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 -
The central objection is right in the abstract. You can't read one paragraph?
That's debatable. I've had some decent amount of fun with Mormon girls.
Really? Your liberalism is going to let me create pedofascism? Doubt it.
Wow, amazing. I can't believe you just solved vice in four words. Have you told all of the overeaters, alcoholics, porn addicts, crack addicts, and other victims of liberal excess this? "lmao bro just prevent yourself and everyone you know and everyone whose actions could impact your life in anyway from being manipulated by perverse incentives, temptation, etc. It's not that hard!" Your statement is "Teach men not to rape!"-tier.
No super power is necessary. The outcomes listed in order of preference are:
Live as lion.
Die as lion.
Live as bug.
So while 1 is still superior to 2, since the modern status quo only creates 3, destroying it is still superior even if you only get 2 for your trouble.
Yes, I can read the paragraph, what I can't do is figure out how it contradicts anything I actually said. It argues against the belief that race is a social construct which is not what I asserted. This is a miss matched you would have noticed if you used studies as support for arguments and not in place of arguments.
I don't know what this has to do with anything.
No liberalism is not going to let you force your beliefs on others, that's the point. If you can't actually get people to willingly join your community what good is it? I'm sorry that everyone in the society you live in thinks your ideas are ridiculous and disgusting and wants nothing to do with you. Abandoning liberalism will not change this fact, you'll just be killed and left to rot and your weird beliefs will die with you. I'm serious, if I gave you a button that magically dissolved liberalism how precisely do you think that leads to pedo-fascism? If you want to live in a mad max like world you can go to the Nevada desert and act as a highway man until you're hunted down like a dog already.
I don't really see your proposed solution. Fascism has much the same failure modes, you're aware of the drug use among Nazis I presume? Is your sense of morality modeled after ants?
This philosophy can only really be carried out by one person. Lions famously do not build societies and have no fared well in contest with groups that do.
It is specifically the well-known scientific rebuttal (from 2003) to the study that originated the "more in group variance than between group variance" fallacy (which is from 1972). If you're going to ignorantly spout highly outdated information, then you should at least be aware of the most popular counterargument to it.
The word "social", much less the phrase "social construct", isn't even used once in the abstract. Do you actually not know how to read or did you just assume what the rest of it said after reading the first few words (which is ironic given that you're accusing me of using boilerplate language in place of an actual argument)?
C'mon, this isn't Reddit. Hold yourself to a bit of a higher standard than blatantly falsely characterizing sources that you're given. The argument advanced in the abstract is very clearly 100% biological/genetic in character and makes no reference to sociology at all.
What it has to do with the subject is that "liberal" (and in quotes this should be as there is nothing genuinely liberating about them) societies are a poison that seeps into all that surrounds them. So "form an enclave in a broader 'liberal' society" still isn't a good solution, especially when those societies do not rightfully recognize females as property. Would you be good neighbors with someone who thinks they have the right to keep your dog if it runs off?
Not true. On less normie corners of the Internet, plenty of people agree with me (and even here I've gotten more agreement with certain aspects of what I propose, including both the pedophilic and the fascist, than expected). Do we thus have the freedom to claim lebensraum for ourselves and establish an independent society under your "liberalism" though? Obviously not.
When did I say it does? To say that something is necessary to establish a particular condition is not to say that it is sufficient. (Even fully dissolving "liberalism" is not necessary. I am fundamentally a libertAryan as my flair says and ultimately won't beg anyone to abandon the globohomo matrix if they are really that enslaved and/or brainwashed by it. It simply must be chastened into relinquishing any claims of a universal dominion over human affairs.)
You do realize that fascism is the opposite of a "Mad Max-like world" right?
Nazis used drugs in an attempt to enhance their fighting prowess, which is perfectly valid, not out of the pursuit of idle pleasure. Their crime, and it is a crime, was that of lacking appropriate caution, knowledge, and prudence in their schemes of chemical enhancement.
But it was still not even remotely comparable to the vice of mindless hedonism and its widespread tolerance. I guarantee you that in Nazi Germany they didn't have citizens strung out on deadly opiates nodding off publicly on trains, street corners, etc. with zero repercussions. There were no homeless tents of crack and fent addicts. It's a complete false equivalence and I have no doubt that you know that, which highlights how disingenuously you're "arguing".
Well, luckily it is only a metaphor and we are sapient lions who understand how much more powerful dudes are when they rock together.
In the abstract is this sentence: "It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data." The study is therefore an argument against the position that it is valid to divide Homo sapiens into 'these groups'. 'These groups' is clearly in reference to race. I have not disputed race, or other subgroupings of humans, as valid categories. Therefore this does not argue against my point, you are just pattern matching me citing the obvious statistical fact that there is more variance within races than between races to some other argument based on that. I do not deny HBD, I am aware that there is an average and meaningful intelligent gap between racial averages. And here I am again, trying to divine what your actual argument is because you have not seen fit to actually advance one. There are directions you can go but you're just doing this lazy thing where you link a barely related study as a talisman. Naked study spam is a reddit leftist thing and it is not impressive.
Is it confusing to you that you can't convince women to join you in this society? Yes, Slavery is bad actually. But this is down to terminal values so I don't think either of us will be convincing each other on this point.
I'm sure you can find fascists bits of the internet and pedophile bits of the internet that agree with you but we're talking a rounding error of total social rejects. If it was only fascism you were pushing I could see you at least having some support but most fascist types I've talked to are definitely in the pedos in woodchippers camp. I can't say I know the pedophile disposition very well.
Then you use a standard HBD denialist talking point as an excuse to reject clear racial heuristics (which is what started the discussion) which you just admitted are true anyway... because? You can't advocate for every sufficient premise of an argument and then say "You're just mindlessly pattern matching me to someone who believes that argument!" when the implications of that are pointed out.
If you think that the study that is most commonly cited to refute the origin of your own talking point to the point where it has its own Wikipedia page highlighting this purpose is "barely related" then you are quite frankly simply uninformed.
Not true. In the age of rapekinks, plenty of women find it appealing. (Women are naturally subservient creatures and thus inevitably quickly grow bored of their own "freedom" (which in my view mostly explains their increasingly aberrant behavior like having their breasts removed, ever higher rates of mental illness, etc.), like a poorly trained dog who bolts when off a leash and soon finds it doesn't even remember what it was running from or to.)
Of course it matters not anyway. Women had very little part in building modernity (and plenty part in degrading it) and thus no claim to free use of it. And in any case, were wolves convinced to be domesticated into dogs? Inferior creatures are rightfully put into service, not solicited for their service. Even you don't disagree on that principle. You just disagree on which creatures belong in the category.
Is not letting dogs run around pooping on everything and instead putting them on leashes "slavery"? How about children not being allowed to drive? Or people with dementia being put into homes? Diminished faculties = diminished freedoms.
Many but by no means all or even necessarily the majority. 8chan's /pol/ board, for those who are too right-wing for 4chan's /pol/, is proclaimed as being "Where lolis are free speech and Hitler did nothing wrong" (and there are still of course plenty of cunny fans on 4chan's /pol/ too). I think only someone with little exposure to imageboard culture could think as you do.
And of course our ideology is totally socially rejected. (Personally I am not a "social reject" as I reserve displaying my power level for when it is safe and I assume this is true of most of my fellows.) But that's a good thing, as we live in the most effete, feminized, spiritually/physically weak, and matriarchal time/society in human history.
So for our ideology to be the most rejected in this time period/society and the most contrary to its orthodoxy must also mean that it is the ideology that is most representative of powerful, vigorously masculine thought. This doesn't make our triumph inevitable, but, given the clear statistical pattern of which tendency has most dominated history, it does make it far more likely that our enemies are a temporary anomaly, a statistical irregularity that will return to baseline, than us.
What a wild ride this conversation took. I’m curious, what makes you a lion instead of a bug?
Nothing makes me a lion (as there are basically no true lions in our present society, except maybe at zoos).
But what gives me perhaps the soul of a lion? A dream. Dreams are the essence of any man's soul.
Even a bug can have the soul of a lion if he accepts that he might be squashed by an actual lion (which is not to say he must desire it, nor that any lion should do so) and boldly endeavors with vitality anyway. (Of course we don't see many such valiant bugs these days either, at least not smart ones who are willing to reveal themselves openly, as they generally either just get ripped apart by their fellow bugs or killed by a massive cybernetic psyop military-industrial-"intelligence" globohomo fly swatter, miserable ends which confer little dignity beyond the trifle of martyrdom to meet.)
Then again a bug who acts this way is not really much of a bug anymore either. They are more like a lion cub or perhaps a proud house cat, depending on their trajectory. And, contrary to you perhaps thinking now that I'm some sort of "dog eat dog" or "survival of the fittest" Darwinian, I do think that creatures of different levels of strength can and should cooperate. (This is in fact one of the core principles of fascism: the elimination of class war via the cooperation of all classes.)
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