Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
In your mind, how do convince the leftist masses to say no to the revolutionary impulse (especially when they notice corruption) and to deny themselves the dream of acquiring state power?
i don't , but I don't give the vote to people on welfare or very poor, like almost no country did 200 years ago.
universal democracy is inherently leftist to the core and an abomination, the idea people can vote to spend other people money when they don't contribute is one of the deepest moral horrors of our age.
I mean, of course this is your reaction because you don’t value national identity and persuasion in general.
Your vision is your leftist group acquires power and forces compliance on everyone else through state power and violence if necessary. Correct me if I’m wrong.
In fact, you seem eager to use violence on your opponents.
On fascists, yes. Some people say this is "too polarising" and it's far better to mollycoddle them and tolerate their fascism, deportations and prison camps. I say some people are completely out to lunch.
On fascists, yes. Some people say this is "too polarising" and it's far better to mollycoddle them and tolerate their fascism, deportations and prison camps. I say some people are completely out to lunch.
given that for you being against welfare is fascism... you simply justify violence against anyone who disagrees with you enough.
I dont think Cultural Marxism is directed at Israel so I dont think its got anything to do with antisemitism. I am pretty sure Israel is one of the most anti-Marxist/anti-Communist places in history.
Obviously not. Only the habitually hysterical and chroniclly confused come up with that. HUR DUR cultural Marxism is something nazis came up with. Lol so delusional and out of touch.
The left heavily sides with Palestine. Especially the further left you go. This was predictable because we know who is viewed as more oppressed between the two. It's like a base emotion embedded deep in their psyche. Like simple animals categorizing things in to predator and prey.
I guess the people talking about cultural Marxism aren't reacting to racial discrimination at universities, jobs, the trans ideology insanity, the dems constantly talking about reparations, they even proposed race ranking in the covid vaccine lines.
Yeah they just made it up because nazi or something like that. Not because lunacy is ramming in to people face first.
Something the far left and right have in common is group identity over individual. If that we're happening people wouldn't need to come up with great descriptions like cultural marxism
i don't , but I don't give the vote to people on welfare or very poor, like almost no country did 200 years ago.
universal democracy is inherently leftist to the core and an abomination, the idea people can vote to spend other people money when they don't contribute is one of the deepest moral horrors of our age.
It’s not just about voting. It’s either persuasion or force in the long run.
Are you saying you’ve given up on persuasion entirely?
On fascists, yes. Some people say this is "too polarising" and it's far better to mollycoddle them and tolerate their fascism, deportations and prison camps. I say some people are completely out to lunch.
What about the large amount of people who oppose but aren’t violent fascists (yet)?
Is the long term answer forced compliance through threat of violence on them also?
Do you see how this isn’t sustainable?
given that for you being against welfare is fascism... you simply justify violence against anyone who disagrees with you enough.
No, not at all and you know that's another Lieciom.
If someone, as you call it "disagrees" enough that they're in a position of power and will exterminate people based on inherited characteristics (race, gender, sexuality) or religion or non-fascist political views then that's fascism and yes I support wiping those people out (the ones in positions of power).
What about the large amount of people who oppose but aren’t violent fascists (yet)?
Is the long term answer forced compliance through threat of violence on them also?
Do you see how this isn’t sustainable?
I say they're allowed to hold those views, as odious as they are. After all, I'm still talking to Lucifer here.
I say they're allowed to hold those views, as odious as they are. After all, I'm still talking to Lucifer here.
Do you have kids? Any loved ones who are young?
If so, you’re fine with them riding out this status quo of division and hostility?
You’re not interested in pursuing the possibility of a truth that can unite?
I don’t believe people who say they are fine with the status quo out of one side of their mouth while they are regularly criticizing their political opponents from the other side.
It’s not just about voting. It’s either persuasion or force in the long run.
Are you saying you’ve given up on persuasion entirely?
you can attempt panem et circenses and variants of that especially if you are rich and you can afford it, but given we are quickly moving to societies where people aren't actually needed if they are bad participants in societies ("2 arms and 2 legs" don't cut it anymore to be useful, unlike centuries and millennia ago), and possibly that's going to accelerate a lot soon (with AI/robotics), why the hell should I spend permanently to keep alive people who wish me bad? at the very minimum I don't move a finger to help them , and the instant they move against me violently I am fully justified to exterminate them and solve the problem.
societies in the past had the problem because a lot of people were actually needed for the elites to prosper.
change that, Incentives change
No, not at all and you know that's another Lieciom.
If someone, as you call it "disagrees" enough that they're in a position of power and will exterminate people based on inherited characteristics (race, gender, sexuality) or religion or non-fascist political views then that's fascism and yes I support wiping those people out (the ones in positions of power).
exterminating people for the reason stated (or others, unless those people use violence against others) is just mass murderous attitude (which kinda predates fascism a lot) and yes if someone does that it becomes legitimate to use violence against them.
unclear though why you think that's the case with current western politics, which groups of citizens did Trump exterminate in his first term or which group(s) do you think are at risk of extermination now?
you can attempt panem et circenses and variants of that especially if you are rich and you can afford it, but given we are quickly moving to societies where people aren't actually needed if they are bad participants in societies ("2 arms and 2 legs" don't cut it anymore to be useful, unlike centuries and millennia ago), and possibly that's going to accelerate a lot soon (with A
Do you realize this is a reality problem and not some unique quirk of the people who currently exist?
Even if we kill off a huge segment of humanity, the problem we’re talking about returns pretty quickly.
Do you have kids? Any loved ones who are young?If so, you’re fine with them riding out this status quo of division and hostility?You’re not interested in pursuing the possibility of a truth that can unite?I don’t believe people who say they are fine with the status quo out of one side of their mouth while they are regularly criticizing their political opponent
I have two kids and I am kinda fine with the status quo not because it's "perfect" but because it's a lot better than the historical average and I don't believe in utopia.
I still try to affect change at the margin but for my kids, what matters is that they learn to disregard society at large and pursue their niche aggressively carving up a space for them on whatever the society of the future will be with a rational selfish attitude, that's how you maximize the chances of winning at the game of life (reproduce while enjoying the ride as much as possible).
we are NOT "a part of a whole" and the most nefarious enemies to combat through life to achieve successful outcomes are usually other human beings, ESPECIALLY after we discovered how to solve many/most of the other problems.
the kore tech advances and the more we become good at managing our non human environment, the more the biggest obstacle for everything you want in life are other people.
ofc they are ALSO the source of most positive outcomes and a necessary element of life, which is why you divide the world in friends and enemy and you love you friends and sacrifice for them and hate your enemies and work to destroy them.
and there is deep value and meaning both in loving your friends / allies and in hating your enemies and denying either is denying human nature.
Now the little fascist is whining about abominations and moral horrors in the moderation thread? Great.
Do you realize this is a reality problem and not some unique quirk of the people who currently exist?
Even if we kill off a huge segment of humanity, the problem we’re talking about returns pretty quickly.
the status problem is ineliminable UNLESS we change our DNA.
the absolute poverty level is eliminable with easier technology.
but the endgame is transcending our current DNA obviously as a species, changing ourselves so as to fix those problems.
with AI and after solving material scarcity it's trivial to change every living human being, and all their heirs in perpetuity, so as to achieve actual peace, if we so want.
until then we play the game with the current rules.
the status problem is ineliminable UNLESS we change our DNA.the absolute poverty level is eliminable with easier technology.but the endgame is transcending our current DNA obviously as a species, changing ourselves so as to fix those problems.with AI and after solving material scarcity it's trivial to change every living human being, and all their heirs in perpetuity, so as to
Yes. Let’s at least agree that transcending our biology is necessary to solve the problem we’re discussing.
And let’s agree it’s a problem that needs to be solved. Force + violence in perpetuity isn’t a long term solution.
The status quo is unacceptable long term. Let’s be clear about this.
My claim: Reality dictates that culture, specifically personal culture, and not technology, is the only way to transcend our biology.
But at least there is some agreement that these political battles over state power are not long term solutions. The political elites will not lead the way on this truth for obvious reasons. In fact, they will try to convince you otherwise.
It's all fun and games until there are 4 billion bears in the world.
My claim: Reality dictates that culture, specifically personal culture, and not technology, is the only way to transcend our biology.
But at least there is some agreement that these political battles over state power are not long term solutions. The political elites will not lead the way on this truth for obvious reasons. In fact, they will try to convince you otherwise.
if you want *everyone to win* and 0 sum games exist, you can't achieve that if anyone is willing to play them.
you have to eliminate all 0 sum games.
which can't be done with "personal culture", as that doesn't remove the incentive for the other guy to play the 0 sum game against you, and then you have to play or lose.
maybe in your model Gandi won, in mine he lost because someone else took his life playing what he thought was a 0 sum game.
if you want *everyone to win* and 0 sum games exist, you can't achieve that if anyone is willing to play them.you have to eliminate all 0 sum games.which can't be done with "personal culture", as that doesn't remove the incentive for the other guy to play the 0 sum game against you, and then you have to play or lose.maybe in your model Gandi won, in mine he lost because someone
I want everyone to win the life game, which you seem to be interpreting to mean I want everyone to win the zero sum games.
Are you doing this because you can’t consider the possibility that the zero sum games (specifically acquiring economic and political power) are not the life game?
There are ontological leaps in quality of life available to human beings, and they cannot be attained through economic or political means.
Why would I care about taking short term Ls in the zero sum games if ontological leaps in quality of life are available to me?
Isn’t winning the economic zero sum games all about the quality of life game at bottom?
the vulgate goes like this: with the same SAT score , a white is refused from a top tier college while a black is admitted.that's systemic racism against whites, provenly happened a lot.it's not oppression (because you can live a very good life going to another college) but for cultural marxists it is.that's for the white (and asian) part.now for the man part, it's more nuanced
reminded me of this
Amazing posting in here today with Luciom talking about how morally repugnant he thinks universal suffrage is.
When Wazz was gracious enough in the cap v com thread to give me some links to some people and podcasts on people expressing his ideas, I went down that rabbit hole to try to find some good faith, mask off concrete stances and usurpingly came to the same conclusion that a lot of those from that position are some of the most rabid authoritarian mother ****ers as those on the far right. They just want it their way - which is fine.
I think the super far left has had much better luck at disguising that, simply because the right is in power and that ideology is much more transparent and can be tested.
When I read your post, the first thing that pops in my head is that it is both outlandishly tribalistic, and heavily unlikely to do anything productive since we've been doing that for quite some time already.
But since your good faith chez, could you elaborate on what those with the welcomed arms offer? - because I'd prefer to not go straight into some degree of authoritarian mess on the left, that many on that side has been softening up on and espousing.
I wish I understood that post, but I'm missing a lot of context. What are you talking about f72?
