reasonable time frame (which would greatly shorten around the time our opposition turns into mere dissidents) or even more swiftly rectified for them. I don't want to pray for mercy for myself or my enemies: I want to be the one deciding who grants mercy to whom.
This is not just what I believe either but also what I can only imagine any properly Aryan and masculine (for there is no true masculinity in "turn the other cheek to get slapped again") Christ and Christendom (should it exist, which I'm not convinced it does at the moment, though some past varieties were close) would also believe. So I may be more aligned with the true, non-semitic, and non-Satanic Christendom of an ideal Godly world than you (surely I'll take the Crusaders, who were far closer to what I'm asking for, than whatever you're offering). Deus vult paedofascismus**!
*says non-slave morality (in the Nietzschean sense, which is not an endorsement of his ideas in general).
**Very loose Latin formulation
What exactly is your political ideal? I do not understand your flair.
libertAryan = Valuing liberty (the positive, invigorating liberty of the non-gender-traitorous man seeking the reasonable fulfillment of his masculine birthright, not degenerate or effeminate "liberty") + the promotion of Aryan power and recognition of Aryan nobility (There's a character limit on flairs you see so linguistic economy via pun was necessary here.)
monarcho- = Possessing of a monarch (who would be mostly ceremonial in my formulation unless he has also independently earned via merit the nonheritable position of fuhrer)
pedo = I doubt I need explain the simple meaning of this. The primary effect of its presence here is that under pedofascism all men shall enjoy their natural masculine birthright of sexual age freedom, which means there shall be no age-based restrictions (ages of "consent" for example) on their enjoyment, particularly in the sexual/romantic realm, of their feminine property (which the feminine shall all be due to androsupremacism).
fascism = This would take the most amount of words to explain the exact desired contours of but also probably needs the least explanation of what it's generally aiming at so I'll just leave it.
absolute androsupremacism = Absolute dominance of masculinity over femininity, with the feminine reduced in status to somewhere around/between wardship, pet status, and/or chattel slavery (depending on the exact requirements of the situation)
public choice appreciator = I like public choice theory and think it deserves more recognition, independently of (though also in addition to) my pedofascism. Should pedofascism not be possible, I'm willing to accept an increase in reasonable governance incorporating public choice theory insights as a consolation prize. (Let this not be confused with me appreciating the choices of the public, which I generally absolutely do not.)
Any ideology can say they value liberty if they can limit it to only behaviors they consider virtuous or not transgressive as defined by their non-liberty-focused moral system. The whole point of liberty is that people with different moral beliefs and living preferences and purposes can coexist with minimal friction, so making use of social paradigms like property rights legal framework in order to maximize freedom. If you disagree, how are you defining liberty?
I mean I largely agree with you to a reasonable extent, particularly in regards to external populations. So long as it has sufficient lebensraum (and lolisraum, of course!), pedofascism would rather non-pedofascists just live somewhere else and do their own thing instead of bothering it.
But within its own society, liberty will be valued but balanced against other concerns (hence the phrase "valuing liberty" as opposed to "absolutely prioritizing liberty above all"). There is no pedofascist freedom to become a society of weak, effeminate, fat, etc. porn, drug, gambling, etc. addicts.
In that sense, the pedofascist conception of liberty includes a consideration of what genuinely expands masculine potential (and thus masculine freedom to pursue different avenues of opportunity) as opposed to what is simply "voluntary" (as man can be easily "voluntarily" enslaved by his baser, degenerate impulses). The Roman conception of Libertas may be useful here.
Pedofascist (and all fascist IMO) liberty is far less about the "freedom" to do heroin all day or walk around as a man dressed like a woman as in modern conceptions of it. As with Roman libertas, it is about being a master instead of a slave. And he who is not even master of himself is no master at all (and only the properly masculine are proper masters of anything).
There are other potential aspects to the libertarian angle on fascism. I have considered that quite possibly there might be multiple pedofuhrers each leading their own (ideally cooperative) versions of a pedofascist society. (After all at fascism's peak there were multiple fascist societies living in relative harmony.) If there is only one pedofuhrer, then he may appoint his multiple gauleiters to diversify the governance of their particular gaus, with citizens having the choice of which one they prefer to live in and "voting" with their feet.
Like most other NRX-esque (though pedofascism is actually not reactionary fundamentally, maybe somewhat neoreactionary if you emphasize the "neo") libertarians, pedofascism accepts the argument that freedom of choice/exit/association is ultimately the most important freedom, with the reasonable curtailment of certain other "freedoms" within a limited context often being acceptable to achieve particular kinds of polities catering to particular kinds of individuals (with those who don't agree having options to leave).
This statement doesn't make sense. Society's don't have freedom, people do, if you are scared of too many people freely choosing to become those things such that you believe it warrants coercion against those innocent behaviors, then you are not in that sense any different from ideologies that do not claim to support freedom.
Why is voluntary in scare quotes? Man can not be 'voluntarily enslaved' by anything because that would be an oxymoron. Those 'base, degenerate impulses' you refer to are a description of their own desires and are thus a part of themselves, so you are effectively claiming that people are able to enslave themselves which if anything is a weird way to describe the notion of self-ownership.
Isn't this just saying, "your doing behaviors I consider disgusting or repulsive, therefore you must not be in control of yourself", which is a convenient narrative for you, but is not convincing for me.
Isn't this just another way of saying, "if you don't like the laws in this polity, then leave", which is freedom in the unsatisfactory sense of the mugging victim having freedom to give his money to the mugger in exchange for being spared of his attack.
Societies enable this "freedom" for people, and, absent certain kinds of societies, they do not "exercise" it. There is no absolute true personal freedom in the ideal platonic sense, because one's behaviors are inevitably heavily influenced by the incentives present in one's environment (and one's ancestral environments via the behavioral impact of evolution, instincts that modern environments can trigger or not). The same person born in two different environments will act in completely different ways.
So why not ensure an environment that has a greater tendency to result in men being inventors, athletes, entrepreneurs, sex gods, artists, warriors, powerlifters, engineers, and scholars instead of gluttons, addicts, weaklings, poofters, premature ejaculators, and degenerates? (Unless you're advocating for absolute libertarianism for the youngest children too, heroin for 3 year olds, then you're going to have to make this choice anyway about which kind of adult their young childhood filters them towards being.) Is the second category really "freer" because they were born in a society that made it easier to fall to their temptations and they "voluntarily" did? Free to do what? Rot?
This is a very naive view of psychology, neurology, and human behavior that denies the definitions of, among other words, "temptation", "procrastination", and "addiction". Sure our desires are a part of ourselves, but so are parasites. It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to in their most decisive thoughts if they had more willpower. Thus willpower is the essence of true liberty itself. So shouldn't a properly libertarian society have as its first aim maximizing the willpower, discipline, etc. of its citizens such that they can always make the choice they'll wish they had made tomorrow?
Really? That's the only issue people have with heroin addictions? That they're disgusting and repulsive? Not that they can take over people's lives to the point of precluding engaging in basically all productive and/or prosocial behaviors? That people are driven to buy heroin instead of buying their kids food, driven to do heroin instead of writing that book they had in mind, driven to steal to afford their addiction, driven do heroin instead of accomplishing anything?
Does retroactive choice not factor into your analysis of liberty here at all either? Most people who get addicted to heroin, even if they "chose" to try it at first in the moment, say that if they could they'd love to go back and choose the opposite. Does that choice not matter? Is true liberty merely the liberty to regret your decisions?
aryanchadyes.jpg
I mean it's unlikely you're going to wake up in a pedofascist enclave. You're probably going to have to voluntarily move knowing what it entails.
Who said we were confiscating property?
To the extent that people can alter the environment, the environment should be the result of decisions that individuals freely make, as long as they are not denying the freedom of others.
Yes the second category is truly freer because people are not prevented from being tempted into certain behaviors. If you are someone who has a strong desire not to become a certain way, then you should be able to resist the temptation to, if you can not then that just reveals your true preferences meaning you were not understanding yourself accurately when you thought it was something that you dislike.
Parasites are a part of ourselves that we generally desire to get rid of. Now some people could desire to get rid of certain temptations but doing that would conflict with other people's freedom to tempt them, and so would not be acceptable, and no that doesn't mean the tempters are reducing your freedom, it just means you lack willpower. "It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to if they were different people" is approaching tautology.. This is the first time I am hearing that libertarianism is about maximizing willpower and discipline of the populace.
Yeah, those are the potential tradeoffs of a heroin addiction, some people choose to go through with it regardless.
They would love to go back and choose the opposite, but that's not a choice that they have.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link