Message from @Orchid

Discord ID: 368087322127892484


2017-10-12 15:41:52 UTC  

and that means alot

2017-10-12 15:42:22 UTC  

yeah it really does

2017-10-12 15:42:53 UTC  

There's a reason why it's the core state of Western Civilization, while also being one of the youngest

2017-10-12 15:43:11 UTC  

Giving that up isn't wise

2017-10-12 15:43:34 UTC  

the European people here are just too valuable. The culture we've built is too valuable.

2017-10-12 15:44:00 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/359431474572820482/368061249273200650/guns.jpg

2017-10-12 16:05:20 UTC  

i ❤ america

2017-10-12 16:09:37 UTC  

Furthermore, in many of the countries that have low gun ownership, many of those guns are owned by warlords, druglords, and various other criminals (that list doesn't include guns owned by the military). As much as shitlibs like to whine about Americas gun culture, the guns are still mostly owned by decent citizens which is very important, and if there's ever a chimpout, all of your neighbors will be ready to shoot.

2017-10-12 16:10:36 UTC  

>mfw supposed las vegas shooter could just be shot at and killed if people in las vegas decided to have guns

2017-10-12 16:11:12 UTC  

there's a reason we have guns, and that's to stop criminals and defend ourselves from the government should they ever become tyrannical

2017-10-12 16:28:42 UTC  

Also should the government ever collapse, having a gun in the hand of every law-abiding citizen is critical to maintaining order

2017-10-12 16:29:54 UTC  

In deep red, very conservative (very white) places in this country, almost everyone owns a gun, and a large percentage of people carry guns all the time... no problems

2017-10-12 16:30:12 UTC  

but when black people in urban areas have guns, it's a war zone

2017-10-12 16:30:57 UTC  

so if there ever was a SHTF situation, I'd fel much safer around white people with guns than around white people without guns

2017-10-12 16:48:33 UTC  

>mfw africans went from spear chuckers to bullet chuckers because "muh slavery"

2017-10-12 16:48:47 UTC  

kek

2017-10-12 17:26:25 UTC  

I have a question about nationalism and accepting inequality, but still wanting to live in an altruistic community that shares and helps each other

2017-10-12 17:26:41 UTC  

how can the two simultaneously exist without being hypocritical?

2017-10-12 17:27:23 UTC  

for instance if there was ever a family that was on the brink of going homeless and another accepts them into their house is that gearing more towards communism?

2017-10-12 17:27:27 UTC  

what do you mean? Theres a middle ground between anarcho-capitalism and communism

2017-10-12 17:27:36 UTC  

not really

2017-10-12 17:27:46 UTC  

helping your neighbors is not communism

2017-10-12 17:27:51 UTC  

^

2017-10-12 17:28:04 UTC  

are people who donate to charities inherently communist?

2017-10-12 17:28:14 UTC  

no

2017-10-12 17:28:38 UTC  

being a nice person and having the morality to assist your fellow white man is not communism

2017-10-12 17:28:41 UTC  

I suppose I want a drawn border between altruism and socialism

2017-10-12 17:29:07 UTC  

if a community forced me to share then is it socialist

2017-10-12 17:29:20 UTC  

but if I share on my own accord is it charity?

2017-10-12 17:30:03 UTC  

being forced to share is leaning to communism, i believe

2017-10-12 17:31:07 UTC  

as in the great words of adolf hitler "instead we say: german people, help yourself"

2017-10-12 17:49:11 UTC  

@Roman Dreams your question is fundamentally an anthropolical one... why does indifference and alturism exist simultaneously in the same species?

2017-10-12 17:49:52 UTC  

the answer has to do with social habits, dunbar's number, in-group/out-group, and kin selection

2017-10-12 17:51:29 UTC  

dunbar's number refers to how many primates can exist in one social group, as extrapolated by brain measurement... Robin Dunbar measured the brain and the troop size of many different kinds of primate and found that this roughly correlates

2017-10-12 17:52:13 UTC  

our number is about 150... meaning we can only keep track of our social obligations to about 150 people, and remember their obligations to us

2017-10-12 17:52:26 UTC  

beyond that and our brain automatically "kicks one out"

2017-10-12 17:52:34 UTC  

to accomodate the new one coming in

2017-10-12 17:53:20 UTC  

so when we form these social groups we become intensely altruistic toward them, usually they're related to us so helping them increases their chances of passing down DNA (which you have in common)

2017-10-12 17:54:39 UTC  

J. B. S. Haldane, evolutionary biologist, famously sayd "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins" to illustrate this point

2017-10-12 17:57:11 UTC  

So this is why nationalism makes sense to me... it fits in with out desire to see our own people succeed, while at the same time it allows us to express being protective of them against the out-group. These different traits have been honed and tuned to differing degrees across populations as they adapted to different climates, but the fundamental program is the same... be suspicious toward outsiders, but treat your people like family. Nationalism formalizes this understanding so that it can spread across a bigger society than just 150. We do this by maintaining a common language, culture, and genetic heritage.

2017-10-12 18:00:47 UTC  

wow