|
Lady Naga posted:What about Naga-Center Only if her scales are nice and glossy.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted: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. Addendum: Kant wrote in German, and reading him would require reading a translation by some academic who in a worst case scenario might have thoughts about what the continuing relevance of the essay is and might provide some historical context that might not be from a primary source that supports Moldbug's point and before Moldbug knew it he would have to go on a three-day redpill binge to cleanse himself of destructive cathedralist memes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted: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. I wish I could find that infamous Randroid review of an Iced Earth album that had a long diatribe against Kant. He eventually revised it and the bugfuck insane original is lost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Possibly my favourite dunk in nurkzab was Sandifer taking Moldbug to task for failure to engage with Peel has a new favorite as of 01:17 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Wordfilter 'insight porn' to 'insight signalling'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:What about Naga-Center I don't want anything to do with your center
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:I don't want anything to do with your center It's very nice you'd like it I assure you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Peel posted:Wordfilter 'insight porn' to 'insight signalling'. Oh god yes. So much cosplaying as Serious Thinkers
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Hey guys, more like SALT-right
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/752846742396276737
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:It's very nice you'd like it I assure you. Please keep your vore fetish regulated to the proper threads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Please keep your vore fetish regulated to the proper threads. I don't eat through my bellybutton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
You can't fool me that easily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
i dont get it. also those costumes especially jimmy are terrifying. also i like hegel or at least his philosophy of history. does the make me bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Rip SFT eaten by lady naga
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Wait, if Lady Naga has a belly button does that mean snake-people give live birth? You'd think they'd lay eggs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i dont get it. also those costumes especially jimmy are terrifying. http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-the-hegelian-dialectic
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Let me guess. I'll bet he only learned about this from Caesar in Fallout: New Vegas and he applies it right to international relations without really discussing idealism or Marx's historical materialism. False edit: Holy god he jumps right from that into 'false flags' and globalism. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
potatocubed posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
I imagine him sounding just like Borat when I read this. Does that make me racist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
tabris posted:Let me guess. I'll bet he only learned about this from Caesar in Fallout: New Vegas and he applies it right to international relations without really discussing idealism or Marx's historical materialism. It's either that, or filtered down Alex Jones
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, if Lady Naga has a belly button does that mean snake-people give live birth? You'd think they'd lay eggs. Some snakes have live birth, such as boas, vipers, and garter snakes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
I've just had a thought about the "object level" and "meta level" distinction a lot of Internet Rationalists make, particularly Scott. They're just really fancy ways to frame two questions; "what do we believe?" and "how do we convince others that we're right?" There's a third question that's woefully missing. It's "how do we translate our ideas into actions?" Any ideologically motivated group, from political parties to charities to diffuse grassroots movements, has to answer this question. Don't get me wrong, rationalist groups like MIRI are attempting to change the world, at least on paper. But in rationalist circles, it doesn't seem to be a priority. Why is that? In fact, Scott has shown himself to be pretty disdainful, if not worse, towards a lot of activists, particularly feminists. And a lot of his disdain stems from how they argue instead of what they argue. Remember that "three types of antipolitics" blogpost someone posted much earlier in this thread? The post argued that there's a common theme linking libertarians, rationalists, and neoreactionaries. Specifically, it argued that the three beliefs attract people who are turned off or unnerved by the slow, messy, relativistic nature of political debate and social change and want clear-cut answers from first principles. I'd say that article was only 2/3 right. Attraction to all three ideologies comes from contrarianism, a distrust of compromise and the messy side of politics, and a love of mechanical thinking. Rationalism looks like it should be the odd category out, at least in theory, because it doesn't claim to be a political system like the other two are. But when it comes to practice, I think rationalism and neoreaction are the two most like each other, and libertarianism is the odd one out. Libertarians may be ineffectual, but you can't deny that many of them are active and involved. There is a Libertarian Party that fields candidates in several states. The grassroots push for Ron Paul translated to meaningful percentages during the 2008 and 2012 primaries. If you look at several other spheres of the non-mainstream right, you see that they are also not exclusively Internet movements, or movements about ideas alone. MRA's may be a mess of contradictions, with con artists for leaders, but they've organized conferences and held protests. Bitcoin may be a broken pyramid scheme, but that's certainly not the same as the hot air that is Big Yud's AI research. Donald Trump is getting a lot of his material from /pol/. Collectively, the Internet right is full of terrible ideas and terrible people, and is predominantly an Internet movement, but those Internet ideas and communities are translating into real world actions. The exceptions are the neoreactionaries and the rationalists. The object-level vs meta-level distinction betrays this priority. Neither neoreactionaries nor rationalists have any interest in changing the immediate political future, and focus on long distance pipe dreams. It's why, even though they claim that their ideas can let them solve any problem, the rationalists insist they cannot be a political group.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
Caveatimperator posted:The object-level vs meta-level distinction betrays this priority. Neither neoreactionaries nor rationalists have any interest in changing the immediate political future, and focus on long distance pipe dreams. It's why, even though they claim that their ideas can let them solve any problem, the rationalists insist they cannot be a political group. I think you're discounting the fine work of the rationalist wing of Effective Altruism, who are indeed working hard to put their ideas into action! viz. spending the mosquito net money on AI boondoggles. so yeah, just as well really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Honestly if rationalists and neoreactionaries want to retreat from practical politics, I say let them, and buy them a desert island where they can avoid it all the more efficently
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted: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. I bought this book as a gift for my parents early 2000's because on the basis that I knew dilbertguy as the inoffensively-funny-workplace-comics thing. IIRC it starts innocuously enough like that then takes a sudden twist towards the end into this garbage. massive spider has a new favorite as of 17:16 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Why is there a guy called mould bug
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
dads_work_files posted:Why is there a guy called mould bug As far as I can tell he called himself "Mencius" after the Chinese philosopher, and also he is a goldbug, but he wanted alliteration
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
dads_work_files posted:Why is there a guy called mould bug Some people just never grew out of posting on 4chan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Why doesn't he use shampoo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Electric Lady posted:I wonder what Dark Enlightenment people think of The Birds. I just realized what The Birds is about. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure his dumbass gravity theory doesn't handle complex situations like "the moon revolving around the Earth".
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I'm pretty sure his dumbass gravity theory doesn't handle complex situations like "the moon revolving around the Earth". I mean, he's a certified genius. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Peter Thiel speaking at the Trump RNC feels like one of those things which isn't especially significant in itself, but is a good set piece for hypothetical future histories of the rise of neoreaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Electric Lady posted:I wonder what Dark Enlightenment people think of The Birds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 14:15
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Most of the analyses I've seen are psychoanalytic and concerned with femininity; the protagonist is defined by his relationships with the women in his life, and Tippi Hedren's entrance into his life upsets the balance, which coincides with the bird attacks. So DE edgelords analyzing it could be an amazing spectacle, or the same tired cliches about how women are to blame for their limp lovely garbage dicks. How do you read Rod Taylor covering Suzanne Pleshette's face with his hand? Hitchcock is really concerned with image; just as many characters in his narratives can't be trusted by what they say on a face level, there are likewise a lot of scenes, stills, images, etc. that only make sense when you read them from a pure visual perspective. I feel like Rod Taylor covering the screen with his hand is one of these, because it makes no sense any other way. If you think about where everyone else is standing in the scene, he's not covering up the gore of Annie Hayworth's bird attack from anyone there particularly well at all. It's like he's intentionally covering the screen, as if to keep us, the viewers, another set of masses, from seeing it. He is still protecting Annie from the masses. I wonder if Rod Taylor, and through him Hitchcock, is intentionally denying his viewers the ability to see the scene. Whether it's to reprimand the audience for potentially taking pleasure out of a woman being killed by birds, or more to say something like "Don't use this shot to enforce the way you 'read' the movie" -- I'm still not sure. Either way, DE people wouldn't be very happy with any of those readings. It seems like a common thing for the right to simultaneously reject women and use their rejected bodies for their own social or political designs. Or as some man in Hitchcock's time would say, "Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em." I'm really glad most people I know don't say that any more. Sorry for this, The Birds is my favorite movie of all time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Peel posted:Peter Thiel speaking at the Trump RNC feels like one of those things which isn't especially significant in itself, but is a good set piece for hypothetical future histories of the rise of neoreaction. He's basically a dude who thinks being unfathomably wealthy and very smart should put him above the law, so of course he's a Trump delegate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Electric Lady posted:Sorry for this, The Birds is my favorite movie of all time. Don't apologise! Informative posts and derails are what keep threads like this entertaining. See also the Bitcoin thread, which taught me more about economics in about six weeks than I learned in two years of study.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:14
|
|
