Twerkteam Pizza posted:

A view commonly asserted by this Dork Enlightenment crowd

rudatron posted:

Well it's wrong to think that you're outside society or history whatever, but merely the fact that you're able to conceive of masculinity of not something that should determine self worth, it's itself a major step.

rudatron posted:

I mean it's also worth remembering that in it's own time, the Nazis never once managed to actually win a majority in the election, nationally. The SPD had to cave, had they not caved/the communists not been killed, there's no guarantee they would have ended up on top. Long story short, there's no need to be overly pessimistic when were talking about human behavior. Some cynicism it's one thing, fatalism is quite another.

And I mean socially, a lot of progress had been made on gender roles, so even if you may have doubts as to whether someone is being honest when they say they don't base their self worth on masculinity, it's not inconceivable. Certainly it's a psychologically healthy place to be, but one that takes effort, so placing yourself there mentally would at least indicate a desire for that kind of self improvement, a precondition for actually getting there.

Pussy Cartel posted:

The implications of the Milgram experiment are frequently overstated and extended to very different circumstances than those it took place in, and the same goes for various replications of it. I would've expected someone so self-assured in their understanding of statistics, neuroscience, and psychology to know better than to use the Milgram experiment as "proof" that people are sheep.

Twerkteam Pizza posted:

Just to be clear, I made this post


about Davis Aurini, or however the gently caress you spell it, about how Aurini and his followers generally tie their self-worth to this myth of liberating masculinity that has worked throughout history.
A view commonly asserted by this Dork Enlightenment crowd (we need to get back to the good ole days of feudalism) and bolstered by their reactionary hatred of Feminists, Women's Rights, and Trans Women.

Which prompted Cingulate to quote me and reply


to which I said
(and since I had multiple tabs open I thought I identified Cingulate and this argument in the Jrod DnD thread)


As an aside, Race Realists posted


Which I added to with the reply below (because Cingulate has this annoying contrarian habit)


Which eventually leads to Cingulate asserting that THE MILGRAM STUDY (which showed the influence of social influence and authoritarian control) shows how people tie their masculinity to their self worth because

??????????????????

Cingulate posted:

Okay so the strange thing I'm looking at right now is how super sure you are of what I would have gone for had WWN actually answered my question, and how super wrong you are.

????? indeed.

Jack of Hearts posted:

Maybe if you wanted people to understand you you'd manage to respond in something other than one line nonsense. You elucidate your points terribly, and I still have no idea what you were getting at with the Milgram question.

Jack of Hearts posted:

Maybe if you wanted people to understand you you'd manage to respond in something other than one line nonsense. You elucidate your points terribly, and I still have no idea what you were getting at with the Milgram question.

Tesseraction posted:

I believe his point was "you'd like to believe you're special, but in the end you're statistically likely to be guilty of the thing you claim to not be affected by, as proven by Milgram's experiment."

Cingulate posted:

I know you don't, and then, you're not giving me the impression that you care either way - it seems you're convinced I was going to make a stupid point, because I'm stupid and/or horrible.
Which I have a lot of understanding for, to be honest.

Cingulate posted:

I'm not fatalistic - I'm super optimistic, in the moderate term (I'm, if you want so, a Prog). The world has never been so open to diversity, and never before have we had such a critical discourse of gender roles. But the first thing all of this discourse is showing us is always how common, all-encompassing, neigh-inevitable, and powerful gender roles are. (And really, all I'm saying is, don't be a hypocrite who attributes sexism to everyone else while thinking you're above it - chances are, you're not, you're probably just the guy who says he "sees no color"/post-racism.)

To understand the Neoreactionary, first look inside your own heart of darkness.

Tesseraction posted:

I believe his point was "you'd like to believe you're special, but in the end you're statistically likely to be guilty of the thing you claim to not be affected by, as proven by Milgram's experiment."

OwlFancier posted:

That reads distressingly close to "who're the real racists lieberals "

Jack of Hearts posted:

I don't mind being wrong. Actually, I hate it a lot, but I have the decency to burn with shame and self-hatred when it's demonstrated, rather than whining. Just make your goddamn case rather than dancing around it. Say what you mean to say.

Tesseraction posted:

Which is true, but not necessarily something that disproves the assertion that the person doesn't tie their self-worth to an arbitrary definition of 'masculinity.'

Tesseraction posted:

Which is true, but not necessarily something that disproves the assertion that the person doesn't tie their self-worth to an arbitrary definition of 'masculinity.'

Who What Now posted:

Yeah, I'm still really unclear what the experiment has to do with what I said, and I'm beginning to think "nothing at all".

Cingulate posted:

Okay, that's too many negatives for me - can you rephrase that?

I mean, I of course didn't deny that masculinists or whomever we're talking about right now are frail-egoed people obsessed with masculinity. All I'm saying is, that is not a delineating criterion compared to the rest of us.

Tesseraction posted:

Which is true, but not necessarily something that disproves the assertion that the person doesn't tie their self-worth to an arbitrary definition of 'masculinity.'

Cingulate posted:

So is that you passively-aggressively asking me what I was going for? (Or maybe just you indirectly asking me ..?) I can't quite tell!

Tesseraction posted:

Haha, all right: "okay, but that they were talking about masculinity being tied to self worth. You responded about male privilege. These are two different things, even if they're related.

Tesseraction posted:

And it's not a delineating criterion between NRx and us but it is an unhealthy element of patriarchal societal structures. This doesn't mean all men do this (tie masculinity to self-worth), but that patriarchy wants them to, as it reinforces gender roles.

Who What Now posted:

If you'd like to take another crack at explaining where you were/are going with brining up the experiment in response to my claim that I don't base my self-worth on my masculinity then please, be my guest.

Polybius91 posted:

I don't think anyone here knows what Cingulate is talking about, least of all Cingulate himself.

Cingulate posted:

No, and I think that's a dumb thought, not just a wrong one. Of course people who generally stick to a PC discourse are less awful than people who openly advocate lynching. But that you're not them shouldn't lead to a delusion that you're actually good.

Cingulate posted:

I certainly wouldn't like to. I'd do it out of respect, and I guess to avoid being misunderstood.

Cingulate posted:

I know you don't, and then, you're not giving me the impression that you care either way - it seems you're convinced I was going to make a stupid point, because I'm stupid and/or horrible.
Which I have a lot of understanding for, to be honest.

OwlFancier posted:

I don't find it especially helpful to think of myself as inherently and irreparably evil.

I mean, I do think that because I'm a depressive fucker, but it's not a useful thought. It's not one that I would think given the choice and not one I would advocate anyone else thinking.

It is, rationally speaking, entirely reasonable for a person who does good things and, on balance, spends their life being understanding and compassionate to others, to be considered a good person. That they objectively may not be the best human who will ever live does not diminish that. If you make the effort and achieve good results for the environment you live in, that makes you good. It does not preclude there being room for improvement but there is no benefit to mindless self-flagellation over that fact. Accept both that you are doing well and worthy of esteem if you live a good life, and also that your responsibility to excel and improve does not diminish because of it. Feel good about yourself and look for ways to improve further. Far more rational way to live.

Twerkteam Pizza posted:

Okay straight up, maybe I just get annoyed because in my head I see you as having an uppity tone, but then there's these tiny hints of self awareness like here that redeem you

Who What Now posted:

Then do so.

Cingulate posted:

Okay this may sound unfair, but: answer the question, then. In the Milgram study - what's your guess for how far you would have gone? If you've just read up on the details of the results, what was your guess before that?

OwlFancier posted:

I think I can pretty accurately say I am a much better person in almost every way than Davis Aurini.

Like, I would be pretty deluded if I thought otherwise.

I can and probably would argue that it's not really his fault that he's a berk, but I can still say that there's a pretty stark difference between us.

Jack of Hearts posted:

I know it's not towards me, but it's a thoroughly bizarre question. I guess that I forget what I know about the Milgram study for the purposes of my response so that I don't prejudice the answer. Do I also forget any knowledge of medical ethics that I might have? Do I forget my own independent study of ethics? How old am I supposed to be, here? Because at 15 or 16 I might well have just gone "gently caress you, dad." My concept of authority and obedience has (irl demonstrably) fluctuated over the years.

Cingulate posted:

Pussy Cartel posted:

Basically, there are a lot of factors (age, race, SES, educational attainment, religion, philosophy, etc.) that the experiment didn't control for, and even then the experiment was predicated on having people who are portrayed as medical and scientific experts assuring participants that the other subjects will not come to any real physical harm, combined with the context of the study being a medical/scientific laboratory environment. These are all factors that won't necessarily translate to other, radically different contexts, and taking the experiment's results and then generalizing it to be "all people will bow to authority" is a really, really big leap to make.

OwlFancier posted:

Again, hard to read this as anything other than "actually you're the bad guy"

Cingulate posted:

You're right, and consequently, I retract the following of my earlier statements:
1. All people will bow to authority.
2. Stalin was actually just kind of misunderstood.
3. Coke tastes different from Pepsi, to an important degree.
4. I hate bunnies.

Cingulate posted:

Haha, not intended. I was just trying to say: look, even if I give you that, that's aiming low isn't it?

OwlFancier posted:

Well, yes, because he's patently a repugnant idiot. But you're the one that said there wasn't much difference between us.

Cingulate posted:

The difference is quantitative, not qualitative? Does that work for you?

Cingulate posted:

Okay this may sound unfair, but: answer the question, then. In the Milgram study - what's your guess for how far you would have gone? If you've just read up on the details of the results, what was your guess before that?

rudatron posted:

The thing is Cingulate, when the alt-right adds 'consciousness', they're not seeing it the way it actually is. They're conscious of it, but see it as a kind of inevitability, this gaping maw from which they will never escape, so rather than fight against it, they jump right in - your mentality, that it is inescapable thing that you should never even consider considering yourself above, is I think a really negative attitude to take, and one that may inevitably lead to your own excursion into a kind of dork entitlement. Now of course, the alt-right sees it as inescapable because of a kind of biological imperative or whatever, but externalizing the blame onto how corrupt society is and how you can never be free from it, I don't think that's much better.

So I disagree, look at your heart of darkness or whatever, but then throw it in the trash. Like, there is no 'real' you, hidden deep in your heart, away from everyone's prying eyes, that then 'reveals' itself at the most inopportune moments. It just doesn't exist. Once you let go of that delusion, you're free to be in the moment.

OwlFancier posted:

Erm, you might have to explain that a bit further because I'm not sure how to interpret that other than possibly as a somewhat esoteric fat joke.

Who What Now posted:

Explain why my answer matters and I'll be happy to.