Understanding the psychology of HBD/Racial Realism/Dark Enlightenment

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Understanding the psychology of HBD/Racial Realism/Dark Enlightenment

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I think it makes sense to say that dork enlightenment is a symptom of an increasing reaction presence, but I don't think this particular reaction has much of a chance of getting off the ground.

In a time of uncertainty, it can be comforting to fall back on 'old' ideas, and it is from this impulse that reaction springs. The problem is that the past it falls back on is retroactively white-washed. There's no critical analysis of crisis, nor an acceptance of the basic truth of human history - There is no 'evil' that can be measured and purged, which will place everything in a righteous order. Life, politics and justice are just part of a process, but one without foundation in natural reality. So race is made up, power corrupts and the universe is indifferent (the 20th century sends its regards), but these facts are inconvenient if you base confidence in your own beliefs on mystical narratives of a fall from grace - hence the conspiratorial/pseudo-scientific turns.

Don't let the occasional techno-fetishism fool you. These guys are morons too arrogant to admit error, and too insecure to suffer anything less than the title of 'serious intellectual'.

wateroverfire posted:

It's amazing how much internet reactionaries and internet radicals have in common, at the end of the day. Like going off the deep end ideologically is a normal response to being unhappy with your place in the world but feeling powerless to change it.

The question of how much personal status controls ideological bias is an interesting one, but it cuts both ways. If you're secure in living then you may be more likely to jump in with the status quo, but that's no less a symptom of confirmation bias than the excluded jumping on something that runs counter to the status quo. There is no position of objectivity from which you can see it comfortably all unfold, at least as long as you're a human being. Your beliefs will always end up being self-serving in one way or another, all you can do is try to mitigate it.

At least until the robot is made that runs on perfect bayesian thinking, then we're pretty screwed.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2015 16:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 04:19

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I actually don't think the transition from college Marxist to conservative intellectual is all that seamless, the trope of 'I was a marxist, then I grew up :smugdog:

' is more a meme meant to undermine the character of (marxist) opposition than a statement of fact. But I will grant you the almost gendered undertones of stuff like 'combat liberalism' - granting space to decadence/degeneracy is a common theme.

Series DD Funding posted:

And modern liberalism is just "let's do the new deal again," right? Monarchies and papal states didn't have to contend with atheism and feminism in their modern forms, or really modern democracy at all.

And? Hitler never had to deal with Genghis Khan, is there a point to these historical counterfactuals, or are you just pulling your usual contrarian gimmick with appeals to a d&d hivemind?

# ¿ Jul 3, 2015 03:50

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Series DD Funding posted:

The point is DE is, in fact, original thinking, or rather as close as you can get. It's applying and changing old ideas from different sources to new issues and situations.

So if I take any X that did not exist in some context Y, and apply it to that context, is that automatically a 'new' idea? That's seems like a really low bar to me, so much so that you could do it forever without once having to create something that's actually, you know, new. As in, never been done before.

As enjoyable as you might find this gimmick of yours, you should actually read what you write. Otherwise you end up saying dumb poo poo like 'recycling is as close to original as you can get'.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2015 05:04

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

In a way the era we're in reminds me of the political agitation just after the great depression, but worse because it's reaction/far-right that's jumped out the gates really hard.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2015 06:58

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Not true, though it is the rule rather than the exception. But the critical 'step' into modernity is the throwing of traditions up into the air, the defetishization of something as special just because it is old. That sort of thinking has unfortunately waned, and so you get dumb fucks romanticizing the brutish and short periods of history, then celebrating the passionate intensity of the vilest people. See: the people in the OP.

Zodium posted:

In behavioral science at least, "take any X that did not exist in some context Y, and apply it to that context" counts as a 'publishably' new idea. If I take an extant statistical analysis X from, say, physics (or just mathematical psychology), which hasn't yet been applied to Y (e.g., working memory) and do so, then I have had a new idea. The standard of "new idea" really isn't that high.

Whether something is publishable (or patentable, but seriously {gently caress the american patent system}) is different to whether it's new, or 'as close to original as you can get'. I get your broader point about academia and the actual nature of innovation vs. what people think it is, but in this context of 'is this political ideology really a new idea', the answer is pretty clearly 'no'.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2015 18:03

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Nessus posted:

What is with these people's hundred year obsession with sterilizing poor people

They actually just want to murder them all, but they think mass forced sterilization is less controversial.

They're just monsters/guillotine fodder.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2015 02:14

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Maoist Pussy posted:

Well, no. Fascism is the binding together of individuals into a greater polity, which is any political system other than purely anarchist ones. Liberal systems, communitarian systems, and systems typically called fascist in the modern sense simply have different emphases on what the polity should accomplish for the individual. All three are valid.

It might be better to say that fascism takes some elements of all human societies and then overemphasizes them, at the expense of others. But those elements are a part of any human society and shouldn't be seen as inhuman or out of character, but should be placed in balance with all the other elements of humanity.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 04:07

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Define 'top of the hierarchy' though. The world's isn't run from tumblr, and in terms of clout on the internet (whatever that is worth), reddit and the chans out-rank them both.

To me, what's kind of fascinating about their self chosen label isn't the 'enlightenment' and the contradiction there, but the qualifier 'dark'. It's there clearly to signify edginess, but it also kind of implies maliciousness. "The enlightenment was bad, but we're worse!". Seems more like the kind of things biker gangs say about themselves, rather than then legitimate political movements. Except that they're inflating their egos with long winded screeds, instead of riding around looking menacing or whatever.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2015 12:37

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I'm going to need you to clarify 'social moralist', because it sounds like you're referring to a specific terminology that does not follow from the strict definition of the individual words - all morality (and moralism) must be social, by its nature.

Tesseraction posted:

Wasn't he highly regarded by Goebbels? Sometimes all you need is a six degrees of Kevin Bacon to figure out why these chumplords like something.

Also Nietzsche, who somehow keeps getting defended as 'misunderstood' in spite of being most famous for creating an entire library to rationalize 'gently caress you got mine'.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2016 07:45

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

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.

Science is a subset of Reason (It is a method of reasoning about the world - in particular, it like Reason proper rejects teleology), deductive & inductive reasoning are not mutually exclusive (inductive reasoning is the extension of deductive logic onto the area of uncertainty), and democracy and fascism do not overlap (fascism is explicitly anti-democratic, because it denies the value of human life proper and sees oppression as a desirable state, it is therefore anti-humanistic/inhuman - Democracy gives power to a majority on the basis of the equal value of human beings, therefore it is humanistic).

rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jan 4, 2016

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 14:18

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Cingulate posted:

The only influence social science has right now is giving people a misleading graph and a science journalism headline that says the opposite of the real research to back up their near-unshakeable preconceptions.

The point I think is that the push on 'big data' is going to lead to a lot of spurious poo poo, on account of the people pushing it not adequately applying degrees of freedom, which can actually manifest itself in very unusual ways.

Maoist Pussy posted:

Actually, fascism elevates human life; that is its purpose. The power of a democratic majority can vote to invoke any aspect of any political system- liberal, fascist, communist -all of which do necessarily overlap.

Yes yes, you have a fascism fetish, I get it, doesn't change that what I said was true. The ethical basis for democracy lies in the inherent value of people and their right to choose their own destiny (government by the people, for the people), which is totally at odds with fascist ideology that values violence above all (government by the strong, for the strong). It only values a democratic system in so far as the majority supports fascist thought, if they don't then that just means they're wrong. That is, fascism is willing to use democracy, but it has no respect for it, and is in fact at odds with it.

tl;dr democracy is more than just 'elections'.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jan 5, 2016

# ¿ Jan 5, 2016 15:07

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

A valid counterexample is approaching, better cross the street.

Hbomberguy posted:

What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work?

You see it everywhere, but especially with fascists (the jewish KGB faked the holocaust, things were fine) and libertarians (we've never actually had capitalism so all the sins of currently-existing capitalist countries don't really count and if we had no restraints whatsoever this would improve things, that drat big government!!!), and I'm sure there's a real term for that specific kind of fantasy.

There's no term that specific, but little just-so stories like that can pop up all the time. The idea of a 'fall from grace' is kind of a romantic theme, common from light conservatism (Jeffersonian america as this ideal of rural liberty/goodness as a US example) all the way to our very own Roman LARPer here in Maoist Pussy. I mean people just believe simple stories, even if they have no reason to.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 01:24

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Not just that, it's fall wasn't a 'fall' as you may understand, ie- a sudden, unexpected event. Germans hadn't been a problem before, and the romans hadn't had trouble with nomads before, rather it was a culmination of a series of dysfunctions that lead to its collapse. Which is true of most any other entities like that, there are no 'golden ages' or whatever, only periods were they were less dysfunctional/that dysfunction hadn't yet mattered. I mean in at least one sense, it's good the roman empire ended - in its entire history, it did not produce a single mathematicianr or scientist of note. Compare that record with the diverse greek city states.

I mean the same is kind of true of the US post-war prosperity, right, everyone wants it to come back (and is generally seen as an era in which Capitalism Works) but, I mean, the post war era lead directly into the civil rights era and the reagan/neoliberal/stagnation era. What's to say that that period isn't the 'exception' and the growing inequality we see today is the 'norm'?

It's why you've got to be careful when it comes to historiography, and it probably helps to be a little less sweeping in terms of Grand Historical Narratives, because they're often wrong (and wrong for politically convenient reasons).

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 03:53

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Darth Walrus posted:

You're correct, but wrong in another way - it is conceived by it's participants of having that historical legitimacy, even if it does not in reality. Hence the emphasis on decay or similar metaphors.

ArgoATX posted:

You joke, but while the people in question can't pull it off themselves, if fascism comes to America, they'll be first in line for the Freikorps equivalent. So either you throw them into a mass grave, or they throw you in one.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 04:25

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

1337JiveTurkey posted:

You've got to be really, really careful when using psychological disorders if you're not actually a trained psychiatrist, there's nothing more embarrassing than someone self-diagnosing, or diagnosing others, like you're talking about their star sign or blood type or whatever.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 01:09

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I don't think DE is simply a manifestation of frustration or When Nihilism Goes Wrong. That period you describe in your own life OwlFancier sounds more like the angst of just growing up. But I think if there is a correct response to Nihilism it's got to be self-actualization, or at the very least a reorientation towards a subjective humanism. I dunno, maybe I was just lucky in that I personally didn't spend much time being a nihilist, despite being atheist from a very, very young age. I'd actually like you to talk more about it, if you don't mind.

Regardless, I think nihilism is too simplistic an answer. As is frustration, everyone grows up wanting to be an astronaut, yet everyone else grows up out of it.

No, I feel like what DE provides is an answer to guilt. Go back to those trading cards - often, they depict themselves as dragons or other mythical creatures. The thing about these creatures though, is that they're not burdened with guilt. They only have self interest, which is why they act the way they do. So they either see themselves in that way, as people without guilt, or desire to be that way. Their catchphrase is 'be a little evil/bad/whatever' after all. I think it's wrong to see that phrase as a prescription to the reader, as how they should act - rather, it's them begging the reader to excuse/absolve their guilt. 'It was only a little bad, it's not a problem'. Oddly enough, they will gladly turn around when they are the injured party, declaring that morality is black-and-white, demanding compensation or whatever (see: mr A). But of course, they deserve absolution without strings attached.

Problem is, guilt makes you human. It's important to feel bad when you've done something bad, so you get to make amends and so on. Normal people just accept that, DE'ers can't, so they try and double down. The death metal stuff is just a cover to try and find legitimacy.

mcclay posted:

I used to almost be one of these fucks. Dipped my toes into watching both Internet Aristocrat and Sargon of Akkad. Ironically I moved away from IA to Sargon because Sargon was less lovely to gay and trans people. When I watched him he was pretty ok for a DE nerd, even called the right in the UK out on all its dumb de-socialization bullshit. I'm still subscribed too him but haven't watched any of his stuff in years, don't really think I want to.

IA is a /pol/lack, not sure about akkad, but of course both came to prominence in the Game of Gates, which I itself found fascinating, on account of it being the first culture-war issue focused entirely on the internet. But in terms of how it rolled out, I'm not sure what it's real significance was, nor were there really 2 clearly defined camps, in the same way as you might have with stuff like abortion. I'd really like to know what people who were in it will think of it 20 years from now.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jan 8, 2016

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 08:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I don't think it's a generalized guilt, though I should have elaborated on what it would be in reference to - they know they are unpopular and, worse, despised, for multiple reasons - their racism, sexism, general misanthrophy and bigotry. But they have no intellectual recourse (because there is none). Sure, they say a lot of words to convince you, but do you think they believe that poo poo? They can't, not in their heart of hearts, and it nags them. They will alternate between despising themselves and trying their best to convince you that they're hot poo poo. It's a show, meant for you, but also them. But they still truly think racially, with bigotry, and what they want more than anything is to say that that voice of reason inside their head, their conscience, their (potential) compassion - go away, let me be horrible & nasty in peace! That is who they are.

They lack the self-awareness for acceptance, but have the arrogance to reject outside help in abundance. Don't feel bad for them, nothing you can do will save them.

My question for you, specifically is: Why couldn't you find an acceptable answer to nihilism, other than be just refusing to think about it? There are a lot of directions you could have gone, but you just pulled a holding pattern until you stopped caring? That, I find strange. If you find your response getting to long, PM it to me to so you're not live-journaling the thread, I'd like to know.

1337JiveTurkey posted:

I think it's valid to talk ideas about their ideology, or their thinking (it's literally what I did up there /\/\/\), I don't think it's valid to use technical, specific psychiatric terms to do so. So say that they're wrapped up in grandiose fantasies or whatever, fine, that's easier to talk about, but don't be pulling out the DSM and trawling through it for hits.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jan 8, 2016

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 14:50

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

But you don't need objective value or absolute truth, nor does subjective value necessarily lead to relativistic equivocation between all values - you just accept that your values are yours, which you will act on, and then encourage others to hold because that makes you feel good. Fear death? Try and live longer, and enjoy the moment. If meaning is that important to you, loving make that poo poo up, it's what everyone else does anyway, whether they recognize it or not - or better, abandon meaning as meaningful and live as you are and will be. But you have no reason to stick with nihilsm or, rather, stick with the assumption that meaning matters at all (and that for it to matter you must derive if from pure mathematics or whatever).

Like everyone seems to confuse subjective with personal opinion about objective, and objective with social facts (common sense/scientific consensus). Your Opinion gets Countered by Objective Fact, ergo Objective is, like, stronger than Subjective. If you can't find an Objective meaning, you might get Countered! Oh No! But actually, they're totally different things - purely subjective statements are without truth value, purely objective statements have a well defined truth, 'objective' is not a stronger form of 'subjective'.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 8, 2016

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 16:27

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

It would probably help if fantasy and fantasy games had a lot more sentient races than just 'humanoids of different physiques/colors'. Where are the hipster-cuttlefish? Though that may not solve the problem, because it brings up another issue - fantasy worlds of any kind (including sci-fi) embed current social stereotypes and ideology within them, and kind of inescapably so. Both because that's easier to make, but also because that makes it kind of more compelling; if fiction cannot connect with the audience, they'll just ignore it.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 06:25

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Theodore Roosevelt and others at the time had similar ideas about war as a 'vitalizing' act, both through some kind of spirit magic of violence necessarily being creative (instead of destructive, which it actually is) or as a kind of social darwinism. Which is interesting because, darwinianly, fascist states fail (hard), both through starting unnecessary wars and basic incompetence.

Cingulate posted:

Okay now I'm halfway willing to believe your problem isn't primarily that you're utterly unwilling to empathize, but that you're just bad at it.

But make it explicit, please. Is the above, beyond "seems to me", truly your best, or at least an honest, attempt to try and understand these people (where these -> whatever subgroup you feel like making that statement about now)?

Your total contribution so far has been to simply spout 'No YOU'RE wrong!' without any justification or, indeed, insight. You don't get to demand explicitness from others when you yet to provide any yourself, especially since it was you who made the attack in the first place.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 00:55

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I'll gladly identify as "nerdy as hell", so maybe it's my own bias or whatever, but I don't think nerdy is the answer. I feel like my guilt explanation matches why they are not conservative - conservatives are human beings. So are liberals and whatever, but at no point in conservatism will you ever find this incredibly anti-social, really bad aspect to it. In conservatism, it's about preserving traditions because that makes you who you are. Go watch the tradition bit in fiddler on the roof, and you'll see what I mean. The little things are all expressions of community and belonging, and it's this reason that they reject progress. It's all humanized. That kind of psychology has very little in common with DE, but they are on the same wing because a lot of the policies are the same. 'Hate on the out group', simply appeals to people who want to hate without consequence. But they are psychologically different. Conservatives can be saved, DEers can't.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 03:36

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Fox Ironic posted:

Basically, lack of cultural/conceptual identity coupled with a strong attachment to a hobby = that hobby becoming the primary identity. This can the be exploited by reactionaries such as HBD/Dark Enlightenment by "permitting" these individuals to combine their Nerd/Gamer identity with a reactionary cultural identity that they would otherwise not be inclined to embrace (Cultural Whiteness, in essence).

On a side note, I think a lot of the reason White Supremacy/HBD/Dark Enlightenment stuff is gaining steam is because it's becoming harder for more "traditionally" minded people to find positive, pro-social identity in "opressor identity sets." A lot of these people see no way to reconcile being White/Male in a way that doesn't alienate others, thus they find company with reactionaries (and/or kill people). Whether this is real or imagined, I don't know if I can say, but I feel it's also the reason mass shootings are becoming more common.

But they clearly do have a ideological identity, it's why they didn't just dismiss DE in the first place. There had to be something already there for them to go for it. The role of cultural identity and its interplay with prejudice might be interesting, but then we're also talking about a problem generally about society and identity - eg. there are plenty of people you can find that believe only white people can be racist and, conversely, to be white is to be racist.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jan 14, 2016

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 04:21

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

You don't have need to go to their forums, they are more than happy to shout their anti-social beliefs onto the internet as is, so you just look at that and them mock them.

I also don't think the "but what if racism was REAL" thought experiment is that useful. Human history as we know out would be completely unintelligible to us, no existing patterns would apply. Racist are racists in spite of actual history, it's not just an interpretive difference. You may as well ask if the world were flat.

All culture, language, arts, they all express the same humanity if you even have a passing familiarity with them. They all descend from, and mingle with, each other when given the chance.

A much better thought experiment, to empathize, is to think what mental state would you be on to be able to ignore that, what fear and hate would you have to feel to think the way they do.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 12:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Bob le Moche posted:

This view isn't new, but it's also simplistic. You have an incredibly distorted view of liberalism if you think they are the people who can't deal with facts. The people most guilty of distorting truth or propagating lies are the echo chambers like Brietbart. The absolutely shamelessness of these distortions is unique to the far right. Hell, the presidential candidate who has said the most number of disprovable lies is the one pandering to reaction, Trump, and it's not even close . Those facts about black incarceration and crime are often completely fabricated by reactionary movements on places like twitter, and you won't know unless you actually look up the real ones. That contradicts your 'hidden truth' narrative. That and its not really hidden anymore, people broadly know that minorities are disadvantaged, and unfairly so, hence policies to try and give them a leg up. This isn't unspoken, it's common knowledge.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 23:36

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

But he also purposefully keeps saying outrageous poo poo to continually shift attention away from his own distortions, hypocrisy and lies. By the time the old one is being fact checked, he's moved onto a new one. Does that sound like the strategy of someone dedicated to showing people hidden truths, or someone who's maliciously figured out how to exploit the media cycle to the detriment of society as a whole?

By why do it at all? Because it's not about facts, it's about signaling. Reactionaries are filled with fear and hate, so the big man promises to Attack The Other and they flock.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 23:57

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I, personally, blame anarchists. As should we all.

More seriously, the left doesn't have the power to create that kind of influential change, and hasn't had it for a very, very long time. Alt-right is the expression of a kind of paranoia that has gripped politics since the nineties. A desperate and increasingly frustrated politics as a result of growing inequality. The left was crushed, and so here we are, stuck between cruelty and the status quo.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2016 07:41

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Like I said, it's an all act focused on you, the viewer. They don't have the sense of self to find their own value, so they try and get validation from outside, in a bunch of different ways. Part of that is getting people they don't like to hate them, part of that is tricking the gullible, etc.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 01:48

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Cingulate 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. 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.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 22:58

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

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.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 00:49

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Well of course we're never free from ideology, or even the tyranny of a certain perspective, but that's okay, because that perspective can shift. Nothing is ever written in stone, or at least, even stone carvings fade.

And my point with identity was not that it cannot or should not be introspected, but that it's never intrinsic or essential. Looking at it from the inside, or from the outside at a distance makes no difference. Lying to yourself is bad, but this kind of oppressive melancholy you're aiming for is hardly better.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Feb 12, 2016

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 01:16

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

But see, I'm not so sure that kind of guilt it's actually redemptive. So full disclosure, I have a lot of problems with the kind of mentality that you encountered, which accused you of being a mansplainer. And it's not even that the accusation is necessarily without merit, but that the act of that callout serves a double purpose, to boost the ego of the person making the accusation as much, if not more than, it fulfills any desire to improve society. But that's probably getting a little too political, suffice to say that misery loves company, and ~ edgy hot takes~ aren't true just because they sound cynical, they're just as likely to be emotionally biased as any other beliefs. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug!

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 01:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

One of the reasons I personally like sci-fi, is you can basically guess what its social angle is by the world-set up, without really spoiling anything. You can't do that with works in genres, even if they're also very good at social-critique.

Oh, psycho-pass is set in a world that can detect criminals with ~science~? Hmm, I wonder what themes it's going to explore.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2016 04:04

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

The only external requirement of self-actualization is that there is a challenge, so space sweden is just as capable of providing that as anywhere else. Additionally, space sweden would be more than capable of fulfilling other desires, ergo people are going to be happier. There's no reason not to prefer it, other than simple familiarity with the poo poo world we have now, which is fine, change is scary, but change is necessary, so deal with it.

Also it's would be healthier in general if people tied their self-worth to actually useful and helpful ideas, bepenised or not. Don't correlate it with having a dick, your brain is the actually important organ.

Weldon Pemberton posted:

Have you considered that this person isn't as smart as you think? Because they've pretty erroneously deployed parsimony, for basically no other reason than to shut you out. Honestly, it seems more likely they've learned a couple to tricks and a few bits of jargon, then talked themselves into confirming their predisposed biases. Don't let his handwaving bullshit fool you.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 13:55

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Maoist Pussy posted:

Being a man is a challenge. Many people fail at it. I suspect that the residents of Space Sweden would fail at it in impressive numbers.

Wrong, it's not a challenge, it's a set of personality traits, some of which are quite anti-social. Some people don't want that, for others it's just not who they are. I'd rather they find satisfaction in their own way.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 23:25

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

If gender was a simple result of biology, then it wouldn't be necessary to tell anyone to 'be a man' - they'd just be. The fact that that's not the case, that it has to be imposed, disproves your assertion.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2016 00:28

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Maoist Pussy posted:

This does not mean anything. All adult males are men. Some of them are just poo poo at it.

I understand debate and discussion is difficult for you, but you need to apply your brain here. If it were just 'biology', then there's no reasonable expectation for those that are 'poo poo at it', to ever not be 'poo poo at it' and, conversely, those who are not 'poo poo at it', to ever be 'poo poo at it', regardless of environment. Ergo, by your own logic, space sweden would have just as many men as today.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Mar 12, 2016

# ¿ Mar 12, 2016 00:39

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I'm a dog chasing cars.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2016 01:02

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Did you read the post I was responding to, IWC? It's the one directly above that quote you have of me.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2016 16:37

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

nigga crab pollock posted:

It doesn't really help that they often lack the perspective/tools to understand why they might fail. So if they feel they're not being treated with respect, that the world owes them something, they'll act more aggressively, because that's how they think you get respect. But when that doesn't work, they can't simply step back and see themselves as other see them, they'll just think they didn't do it hard enough.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2016 01:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 04:19

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Neither Nietzsche nor Rand were the first people to conflate gratification for hedonism, and they won't be the last. It's confusing how organisms are internally structured to continue a pattern of behaviors (the reward circuit), with puritan notions of leisure as sinful, to rationalize anti-social behavior.

It holds social behavior to an impossible standard, then condemning it as morally equivalent to selfishness when it fails that standard - in this view, 'true' altruism, where you feel nothing or pain when helping others, would be impossible, because no organism would then be altruistic.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:29 on May 5, 2016

# ¿ May 5, 2016 07:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Understanding the psychology of HBD/Racial Realism/Dark Enlightenment