@redpillschool Man it's dark times up here. There are a few hold-outs trying to change the tide, but it feels like it's 100 against 1.
@natedagr8 basically I skipped to the end here, but I'm going to go out on a limb:
where did I fuck up: caring too much. You don't need so many words for this; just take it as a lesson and move on.
what questions do you have: none. I see this as a safe space for ruthless discussion, but not necessarily for asking a bunch of questions to get to know each other. Just as women are mostly similar, so are men. Many of us have the same problems with women so we don't need more detail in order to fill in the blanks.
@slutmagazine No, I don't have 17 employees, I don't even have any full-time employees although I do hire people to work for me. I meant that if I could hire in my location at the overseas minimum wage I would be able to hire some full-time assistance for myself. It still wouldn't add up to 17 though, that was just pulled out of thin air.
But let me clarify my point here. While I believe that inequality is a general problem in the world, and some degree of racial strife is 'natural' and not created by the right-wing propaganda machine, I don't think it has to be the dominant factor in politics and I think it's better to try to take a diversity of races, sexes, etc under the banner of 'red pill thought' in order to broaden the movement dedicated to trying to get along in the face of unpleasant realities.
That is to say, although I do not consider myself equal or anyone else (in general), I would want 'my side' to be as large as possible even if it contains people with drastically different 'value levels'.
@320skew "I also don't think that having an argument with sticking points from propaganda machine A is conductive."
This is of course true in some cases, but I think you're obligated to provide some detail on how you've determined that this is propaganda.
I've had some really interesting discussions here when people actually get into the details of what they mean by this. For example: someone pointed out that doctors all dressed up in medical garb for video presentations is essentially a form of theater, since of course they did not just finish a surgery or whatever.
One thing I really hate though is when conversations on either side use the broad brush of 'that's just propaganda' to stop me from watching. Ok, maybe it is, but specifically why?
I assume what you will say is that it's propaganda because it's highlighting the racial divide between white people and others in the US. I will agree that the video is highlighting the divide, but it seems to me that the divide exists, and is also being highlighted by many mainstream media decisions, and this video is mostly just accurately documenting this phenomena.
In a couple of clips in the video, I will concede that the presenter appears to be making something out of nothing. Specifically with regard to Tucker Carlson presenting material on how being non-white increases your approximate COVID risk, I do not think this point is a valid example of 'white people being treated badly'. I think this is probably from pure numbers affecting risk of death from COVID. In many other cases, I think the clips in the video are correctly documenting the instances where the mass-media itself has injected racial imbalance into the narrative.
In general I am not very familiar with this Paul Joseph Watson guy so I can't speak to his general integrity, but I have seen a couple of clips and while they were from an obvious perspective, they didn't seem to be insanely propagandistic to me. I would say it's an exaggeration to say this video is at the same level as a 50-page Stormfront discussion on max-whiteness. In my own life, I can say I've experienced some minor bullshit due to non-whites, and the general attitude of 'white guys people need to be careful not to impose our colonialism on non-whites' is prevalent here. It's not just some made-up right-wing-media propaganda. However, there is some right-wing propaganda which dials up the volume on this stuff from e.g. 5 to 7, for example. Still, doesn't mean the right-wing propaganda isn't just slightly enhancing an already-created problem. Do I have a victim complex because of it? No. Is it even really affecting my day-to-day? No. But is it something which is an actual problem, not just 'created by propaganda'? Yes.
"I like the idea of people working through life aware of its reality instead of by virtue of birth." I too like this idea, but objectively speaking, we must consider the possibility that the world isn't the way we want it. I would find the discussion of morality to be much simpler if I felt that everyone had some essential equality at birth. It seems to me that we have something like "approximate-sometimes" equality, where many humans are at a similar level to each other, but it's definitely not true in the strict sense or across population scales. I don't know where the line is, but I can't say that there is no line. I used to tell myself, and others, that virtue-of-birth didn't matter etc etc. But after numerous attempts at giving people the opportunity to reach above their station in life, the reality dawned on me that most people aren't really trying to reach above their station.
Like, I used to tell my boss things like "maybe this secretary would like the opportunity to try some firmware development!". Jesus christ, the fucking cringe. The secretary absoutely did not want to try firmware programming with the men. She wanted to be her husband's chatel property. She wanted this. She did not want to prove her worth with her mind or with her labour. And I don't think it's because she watched Little Women too many times. She grew up in the same modern, woke society that I did, being told at every step that she could be a firmware pimp or a doctor.
Read More@320skew I know you're not addressing me, but the only viable idea I can think of is a fracturing and re-consolidation of society. This may sound violent but I don't think it has to be.
I think increasing political control could be shifted down from the national level in almost all countries to the provincial or municipal level. Diversity of governance could be implemented at a civil or provincial/state level, therefore allowing a better sampling of the results of different governance styles.
This isn't an immediate solution to anything, but I think this approach would enable better optimization and observation of results rather than our current nationally or globally-synchronized approach.
@320skew I actually think this is kind of an interesting debate so I will jump into the mud pit here.
My take obviously, since I can't speak for everyone here.
I don't think most people here have a solution. I think you're right that storming the White House isn't the answer. I'm actually in Canada, but I see the same problems. Here, going after the head of state isn't going to do anything. Most people support the status quo. It seems that a shift in popular opinion will be necessary for things to change at a large scale.
I will say - I don't think I have seen anyone recently proposing to 'do something about things' on here. Mostly I get the impression that people here are documenting and discussing the goings-on without having a clear solution. I don't think there's anything disingenuous about discussing problems from this perspective without having a comprehensive plan.
One thing which sounded reasonable to me is WokalDistance's talk about how we must go through this forwards, not backwards. This seems to be an idea which the accelerationists would agree with. Personally I think accelerationism is a dangerous approach and probably not the best path forwards. I don't think we are going back to the 1950s, and I am not sure the 1950s were better.
I believe you're correct that both sides are being fed by a propaganda machine. It's a tough question. I try to always give people the benefit of the doubt on here because sometimes I'm treated like I am just trolling or "jaq-ing off" when I am asking sincere questions.
I used to mock the attitude of buying guns, rice, and a cabin because of the 'smallness' of this viewpoint. However, lately, I am coming to believe that despite the smallness or locality of this approach, it is all we can really do. You're right that it is somewhat shameful to be reduced to retreating to the wilderness instead of participating in large-scale reconstruction. Thus, I think it's probably a good idea to attempt both: protect the narrow circle you can control, while doing what you can to help things get better in the larger sense.
My best answer for trying to identify propaganda is to read what seems to be 'both sides', and also try to think issues out for myself without refering to pre-cached answers. I also talk to my close friends who are less encumbered by the status quo in order to test ideas.
What do you propose? It does seem that you are simply raising a lot of vague criticisms here without proposing any solutions yourself, other than that we be more self-critical. While I can't speak for everyone here, I certainly do attempt to seperate the wheat from the chaff myself.
Read MoreIf a guy has 10 wives and they are all happy- there is much better chance that you will be happier as 11th one, than as 1st wife of some loser.
Arranged marriages were the norm until fairly recently in most of the world. A man didn't choose their own wives, their parents, mainly the mothers, did. Your mother wasn't selecting women for you based on their looks, but youth, fertility, health, and pedigree. In arranged marriages, mom's chief and primary concern is becoming a grandmother and laying a foundation from which you can preserve and improve the family standing. Romance didn't play into these pairings. You're just a Stallion to stud, and your betrothed is simply a mare to breed with. If you two like each other, that's great, but in the big picture irrelevant.
cc: @firmware_pimp
Read MoreI remember a professor in school telling me and a friend about this, and we completely missed the broader point at the time and just focused on the details of genetics. Interesting statement about the natural state of things, anyway.
It seems like economic disparity is somewhat being blunted nowdays in the same way that sexual disparity was blunted by religion. I feel like I would probably have around 17 servants if economics were a bit more unbridled by distate for disparity.
Sure, the landowning man has the abundance of resources, but AF/BB always applies, ruthlessly so back then. A landowner with a half dozen wives has even more problems then a man with one. The commoners can get together with the women they want, if they choose to. The rich must marry mindful of their need to preserve their standing amongst their fellows and momma always picks her sons wife in arranged marriages.
Read More