|
Lady Naga posted:What the gently caress do qualifiers like good and bad have to do with something being boring as hell lmao are you okay? I'm not the one who's recently had a stroke
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
This is the dumbest poo poo and I'm not gonna engage with someone who's more preoccupied with getting in as many sick burns as possible instead of actually having a dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
I never knew bad movies inspired such passionate defenders of their honor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:This is the dumbest poo poo and I'm not gonna engage with someone who's more preoccupied with getting in as many sick burns as possible instead of actually having a dialogue. I am undone
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:I never knew bad movies inspired such passionate defenders of their honor. I never knew that "a lot of direct to VHS trash is, in fact, trash" was somehow a controversial opinion but I guess everything has its fans? I could sit here and rattle off a good twenty or so movies that are intolerably bad because they're just filled with either nothing happening or really gross poo poo but then I'd just get called a retard or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:This is the dumbest poo poo and I'm not gonna engage with someone who's more preoccupied with getting in as many sick burns as possible instead of actually having a dialogue. ONCE AGAIN, the oldfags don’t even understand themselves. Faggotry was cool when personal self-actualization, i.e. hedonism, sometimes generalized into utilitarianism, was the highest goal. The oldfags rejected the ((Bible)), which on he balance was a good idea, but replaced it with other Jew hoaxes like Freud and Kinsey, with essentially soul-based psychology. Faggotry just isn’t as interesting when you understand psychology in its evolutionary context, or when you have other problems, as even ((Maslow)) understood. Whites may or may not appreciate that Whites are systematically being exterminated. Young White men still treat their women as whores and compete with each other more viciously for whores than the friend of the familys do. They do understand that they don’t have jobs and friend of the familys are given jobs. Young White women will think what they are told to about feminism and being whores. They still would prefer to be owned by one man who is exclusive to them and somehow imply it without articulating it. In this country, crime is code for friend of the familys and law and order is code for White supremacy. Trump took a nuanced stand on recent events denouncing the “senseless deaths” of the crime while calling for the restoration of law and order. Those aren’t code words to the flips. Duterte Harry is restoring law and order and it will be hard for the media here to explain why we lost the war that he won. The question, then, is whether the young White men have been bought off by commies with weed and whores, or whether they know somewhere it hasn’t been beaten out of them by the terror in school that this is wrong. I believe that pretty much all post-millennials and most milennials are already ready to take down this system and can probably kick enough genxers in the nuts and drag them with us. We just need to wait for these out of touch poofter boomers to retire and die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:I never knew that "a lot of direct to VHS trash is, in fact, trash" was somehow a controversial opinion but I guess everything has its fans? People enjoying different things? On the Internet? This will not stand
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
You can enjoy whatever the gently caress you want lad but it doesn't mean that I don't get to make fun of you for it, here, in the thread where we are making fun of an entire group of people for having opinions that are different from our own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:You can enjoy whatever the gently caress you want lad but it doesn't mean that I don't get to make fun of you for it, here, in the thread where we are making fun of an entire group of people for having opinions that are different from our own. You sure got me with your wild flailing
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:You can enjoy whatever the gently caress you want lad but it doesn't mean that I don't get to make fun of you for it, here, in the thread where we are making fun of an entire group of people for having opinions that are different from our own. Stop engaging with low-effort shitposters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
I mean gently caress it's not even that you like A Thing it's that you tried to state that somehow anyone who doesn't like the same thing is objectively wrong and then just went down a short checklist of "things to say to your opposition when you don't really give a poo poo but want to seem cool". The loving namaste meme in July 2016 come the gently caress on. Woolie Wool posted:Stop engaging with low-effort shitposters. I'm sorry I just try to engage with everyone like they're speaking in good faith it's something I must fix. Lady Naga has a new favorite as of 18:29 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:I mean gently caress it's not even that you like A Thing it's that you tried to state that somehow anyone who doesn't like the same thing is objectively wrong and then just went down a short checklist of "things to say to your opposition when you don't really give a poo poo but want to seem cool". Those sure are words I said about your opinion that you didn't just invent wholesale
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Those sure are words I said about your opinion that you didn't just invent wholesale What, exactly are you getting out of this? I mean I have a terrible compulsion to have people understand what I'm trying to say which is why I haven't stopped even though my brain is telling me to but I just can't understand what your deal is? Is this like, fun, to you? Is this what you do for a lark?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:What, exactly are you getting out of this? I mean I have a terrible compulsion to have people understand what I'm trying to say which is why I haven't stopped even though my brain is telling me to but I just can't understand what your deal is? Is this like, fun, to you? Is this what you do for a lark? During the reign of Charles the First of England, there was a remarkable outbreak of holiness. By and large, the holiest people tended to get the preaching jobs in the Church of England, and, since there was not a whole lot of entertainment and social events other than going to church, they persuaded other people to be holy. To some extent this holiness was genuine and sincere. On the other hand, since Church of England jobs had good pay and status, it was to some extent pharisaical, and became increasingly pharisaical. And this pharisaical holiness started to increasingly resemble nineteenth century leftism, alarming the King, so Charles the First set to appointing Bishops that opposed and suppressed left wing pharisaism – or perhaps Bishops that, like Charles himself, enjoyed a good time and were not particularly holy. And this led to civil war, which the exceedingly holy won. And pretty soon each candidate for office was even holier than each of the other candidates. And pretty soon pharisaical holiness developed a striking resemblance to twentieth century leftism, the twentieth century labor movement and the hippies, Which alarmed Oliver Cromwell, who, like Stalin, found himself outflanked on his left, so he cracked down on it, a good deal more vigorously and more successfully than Charles the first did. Cromwell is both a villain to reactionaries, for executing a great King, and a hero to reactionaries, for putting a stop to leftism, and for equipping General Monck with a praetorian guard, the Coldstream guards. Cromwell’s leftism did not go all the way to twenty first century leftism and celebrate sodomy, but the wind was blowing that way, as men ever more holy had to denounce yesterday’s holiness. The war on Christmas and the war on Marriage began under Cromwell, foreshadowing the twenty first century celebration of sodomy. After Cromwell died, General Monck staged a coup, and to this day the Coldstream Guards, who were originally his praetorians, guard parliament. General Monck restored the monarchy, and the monarchy, Charles the Second, purged puritans from state institutions, including the Church of England. This pissed off the puritans no end. Charles attempted to purge New England’s ruling institutions, but whereas puritans were unpopular in England, pretty much everyone in New England was a puritan, and the puritans eventually regained power in New England by a revolt that England let slide, and eventually legalized. And having regained power, they proceeded to get holier and holier, until they were holier than Jesus (abolitionism and prohibition). And here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Lady Naga, is it really incomprehensible to you that someone could enjoy watching dogshit movies to laugh at the incompetence of their creators? Like one might enjoy watching Davis Aurini fail to signal masculinity. Because it's either that you stone cold cannot understand schadenfreude, or that Dickeye can't communicate except via shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:Lady Naga, is it really incomprehensible to you that someone could enjoy watching dogshit movies to laugh at the incompetence of their creators? Like one might enjoy watching Davis Aurini fail to signal masculinity. There are movies that are fun because they're incompetent, such as Miami Connection or Samurai Cop. Things that had a lot of heart and a neat idea or two but they either didn't have the budget to fully explore their idea or their director is a raging psychopath. However, for every one of those movies, there are similar productions that aren't entertainingly incompetent dogshit, they're "we made this movie for ten dollars because nobody cares and we hope to make some sort of return on them for a quick buck" dogshit. People seem to forget that the latter outnumber the former when they talk about enjoying bad movies though, and come to the conclusion that all bad movies are good. This is what I have trouble with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Noted Dark Enlightenment Thinker, Kung Fury
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
I would think Dark Enlightment douches would enjoy Kung Fury because its fetishization of an older culture but maybe it's not quite old enough?? Where's the Kung Fury for Babylonian tropes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:Where's the Kung Fury for Babylonian tropes. there are only three truly sovereign states on the planet. Russia, China and the “International Community.” Lottery of Babylon has a new favorite as of 18:56 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:During the reign of Charles the First of England, there was a remarkable outbreak of holiness. By and large, the holiest people tended to get the preaching jobs in the Church of England, and, since there was not a whole lot of entertainment and social events other than going to church, they persuaded other people to be holy. I assume that's Moldbug, because it sounds like him. Holiness and pharisaism are apparently equivalent to him? Weird. Also, "a great king." Charles I was grotesquely incompetent. But (assuming it's moldbug) this is a guy who saw the Revolutionary War as "evil" and who regarded the slavery issue during the Civil War as "eh, people can go either way." Moldbug is an interesting case, because he's very well-read, and has an analytical mind, and is still immensely stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link I keep trying to read this as satire, and it isn't working. Then I try to read it seriously, and that isn't working either. How can he talk about demographics and crime rate and not think about systematic causes and socioeconomics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:
Why do you think he understands any of those things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link My favorite part of the article is where he states something as fact and then immediately follows up with (I assume), then bases the rest of the article off of that premise. I though he hit peak crazy in the early 2000s when he wrote books about how you can make things come true by simply telling yourself they're going to come true over and over and over, but man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I assume that's Moldbug, because it sounds like him. Holiness and pharisaism are apparently equivalent to him? Weird. jim says: No one thought that slavery was a particularly bad thing until the early nineteenth centure – a hundred and sixty years after the events we are discussing. Note the close correlation between renewed war on marriage, war on underage sex, war on booze, and war on slavery – it was another outbreak of holiness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
I'm starting to think there's a long line of (uniformly male) thinkers whose entire ouvre is just them trying to "get out of their own heads" and relate to the world around them, failing, blaming the world for their personal failings, and retreating into paranoia. I didn't wake up this morning expecting to draw parallels from Scott Adams to Yukio Mishima, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:I keep trying to read this as satire, and it isn't working. Then I try to read it seriously, and that isn't working either. Reactionaries believe social structures don't exist and social sciences are an international globalist conspiracy. See also: Margaret Thatcher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Reactionaries believe social structures don't exist and social sciences are an international globalist conspiracy. See also: Margaret Thatcher. Not true. The Cathedral and Chtulhu exist. They are real, and strong, and they are my friend. Bow before the power of the Satanic Jewish powers of Academia! 
The Vosgian Beast has a new favorite as of 20:57 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Iirc most people on SASS have never actually posted on SA They care faaar too much for that to be believable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:They care faaar too much for that to be believable. Generally the people that care the most about something are people who haven't experienced it themselves. See: bigotry
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Moldbug is an interesting case, because he's very well-read, and has an analytical mind, and is still immensely stupid. Nah. He likes to drop names, but I'm not sure he's actually read any of their works beyond the bits he quotes. He certainly doesn't understand them. For example: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/mr-jones-is-rather-concerned.html Moldbug posted:When I think of the Enlightenment, for instance, the man who jumps to mind is Hume. Pontus is a busy place and perhaps you don't have time to appreciate Hume yourself. I've read a good bit of his History of England, which is excellent and really ought to be updated in the proper spirit. I picked up on this, because back when I studied philosophy Hume was a favourite of mine. Like, I know gently caress all about AI or computer science so a lot of MIRI's claims are vaguely plausible to me -- but I do know David Hume. Now, David Hume is a good read if you like your 18th century philosopher-historians, and eminently readable even today. But Moldbug goes on: Moldbug posted:Unfortunately for Buck Harkness, Hume's ideal form of government was... a "civilized monarchy". Spoiler: This is 100% garbage. Moldbug 'supports' his assertion with an extended quote from Hume which I'm going to reproduce here in full so you don't have to wade through Moldbug's execrable writing: Moldbug, quoting Hume posted:In a civilized monarchy, the prince alone is unrestrained in the exercise of his authority, and possesses alone a power, which is not bounded by any thing but custom, example, and the sense of his own interest. Every minister or magistrate, however eminent, must submit to the general laws, which govern the whole society, and must exert the authority delegated to him after the manner, which is prescribed. The people depend on none but their sovereign, for the security of their property. He is so far removed from them, and is so much exempt from private jealousies or interests, that this dependence is scarcely felt. And thus a species of government arises, to which, in a high political rant, we may give the name of Tyranny, but which, by a just and prudent administration, may afford tolerable security to the people, and may answer most of the ends of political society. See anything about Hume's favourite form of government in there? No. Either Moldbug is reading something into this that's blatantly not there, or he's dropping huge chunks of text that he knows people will skim over without checking to see if they actually support what he's saying. In fact, in the paragraph immediately before those two Hume says: David Hume posted:However perfect, therefore, the monarchical form may appear to some politicians, it owes all its perfection to the republican; nor is it possible, that a pure despotism, established among a barbarous people, can ever, by its native force and energy, refine and polish itself. It must borrow its laws, and methods, and institutions, and consequently its stability and order, from free governments. Or how about this on monarchies, from elsewhere in the same text? David Hume posted:It must, however, be confessed, that, though monarchical governments have approached nearer to popular ones, in gentleness and stability; they are still inferior. Our modern education and customs instil more humanity and moderation than the ancient; but have not as yet been able to overcome entirely the disadvantages of that form of government. Moldbug either hasn't read Hume, hasn't understood Hume, or is deliberately quote-mining Hume in order to sound well-studied in Enlightenment philosophy. potatocubed has a new favorite as of 22:09 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
blastron posted:My favorite part of the article is where he states something as fact and then immediately follows up with (I assume), then bases the rest of the article off of that premise. Also how we were going to disprove evolution within his lifetime, because he could come up with a thought experiment about how it could look like there was gravity without gravity being real (something about everything constantly doubling in size?), ergo all fundamental principles of science were houses of cards waiting to be knocked down? I don't even know what the hell his anti-evolution argument was. Probably crazy-dude reflexive contrarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Also how we were going to disprove evolution within his lifetime, because he could come up with a thought experiment about how it could look like there was gravity without gravity being real (something about everything constantly doubling in size?), ergo all fundamental principles of science were houses of cards waiting to be knocked down? I don't even know what the hell his anti-evolution argument was. Probably crazy-dude reflexive contrarianism. In this universe, there are only two objects: you and a huge planet-sized ball.There is no gravity in this hypothetical reality in the classic sense of objects being attracted to each other. There is only one rule: Every piece of matter in this universe is constantly expanding, doubling in size every second. You wouldn't notice the doubling, because both you and the huge ball would remain in the same proportion to each other. There would be no other reference points. And you wouldn't feel your own matter doubling any more than you feel the activity of the atoms in your body now. In your current universe, you don't feel your skin cells dying, and you don't feel yourself being propelled at high velocity around the Sun or spinning with the Earth s rotation. So it shouldn't be hard to imagine how you could be doubling in size every second without being aware of it in the hypothetical universe. The only effect you would feel from this doubling in size is the illusion of gravity. The ball's growth would cause a constant pushing against you. If you tried to "jump" away from the growing ball, you would create some space temporarily, but the ball's growth would catch up with you and close the distance quickly. To you, it would feel as though you were attracted to the huge ball and whenever you jumped "up," you would be sucked back down to it. There would be no gravity, but it would look and feel exactly like gravity. Visually, it would seem that the huge ball had more "gravitational pull" than you do, because you seem to be attracted to it and not the other way around. This corresponds to our classic view of gravity‹that huge objects have more of it. Imagine a marble and a bowling ball. Now imagine they both instantly double in size. The marble still looks pretty much like a marble, but the bowling ball appears huge. When a large object doubles in size, it seems to have a disproportionately significant impact compared to a smaller object. So if gravity is an optical illusion, large objects would appear to create more of the illusion than smaller objects. That's consistent with what we see. Now let's move from the hypothetical universe to our current universe filled with planets and other matter. You'd have to add another rule in order for the expanding matter theory to replace gravity in the current universe. You'd have to have a universe where all the major planets are moving away from each other quickly, otherwise they'd grow until they all bumped together. In fact, the current universe does appear to be expanding, so that's no obstacle to the expanding matter theory. I can't think of anything in the "real" universe that would contradict the notion of gravity being an illusion caused by expanding matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Bless you, LoB BLoB
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
lol if he wants an Enlightenment thinker who as pro-monarchy, why doesn't he just cite Kant. You know, the guy who wrote an essay on what the Enlightenment is and kissed his king's rear end throughout the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:I can't think of anything in the "real" universe that would contradict the notion of gravity being an illusion caused by expanding matter. So in conclusion, Scott Adams is bad at thinking of things. IIRC the evolution thing was "maybe scientists will discover that time doesn't exist, therefore evolution is meaninless"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:lol if he wants an Enlightenment thinker who as pro-monarchy, why doesn't he just cite Kant. You know, the guy who wrote an essay on what the Enlightenment is and kissed his king's rear end throughout the whole thing. Kant famously opposed masturbation on moral grounds, and if Moldbug wasn't masturbatory he wouldn't be Moldbug.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Alt-Left, Alt-Right, or Nega-Center we all masturbate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Alt-Left, Alt-Right, or Nega-Center we all masturbate. What about Naga-Center
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:lol if he wants an Enlightenment thinker who as pro-monarchy, why doesn't he just cite Kant. You know, the guy who wrote an essay on what the Enlightenment is and kissed his king's rear end throughout the whole thing. Ayn Rand had a bug up her rear end about Kant for deeply obscure reasons so there's some lingering resentment there. Also Moldbug doesn't want people to free themselves from their self-imposed immaturity. He wants them to stay right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:38
|
|