Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Erowind's Containment Thread

screw social media erowind

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

This thread exists so that I can respond to people in status updates without dominating the thread with a wall of text. Consider this a general critique of twitter sized communication and social media in its current form as a whole. We should be working to increase our interpersonal bandwidth so that we can convey truthful information quicker while not feeling attacked in doing so. We should also be working harder to actually listen to one another and understand the other people's perspectives even when we disagree. Processing between two people on what the truth of a given situation is often cannot happen until both parties genuinely listen to and empathize with one anothers perspectives, and also make an effort to understand how those perspectives were formed. We should all be striving to be empathetic philosophers not NPCs that respond with our fucking amygdalas all the time.

 

Anyone is free to engage with me here on any response I give, although I don't know how much mental energy I'll have to actually respond all the time and will probably prioritize the person I was originally responding to for a given thread.
 

 

If you respond to me on a status update where I refer to this thread please copy your response and post it here too!


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#2
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

Original Thread:

 

Future historian

SJW's = false flag

Hide Comments

photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
30 Sep  
Sciencerocks

Whiny fucks that don't know how to reason.

default_large.png
30 Sep  
As We Rise

Part of the reason why I've swung Right.

photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
30 Sep  
Outlook

SJWs is just a stereotyped term-- like alt-right-- that stupid people use to categorize or label a person who they view as challenging to their set of beliefs, so that the person labelled can have their beliefs dismissed based on a caricature that is widely deemed outrageous and extreme.

default_large.png
30 Sep  
Future historian

yes its a false flag

default_large.png
30 Sep  
Future historian

rich media owners create and promote sjw movements to discredit and split the working class through dog whistle

photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
30 Sep  
Outlook

I don't believe that. It's more a symptom of human factionalism aggregated by sensationalism, which is purely capitalistic in nature. Alex Jones wouldn't be Alex Jones if he didn't make so much money being Alex Jones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(At the time of writing this comment Outlooks most recent post on that thread had not been made, he just made it as I copied the post now.)

 

+1 Outlook: truth.

With that said there's a difference between the public caricature and the actual term in an academic sense. Both "SJW" and "Alt-right" are genuine ways to describe certain aspects of certain subcultures. But not in a derogatory way. For example many people who fall under the umbrella term of "alt-right" don't actually have a moral compass (abstractly speaking, they might think they do) and in reality are just continuing the trend of using transgression as a way to rebel against alienation/dominant morals in the exact same way that leftists did in 1968. They are in reality anti-moral postmodernists even though they have so much cognitive dissonance going on that if anyone tried to explain that they'd just shout them down. And when I mean "they" I am referring to people identifying with and acting out the role of being "alt-right" in online and physical spaces.

 

On the flipside of that many people online who fall under "SJW" are seeking social capital and even if they consciously believe in the causes they're parading online, they're actions can be empirically studied to show that they're just playing a game of accumulating social capital. And at the same time, there are genuine people in both milieus  actually organizing around all of this madness from both the perspective of a civil nationalist on the right, or a leftist on the left. This is all to say that anyone dismissing the alt-right by parroting "fascist" all the time without actually engaging or a person on the right who is willing to mindlessly say that feminists are just whining is intellectually bankrupt until they raise their bar standard of communication. (I also point out that there are people on the left who understand all of this that use the word "fascist" alot as a tactic because the policy of the people organizing the masses on the far right actually is fascist in nature, even if when they're public facing they hide behind conservatism and free speech. I could elaborate more, but this post is already way too large for a status update, which frustrates me because twitter sized communication is part of the reason all this shit is happening to begin with.)

It's also important we examine what makes someone stupid to begin with, although that's a topic for another time. Not critiquing, just saying that there's a lot to unpack here.


  • Yuli Ban, Outlook, Alislaws and 1 other like this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#3
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,112 posts

First, to be sure we are all talking about the same thing:

 

 

 

Social justice warrior (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics.

 

https://www.bing.com...&FORM=QBLH&sp=3

 

 

  1. Personally, I can't see why SJW would be a pejorative term.  Sounds like a compliment to me.
  2. Secondly, this sounds a lot like people complaining about "identity politics".  Which to me is to complain about the fact that people actually notice that they are being discriminated against.  So people are supposed to be discriminated against and then not even talk about that experience?  Give me a break.

  • Erowind and SemenaMertvykh like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#4
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

The Implication with most of the people who use SJW is that it is unjustified or excessive promoting of socially progressive views.

 

Most people would agree that people who claim "there cannot be racism against whites" or "men cannot be victims of sexual assault" or other similarly ridiculous statements are taking things too far.

 

Usually people using the SJW label will simply apply it to anything they don't agree with and are generally reluctant to draw any sort of line between acceptable progressive views and excessive or extreme views, preferring to try and paint the entire fight for equality and inclusiveness as excessive and unjustified. 


  • Yuli Ban, caltrek, Erowind and 1 other like this

#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,112 posts

Why are SJWs often so emotional and angry?  Read below to get a clue.

 

Rebecca Traister Wants You to Stop Suppressing Your Rage

 

https://www.motherjo...icated-as-hell/

 

Introduction:

 

In reading Rebecca Traister’s new book, simply titled Good and Mad: How Women’s Anger Is Reshaping America, it’s hard not to get emotional, so I gave up trying. While I took (many) moments to simmer in my own rage and reflect on the past two-plus years, it would be a mistake to assume this book is limited to life after the 2016 election: We were angry long before Donald Trump was elected president.

 

Traister’s Good and Mad reaches far back into the past, weaving together our mothers’ and grandmothers’ and great-to-the-nth-degree grandmothers’ rage across centuries—if reading about the “brank,” a “medieval torture device used to literally muzzle an insubordinate or cranky woman” that was sometimes accessorized with metal tongue depressors or even spikes to pierce untamed tongues, doesn’t make you blind with fury, I don’t know what will. While we are no longer subjected to physical torture devices for our defiance, the intent to quiet and dismiss remains very much the same. Traister writes: “The furious female is, we are told to this day, in innumerable ways, both subtle and stark, a perversion of both nature and our social norms. She is ugly, emotional, out of control, sick, unhappy, unpleasant to be around, unpersuasive, irrational, crazy, infantile. Above all, she must not be heard.” 

 

Traister points out that while the silencing tactics by powerful men tend to be effective, they do typically come with an expiration date, at which point women fight back. 

20181001_KAVANAUGH_RAGE.jpg?w=990

People gather to protest the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court as Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, one of several woman accusing the judge of sexual misconduct, testify at a Senate hearing.

Brian Cahn/ZUMA


  • Erowind likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#6
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

Why are SJWs often so emotional and angry?

Quite simply, to an SJW, feelings >>> facts.

You can be completely wrong about something, and have been suppressed to great lengths to be so by an insufferably entitled and triggered Twitter army of raging SJWs, as long as you're not "hurting anyone's feelings."

Ethnic nationalism is a necessity in order to preserve true diversity of cultures. 


#7
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

suppressed to great lengths

What does this mean? typo?



#8
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

 
suppressed to great lengths

What does this mean? typo?
Meaning there are SJWs that will go out of their way just to try to suppress and censor the speech of someone criticizing them or a group of people they "support," usually accompanied by calling them fascist, Nazi, whatever -phobic word, et cetera. Censorship can range from something like calling the person a combination of anything listed above, to just flat out banning right-wing speakers from university campuses.

Ethnic nationalism is a necessity in order to preserve true diversity of cultures. 


#9
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

 

 
suppressed to great lengths

What does this mean? typo?
Meaning there are SJWs that will go out of their way just to try to suppress and censor the speech of someone criticizing them or a group of people they "support," usually accompanied by calling them fascist, Nazi, whatever -phobic word, et cetera. Censorship can range from something like calling the person a combination of anything listed above, to just flat out banning right-wing speakers from university campuses.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

What I find really difficult to understand whenever I see it, is why is it bad for SJWs to offend and upset right wing speakers by calling them Nazis and telling them to shut up, but its fine for right wing speakers to offend and upset people from minority groups by calling them racial/sexual slurs and telling them to shut up? (or more commonly to get out of the country in question)

 

Either its okay for right wingers to complain about being told to shut up, and refuse to let SJWs speak in their NRA meetings etc. and therefore its also ok for SJWs to complain about being insulted/offended and refuse to let people speak at universities where they are going to make students at those universities feel excluded and hated for something they can't change.

 

Or neither of those things are ok, which is a legitimate point of view but you need to pick one. This isn't a case of a bunch of innocent people having polite inoffensive conversations and then being shut down by the government for politically unacceptable beliefs or something, I don't really get why there is such a strong victim narrative coming from the right these days. If a bunch of private individuals want to call you a racist and tell you to go fuck yourself, then that's their right as free Americans! That's what the right is meant to be all about!

 

If a company wants to fire you for publically violating everything it claims to believe in damaging it's reputation and affecting it's bottom line what's the problem? A person can hardly claim they didn't know the company was against racism or sexism or whatever when they joined it. And if you're going to pretend to agree with a companies' ethical standards only to reveal later, publically or to co-workers that you don't at all, then yeah,  they're going to fire you once they learn about it. 



#10
Omosoap

Omosoap

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts

@Alislaws I'm not talking for anyone else but myself, and I know you were addressing someone else. I personally have a big problem with both the right wing and left wing extremists. I'm not too fond of extremism or authoritarianism. However, we do have freedom of speech, so I can't limit either side. My only complaint about the sjws personally is that I wish they would focus on helping lgbt from more intense states, such as, building shelters for homeless lgbt teens, or forming groups of refuge, where if the situation becomes too intense, a person can be removed from the state if their life is threatened and sheltered in another state. Things like that. I feel like too often nowadays, it seems the more privileged lgbt people are focused only on themselves and what's easiest. It reminds me of the irony of missionaries going to Kenya where 80 percent of the population is Christian, instead of the Sudan, where the majority is Muslim. It's because it is easier and less dangerous. But, still really annoying, and they are all bark and no bite, meaning they say they are pro lgbt but they are only pro so long as it doesn't endanger their lives or livelihoods. Or, they say they are pro immigrant as long as they don't have to host them or teach them the culture etc. This is not for everyone, but I find sjws are often like this.



#11
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

Fair enough, And i agree with pretty much everything you said. I also don't really think talking about things on the internet usually counts as a real contribution to those things. And the sort of people who just ​do that are probably the sort of "virtue signalling" types that people on the right accuse all socially progressive people of being. 

 

There are people among the many reasonable members of the right who are literally Nazis, and there are people among those labelled as SJWs who advocate imprisoning all men (I think because most rapists are men?) (who I guess are the people who are referred to as Feminazis? Or is this just a relabelling of all feminists?)

 

People on both sides of the discussion constantly fail to define where they draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable while also taking the actions of an isolated few extremists (or as the original topic stated, False flags or troll accounts) and pretending (or maybe sincerely believing?) that these extremists represent the whole. 


  • Omosoap and rennerpetey like this

#12
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

Recent Status Updates

  • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      02 Nov
    Sciencerocks

    I think globalism is dying. People realize that globalism leads to global government and the gutting of their culture and they are saying no. That is also why the Eu is dead in the long term as people are finding out that their love for their people and culture out powers something that isn't ever going to happen anyways.

    Hide Comments
    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    The fact that 80% of a futurist board like this one is against one global government shows why it is impossible. People want to be with their people and cultures.

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    If such discussion isn't allowed than this board isn't about talking about the future so much as promoting a narrow version of what the far left wishes it to be.

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    The chances of a federal Eu modeled after the United states is extremely low. There's no way in hell you're going to bring all the world under one flag.

    default_large.png
    02 Nov  
    As We Rise

    Love Europe, hate the EU. The EU needs to collapse in order for European cultures to survive mass illegal immigration of people whose cultures are incompatible with Western values.

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    The hell maybe an alien invasion which brings humanity together under a federation like body that invests the resources of the world in war ships to defend our planet.

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    The problem Yuli ban with limiting debate on this forum to only pro globalist discussion is this nationalist future is just as likely if not more.

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    Lets discuss reality

    photo-4717.jpg?_r=1524900378
    02 Nov  
    rennerpetey

    You're correct. A global government today or 50 years from now is completely implausible. 300 years however, and we're in the realm of possibility. Globaliziation is going to continue as long as there's world trade, and world trade will continue as long as there's people willing to trade. It will in the distant future hit the point where we're so interconnected and global cutlure is so similar that a world government is feasable.

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    I agree rennerpetey. Maybe in the far far future globalism might rise again but I believe we'll have a few hundred year period where the world will become much more nationalist and tribal.

    default_large.png
    02 Nov  
    tomasth

    "and global cutlure is so similar" How does that happend ?
    After effects of war ?

    What about AI ? A few hundred years ?

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    tomasth, 1. Cultures are very different. So much so that human cultures have been clashing for thousands of years. 2. Seriously doubt war will bring everyone together unless America somehow beat the shit out of the world and took over...Germany or France(18th and early 19th century France). No empire throughout history has ever been able to do it.

    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    02 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    3. Lastly, A.i will be developed by each society and people to be who they wish it to be. It will not be able to force what you think will happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

First humans fought each other, than they learned that they could accomplish more by working together and forming tribes.

Then tribes fought each other, they then learned the same lesson and federated into states.

Now states are walking that same bloody path. Soon they too will work together and the bigotry they harbor will die with them.

People once believed that God is purpose, than we murdered him. His corpse festers in a ditch and poisons our crops. Our societies are in a state of confusion and turmoil, we have become nihilistic and suicidal as our cultures burn not due to refugees but due to capitalist globalism. The floor isn't too far below our feet though, we just haven't looked down yet.

One day we will bury God's corpse, and find faith in ourselves. We will learn that the freedom of one is the freedom of all and respect one another for the infinite creative potential contained within each of us.

Globalism isn't dying, it's just going through growing pains and still trying to shrug off the baggage of the cultures that birthed it. Capitalism is bankrupt, but the mission of a united humanity is not.

The cultures of old will be relegated to history as each person becomes sovereign and invents their own culture to share with everyone they touch.

Humanity will unite under a new international creed, we will pierce the heavens and become our own gods!


  • Sciencerocks and rennerpetey like this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#13
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401

  02 Nov
Sciencerocks

I really hope As We Rise passes as a women really good and without question. I also like some of the right wings ideas but "she" may get rejected out right if she chooses to join a real nationalist or white nationalist movement in real life if they suspect that she's trans.

Hide Comments
photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
02 Nov  
Sciencerocks

They're not accepting of transgender people at all.

photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
02 Nov  
Sciencerocks

They believe that it is liberalism and morally a cancer. Some of them will attack you.

photo-4271.jpg?_r=1516529872
02 Nov   Delete
Erowind

Passing isn't everything, people obsessing over it are missing the point.

default_large.png
02 Nov  
As We Rise

Passing isn't an issue for me. It's the fact that I've been sympathising with groups such as the Identitarian movement and similar, and I'm not even white.

default_large.png
02 Nov  
As We Rise

I would like to post a comprehensive list of my views somewhere and have a discussion with someone about it, but considering the Left has a sort of fetish for restricting free speech and opposing views, I don't feel like getting banned from this site again.

photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
02 Nov  
Sciencerocks

Go to my forum that I gave you a link to and post them in the political area. We'll discuss them.

photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
02 Nov  
Sciencerocks

yes

photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
03 Nov  
Outlook

Wait, when did AWR get banned?

 

 

@ AWR

Make that list, you'll likely be fine considering how much Wjfox puts up with on this site. I mean for Christ sake Yuli Ban posts about eugenics.

And don't high tale and run when I systematically critique everything you post. Free speech =/= everyone deserves a platform and I should get to say whatever with no consequence.

Free speech = every platform should uphold a standard of truth, honesty and genuine desire to understand what the other person is saying in an exchange of information. Free speech also implies that when one's position is factually inconsistent they gradually learn to abandon it instead of feeling like it's a personal hit to their ego to be wrong.

 

It's not that the left is anti-free speech. Many of our thinkers have openly tried to debate folks like Jordan Peterson and open a platform to him. Namely Douglas Lain with Zero Books publishing. My bookstore has a capitalism section where people can get copies of books like the Wealth of Nations and Atlas Shrugged.

 

No, it's that there is already a worldwide consensus that fascism is a settled debate and no one wants any part of it. More importantly we don't want fascist platforms gumming up the minds of people who don't know better. And to be clear, it's not solely the left trying to take down these platforms. The capitalist establishment itself does, if it was just us, our campaigns wouldn't be nearly as effective. Liberals of all stripes, conservative or not also believe fascism is a settled debate. It's not that people won't debate ideas, it's that some ideas are considered absurd, settled and generally don't deserve debate. Monarchism falls into this category too for the record, people don't talk about it alot though because there aren't many monarchists out there.

And it genuinely is that Trump supporters overall just don't understand. One of my favorite videos on this is of the IWW putting themselves in between a Trump rally and a group of fascists. Once the trump supporters saw the pamphlets they were handing out their speaker paused the rally, got on the loudspeaker and told the fascists to shove off. Most people are just caught up in the madness, I still think you're probably caught up in the madness.

 

Edit: Removed a lot of accusatory sounding language.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#14
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

Make that list, you'll likely be fine considering how much Wjfox puts up with on this site.

I unapologetically and unironically see very little wrong with far-right fascism, if that gives you any indication of how far to the Right I've swung.


  • Erowind likes this

Ethnic nationalism is a necessity in order to preserve true diversity of cultures. 


#15
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

 

Make that list, you'll likely be fine considering how much Wjfox puts up with on this site.

I unapologetically and unironically see very little wrong with far-right fascism, if that gives you any indication of how far to the Right I've swung.

 

So talk about it with us.  I'd honestly love to hear the rationale behind your ideas and the discussions that stem from it.  I haven't studied fascism a lot and would love to learn about it.  I know you probably hate me so I won't participate in the actual talks about fascism if you don't want me to.  I think its healthy to talk about fascism like its healthy to talk about any political view; we only stand to learn from it.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#16
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

So talk about it with us.  I'd honestly love to hear the rationale behind your ideas and the discussions that stem from it.  

Yessir, discussions that ultimately lead to another banishment of myself and potentially others due to rise of unpopular opinion within this forum. This place has become something of a lion's den for me.

 

 

I know you probably hate me so I won't participate in the actual talks about fascism if you don't want me to. 

I don't hold any hatred for any individuals on this forum. Most of the active people in this place are people who I've known for almost 3 years, and have had (relatively) fond memories of.

 

The only hatred I hold is reserved for ideologies and groups who wish to undermine the existence of particular nations through the use of mass illegal immigration of people whose cultures, as I've said already, are incompatible with values of these host nations; among a few others.

 

 

I think its healthy to talk about fascism like its healthy to talk about any political view; we only stand to learn from it.

I'll only agree to this term if the moderation agrees not to use immediate banishment as a method of censorship of ideas that were being shared in a (hopefully) constructive and non-belligerent conversation.

 

After all, ideas are only ideas. They only become dangerous when they are weaponised.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

Ethnic nationalism is a necessity in order to preserve true diversity of cultures. 


#17
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

 

Make that list, you'll likely be fine considering how much Wjfox puts up with on this site.

I unapologetically and unironically see very little wrong with far-right fascism, if that gives you any indication of how far to the Right I've swung.

 

 

At least you're honest.

 

Okay, here's something I'm genuinely curious about. How do you justify Japanese Fascism given that you're a fascist and a Korean?

 

Doesn't this all just seem like a race to the bottom where you end up dead somehow? Historically speaking the largest and most powerful ethnostates brutalize smaller ones.

 

And how do you account for genocide across the board even ignoring Natsoc Germany?

 

Because assuming you're maintaining some standard of truthful debate, you're either going to have say genocide is justifiable (in which case we're both dead due to being queer) or you'd have to resort to conspiracy and say it never happened. The first position is one of suicidal misanthropy as a response to how abusive the world is and having witnessed those abuses. In which case I'm sorry, genuinely, I know shit sucks. This isn't pity either, it's a recognition that sometimes people are pushed so far that self-harm or wishing harm on others seems rational. I understand, as much as I'm forced to condemn such a path. In the first case suicidal tendency is one's choice, in the second case no one on this board can just let someone be a fascist assuming they value their own well being for obvious reasons. (With that said I'd still be surprised if Will banned you, assuming you're not posting specific plans to commit terrorism or anything.)

 

As for the second possible response to the genocide question, there are less harmful conspiracies to believe in. Why throw out truth for the sake of fascism? I mean aliens and magic are more fun, or maybe this still ties into the reasoning behind the potential first response.

 

And I know I've been hostile, I've stopped myself from blowing up on you multiple times. It's not that I'm angry at you so much as I'm angry at the world that is turning you into what you've become. You were a role model for me at one point in my life, it hurts to see you turn your back on everything that you stood for. If you ever just want someone to listen let me know. I don't know what you're going through right now, but this all just seems... so off. I've made a lot of progress on my own emotions too, and honestly If I hadn't had anyone to help guide me over the past two years I'd probably be out there getting a swastika tattoo by now.

 

Excluding the hyper rich, which you're not part of, fascism is generally a lashing out. It's a lashing out in the same way that radical leftism is, as a response to the systemic violence and abuse of our society. The problem is that fascism is easier to fall into, it is radical in that it takes the worse elements of our society and our own behaviors and amplifies them. It's easier to be a fascist because one doesn't need to invent a new script, all the values, the way someone should act and their role and purpose in society are all set out for them.

 

Radical libertarianism to contrast this is a constant struggle, not just in a material sense (which fascism shares) but most importantly in a psychological and sociological sense. The radical libertarian has no script, we are very good at saying what we don't want. But we are very slow at figuring out what it is we desire. That's because we have to completely reinvent the fundamentals of human behavior. We have to be willing to examine ourselves and determine what the most toxic elements of our minds are, and abolish them. Then we have to invent new ones to replace the old. Bullying is a perfect example of this, it's a response to insecurity and the solution is remove the abuse and find value and faith in one's self. The fascist solves being bullied by becoming the bigger bully, damned to eternally suffer within their own mind. The anarchist solves bullying by trying to calm the bully down, if that fails we bludgeon them, but we don't recreate their actions, we move on.

 

Every anarchist should aspire to be a social scientist working to reinvent culture. In contrast, every fascist is a scared child receding further into their own psyche and lashing out against all who try to pull them back into the light.

 

I wish you well, if you have any questions feel free to ask publicly or privately. More importantly, if you think I'm crazy, give me a response that isn't a meme. Chan culture =/= equate to political or sociological theory.

 

P.S I tried really hard to remove accusatory language, please understand that I'm angry right now, and my intent is not to attack you.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#18
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

 


 

After all, ideas are only ideas. They only become dangerous when they are weaponised.

 

 

Just a follow up to that comment I made above because I can't let people read that sentence unopposed.

 

Some ideas are extremely dangerous when people who are not ready to hear them come in contact with them. You're right, fascism as an idea in a room of well educated people who are engaging with an air of honesty and truth is not dangerous. And for that matter in an ideal world completely open speech is not dangerous for the same reason.

However, our society is not well educated, most people can't distinguish between what is true and false and everyone is hurting so much that there is potential for a bad idea to take root if people jump into it as an expression of their anger. Very few people are engaging in good faith in the general populace. People don't fucking think, so free speech loses it's truthful liberatory characteristics and instead becomes another tool for assholes who want to accumulate power.

Note, I am not swearing because of you, I am not attacking you. I am swearing because of how fucked this situation is. And for the record, me saying, "people don't fucking think" should not be misconstrued to say we should control them through totalitarianism. It should be taken to mean that we must examine why their faculties are so diminished, and eliminate the root causes creating the problem. It's a scientific fact now with the past few decades of neuroplasticity research in mind, that people arn't just born complete morons, in that we all have the capacity to learn. What that means is that the vast majority of our violent self-destructive behaviors are learned, and culturally induced. Which also means, that yes, we can actually change all of the shit plaguing our world. It requires completely reinventing culture. And yes, that's an extremely difficult endevour, but if the alternative is eternal suffering we don't have much of choice, lest we commit suicide.  

Given that context, fascism does not deserve a platform generally speaking.

 

The only reason I don't brigade to prevent your speech is because this forum is so small and filled with mostly educated individuals. Beyond that the people here who have shifted to the far right have clearly been influenced by forces outside of this forum. There is no threat from you talking about fascism here because there are different dynamics at play than in the average public space.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#19
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

Ooooo, another point that I just thought of in response to your feelings over facts bit up there AWR.

 

Humans are demonstrably not logical beings, we are rational though.

Any movement that ignores emotional components of our nature is doomed to failure. Human culture, requires an understanding of both emotional and scientific discourse. We are not atoms, not all of our problems can simply be solved through application of deterministic formula.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#20
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

P.S I tried really hard to remove accusatory language, please understand that I'm angry right now, and my intent is not to attack you.

Understood. I implore that you step back and take some time to cool off before responding to anything I have to say in response.

 

 

 

 

Done? Here we go. 

 

 

 

 Okay, here's something I'm genuinely curious about. How do you justify Japanese Fascism given that you're a fascist and a Korean?

 

Doesn't this all just seem like a race to the bottom where you end up dead somehow? Historically speaking the largest and most powerful ethnostates brutalize smaller ones.

 

And how do you account for genocide across the board even ignoring Natsoc Germany?

 

Because assuming you're maintaining some standard of truthful debate, you're either going to have to say genocide is justifiable (in which case we're both dead due to being queer) or you'd have to resort to conspiracy and say it never happened. The first position is one of suicidal misanthropy as a response to how abusive the world is and having witnessed those abuses. In which case I'm sorry, genuinely, I know shit sucks. This isn't pity either, it's a recognition that sometimes people are pushed so far that self-harm or wishing harm on others seems rational. I understand, as much as I'm forced to condemn such as path. In the first case suicidal tendency is one's choice, in the second case no one on this board can just let someone be a fascist assuming they value their own well being for obvious reasons. (With that said I'd still be surprised if Will banned you, assuming you're not posting specific plans to commit terrorism or anything.)

I try not to give justification for historical genocides as I don't personally support the use of genocide against any groups of people as a means of achieving goals of the state. Genocide is, in my eyes, the tool of a people who sees no moral alternative and/or has an unyielding desire to see a specific group of people culled from the gene pool.

 

Take National Socialist (I hate the term 'Nazi.') Germany, for example. I do not deny that the Holocaust happened, although I do believe that the numbers were exaggerated to use as propaganda by the Allied victors to further demonize the ideas of nationalism and fascism to forever be haunted by the crimes of 1930s-1940s Germany and Japan.

 

I emphasize: despite my far-right leaning attitudes and beliefs, I do not condone or attempt to justify the use of genocide as a moral gain for power. I believe there are many other, more moral and humane ways of dealing with opposing groups.

 

That said, I do strongly support the use of state-sponsored eugenics, mass-deportation, and the establishment of ethnostates to better serve the goals and needs of specific ethnicities on the basis of their geographic location of origin (i.e. Nordic/Germanic countries for Nordic/Germanic peoples, Slavic nations for Slavs, Eastern Asian nations for corresponding Eastern Asians, Arabia for Arabs, et cetera et cetera. The Americas would be free game.) 

 

 

As for the second possible response to the genocide question, there are less harmful conspiracies to believe in. Why throw out truth for the sake of fascism? I mean aliens and magic are more fun, or maybe this still ties into the reasoning behind the potential first response.

As fun as conspiracy theories are to learn about, I'm not Alex Jones. I don't let conspiracies cloud my sense of judgement and rationality. I study and examine certain situations (for example, ongoing outcome of mass-importation of Africans and Middle Easterners into Europe and how it is changing and will change Europe for generations,) and I try to form my own conclusions about them. 

 

 

And I know I've been hostile, I've stopped myself from blowing up on you multiple times. It's not that I'm angry at you so much as I'm angry at the world that is turning you into what you've become. You were a role model for me at one point in my life, it hurts to see you turn your back on everything that you stood for. If you ever just want someone to listen let me know. I don't know what you're going through right now, but this all just seems... so off. I've made a lot of progress on my own emotions too, and honestly If I hadn't had anyone to help guide me over the past two years I'd probably be out there getting a swastika tattoo by now.

 

I like to say that the Left is responsible for my extreme shift to the Right, as I was becoming increasingly fed up with their rhetoric on men (especially straight, white men,) immigration, feminism, race, and traditional values. The Left has turned into something that, in my eyes, celebrates ugliness, hate, and division through their twisted views of "diversity."

 

Pair that with my (at the time of my very first redpill,) increasing interest in investing in the stock market, followed by going down the rabbit hole of right-wing and capitalist economics and social policies, followed further by an increasing interest in the works of 20th century nationalists and fascists alike, has brought me here.

 

All within the span of about half a year.

 

And I'm sorry if it seems that I've turned my back on everything that I once stood for, especially if I was something of a role model for you, as you say, but there needs to be an understanding that people and viewpoints change, and sometimes in ways that certain people don't like. 

 

You have expressed multiple times that you feel as though the reason for my new-found views are the result of some emotional trauma or something similar. I assure you that is not the case, but instead is a realization that the world isn't as rainbow-filled and strengthened through "diversity" and multiculturalism as the Left would like to believe within its own little safe space.

 

Excluding the hyper rich, which you're not part of, fascism is generally a lashing out. It's a lashing out in the same way that radical leftism is, as a response to the systemic violence and abuse of our society. The problem is that fascism is easier to fall into, it is radical in that it takes the worse elements of our society and our own behaviors and amplifies them. It's easier to be a fascist because one doesn't need to invent a new script, all the values, the way someone should act and their role and purpose in society are all set out for them.

Yes and no. While I did go from being a nationalist-hating, Muslim-loving, pro-LGBT, anti-gun, anti-Trump, globalist, feminist communist to pretty much the opposite in the span of roughly half a year, it did take many, many redpills and heavy convincing to believe what I do now.

 

This was one of the hardest realizations I've come to reach, even if it was relatively brief in revelation.

 

 

More importantly, if you think I'm crazy, give me a response that isn't a meme. Chan culture =/= equate to political or sociological theory.

I don't think you're crazy. In fact, at the time of my writing this sentence, I have been reading and rereading and trying to respond to everything you've said up until now in order to give you legitimate responses. I actually had to think about what to post. I save memes for the Discord servers and 4chan.

 

 

Cheers for the opportunity to share my views in a non-belligerent and comprehensive manner. If the moderators decide to ban me just for anything I've said in this one long response, so be it. 

 

Just know that I don't support the use of targeted violence or hatred against certain groups of people, and I don't believe in supremacy of any one race or ethnicity but rather separation. I'm not a bloody Nazi.


  • Yuli Ban, Erowind and BasilBerylium like this

Ethnic nationalism is a necessity in order to preserve true diversity of cultures. 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users