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

«‹›3 »

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

MagicMasochist posted:

Welp, that's it for this loving terrible post.

I'd be all up for defending this guy!!, can somebody give me a tl;dr though? Cause, lol

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 23:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 07:56

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Merdifex posted:

EDIT: I hope this isn't him.

What, Dylan Roof looks like the guy who bullied me in middle school never finished puberty. This is strange. I now feel a weird renewed urge to beat up Dylan Roof.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 23:20

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Anarcho=I get to do what I want. Monarchy=you guys also get to do what I want.

I am 9 and this makes perfect sense.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2015 20:58

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Being a racist doesn't necessarily mean you're a reject without a social life. (Sadly.)

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 19:27

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Wheeee posted:

Somebody's doing the raping.

Statistically speaking, not fat computer janitors.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 02:57

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Guavanaut posted:

Well that explains a lot (maybe).

First rule of science journalism: if the title is a question, the answer is no.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 21:03

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Ddraig posted:

I was just about to posit my thesis of "Cingulate: Super Stud?" to the New England Journal of Medicine, too.

NEJM isn't science journalism you dolt :mad:

# ¿ Dec 18, 2015 12:55

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

The strange thing is, even Aurini should acknowledge that the people doing crucifixions were on the wrong side of history. E.g., crucifying Jesus, or Germanic slaves. And surely even he would agree that beyond all of the things the Nazis did he agrees with, the low popularity of putting unwilling humans in ovens these days is, all in all, a good thing.

And then, maybe theologian and historian Aurini is making a complicated point here about the difference between crucifixion and crucifiction.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2015 23:23

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Woolie Wool posted:

(OK women are kind of left out but it was 1824, cut the dude some slack).

2nd verse of the Ode an die Freude goes like this:

Schiller posted:

Wem der gro�e Wurf gelungen, 
eines Freundes Freund zu seyn;
wer ein holdes Weib errungen,
mische seinen Jubel ein! 
Ja � wer auch nur e i n e Seele 
s e i n nennt auf dem Erdenrund! 
Und wer�s nie gekonnt, der stehle
weinend sich aus diesem Bund!

That seriously loosely translates to "haha virgins and socially incompetent people get out"

Dapper_Swindler posted:

... nerds will thing he is smart.

Oh please.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 00:15

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

The Vosgian Beast posted:

That doesn't make it better.

Make what better?

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 02:45

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Well, no fascism isn't really a core part of any political system.

What about the political system literally called fascism? Is fascism a part of fascism?

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 03:36

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Reason is entirely overrated. It's a mostly empty concept, and it's vastly inferior to the scientific method, with which it only partially overlaps.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 21:56

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Unseen posted:

Man, deductive inductive reasoning are the foundation of scientific method.

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.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 13:11

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

I guess it would be best to point out that there is no one scientific method, and that the possibly most famous understanding, by Popper, eschews induction completely.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 13:33

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Now you will, I fear, have to elaborate.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 14:03

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

rudatron posted:

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).

Similarly, Fascism and Stalinism were violently opposed, thus Fascism and Stalinism have nothing in common.

(Your post is stupid.)

Zodium posted:

not sure what you want me to elaborate on here since you didn't really elaborate on why you think they're mutually exclusive, but

'deductive' versus 'inductive' inference is the kind of dichotomy that comes from learning about inference from old cookbooks without learning how to infer. they're artifacts of contrived teaching examples getting to say "the object of study begins here and ends here because that is most convenient for the preconceived point I want to reach," which is exactly what you don't get to do in science--phenomena define their own scopes, and we don't get to redefine them, at least not if we want our inference to be valid. we just get to work out where the boundaries are and what's inside them. in science, there is only inference.

I don't see the point where you actually said anything. You're saying "this viewpoint is naive", but that's very vague.

I counter deduction and induction are reasonably well defined, and refer to Gelman & Shalizis "Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics":

quote:

...A substantial school in the philosophy of science identifies Bayesian inference with inductive inference and even rationality as such, and seems to be strengthened by the rise and practical success of Bayesian statistics. We argue that the most successful forms of Bayesian statistics do not actually support that particular philosophy but rather accord much better with sophisticated forms of hypothetico-deductivism...

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 14:47

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Okay I don't understand your point.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 14:50

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Zodium posted:

come, sit on my lap and I will tell you a story about how, when two inferences love each other very much, they get under the blankets and make an estimate about the space of possible factors on which to expend their limited time/resources, then select those members with the highest plausibilities. then, they do analysis about the space of possible tests, and the space of possible interpretations, and so forth. the scope of all these analyses must be bounded by something known a priori to be constant relative to the measure, scale and tolerance of the intended inference, or the inference will not be bounded at all, and therefore meaningless. and that's how baby inferences are made.

And if we accept that, the question is, what is the underlying philosophy? Hypothetico-deductive, or what? Because the standard interpretation of Bayesian inference seems to be inductive.

For what it's worth I'm firmly in the frequentist camp for now because I think science is best viewed as a cumulative (iterated, repeated, constantly failing etc) process.

Zodium posted:

as men of science, surely we can calmly and rationally imply that we each are naive morons with world views that rest on nothing more than fairy tales and deeply held unexamined premises without either of us having to explicitly say so. quite frankly, if you don't mind my saying so, it's a little rude.

I'm with you here though.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 15:58

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Zodium posted:

there is no the underlying philosophy in the sense I think you mean. the underlying philosophy for what?

Yours, and those of non-statisticians, e.g. Bayes-hyping psychologists.

I'm a bit surprised you're explaining to me "theoretical statisticians can be pragmatic/agnostic and there are multiple views" after I've posted a link to a paper by theoretical statisticians talking about different views and defending their own eclectic pragmatism.

Zodium posted:

edit: god dammit, how did we get to Bayes/Frequentism? it's like the Godwin of statistics

Intentionally, on my part. I wanted some meat to the discussion and know you had an opinion.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 17:10

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Zodium posted:

are you sure you didn't do it because there was no longer any question regarding the mutual exclusivity of deductive and inductive inference? i'm not sure what you want me to say about the paper since you only brought it up as some kind of defense for why deduction/induction is somehow useful dichotomy for anything. i'm familiar with it but i'm not gonna re-read the whole thing because you made a "ACTUALLY, Websters defines ..." style reference to it

as a practicing Bayesian, I frequently update my beliefs according to Bayes' Theorem (pbuh), and after years of banging my head against an unyielding wall, I updated my beliefs to be that Bayesianism/frequentism is another pointless part of our inferential vocabulary. if anything it seems to be hindering methodological progress, so now I only speak of unqualified inference. I still believe that a Bayes factor interpreted as the relative change in plausibility for one model against a reference model is the most apt discipline for the problems behavioral science has to solve today for the simple reason that you can count all you want, but we're not at levels of plausibility where we can be confident the events we're counting are meaningful units. got a real Aether/blind guys feeling up an elephant situation brewing here in terms of theoretical commensurability, if you know what i'm saying

I like Gelman because he makes a little progress with his pragmatic eclecticism without making methodologists seem like a bunch of dicks, but it's a hard emphasis on a little there. we mostly are dicks, so it's good that someone puts on a face. it's also been tried before, and it didn't work after a lifetime of work by one of the most celebrated statisticians of the 20th century, and it's not gonna work this time either. inference is a discipline where there's always going to be room for, well, undisciplined behavior. pragmatic eclecticism is fine for people who are genuinely fastidious and highly knowledgeable, and basically terrible for everyone else because it's fundamentally unprincipled. Gelman unfortunately seems determined to be the next Cohen, which is too bad and hopefully ends less tragically because he's a nice guy.

welp, that's my two cent

I'm a bit lost here. My point was, there is a clear hypothetico-deductive, agnostic-pragmatic position, and it's a cool and coherent position, which is incompatible with the idea that inductive vs. deductive is pointless.

I'm partially with you in that in most contexts, the Bayes vs. Frequentism thing is much overhyped (almost exclusively by Bayesians!). But deductive, falsificationist science, vs. the alternative we all too commonly do, is not.

Edit: okay deleted a part of this because we probably don't want this discussion again

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 20:26

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

I think we should try and turn this around to actually connect with the topic though Zodium.

Zodium posted:

perhaps you could explain what this "clear hypothetico-deductive, agnostic-pragmatic" position is in your own words, and why it entails making a distinction between inductive versus deductive inference. the last time you ventured an actual position was when you said that you are "firmly in the frequentist camp" because you "think science is best viewed as a cumulative (iterated, repeated, constantly failing etc) process."

but this doesn't necessarily or even preferentially lead to forms of frequentism, it could just as well be used in support of forms of Bayesianism. for example, I think we should compute Bayes factors to estimate the most plausible parameters, and compute metaprobabilistic distributions in order to select the optimal next step in a principled manner because I think science is best viewed as a cumulative (iterated, repeated, constantly failing etc) process, and we need to leverage long-run efficiencies. I think you're inadvertently confusing things with other things because they coincidentally share some terms and other cosmetic similarities, but I have a remark and a question about this whole clear hypothetico-deductive, agnostic-pragmatic position thing:

* I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement. :babbage:
* How are you both 'firmly' in the frequentist camp and in the clear hypothetico-deductive, agnostic-pragmatic camp? what exactly are you agnostic-pragmatic towards?

Well what do you want - long-run coverage, or Bayes? Because if the answer is "both", the onus of explanation is on you.

Philosophically, I'm convinced that frequentist probability is more important than Bayesian probability, but pragmatically, I assume Bayesian methods are in many contexts the best tool - at least in those situations where priors make coefficients identifiable! And all of ML, which really doesn't care about frequentist probability, or, actually, usually, probability. (I can go into more detail here if that's unclear.)

My best bet at bringing this back to the main question is that at the very least, people need to understand science is about uncertainty, not certainty. Inferential statistics are about admitting you don't know. p values/Bayes factors are not telling you you're right, they're telling you how careful you should be.

And then, whenever you're building up a political ideology or concrete plan, or whenever you're making judgements about e.g. groups, you need to understand that when you're building on data, you're building on uncertainty, not certainty.

Zodium posted:

e: if you think DE is bad, wait till open data initiatives really start taking off and mass idiocy gets a chance to pore over the data for spurious relationships. give it ten years, soft science is about to drown what little influence we have left in a torrent of citizen science bullshit. DE is just the canary in the coal mine.

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.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2016 14:13

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

rudatron posted:

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.

More spurious poo poo than what we already have?

Zodium posted:

hello my friend, i see you have inadvertently quoted my post without replying to it. let me helpfully quote the relevant sections for your convenience.

i can understand wanting to escape the obvious dead end you've walked yourself into here. it's fine if this is as much as you're willing to invest, but there's no backsies if you want this line of discussion to continue. if you don't, that's cool too.

Are you sure that level of smug is justified?
I've asked you a question because I'm not sure how to talk to you about this before you explain yourself.

But on the quick, I'm pragmatic about what tools to use (in many situations, you can't model something with frequentist tools, in others not with Bayesian tools, and a lot of the interesting stuff is increasingly hybrid or agnostic - and many Bayesian tools have decent Frequentist properties et vice versa) and I believe you can get decent stuff done within any framework, but philosophically, I think science as a project (instead of a specific act of conducting One Piece of Science) should be more concerned with its long-term properties (= Frequentist concerns) than with satisfying certain desires for results that are easily interpretable from a Bayesian view on probability.

Edit: and I'm fully with Popper on the question of what science can and should be doing - that is, falsifying hypotheses, not conducting induction wrt. the probability of hypotheses.

Cingulate fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 5, 2016

# ¿ Jan 5, 2016 16:48

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Maoist Pussy posted:

Unlike Communism, of course, Fascism actually has a functioning historical example that is not based on Germanic death-metal album covers. I'll give you a hint:

I have to admit, you Poe too hard for me.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 00:35

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

My 3rd girlfriend definitely had BPD though.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 01:15

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

I'm not saying I could do much better, but the current attempts ITT to "understand the psychology of HBD etc" are bad. Or rather, they're not really attempts to do that in the first place. For that, one would have to either try and see it from the inside - gah! - show some empathy with them; or look at some actual sociological data. Numbers may become involved even.

And there's plenty of actual science and numbers around on viewing various right wing groups as pathological, because of course, science is liberal and social scientists are particularly liberal and write books about how voting sexism is literally insanity all the time.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 17:40

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Race Realists posted:

ok, I'll bite: Empathy how, exactly? Would you mean in terms of "Imagining being white while walking downtown in the middle of the night"?

In the sense of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy posted:

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another being (a human or non-human animal) is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position

Race Realists posted:

Please post an example of sociological data you deem valid for this thread.

I was thinking of stuff like Nisbett's "Culture of Honor" and, I guess, while we're at Nisbett, actor-observer bias (although that's more about the former point than this one).

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 01:30

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Race Realists posted:

I must ask, how is this any different from what I just said?

Was that seriously your best attempt at an insight view into "HBD" etc people?

Because if yes, you're really loving terrible at empathy. (Or at least with empathy with racists on the internet I guess.)

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 13:36

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Race Realists posted:

I can only go by what I see online, and for the most part it seems to me a great majority of them fear what I just said (usually they fear their children in that particular situation), their jobs being "stolen" from certain types of individuals who didn't "work hard enough", and the country descending into chaos and disarray (which some of them believe has already occurred)

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)?

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 22:37

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

GottaPayDaTrollToll posted:

Not that I know of, but maybe we should. Paul Graham has been on a tear lately, too.

Well there IS this.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 23:31

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Dapper_Swindler posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN74bOubUug

anyone post this yet. its pretty well done.

I have no idea how this dorky poo poo relates to the topic.

rudatron posted:

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.

I'm not demanding anything! It's just, I find it a bit hard to believe the failure to understand the psychology of HBD/Race Realism/DE itt stems from incompetence or the task being so hard; it so far seems to me the problem is more a lack of trying. If you're convinced you've actually tried, and tell me so, I must believe you.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 01:22

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

blackguy32 posted:

So does this group have significant overlap with gamergaters? Or are they in conflict with one anothee? One thing I learned is that a lot of these fringe groups hate each other for various reasons.

Major overlap. I assume there are some - but I can't think of even a single example of any negative opinions from the DE/NRx/HBD side towards the GG side. A lot of people are impossible to assign to either camp. A prototypical example is Dave Aurini, a race realist and DE mainstay whose claim to fame is having worked on an anti-Sarkeesian film.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 01:24

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The thing about fascism overall, and totalitarianism in general, is that they play up fantasy versions of Our Glorious Past. You see this in right wing political thought basically everywhere and what they're after is the power. Nothing more, nothing less. "We were powerful once; let's be powerful again" is the overall battle cry. So they find somebody and something to blame. That is The Great Enemy and we must fight it. This is what inspires people to fight and kill; without that brutal totalitarianism of any stripe can't exist.

You see the pattern over and over again in fascist, fundamentalist, and totalitarian movements and it's always the same.

I don't think this really captures Nazism. And if you leave fascism and move to other totalitarianisms, even less so (Stalinism etc).

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 01:45

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

ToxicSlurpee posted:

In the case of the Nazis a lot of it was "things were great before the Jews ruined everything." I get that it's more complex than that in reality but reading about it that's one of the most common things I've seen. "We were awesome; now let's be awesome again." Granted at the time in Europe Futurism was taking place as well which wanted to discard the past for a better future but nationalism in general was where a lot of it came from. "We are good; you are bad. You must be destroyed."

I think this is trying to explain too much with just one story.

Sure, Nazism was deeply reactionary. But it was not, from anything I can tell, primarily a (faux-)restorative movement. It was not "Let's make Germany great again". It was explicitly radical, new, pro-future. Hitler wanted to beat America. He wanted to surpass what Germany had been so far.

The dominant past-looking element was revanchism, which is not a desire to restore a Golden Age, but to avenge a past injustice.

Reaction has fascist elements and fascism is strongly reactionary, but they're not the same.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 02:35

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Wheeee posted:

Their hero and most brilliant and talented and important man on the planet is a dot-com billionaire who runs an unprofitable car company propped up by the government and an aerospace company which acts as a government contractor for poo poo that's too small-time for NASA's purview.

Scott had a two-liner recently where he basically longed for "Blue Model" New Deal-to-post-WWII-Keynesianism policies.

Cingulate fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jan 11, 2016

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 03:14

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Yeah there's this insane tendency of humans to assume everything the people on that side of the fence do is evil, and everything the people on this side do is cool and good.

And when that's proved wrong, the fence is moved.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 14:29

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

1337JiveTurkey posted:

The thing is that the explanation comes after the fact because they're not based on rational examination of the facts but a general sense of malaise adapted to the circumstances. This isn't a unique phenomenon: One study asked participants to rate which face they found the most attractive. Afterward they asked why after secretly switching the picture for another face. People didn't notice the deception and still were able to come up with reasons like it never happened. This isn't a moral failing on their part, it's just something that people unconsciously do.

There's a bunch of studies like this, including, more on the topic, on political questionnaires. Switch the answers, and people will justify whatever you make them believe they picked.

And the first thing everyone gets wrong is thinking they certainly wouldn't give the subject a 430 volt shock/defend the fake choice.

1337JiveTurkey posted:

There's been similar fears voiced since ancient times in response to different circumstances. This sort of sense that everything's vaguely wrong without fully knowing why and struggling to figure out what that is in hopes of fixing it. Even if it's not dysphoria in the technical sense, it's still an extremely unpleasant feeling to have regardless. I raised the possibility of mental issues because they're a common cause but if it's easier to think of it as a sort of nerdy malaise, that works too

...
It's not set in stone that everyone will turn to a specific political movement or any political movement for that matter, but both offer something the other wants. The movement gets a supporter and the person gets an explanation and a sense that they can solve the problem.

What I think is going on is that conservative groups have been making a concerted outreach effort while liberal groups have been much more uneven. My impression (as a white guy from similar circumstances as many of the people we're talking about) is that liberals aren't very good at mental health per se and prefer to focus on what they feel comfortable with. So discussions of a black guy with severe depression are going to focus on questions of race more than how depression affects his life because that's more comfortable.

I think this is still a bit too general - the question is not, why do people turn conservative? Dark Enlightenment is not conservative, in the same way that Cruz and Bush and so on are almost as disgusted by Trump as everyone else. They're radicals. They're right-wingers and in the to liberals salient aspects agree with conservatives. But they're not conservatives.
They're partially reactionaries, partially liberals, partially fascists, and so on. And the interesting question is, what makes one specifically buy into DE or HBD, and not into regular run-of-the-mill redneck racism or oldstyle libertarianism or regular conservativism.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 17:00

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Sharkie posted:

Because you've adopted "nerd" as part of your identity, that's it.

That would not be a satisfying explanation to me.

If it is to you, well, thread's basically over then right?

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 17:28

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Sharkie posted:

I mean, what do you think it is? Personally I think the only difference between these people and "redneck racists" is that these people think they're superior to the later because they think of themselves very smart, academic, and scientific, and so they use rhetoric that jives with that, but at heart it's the same old poo poo.

Depends on whom specifically you're trying to understand right now. For example, I think somebody like Moldbug is motivated by much different things than somebody like Aurini, not to speak of Scott Alexander.

Some of which I'd have to confess I have absolutely no idea about. Big riddles.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 17:37

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Dapper_Swindler posted:

See all the ones i have met like trump. because he will burn down SJWs or some poo poo. or he will keep the "sandniggers" out. But i do think dark enlightenment stuff is a weird amalgamations of believes and not two are alike. its weird.

The common man does. The elites don't.

The DE people behave in many ways like elites (e.g., often personally atheists, or okay with homosexuality, and against military interventions), but they love Trump.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 00:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 07:56

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

I think the thread has taken a good turn, at least if you hope to answer the topic.

Ok how about this perspective: can you imagine a possible world where you would be, or where you-right-now hope you-in-this-world would be, a "Racial Realist"? An adherent to the Dork Enlightenment?

For example, imagine a world where it is true that (quoting Wikipedia) "a great, on-going sacrifice sustains the Universe. Everything is tonacayotl: the "spiritual flesh-hood" on earth. Everything �earth, crops, moon, stars and people� springs from the severed or buried bodies, fingers, blood or the heads of the sacrificed gods. Humanity itself is macehualli, "those deserved and brought back to life through penance"." It is true the Gods demand human life; and they will richly reward those who die on the altar, by sending them to the second-highest heaven (the highest heaven is for children who die in infancy).
In that world, if not only this were true, but if you were absolutely convinced that this is the state of the world, deeper than any conviction you hold right now, would you be pro human sacrifice?

Imagine a world where Jews, under the definition of Jew given by the N�rnberg laws, actually conspire to destroy the West and try to drive the countries of Europe against each other. Also in this world, Slavs are truly, by genetic determination, and homogeneously, less creative and less civilized than their Western neighbors. Would you view the Nazis as a little less crazy in this world? Probably. Would you support Death Camps and the starvation of the east? Probably not - but you'd probably view them as ever so slightly less monstrous.

So in what possible world would you be a "Race Realist"?

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 09:49

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

«‹›3 »