Message from @tennis
Discord ID: 668144450979233806
Unironically
I like the new role system
@Deleted User yes
Read Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey
i have lived my entire life without ever watching contrapoints
I'm honestly not a huge fan of her
There's quite a bit of production value, one must confess
I have also never seen contra points
Ok so traditionalism
Y/n
I say the past is dead
Gotta do new stuff to adapt
Nothing to worship in the past
We must push forwards if we are to reach god
contra points
```If you've paid attention then you've heard that men have no idea what the lived experience of a woman is like. That we can't imagine what it's like to have no bodily security, at risk at all times, after dark or in a lonely street, or what it's like to endure the pains of labor. I'll bite that bullet, and note that women fail to mention other experiences unique to their sex: the feeling of erotic compulsion towards beings who could physically overpower them, crush them, smother them; the visceral and overpowering force of their emotions (neurotypically). The reason I will bite that bullet is that it forces us to bite a symmetrical one. The claim is that there’s nothing in male life that women don't know, because men are the architects of the world; this gives us too much credit, and women far too little
Indeed the world of men is inaccessible to women, just as the world of women is inaccessible to men.```
```Regardless of how you understand the difference, if we're to accept that such a thing as "lived experience" is impenetrable from the outside, then we must cede it to everyone. You might object that all of the western canon was written by men, & therefore the content of male lived experience is abundantly clear, but if you make that argument, then we reply that only a man, maybe only a certain sort of man, has the lived experience to decode these texts. The component of male lived experience that is wholly unaccessible to women, more than any other, is the colossal and abyssal apathy of the universe towards you. Women cannot relate to this, except perhaps women of exceptional ugliness, childless crones, and FtM transexuals. The apathy of the universe is bottomless, and to a man, uniquely to a man, he begins to feel this apathy even from a very young age, he becomes the object of a radical indifference, in equal measure to what vitality he shows.```
```A woman can never know of the consummate coldness of the universe, for man and woman alike feel the overpowering, all-consuming need to care for women; Woman thinks that she has been controlled by man, but in fact there is no difference between control and protection. To be regarded with apathy is the price one pays for liberty. She never even glimpses the contours of masculine reality. And because she does not feel the coldness of the universe, because man has always put her in the safest, warmest, most interior place, next to the food and the fire, she cannot see the world as he sees it, as mechanism. Objectification of women is not a sin but an immutable fact. In the eyes of man there are only objects, and women the most cherished of all! There is nothing more valuable to a man than feminine beauty; to behold a beautiful woman is sufficient justification for all existence. For this reason few things injure us so much as the egregore known as "social justice activism," because it is an autocatalytic loop of ugliness. An ugly woman is not as well cared-for as a beautiful one, hence she is less controlled. Being unloved, she consoles herself with a lie; "I do not WISH to be loved", except she phrases it, "I cannot bear to be ruled by a man" To prove it, she makes herself uglier. There are few things more dangerous than feedback loops without dampeners. The classic example of cybernetics is the thermostat which tries to change the temperature of the room in response to the temperature of the room. A signal modulates an action which modulates a signal.```
B A S E D
<:smug:591181720565579807>
The other threat is far more subtle. It is the internal threat coming from men of good intentions and good will who wish to reform us. Impatient with the slowness of persuasion and example to achieve the great social changes they envision, they are anxious to use the power of the state to achieve their ends and confident of their own ability to do so. Yet if they gained the power, they would fail to achieve their immediate aims and, in addition" would produce a collective state from which they would recoil in horror and of which they would be among the first victims. Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.
May I offer a response?
If there was such a movement, of men and women who wanted a change in society, and they did attempt to use the power of the state to reform society...
Wouldn't they know that? Wouldn't the threat of a purge be the first thing they'd prepare for?
I think what concerns most people when we talk about this is the idea of people using the undeniable power of the state to change society in a way that would make them feel uncomfortable.
At this point a change is practically inevitable.
I feel most comfortable in a society that maximizes personal freedom, but with a pragmatic economy focused on what needs to be done.
So I'm minsoc.
But a lot of people might be more comfortable in a society with more rigid rules.
So there's this big conflict
I think I could come up with a system that could at least initially contain people of every ideology. Problem is, people get fed up and develop extralegal ambitions. They cheat. Power eventually falls into the wrong hands. We might end up with a society that permits abuses of human rights if we disagree on what those are.
I think mutualism is a good "in between" ideology
here come the originul libertarians
What is Distributism?
I have been considering it
Kind of serious question, but not really. If you had to race mix which race would you go with (Assuming that most of you are white).
For me it’d have to be either Asian or Latina women because they have low divorce rates and are fairly traditional.
Someone I love probably