Hbomberguy posted:

I need to 'rebel' against opinions that are different from mine. I can't just have a conversation with people.

That would be madness.

Hbomberguy posted:

I've never seen anyone honestly attempt to start a real conversation on twitter or 4chan or anything like that. It's way easier to decide conversation is impossible and become a weirdo shitheel who comments on youtube videos and argues with other nobodies on the opposite side of the fence, usually by fantasizing about them having a bearded neck, than actually try to have one.

The SA forums are cool because people who at least are willing to give it a shot seem to congregate here.

Hbomberguy posted:

I've never seen anyone honestly attempt to start a real conversation on twitter or 4chan or anything like that.

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

They're terrible loving platforms for it. 140 characters is far too few to say anything more than condescending dismissals, and 4chan has legions of shitposters who will hijack your thread and post weirdo porn and then doxx you.

Hbomberguy posted:

I've never seen anyone honestly attempt to start a real conversation on twitter or 4chan or anything like that. It's way easier to decide conversation is impossible and become a weirdo shitheel who comments on youtube videos and argues with other nobodies on the opposite side of the fence, usually by fantasizing about them having a bearded neck, than actually try to have one.

The SA forums are cool because people who at least are willing to give it a shot seem to congregate here.

Unseen posted:

When said conversations lead no where repeatedly, you begin to question the efficacy of reason. After this, the door opens for whatever hitlerism pops up on 4chan.

rkajdi posted:

I'm not sure that you should be discussing anything with people posting le happy merchant or the like in good faith.

Cingulate posted:

Reason is entirely overrated. It's a mostly empty concept, and it's vastly inferior to the scientific method, with which it only partially overlaps.

His Purple Majesty posted:

So whats the end game for these people? Lets say that the entire country took a bad fall in the bath tub and started electing these people into power and passing laws. Women go back to the kitchen, minorities are stripped of rights or are deported, and the free market reigns supreme what then?

The Vosgian Beast posted:

The Vosgian Beast posted:

Tesseraction posted:

As long as he keeps up his Measured Responses that's all that's needed really. Heck just how much impotent rage he's receiving is funny enough without the content of the videos coming into play.

rkajdi posted:

I guess. But I personally see engaging nicely as legitimizing these people to observers. Your goal not to win over the person you're talking to, but instead the people observing. It's part of why ad hom actually works even though it's a logical fallacy-- most people don't want to get the stink of dead-eyed domestic abuser or basement dwelling loser on them, even if they are saying things that "make sense".

The Vosgian Beast posted:

Who What Now posted:

Did they 'shop in a 3d-printed gun and the same magazine cover there on the floor? It's... it's beautiful.

Cingulate posted:

Reason is entirely overrated. It's a mostly empty concept, and it's vastly inferior to the scientific method, with which it only partially overlaps.

Hbomberguy posted:

I've never seen anyone honestly attempt to start a real conversation on twitter or 4chan or anything like that. It's way easier to decide conversation is impossible and become a weirdo shitheel who comments on youtube videos and argues with other nobodies on the opposite side of the fence, usually by fantasizing about them having a bearded neck, than actually try to have one.

The SA forums are cool because people who at least are willing to give it a shot seem to congregate here.

quote:

Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.

But don't men have value beyond breeding?
If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.

Like slaves?
Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.

What about the ambitions of the individual? Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.
Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn't be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?

That's kind of depressing.
The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.

Doesn't all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.

What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants.

But realistically that's not what's best for the kids.
Children must be provided a proper education, a sex-separated education that will focus on developing real-world skills and capacities for concept building. They will be taught the reality of true equality, production, labour, and will be provided a better understanding of sexuality, science, culture and ethnicity. If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.

Does this assume all women would automatically form lesbian relationships?
Relationships between females and males have been different throughout all of history. Associations between women and men differ with the time and popular socialisation. Today that is not common or normalised, but as time passes more women are interested in other women or are willing to indulge and experiment.

Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics—with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?

I'm not sure, you think it's genetic?
Perhaps it's partially genetic, but it's also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn't what a "man" is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.

Jack Gladney posted:

So is this lady a Dark Enlightenment acolyte or some weird kind of counter-element within the same universe?

http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems?utm_source=vicefbus


The social construction thing sounds very anti-, but the technocratic rationalist sex sepratism and antinatalism sound very pro-. And I don't know whether this is hell or paradise for the MRA dorks.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

nah, she sounds more like a tumblr nut/ biting beaver era(the old something awful subject from 2000 something)feminists. Vice is know to be left leaning/progresive and probably wouldn't post an opinion piece by some dark endarkenment wanker. a mra dude would have the roles reversed.

Jack Gladney posted:

Gavin McInnes is definitely on the periphery of the dork enlightenment, though he has zero influence on Vice today. It might be more "punk rock" contrarian than leftist, though.

Doc Hawkins posted:

"Your arch-conservatism arises from being a small-minded, backwater yokel, whereas mine simply follows logically from my uniquely clear-eyed analysis of ethics."

They (well, Yarvin, at least) like who they like because they grew up in environments where privileged liberality was the default. Therefore, when rebelling and trying to define their own super-unique edgy identity, they lean conservative, but they don't bother escaping their classist prejudice against conservatism, they just daub together a protective hive of their own words, "proving" their position is so true and cool you can't even handle it.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

I meant modern vice, not old vice. I am mixed with new vice. alot good articles and videos but alot of meh opinion pieces and alot hur dur weird sex???!!! articles.

Unseen posted:

Man, deductive inductive reasoning are the foundation of scientific method.

Cingulate posted:

Because I'm fairly sure they're mutually exclusive.

Zodium posted:

i'm going to need you to elaborate on this, my friend, etc

Guavanaut posted:

Deductive reasoning starts with a general statement and uses it to reach a specific conclusion. The scientific method uses this to make predictions from a hypothesis in order to test it.
Inductive reasoning starts with a specific case and makes a generalized observation. The scientific method uses it to formulate a theory from a series of observations.

Scientific method uses both, but they're opposite and exclusive forms of reasoning.

Cingulate posted:

What is deductive inductive reasoning? Because I'm fairly sure they're mutually exclusive.

And yes, as I said, reason and science partially overlap. Much like democracy and fascism.