Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

NEW VIDEO: 3 Lies That Keep Us Addicted to Games

[NSFW] Marquess' journal (Cute emo girls inside!)


Marquess
 Share

Recommended Posts

And it'll be no gaming at all: no slips, no fucking Life is Strange, nothing.

You obviously took it at heart much more than I did, sigh.

It will please you to know there won't be more Life is Strange for this one. 

Take care, I still love you D:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it'll be no gaming at all: no slips, no fucking Life is Strange, nothing.

You obviously took it at heart much more than I did, sigh.

It will please you to know there won't be more Life is Strange for this one. 

Take care, I still love you D:

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU

I LUV U 2 <345

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can. I'll just give you the raw data first and add my own perspective at the end. Might as well do it now.

The ((())) in itself signifies echo, which in turn means that the person is Jewish. For example, (((Dave Rubin))) is a Jew.

It doesn't mean anything else in a technical sense, but since it was invented by an especially edgy and brash branch of the Alt Right -- authors of the podcast called "The Daily Shoah" -- it of course has a number of very negative connotations.

As far as I know, the echo was in use for about two years before the mainstream caught on. After that happened, many public Jewish figures on Twitter started putting their own names inside triple parenthesis to appropriate it. This had no effect on the Alt Right since the idea of (((echo))) had always been identification; Jews doing their jobs for them did nothing to change their opinions.

At the same time, browser extension named "Coincidence Detector" that automatically put every known Jewish name in parenthesis was shut down for both Firefox and Chrome. I think it's still impossible to use even though I have no idea how can they actually prevent it.

screen%20shot%202016-06-02%20at%205.11.5

Nowadays, some people on Twitter put their names in )))reverse parenthesis((( to express their disagreement with various supposed Jew-related ideas and movements. But on the whole nothing much has changed.

Sometimes you'll see people use the (((echo))) on words that are completely unrelated to anything Jewish for ironic purposes, too. In my case of (((bread))), the joke is to imply that there's a worldwide conspiracy based on bread that seeks to enslave us all. Similar can be done for (((women))), etc :PP.

(Tbh, the food industry can and does lobby as hard as it can, but that's yet another topic ...)

 

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(((I'm so happy you explained that to me.)))

Did I do it right? xD

Kinda, but it works better with just nouns :PP.

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My approach to Jews and Judaism is similar to my opinion on Muslims and Islam.

I don't think every Jew or Muslim wakes up every day with thoughts of destroying the Western civilization. The majority of both Jews and Muslims are mostly concerned about living their lives just like people of other and religions and ethnicities.

However, there are certain elements within Judaism and Islam that are violent and dangerous to us. There's decreasingly little need to explain how that applies to Islam, but there are good reasons to believe that Zionism -- a Jewish supremacy movement -- is more than just a conspiracy theory. (In fact, there are groups of Jews who themselves oppose Zionism; Cernovich recorded one of their protests just yesterday at the DNC.)

Probably the most cited work on the subject is The Culture of Critique series by Dr. Kevin MacDonald. The link has a summary of his books as well as a hefty criticism section, so I won't bother with making any further points; the goal of this post is to present not to convince.

In my opinion, any issues we're facing due to Zionism can be solved in a relatively peaceful manner through promoting racial awareness (racial pride among Whites), traditional family values (to help the decreasing birth rates), and anarcho-capitalism/minarchism (dissolution or significant reduction of the state) while adhering to the non-aggression principle.

if there are any negative effects of Zionism, more free the society is, easier they are to solve.

An example of this would be the immigration into Europe, which George Soros, a Jewish billionaire, has become the face of; the entire issue could be solved by making all welfare completely voluntary. Without the incentive of free, comfortable life, the stream of immigrants would lessen if not disappear entirely.

The other question, ofc, is how to get there or whether there are any better, more immediate solutions. There are many ideas, but I'd much prefer to break the circle of violence; I think anarchism is something worth promoting even though we won't see it in our lifetimes.

(But I should note that non-aggression principle definitely includes a right to defend yourself.)

I'm sure many find this post unpleasant, but we will have to fight this sooner or later. And it's a lot better to try and fight it with words than with what comes after words fail.

PS: All of this is highly debatable and my exact opinions on it change all the time, so if you're reading this weeks or months from now, this post may no longer reflect on my beliefs.

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional family values? P-please don't. I like muh (^^) bitches to, you know, think. No, seriously, we spaniards supposedly fended off the "judeo-masonic contubernio" for most of the XX century and we have the same birth rate problem as the rest of Europe. Brain drain isn't helping either. Also traditional family values are opposed to libertarianism; each part has a compulsory role.

There are some Christian sectors, both Catholic and Protestant, who want us to go all deusvulty again at the slightest provocation. Doesn't that nullify the point of certain religions instigating chaos and fear? Goodness let's just ban organized religion already. Or declare them cultural associations with no more power than the boy-scouts. They are equally sectarian in nature.

White Pride? Why should we whites (Some die-hard racists would argue I'm white since I can get tan) be proud of a complete coincidence? Why not directly fighting white demonization instead? White pride is just an excuse for being apologetical of racism and imperialist oppression (which originally started for reasons completely diferent from race, as people seem to constantly forget). While we are at it, let's also fight cis/heterosexual/able-bodied/male demonization. I'm not even all of those things but it has become ludicrous.

No welfare and state intervention means laissez-faire capitalism. A very romantic concept, until capital and means of production concentrate in the hands of a few. Exactly what has happened now. Suppressing the state now would give these corporate magnates absolute power with no need to pretend they abide by the law. You're just asking to make life harder to the common man. Which actually could work if welfare founding was redirected to formation and real, equal, constant opportunities for everyone instead of simple hard cash each month. Allowances kill initiative and reward inactivity, and reinforce the idea that the state is not a brotherhood of which you're part but a permisive parent. Why would the rich want equal opportunities for everyone? They can't be trusted to provide them. And charity is just an aberration.

Global government is inevitable, it's just the logical next stage of humanity. Globalization, trade and the future control of population will mix and unify races and cultures (which will be quite sad and boring imo). Then, the only difference between us will be class and religion. Hopefully religious influence will continue to steadily decrease, so only class will remain. And after we get over it we will reach true equality. We'll all probably kill each other at some point before that. Also at least one global police state/neo-absolutist society is to be expected. Being fair and aim for the greater good is not exactly a widespread human trait. Anarchism? I don't trust my neighbor to stop spitting on the floor, not to talk about upholding my rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Day 66. Will I make it to 666?

I just might. I need to emphasize again that I still don’t feel any need to get wasted again. Usually and for a long time now, I’d fully recover and then have to deal with at least a moderate urge to drink again. I’ve been managing to resist it well enough for the last few months, but now it’s completely gone. I may have felt something resembling it for about 10 seconds two days ago. Maybe. It’s crazy.

I can totally see myself going like this for a long time. Perhaps indefinitely. This is a huge deal for me; I was convinced that an urge to drink will be something that’ll, to one degree or another, trouble me for the rest of my life; the entire training you get in recovery is based around that. But now, no, not even a slightest tinge. And I’m sure I’ll have to deal with cravings again at some point. Perhaps a nearby point. But for now I feel — normal. 

Is it possible that my alcoholism is based on playing WoW to such a large degree? Maybe. 

Ofc I need to remain careful, etc; I know the drill too well. Even if I ever magically regain the ability to drink casually again, which is, as I’ve been told, physically impossible due to certain irreversible brain changes, there’s no reason for me to drink since it’s in direct contrast with all of my goals.

Some people can apparently write while they're wasted. I can't even get it up.

Anyway, happy days.

2iPugB8.jpg

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional family values? P-please don't. I like muh (^^) bitches to, you know, think. No, seriously, we spaniards supposedly fended off the "judeo-masonic contubernio" for most of the XX century and we have the same birth rate problem as the rest of Europe. Brain drain isn't helping either. Also traditional family values are opposed to libertarianism; each part has a compulsory role.

There are some Christian sectors, both Catholic and Protestant, who want us to go all deusvulty again at the slightest provocation. Doesn't that nullify the point of certain religions instigating chaos and fear? Goodness let's just ban organized religion already. Or declare them cultural associations with no more power than the boy-scouts. They are equally sectarian in nature.

Traditional values are what works best for most people. Most women can't deal with not having a family, and men benefit from it as well. Not to mention it's the ideal model for raising children. That doesn't mean that there can't be outliers and that they should necessarily be shamed for their life choices (even though you have some of that in every healthy society because people are people). I myself don't intend to reproduce and may have to defy a serious amount of social norms in future to hopefully reach some level of happiness (I hope not though); that doesn't mean I can't look at society objectively and understand what works best for normal people.

Organized religion is kind of like nationalism; it provides a simple and robust model that works well enough for a majority, but also allows a more sophisticated approach that won't make you a part of a mob. It's my very firm belief that most people need a predetermined moral framework since they're incapable of developing one on their own, and I think you can come to a same conclusion as well.

Obviously religious people are capable of gruesome, violent act, and there are ways in which religion can contribute to that. But you know my position on that; some religions are better than others when it comes to being nonviolent and organizing life in a meaningful & productive way. It's unreasonable to assume that all religions are equal since they developed under different conditions (different people, cultures, historic eras ...).

I'm probably somewhat biased since I grew up in a mostly atheist family -- my parents would read me some Bible stories and told me about the concept of God, but that was it -- so the entire deal was never forced down my throat. I can imagine how someone can develop a more negative emotional reaction to anything that has to do with religion in a different case. Even the concept of faith itself.

Gonna continue later.

 

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

White Pride? Why should we whites (Some die-hard racists would argue I'm white since I can get tan) be proud of a complete coincidence? Why not directly fighting white demonization instead? White pride is just an excuse for being apologetical of racism and imperialist oppression (which originally started for reasons completely diferent from race, as people seem to constantly forget). While we are at it, let's also fight cis/heterosexual/able-bodied/male demonization. I'm not even all of those things but it has become ludicrous.

(Shaming is actually a useful social institution, but we're already trying to cover so much ground here.)

Racial pride is an interesting topic, but it's primarily meant as "happy to be" White/Black/Asian/other racial identities like Mestizo. There are more abstract ways of looking at it like being a part of a genetically related group whose members have achieved great things, and so you're standing on their shoulders and doing your best, etc, but that's another huge topic.

The basic idea is that there isn't anything wrong with being happy about your race.

Spaniards are white.

White+pride+isn+t+racist+_ddc92f31137986

Agreed on cishet male demonization. It'll stop once the economy and violence become bad enough though; once the state can no longer provide all the resources and safety, many women tend to suddenly meet a love of their lives and marry overnight. What a wonderful coincidence. This is true even today in less well off countries; if a man trashes his life, he ends up homeless. If a woman does the same, she gets married :^).

I'm not trying to say that there's anything inherently wrong with that since genders are different and operate under different rulesets for better or worse. (It's more like a gender scale between the two, but that's again a different topic. Really what society is is a simplified set of rules that work for most people without thinking too much about it; if you're weird, you're in for some compromises one way or another.)

Either way:

aaiZEKQ.png

 

 

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No welfare and state intervention means laissez-faire capitalism. A very romantic concept, until capital and means of production concentrate in the hands of a few. Exactly what has happened now. Suppressing the state now would give these corporate magnates absolute power with no need to pretend they abide by the law. You're just asking to make life harder to the common man. Which actually could work if welfare founding was redirected to formation and real, equal, constant opportunities for everyone instead of simple hard cash each month. Allowances kill initiative and reward inactivity, and reinforce the idea that the state is not a brotherhood of which you're part but a permisive parent. Why would the rich want equal opportunities for everyone? They can't be trusted to provide them. And charity is just an aberration.

First thing you need to understand is that the idea behind anarcho-capitalism (AnCap) isn't to create a perfect society. Goal is to create a better one; one that is as free of violence as possible.

The state is based on violence by definition. It forces you to pay it taxes and then provides services which are either adequate or they're not; sometimes, they may even be non existent. It also forces your children to participate in its school system; it feeds them propaganda that serves its own benefit; it forces young men to participate in  wars no one ever asked for. It can and often is led by people who value power over anything else; these people, incapable of feeling empathy, are called sociopaths. About 4% of the population is estimated to either lean towards sociopathy or be full blown sociopaths. Supporting a system which puts these exact people in power is not a great idea.

The popular meme is that capitalism in itself is somehow damaging and unfair. However, what we have right now is not pure capitalism; it's a system where companies get to affect the state in a number of ways in order to receive unfair advantages. Therefore, the free market doesn't work or is seriously skewed. If there were no state, all the existing companies would have no choice but to compete with each other on the free market, and while there would definitely be an initial rebalancing period (which could take years), free competition would be established in time.

Life of a common man will always be hard under any system. You can give a common man work, and he will complain about his boss. You can give him free resources, and he'll drink himself to depression. I should know; I am one to a great extent :^). (I IDENTIFY AS A SNOWFLAKEKIN THOUGH RESPECT MY PRONOUNS SHITLORD)

Voluntary charity works. It had worked well before the state overtook its function. If you had a decent job, you'd probably be happy to donate a part of your earnings to a charity of your choice, especially if you didn't have to pay taxes. And I agree that simply wiring people cash and expect them to get better without any other initiative is a bad approach; private charity agencies would have to compete on the market, so they'd be interested in helping their clients ASAP -- just as you, as a donor, would be interested in supporting only those agencies doing a good job.

rF61JwL.png

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Global government is inevitable, it's just the logical next stage of humanity. Globalization, trade and the future control of population will mix and unify races and cultures (which will be quite sad and boring imo). Then, the only difference between us will be class and religion. Hopefully religious influence will continue to steadily decrease, so only class will remain. And after we get over it we will reach true equality. We'll all probably kill each other at some point before that. Also at least one global police state/neo-absolutist society is to be expected. Being fair and aim for the greater good is not exactly a widespread human trait. Anarchism? I don't trust my neighbor to stop spitting on the floor, not to talk about upholding my rights.

White people are responsible for the most relevant modern inventions. Delete white people and you seriously hinder the progress of the entire humanity.

There is no benefit in reducing the entire humanity to identical, controllable mass of quasi-individuals. All human progress has been reached through freedom and through work of exceptional individuals; if we don't organize in a way that promotes freedom (as opposed to authoritarianism) and individuality (as opposed to collectivism), the quality of life of the entire planet will tank.

This really is what it's all about: quality of life. (Quality of life through pursuing selfish self interest, but I've written about that in earlier posts.)

ntQ0TDp.jpg

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually wanted to deal with the question of how to make gaming addiction cool. Better said, how to make beating it cool. I tell people I'm 66 days no gaming and it's mostly blank stares (pretending I actually talk to people IRL, sigh).

How are we to promote trashing a gaming addiction if it's not even a thing to do in people's minds?

You say 3 months sober (from alcohol) and it's, well, different reactions, but a good part will be "oh, that's great!"

Ideally, gaming addiction would be as romanticized as heroin, but without the social stigma :PPPPP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Traditional values are what works best for most people. Most women can't deal with not having a family, and men benefit from it as well. Not to mention it's the ideal model for raising children. That doesn't mean that there can't be outliers and that they should necessarily be shamed for their life choices (even though you have some of that in every healthy society because people are people). I myself don't intend to reproduce and may have to defy a serious amount of social norms in future to hopefully reach some level of happiness (I hope not though); that doesn't mean I can't look at society objectively and understand what works best for normal people.

Organized religion is kind of like nationalism; it provides a simple and robust model that works well enough for a majority, but also allows a more sophisticated approach that won't make you a part of a mob. It's my very firm belief that most people need a predetermined moral framework since they're incapable of developing one on their own, and I think you can come to a same conclusion as well.

Obviously religious people are capable of gruesome, violent act, and there are ways in which religion can contribute to that. But you know my position on that; some religions are better than others when it comes to being nonviolent and organizing life in a meaningful & productive way. It's unreasonable to assume that all religions are equal since they developed under different conditions (different people, cultures, historic eras ...).

I'm probably somewhat biased since I grew up in a mostly atheist family -- my parents would read me some Bible stories and told me about the concept of God, but that was it -- so the entire deal was never forced down my throat. I can imagine how someone can develop a more negative emotional reaction to anything that has to do with religion in a different case. Even the concept of faith itself.

Most people value stability and the majority doesn't want to thrive, that's true. Most people just want their 9 to 5 work in the factory, their modest house, their wife and 2 kids and their spring break vacations. Simple life. Despised by those pretentious self-improvement/utilitarian gurus. Not everyone aims for CEO or Nobel Prize, and that's fine, deal with it pretentious gurus.

But saying traditional (and implying heterosexual) lifelong marriage is the best model to raise children is a completely unfounded claim. What has marriage, as a (mostly religious) ceremony, or (unfair) legal status, anything to do with the skills and mindset required to raise children? Love, respect and security are keys to a provide a safe environment to children. Which means you only need 1. A child. 2. At least one responsible and loving tutor (one parent, two, all close family, the whole village...). 3. A safe living space: home and neighbourhood (community). And 4. A steady and adequate source of income.

Monogamous marriage is an antinatural institution fueled by religion and romanticism. Family cores, in practice, serve perfectly the purpose of tying the people to the land, to tax and rule them more efficiently. Just loving people and taking responsibility of the little, talking and walking consequences of sticking your penis inside a vagina (or adopting someone else's) will surely destroy the West, duh.

most people need a predetermined moral framework since they're incapable of developing one on their own

Absolutely true. But, given they need a lie, a red book, a sugar coat or whatever, why not convince them that everything's fine and we're all brothers and love thy neighbor instead of "JESUS DIED FOR YOU NO TOUCHY TOUCHY BELOW WAIST SO GUILTY FOREVER". Then let smart people don't buy that bullshit and keep making progress as always.

 

OY GEVALT! Absolutely necessary reference, 6 million triggers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iom32fkRyGI

Dank memes. Funny facts.

 

Early christians were nothing but an angry mob after being recognised as the official roman religion, destroying classical knowledge everywhere they could find it. Not much different of ISIS now. They kept the custom of being bigots after that, it seems. In my case my parents believe, but the church wasn't exactly a common place for little me to be. I was never explained things from a religious perspective at home (but ironically at school). God was just there, and hopefully was a good guy. The idea settled in me as: "Hopefully, God is just there". The completely unacceptable behaviour of the priesthood in the past and now hasn't helped. I reiterate: make organized religion stop being a thing.

 

White people are responsible for the most relevant modern inventions. [whose members have achieved great things, and so you're standing on their shoulders and doing your best]

White people are also inventors of the rednecks. White people inventing things was product of borrowing asian inventions (a much developed, stable and civilized society at the time) and upgrading them to better kill each other; which is not something to be proud in my opinion. Not to be ashamed either, killing and conquering was just that popular back then. Being proud for coincidences such as race, gender or nationality is just a childish attempt to feed the ego. At least in the case of western white males. In other cases is revanchism. I don't feel related to my middle-aged dull neighbors, why should I feel related to the great figures of history? I can and should be thankful for their deeds. Being white is not an achievement.

Agreed on cishet male demonization. It'll stop once the economy and violence become bad enough though; once the state can no longer provide all the resources and safety, many women tend to suddenly meet a love of their lives and marry overnight. What a wonderful coincidence. This is true even today in less well off countries; if a man trashes his life, he ends up homeless. If a woman does the same, she gets married :^).

Maybe that's males fault for for installing women in a pedestal of angelic beauty standards and objectification, lacking any other useful purpose in a patriarchal society. We feel women are a trophy, an achievement of masculine worth. Just take a look:

[...] lack the skills necessary to attract women, network, and live the life you want to live [...] 

That's one opening sentences of the article "How to quit playing videogames FOREVER" (yes, in caps! xDI don't want to pick on Cam, he simply guessed (and guessed right) what kind of message would receive the most attention. You see? It's a bait. Women are a bait. Women make you worthy and happy. It's not a "gender rule", it's a learned behavior. A learned behavior from us men. Jokes on us! While trying to oppress them we've given them the power to fuck our lives over with a snap of their fingers and a pouty face.

The state is based on violence by definition. It forces you to pay it taxes and then provides services which are either adequate or they're not; sometimes, they may even be non existent. It also forces your children to participate in its school system; it feeds them propaganda that serves its own benefit; it forces young men to participate in  wars no one ever asked for. It can and often is led by people who value power over anything else; these people, incapable of feeling empathy, are called sociopaths. About 4% of the population is estimated to either lean towards sociopathy or be full blown sociopaths. Supporting a system which puts these exact people in power is not a great idea.

Agreed. That's however our fault, a punishment for giving in to laziness and resort to representativity. 

There is no benefit in reducing the entire humanity to identical, controllable mass of quasi-individuals. All human progress has been reached through freedom and through work of exceptional individuals; if we don't organize in a way that promotes freedom (as opposed to authoritarianism) and individuality (as opposed to collectivism), the quality of life of the entire planet will tank.

I don't say it's a desirable option, I just stated my conviction that it will happen eventually, and that it must happen even if it will certainly mean a step back in some areas. 

The popular meme is that capitalism in itself is somehow damaging and unfair. However, what we have right now is not pure capitalism; it's a system where companies get to affect the state in a number of ways in order to receive unfair advantages. Therefore, the free market doesn't work or is seriously skewed. If there were no state, all the existing companies would have no choice but to compete with each other on the free market, and while there would definitely be an initial rebalancing period (which could take years), free competition would be established in time.

There's nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. It's capitalists. The "free market" or the "invisible hand" are pretty lies. The "market" is made up by capitalists. The communist "people" is made up by proletariats. They are not abstract, unthinking machines: in both systems and anything in between they are a bunch of humans in need of leadership. Which will rest in most cases at the hands of sociopaths who will, according to human nature, attempt to keep themselves in power as long as possible. There's no evidence to assert powerful capitalists will respect the rules of the game for the sake of the romantic notion of free market. They will gang up and form an oligarchy. Why? It's good business. It's not the most efficient way but it's the most profitable. Why current corporations are major shareholders of their rivals? No government told them to do that. 

It's also curious how your view shares with your antipode the concept of a rebalancing period. In the case of communism, "the dictatorship of the proletariat". And it doesn't sound too diferent to me to your local Joe asking for "four more years".

Life of a common man will always be hard under any system. You can give a common man work, and he will complain about his boss. You can give him free resources, and he'll drink himself to depression.

And that's our fault. We didn't motivate private Pyle. 

Voluntary charity works. It had worked well before the state overtook its function.

With before you mean in the Middle Ages, when the Church was the only institution remotely tending to the poor and the needed? Sure, a perfect job they did.

If you had a decent job, you'd probably be happy to donate a part of your earnings to a charity of your choice, especially if you didn't have to pay taxes.

 Or probably I wouldn't. Specially living in a competitive society. I'd think (or be indoctrinated to think) they aren't trying enough. Unless you mean to avoid paying taxes. 

private charity agencies would have to compete on the market, so they'd be interested in helping their clients ASAP

Until they were powerful enough to be indispensable. Think in the business practices of videogame, pharmaceutical, or health insurance companies.

The whole point is: The market does not tend to chaos. The market tends to order, to simplification, to condensation. It will naturally do that without an opposing force to prevent it. A force equally strong to the market, equally strong to freedom and competition. Current states don't exert a force equal to the force of the market; therefore, the market expands, capital gets hoarded in the hands of few, inequality rises. Real equality would only come with a crushing application of repression and authority. Not a pleasant alternative. Perhaps unless authority comes by the hands of everyone and not by the ones of a few appointed in hopes they'll be behave against their nature and do the right thing.

 

Aaaaaaaand here goes all my morning. -_- Now I'm hungry, I'll go provide nutrition for myself while wondering if it would be better to hand over a bill or a ration coupon to the cashier. It autotranslated as feminine. That was sexist dood.

Edited by Hitaru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually wanted to deal with the question of how to make gaming addiction cool. Better said, how to make beating it cool. I tell people I'm 66 days no gaming and it's mostly blank stares (pretending I actually talk to people IRL, sigh).

How are we to promote trashing a gaming addiction if it's not even a thing to do in people's minds?

You say 3 months sober (from alcohol) and it's, well, different reactions, but a good part will be "oh, that's great!"

Ideally, gaming addiction would be as romanticized as heroin, but without the social stigma :PPPPP.

The blank stares are more just because it's not "normal" for someone to hear about a video game addiction yet. That's changing though. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people value stability and the majority doesn't want to thrive, that's true. Most people just want their 9 to 5 work in the factory, their modest house, their wife and 2 kids and their spring break vacations. Simple life. Despised by those pretentious self-improvement/utilitarian gurus. Not everyone aims for CEO or Nobel Prize, and that's fine, deal with it pretentious gurus.

But saying traditional (and implying heterosexual) lifelong marriage is the best model to raise children is a completely unfounded claim. What has marriage, as a (mostly religious) ceremony, or (unfair) legal status, anything to do with the skills and mindset required to raise children? Love, respect and security are keys to a provide a safe environment to children. Which means you only need 1. A child. 2. At least one responsible and loving tutor (one parent, two, all close family, the whole village...). 3. A safe living space: home and neighbourhood (community). And 4. A steady and adequate source of income.

Monogamous marriage is an antinatural institution fueled by religion and romanticism. Family cores, in practice, serve perfectly the purpose of tying the people to the land, to tax and rule them more efficiently. Just loving people and taking responsibility of the little, talking and walking consequences of sticking your penis inside a vagina (or adopting someone else's) will surely destroy the West, duh.

Nope. It's been proven that two parent household is the ideal environment for raising children. Marriage as a social concept serves to reinforce the connection between the parents, which is beneficial for everyone if the goal is a successful family. Children of single parents, usually moms, do significantly worse in life. It's actually better for a child to be given into adoption at a very early age than being raised by a single parent. Link to a presentation with all the sources listed.

This is also why Christianity is good for society overall. The idea of single motherhood is looked down upon and backed by various simplistic justifications, but it essentially serves a good purpose and provides an incentive for women to select for quality men.

How can distinctly different types of parenting (two parents vs one) produce identical results? They can't. And since they're not identical, it's on us to determine what are the differences in quality between the two, and if those differences are significant, promote the better one.

Claiming that single parent families produce equal results would indirectly promote such families and would therefore be immoral.

Just because it's easier and more comfortable to claim that all people & their practices are equal, that doesn't mean it's somehow magically neither true nor good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

White people are also inventors of the rednecks. White people inventing things was product of borrowing asian inventions (a much developed, stable and civilized society at the time) and upgrading them to better kill each other; which is not something to be proud in my opinion. Not to be ashamed either, killing and conquering was just that popular back then. Being proud for coincidences such as race, gender or nationality is just a childish attempt to feed the ego. At least in the case of western white males. In other cases is revanchism. I don't feel related to my middle-aged dull neighbors, why should I feel related to the great figures of history? I can and should be thankful for their deeds. Being white is not an achievement.

Rednecks? What does that mean. Are you going to cite crime statistics in the US now according to race? Because that won't help your redneck narrative very much. List of prolific inventors. See if you can find any patterns.

Can you please reply to each post separately? It makes it a lot more practical this way.
(Don't really appreciate the insults in this posts' quote btw.)

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe that's males fault for for installing women in a pedestal of angelic beauty standards and objectification, lacking any other useful purpose in a patriarchal society. We feel women are a trophy, an achievement of masculine worth. Just take a look:

[...] lack the skills necessary to attract women, network, and live the life you want to live [...] 

That's one opening sentences of the article "How to quit playing videogames FOREVER" (yes, in caps! xDI don't want to pick on Cam, he simply guessed (and guessed right) what kind of message would receive the most attention. You see? It's a bait. Women are a bait. Women make you worthy and happy. It's not a "gender rule", it's a learned behavior. A learned behavior from us men. Jokes on us! While trying to oppress them we've given them the power to fuck our lives over with a snap of their fingers and a pouty face.

Both genders have their own advantages and disadvantages. A lot of the benefits women get in society is reserved only for good looking women; absolutely no one cares if a woman is plain or, even worse, below average. Besides, female beauty lasts for circa 15 years, and what happens after that largely depends on how they've used their window of being attractive. This also explains why most feminists are 30+, overweight, and generally not good looking.

Either way, you will need skills to attract women as a man. You can either adapt to that fact or life or spend years complaining about how the world and human psychology works. Feminist style.

Why exactly is that the case is a different and very interesting question. It has a lot to do with the way humans lived for all of our history save for the last few decades; things like farming, urbanization, contraception, home appliances, etc have made a massive difference in a number of ways we can live our lives if we chose so, but our evolutionary programing remains the same as it was thousands of years ago. Deep down, we're still living in caves.

If you wanted to survive and procreate in that environment, you, as a woman, had to pick the best possible man you could attract. One that would not only protect you and provide you with food, but also one who could do the same for your children. Reproduction is what we're here for on the biological level, and we can't really escape our biology. As a man, you wanted a woman that is fertile and healthy; that's why men, to this day, value different things in women than women value in men.

This post is "the red pill" as it's commonly understood, or at least how it was understood at first: red pill on gender and gender relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The state is based on violence by definition. It forces you to pay it taxes and then provides services which are either adequate or they're not; sometimes, they may even be non existent. It also forces your children to participate in its school system; it feeds them propaganda that serves its own benefit; it forces young men to participate in  wars no one ever asked for. It can and often is led by people who value power over anything else; these people, incapable of feeling empathy, are called sociopaths. About 4% of the population is estimated to either lean towards sociopathy or be full blown sociopaths. Supporting a system which puts these exact people in power is not a great idea.

Agreed. That's however our fault, a punishment for giving in to laziness and resort to representativity. 

There is no benefit in reducing the entire humanity to identical, controllable mass of quasi-individuals. All human progress has been reached through freedom and through work of exceptional individuals; if we don't organize in a way that promotes freedom (as opposed to authoritarianism) and individuality (as opposed to collectivism), the quality of life of the entire planet will tank.

I don't say it's a desirable option, I just stated my conviction that it will happen eventually, and that it must happen even if it will certainly mean a step back in some areas. 

The popular meme is that capitalism in itself is somehow damaging and unfair. However, what we have right now is not pure capitalism; it's a system where companies get to affect the state in a number of ways in order to receive unfair advantages. Therefore, the free market doesn't work or is seriously skewed. If there were no state, all the existing companies would have no choice but to compete with each other on the free market, and while there would definitely be an initial rebalancing period (which could take years), free competition would be established in time.

There's nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. It's capitalists. The "free market" or the "invisible hand" are pretty lies. The "market" is made up by capitalists. The communist "people" is made up by proletariats. They are not abstract, unthinking machines: in both systems and anything in between they are a bunch of humans in need of leadership. Which will rest in most cases at the hands of sociopaths who will, according to human nature, attempt to keep themselves in power as long as possible. There's no evidence to assert powerful capitalists will respect the rules of the game for the sake of the romantic notion of free market. They will gang up and form an oligarchy. Why? It's good business. It's not the most efficient way but it's the most profitable. Why current corporations are major shareholders of their rivals? No government told them to do that. 

It's also curious how your view shares with your antipode the concept of a rebalancing period. In the case of communism, "the dictatorship of the proletariat". And it doesn't sound too diferent to me to your local Joe asking for "four more years".

Sociopaths will always try to gain power, but since we can agree on that, why then support the state in any way? It only provides a convenient and powerful mechanism for them to abuse; It makes a potentially troubling situation so much worse.

Capitalists may form monopolies and attempt to control various aspects of life in a free society. However, this can never last because stronger the monopoly is, higher the reward for the first one who breaks it. As an example, if 3 companies who cheese decide to sell it at a high and fixed price, it's only a question of time before either various mom & pap operations appear that sell cheese at a lower price, or one of the three companies breaks the deal and profits from suddenly overflowing the market with cheap cheese.

Since there's no central government, there's nothing standing in the way of the above scenario. Right now, the 3 companies can convince politicians to, say, introduce all sorts of barriers for small cheese making firms to enter the market. But if everyone is free to do as they like, their cheese better be good & cheap, or they're going bankrupt.

Whether the capitalists are "evil" or not doesn't matter; they have to follow the rules of free market in order to stay in business.

Transition to a free, anarcho-capitalist society could most likely take place through a continuous reduction of the state, and that can only happen by promoting the ideas of anarcho-capitalism and fighting anyone and anything, in some cases violently, that threatens its values. (Islam for example.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Voluntary charity works. It had worked well before the state overtook its function.

With before you mean in the Middle Ages, when the Church was the only institution remotely tending to the poor and the needed? Sure, a perfect job they did.

If you had a decent job, you'd probably be happy to donate a part of your earnings to a charity of your choice, especially if you didn't have to pay taxes.

 Or probably I wouldn't. Specially living in a competitive society. I'd think (or be indoctrinated to think) they aren't trying enough. Unless you mean to avoid paying taxes. 

private charity agencies would have to compete on the market, so they'd be interested in helping their clients ASAP

Until they were powerful enough to be indispensable. Think in the business practices of videogame, pharmaceutical, or health insurance companies.

The whole point is: The market does not tend to chaos. The market tends to order, to simplification, to condensation. It will naturally do that without an opposing force to prevent it. A force equally strong to the market, equally strong to freedom and competition. Current states don't exert a force equal to the force of the market; therefore, the market expands, capital gets hoarded in the hands of few, inequality rises. Real equality would only come with a crushing application of repression and authority. Not a pleasant alternative. Perhaps unless authority comes by the hands of everyone and not by the ones of a few appointed in hopes they'll be behave against their nature and do the right thing.

 

Aaaaaaaand here goes all my morning. -_- Now I'm hungry, I'll go provide nutrition for myself while wondering if it would be better to hand over a bill or a ration coupon to the cashier. It autotranslated as feminine. That was sexist dood.

Okay, so you're saying you wouldn't contribute to charity. If you yourself wouldn't contribute, then why do you think it's ok to force others to pay for it? Force them to pay at figurative (or literal) gunpoint?

How can a private charity agency become indispensable? If it starts doing a bad job, people will realize that and start supporting some other agency. This may take a while (a couple of months imo), but why would a successful charity agency endanger its business in the first place? Ruin their name and deal with all the issues that come with being known for destroying your company due to laziness or greed?

The fact that there are rich people and that there is inequality is unimportant. In a free market, the fact that someone is successful doesn't mean anything is taken from those who are unsuccessful. If anything, those that struggle benefit from successful capitalists since they offer them jobs and also support various charities.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is basically that capitalism in itself is oppressive and the state is just an expansion of that. I hope to show that that's not the case.

AcSIonF.jpg

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying so fast, Hitaru. If nothing else, I appreciate a chance to bang out 1K words in a discussion instead of sitting in front of a blank screen ))).

If you have some time, you can check out this debate between Peter Joseph (of Zeitgeist fame) and Stephan Molyneux.

Edited by Marquess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share