curlys gold posted:

No, what I’m saying is that even though it’s generally recognized that the politically left is far more likely to concede to environmental factors when it comes to social policy, nobody actually says “genetics have no effect whatsoever on the individual” because most people tend to understand now how powerful things like brain chemistry, etc are.

steinrokkan posted:

Ah, the good old evil gene

Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:

What a disingenuous oval office.

rotinaj posted:

A speaker getting mad that people are violating , while ignoring the reasons why people would be mad at them is extremely conservative

Mods, please close this thread and probate everyone in it, including me

Edit: on second thought, spare the folks who did the good derail on trans people and transitioning, they were very cool

rotinaj posted:

A speaker getting mad that people are violating , while ignoring the reasons why people would be mad at them is extremely conservative

Mods, please close this thread and probate everyone in it, including me

Edit: on second thought, spare the folks who did the good derail on trans people and transitioning, they were very cool

The Alchemist posted:

My most conservative opinion is that sex mods in videogames are unnecessary at best, damaging to the community and steering the industry in wrong direction at worst

runnypoops posted:

This

runnypoops posted:

Thread

CLAM DOWN posted:

curlys gold posted:

ventriloquists are funny

Who What Now posted:

My conservative opinion is that nobody with good opinions has ever whined about "group think" or "hiveminds"

Who What Now posted:

My conservative opinion is that nobody with good opinions has ever whined about "group think" or "hiveminds"

dk2m posted:

I realize this is bait but I’m sure your opinions are interesting but make no mistake, they are wrong just like mine are. There’s no such thing as good or bad, in a metaphysical sense, so all you can do is state your case. The friend-enemy dynamic is intrinsic to any sort of Liberalism - ideas that are opposed to each other cannot be resolved, so the group that believes it must become stronger to gain its acceptance. This is inherently non-rational. The internet amplifies this ten-fold as you can be exposed to your enemy as much as you’d like, and they become even more of a caricature.

I’m both counter-enlightenment and anti-empirical, the states of being to me are indeterminable and those that fall into grand narrative style thinking are sorely mistaken. I prefer rhizomatic thinking which exposes Hegel’s “Geist” as dangerous but this is entirely uncommon in todays political world, where actors aren’t seen as Delezeun machines, but as rational in some regard, whether it’s due to their class for socialists or due to their reason in the case of Libertarians.

In the case of SA, there already are written and unwritten rules that are in effect. This is reflexive of both whatever insular culture goes on here and the general trends going on outside “there”. The word “normative” comes from ethics and it is the implementation of general norms in a practical sense - ethics IS group think. Being counter-enlightenment, I posit that ethics itself is a type of elitism. In the past, aristocrats and divine mad men would give us ethics. Now, it’s Foucault’s Panapticon that does it - the culture of snitching and constantly policing each other does the job more efficiently because it can be hyper localized to small sub groups. The more you stay in a walled garden and embracing the micro-corrections in an absent minded way, the more you succumb to group think. This is why many people cannot understand why pronouns are important or understand why working class people still embrace faith. The only way out is to read, learn and interact.

Gologle posted:

I feel like a lot of ancient forests, hot springs, mountains, and other wildlife refuges should be protected against the harm that we humans naturally do to the planet. However, if it is clear that there are certain protected habitats, such as in California, that from time to time need to be destroyed in order to flourish I feel like we shouldn't try to prevent that from occurring.

PinheadSlim posted:

dk2m posted:

I realize this is bait but I’m sure your opinions are interesting but make no mistake, they are wrong just like mine are. There’s no such thing as good or bad, in a metaphysical sense, so all you can do is state your case. The friend-enemy dynamic is intrinsic to any sort of Liberalism - ideas that are opposed to each other cannot be resolved, so the group that believes it must become stronger to gain its acceptance. This is inherently non-rational. The internet amplifies this ten-fold as you can be exposed to your enemy as much as you’d like, and they become even more of a caricature.

I’m both counter-enlightenment and anti-empirical, the states of being to me are indeterminable and those that fall into grand narrative style thinking are sorely mistaken. I prefer rhizomatic thinking which exposes Hegel’s “Geist” as dangerous but this is entirely uncommon in todays political world, where actors aren’t seen as Delezeun machines, but as rational in some regard, whether it’s due to their class for socialists or due to their reason in the case of Libertarians.

In the case of SA, there already are written and unwritten rules that are in effect. This is reflexive of both whatever insular culture goes on here and the general trends going on outside “there”. The word “normative” comes from ethics and it is the implementation of general norms in a practical sense - ethics IS group think. Being counter-enlightenment, I posit that ethics itself is a type of elitism. In the past, aristocrats and divine mad men would give us ethics. Now, it’s Foucault’s Panapticon that does it - the culture of snitching and constantly policing each other does the job more efficiently because it can be hyper localized to small sub groups. The more you stay in a walled garden and embracing the micro-corrections in an absent minded way, the more you succumb to group think. This is why many people cannot understand why pronouns are important or understand why working class people still embrace faith. The only way out is to read, learn and interact.

pnac attack posted:

it may have been kinda annoying (who tf "posits" things) but it's also one of the best non-joke posts itt

pnac attack posted:

it may have been kinda annoying (who tf "posits" things) but it's also one of the best non-joke posts itt

dk2m posted:

...
The only way out is to read, learn and interact.

scott zoloft posted:

dk2m's post was good. I also liked when the people it talked about immediately responded with the "thats a lot of words to be posting" style response

PinheadSlim posted:

dk2m posted:

I realize this is bait but I’m sure your opinions are interesting but make no mistake, they are wrong just like mine are. There’s no such thing as good or bad, in a metaphysical sense, so all you can do is state your case. The friend-enemy dynamic is intrinsic to any sort of Liberalism - ideas that are opposed to each other cannot be resolved, so the group that believes it must become stronger to gain its acceptance. This is inherently non-rational. The internet amplifies this ten-fold as you can be exposed to your enemy as much as you’d like, and they become even more of a caricature.

I’m both counter-enlightenment and anti-empirical, the states of being to me are indeterminable and those that fall into grand narrative style thinking are sorely mistaken. I prefer rhizomatic thinking which exposes Hegel’s “Geist” as dangerous but this is entirely uncommon in todays political world, where actors aren’t seen as Delezeun machines, but as rational in some regard, whether it’s due to their class for socialists or due to their reason in the case of Libertarians.

In the case of SA, there already are written and unwritten rules that are in effect. This is reflexive of both whatever insular culture goes on here and the general trends going on outside “there”. The word “normative” comes from ethics and it is the implementation of general norms in a practical sense - ethics IS group think. Being counter-enlightenment, I posit that ethics itself is a type of elitism. In the past, aristocrats and divine mad men would give us ethics. Now, it’s Foucault’s Panapticon that does it - the culture of snitching and constantly policing each other does the job more efficiently because it can be hyper localized to small sub groups. The more you stay in a walled garden and embracing the micro-corrections in an absent minded way, the more you succumb to group think. This is why many people cannot understand why pronouns are important or understand why working class people still embrace faith. The only way out is to read, learn and interact.