^

That's why I said it LiKe tHiS

<#452955229227319306>

The line between serious and non-serious is blurry

Poe's Law

goofy

why

1) Strength -> Makes sense and largely also depends, lets look at what labor we had to do in the past it was fucking intense.

2) not suprising, ghettos, self imposed psudo warrior culture without any honor code or code of conduct in general. Its the closest to an ancap society that you will get. But its upheld by handouts... so thats a major issue, take that away and you will see the culture collapse, mass rise in violence before warlords arise and eventually create a feudal system.

3) not suprised, issue is always how big is said gap, what is each race better attuned to, etc. The fact that this is controversial is suprising.

***Thoughts on returning to a somewhat honor culture and warrior culture?***

(this can vary its not said that we see duels to the death daily and some weird death cult rising up, moreso it can be mild -> return of say duels for honor but say boxing matches instead. Violence becoming more acceptable as a means of discourse or even in public however there are strong codes restricting engagement. Or on the other side absolute anarchy of butchering, warlords and all, although thats not so much a warrior culture but rather simply anarchy and its results)

Feudal system you say? Sounds exciting.

sounds really really stupid

@ham addition

Hippity hoppity women are property

@Doctor Anon

@ham addition

Who was right here? Also is this not the most one-sided game of Shirts VS Skins you've ever seen?

Millers were right

^correct response to someone saying they will kill you

Criminal record of guy who was shot

@campodin I knew the shooting was justified, but I thought the incident itself may have been avoidable.

After seeing his criminal record, they really did do the right thing. Sucks that their names and faces are now in newspaper articles accusing them of murder

That Aaron guy attacked the dad with a bat, not sure if you saw, but it was 100% deserved

it was out of the view of the camera, but if you pause before he was shot, you can the guy striking at one of them

Yeah, and if you read more about Aaron he regularly got into altercations with police and was aggressive when not on his medication.

Hot take: It doesn't matter what one is capable of (or what the mean of their group is) - they should still be treated equally, with the same rights and initial starting point as others

@SilverLining Hot take

why should they?

@The Big Oof Hot take

Because the mean is a heavily deceptive number

and also, arguably more importantly, because we should strive to produce the most happiness - the most pleasure - for the most people

What kind of groups are we talking about? And what is "an equal starting point?"

Is everyone equal before the law, or do you mean equally financially speaking? Are we talking about foreigners or your own people?

Those are all different questions

" we should strive to produce the most happiness - the most pleasure - for the most people"

This is what everyone strives for

This is what fascists strive for

This is what Marxists strive for

This is what liberals strive for

Heavily debateable

Actually not even debateable, just false

Kinda don't think Hitler wanted to make der Juden happy

Kinda don't think white supremacists care much about how happy non-whites are

and both before the law and financially, more or less

As without one or the other, such equity won't exist

Counterpoint: What did Hitler think eliminating the Jews would do for everyone else? @SilverLining

He thought it would make the world better, no?

He strove to make Aryans/Germanics happy

Not all people

I mean, he didn't intend to eliminate the slavs, iirc

he intended to use them as slave labor

It's striving to increase the happiness of a particular group

Rather than of everyone

"Kinda don't think white supremacists care much about how happy non-whites are"

You're looking at it the wrong way, they believe helping other races is going to harm more people than help

So like

Lynching African Americans isn't making African Americans less happy

You can easily argue they intend to make certain subsets happier

But not humanity as a whole

Well those people do it with the intention of "keeping blacks in their place" and from "hurting white people" etc

Most evil men throughout history had a selfless aspect to their ideology @SilverLining

Russian Empire should be revived

some kind, at least

Why do you think Hitler killed so many people?

Because he thought the world would be better if he did

To "help" another group of people

Again, he didn't really care about said other group

or their wellbeing

Which is what I'm trying to emphasize.

Okay, well then that's not the same as "striving for the greatest possible happiness for all"

There is a fine line, but it's there

"the greatest possible happiness for all" would include incorporating everyone, regardless of any innate factors

The logic that classical liberals used, was along the lines of, the poor should not be helped because it will extend their suffering to everyone else, right?

rather than just a portion of people

And what if one argues that doing so is a net negative?

That and also the belief the poor could help themselves. There wasn't any legal subjugation or discrimination against the poor among classical liberals

as in, it hurts more people than it helps

Not to mention, notions of charity

Right, but a laissez-faire attitude isn't equitable to legal discrimination

I've always believed, and it may be me projecting my past beliefs, that Leftist thought is tied to the inability to recognize that they aren't the only ones who believe in the "Let's make the world a better place!" song and dance.

I can see a counterargument against my second point, the economic equality, but in terms of legal status, it's difficult to really contend this

It would explain the black and white mentality

The thing is

In many notions of "making the world a better place", particular segments of society are left out or excluded

Solely to "benefit" another group

I used to be pretty damned far right, honestly

I don't identify with the right

the right has destroyed nationalism

I was simply trying to reveal that I haven't always been leftist - I know many on the right seek a better world, but said methods often involved the complete neglect, if not outright oppression of other groups

I suppose some segments had an almost misguided paternalistic attitude on certain issues, but many did not, and simply favored neglect.

Laws of economics dictate that the lot of all can never be equal and prosperous. They cant be both.

And besides, if you fatten the masses with luxuries (not possible, but if) then whats there to strive for anyway? Whats the goal of such a society? To help mankind feed their appetites? The nature of mankind is that of an ever expanding appetite. No man finds fulfillment without God.

Shitty take

Kill yourself pareto misconstruer

@Jay1532

@PebbЛe @Deleted User great rebuttal, my dudes

I don't believe in God, but I don't see a point in arguing whether or not he exists. Religion often functions as a social glue. I think the government should be secular, but religion should certainly be there.

Thats a fair position, but i disagree that the government should be secular. I dont think the church should run the government, but religious doctrine should be integrated at every level. Without religious vow taking and symbolism, individuals reigns supreme and exacerbates the principle-agent problem in government.

The best alignment of interests with regards to the principle agent problem is, of course, monarchy, wherein the problem in theory disappears altogether.

It is not the states job to mandate worship. However, it should reflect the religion of the nation. The United States in its origin was Christian at every level while not mandating religious beliefs to any citizen.

no, but you said in government

i think that a prereq for government work would have to be religious membership. Possibly exclusive to one denom, possibly not. Depends how much people try to create religions to skirt this requirement