Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Asking here because I don't have the time to effort-post enough to post in the main thread.
Does anyone know of manifestos or books with worldviews and principles which have weight to them? Most I can find is half-assed disinterested knowledge. There's too much beating around the bush, self-censorship and conforming. I did enjoyed reading Ted's manifesto and "Setting the record straight". Max Stirner's takes and Julius Evola's books are good too. I don't care which ideology people believe in, it's just nice seeing somebody actually believe in something. And lets be honest, fragile beliefs are mediocre.
Alternatively, share any strong beliefs of your own, some of you must be tired of walking on egg-shells by now. I'll start:
All the suffering you'll ever experience does not add up to much of a big deal. Only the lack of meaningful experiences is a problem. The focus on reducing bad things rather than causing good things is a symptom of illness.
Most modern "sexualities" are mere fetishism and trauma responses. Also, 98% of modern psychologists are utterly incompetent and most common psych knowledge is wrong. Is nobody else concerned that even art styles are getting domestication syndrome?
In-group favorism, gatekeeping, discrimination and all the like is all based, as long as none of it is done "in bad taste". Corruption, manipulation, finding loopholes and other such indirect, cunning, malicious and exploitative mindsets is done by those who lack the strength to compete fairly, making them inferior. Also, no favoritism, support or bias requires malice onto the excluded in the first place. Society has a habit of making the worst examples of things out to be the standard (which is also why it demonizes the ego)
Every culture should be respected and left to do its own thing. If the culture turns out well, then it cannot be called immoral. If it does not turn out well, then foreign aid and other attempts to save it would be immoral.
All virtue is costly and one must have abundance in order to be a good person without destroying themselves, and it's a sad to see good people destroy themselves.
Trans-humanists are better described as anti-humanists. If you love something then you don't seek to escape it or to change it into something else. Video-game modding sometimes makes games better with 'more of the same' and I find this to be acceptable (hence my username).
You can't have the good without the bad, and if you reduce one you reduce both. Taken to an extreme, the desire to decrease the bad leads to nihilism or a preference for non-existence. (Buddhism and statements like 'the only moral action is to destroy the universe'). Even psychological defense mechanisms which protect against pain tend to do so in ways which reduce the good parts of life (inaction, detachment, avoidance, etc).
Most conscious interference with the goal of improving something will end in failure, and Chesterton's fence is not the full explanation. Perhaps you can sometimes aid something without attempting to control it, and lessen the chances of failure. But as a general rule, just let things go their way and they will solve themselves.
More options
Context Copy link