## Is society confusing lack of pleasure with lack of consent / or confuse pleasure with morality? ##
1/7
Follow me in this rumination, /pol/.
Our capitalistic society is riddled with calls for consumerism and, ultimately, hedonism. By appealing to our egoistic side, capitalist society lures us into thinking that our own individual pleasure is all that matters.
However, we all know, thanks to evolutionary psychology (even though it is really a common sense thing) that there is more to hedonism in society. Our brains are wired to be altruistic; altruism means a lot of things, from putting ourselves into somebody else's shoes to working knowing only our kids will benefit from our efforts.
But that's the nature of things. Egoistic aspects exist to make us boost our genes and spread them; self-worth is also essential for us to be considered an organism. However, as I said, there is more to this. Egoism can be put aside: for a cause, for our folk, for our family...
However consumistic society is concerned mostly with the pleasures of individuals, not with the goals of groups (unless they are for-profit). This is particularly seen in the way consumism builds on our reptilian brain, not our rational or idealist side. Reptilian brain means this:
>food
>sex
>survival/defense
All consumistic society appeals to is: sex/masturbation/promise of sexual pleasure, food/over-eating/food-related ideologies (e.g. veganism), survival/defense.
>>76622887
2/7
What capitalism does NOT want you to engage in, is camaraderie. Because, beware!, it might turn out that if you achieve camaraderie, religion, a sense of people and of something greater, you might even STOP begging service and good providers for your basic reptilian needs.
In this effort to retain us within the narrow boundaries of our reptilian urges, such society makes it difficult for us to achieve what the superior parts of our brains can reach for. And this is not just ludicrous, but plain evil.
As a consequence of this malicious cycle, we are taught that morality and "moral good" is tantamount to pleasure. The Ancient philosophers were wiser than that. They said:
>virtue has to be characterized by pleasure, because this is what makes it possible for virtuous action to be pursued and repeated (a.k.a. pleasure triggers learning)
>however, not everything that pleases us is virtuous
But such a view of virtue would shatter consumistic systems, because it detaches moral goods from material goods.
>>76622920
Ultimately, most of the times we read some propaganda, which says:
>if you didn't like it, there must be something wrong with it
I agree that if you participate an activity and somehow feel oppressed or didn't like it, this means maybe it was not okay for you.
But dislikes and displeasure shouldn't be enough reason to trigger things such as legal or affirmative action. Otherwise we end up in a doomsday scenario in which everyone sues others (and blames others) for her inability to enjoy something that she felt she was "supposed" to enjoy.
That's exactly the point. Capitalist prejudice is something that lures you into thinking:
>if I do X, I am also supposed to enjoy X.
But what if such equation does not hold for most of things in life?
>>76622955
4/7
Let me introduce some examples.
#A
>childbirth is not enjoyable per se
You can broadly transform it into a "good experience" out of it, but belive me the pain is going to be absolute.
But capitalism brainwashes women and teaches them it is not okay if they don't enjoy it.
Result: C-sections all over the place. Even when not necessary.
Now, I agree we should not condemn people to pain. But has anybody considered that childbirth pain might be functional for the development of a sense of attachment towards infants? There must be a fine stance between dying of childbirth and transforming the experience into a trip at the grocery. There must be a "via media" between these two extremes.
>>76622999
5/7
#B
>rape and drugs
No, I am not defending rape. Rapists shall go to jail.
But it is undenyable that, particularly in Anglo-saxon countries, rape has undergone a laundering process that has reduced the crime to a mockery of it... to the point of giving women waivers when it comes to witnesses and testimony required for a proper trial.
Anglo-saxon legal systems are so twisted that now an unpleasant experience (either socially or sexually) has become good ground for a lawsuit.
Moreover, all this equation between pleasure and consent has become an excuse for people to put themselves in conditions in which consent cannot be given.
In a well-ordered society, people would refrain from using drugs or excess drinking... precisely becuase that's a situation that can put you in trouble.
But now, the legal system apparently incentivizes risky behaviour by promising you that "being protected when on drugs or when drunk is your own right".
This is an utter confusion. It is oaky for the State to protect and shelter those who are unable to consent; however, the State shall not give incentives for people to think:
>very well, I can make myself unable to consent tonight, because in the best possible worlds nothing would happen to me
Fuck no. It is right to protect those who cannot consent. But what about those who do have consent, but renounce it because they are drinking or taking drugs?
>>76623030
6/7
Yet, the whole capitalist system thrives on these contradictions:
>they tell you should expect to be protected when renouncing your consent
So you buy alcohol and drink yourself to death. Later, you will pay for medical assistance.
>they tell you that eventual lack of pleasure is a good clue of lack of consent
So if you didn't like the experience (for whatever reason, even external to it -- e.g. you liked sex but you didn't like the shaming that followed it), then you can hire lawyers to kick the shit out of the dude.
Consequently, new lawyers will be hired, and money will be exchanged at all levels.
>>76623053
7/7
It feels like the State is saying:
>feel free to do drugs. We'll sort things out later
Except that later means:
>after bad things have already occurred
>all parties are required to pay a shitload of cash
>companies and capitalist parasites will earn money
Basically, they want you to make mistakes, because they get cash out of your poor judgement. There is a widespread interest in keeping all of you:
>hedonist
>amoral
>dumb
>childish
Thank you for reading me.
Neat.
>>76622887
>>76625591
Good one.
4chan anonymity is degenerate and encapsulates this consumism perfectly. It's artificial camaraderie.
The whole Internet is.
The Internet must be destroyed. People on 4chan associate anonymity and the ability to post/consume information without accountability as the pinnacle of morality.
Hence they tell people who want them to think and be accountable for their posts to go back to l eddit/tumblr.
The truth is those other sites scare the self centered 4channer because they call for accountability for their name. Yes they have some stupid ideologies but that's not why 4chan hates them. 4chan hates them because they require something beyond the individual shitpost.
>>76626006
>Hence they tell people who want them to think and be accountable for their posts to go back to l eddit/tumblr.
Implying I don't have the balls to undertake political activism myself.
Because, for your information, I do. And have become pretty vocal in recent times, after I overcame my fear of being judged by peers.
Some very good points aussie cunt, thanks for sharing.
>>76622887
>Follow me in this rumination, /pol/.
I will follow you, will you follow me?
>>76627235
>I will follow you, will you follow me?
Post, and I'll read you mate.
>>76627136
Thank you. I think we all try to make an effort to keep this board afloat, aside from Bantz.
>>76626006
>You said while there's a swede right now going to prison for stating facts about the refugees on kikebook
>>76629030
>Nowadays you can go to prison for disagreeing with them.
It's very near the end guys. Brace yourselves.
>>76629879
>>76629030
You know if enough men weren't pussies and protested that shit openly anyway and took the risk of losing everything and getting arrested maybe the system would get clogged up and the masses would do something.
You prefer to stay in an Internet safe space though instead of putting your life on the line like men used to do.
You think people declined to go on the crusades because they might die?
That's what you faggot afraid of hate speech laws sound like.
>>76623096
Breddy good read, OP
I think you should compile and edit it into an essay that has a chance of getting published somewhere. It's an important message that needs a better audience than this sewage tank imho fampai.
I agree, my mom and I have talked about this a lot.
Here in Belgium, we kind of have a striking problem. Our railway company was striking last week, and will strike 2 weeks sometime this month. They're doing this because the board decided to cut 1-2 off days, so vacation.
Now this has unleashed incredible butthurt across the country. Everyone kinda hates the walloons now, but I'll get to the conclusion because this doesn't really matter.
It seems like nobody cares about anyone anymore. Like OP said, only caring about themselves. As a result, people stop caring about their country too. Few people are still proud about Belgium, and actually love it here. Instead, they give up and start living off welfare, because who gives a shit right? They get free stuff, at the cost of the country's wealth. This results in the working class hating the systems, hating taxes and not feeling like it's worth to work for this country.
You love your country because of the people that inhabit it. The hate among us has caused a divide, and the strikes are just a result. They don't strike because they don't have enough, they do so because they want more.
>>76631678
Hope this wasn't too much of a circlejerk, just wrote my thoughts as I was writing.
>>76631656
OP needs to get it across to college liberals. It already has a socialist slant so it could get an audience and wake up the safe space consent crowd sheep
>>76631678
The Internet is a main cause for this. Just look at 4chan.
People care more about their online communities and sites than real communities and real nations. People here treat 4chan as if it was a country that's more important to defend than their own real country. The Internet is inherently pushing globalism on everyone.
>>76632075
Interesting thought, come to think of it, that's true. The internet has made us less sociable, and more susceptible to crowd thinking, naturally creating divides among people, regardless of which country they're in.
But I have the feeling materialism has a lot to do with it, since the general populus always will be wanting more and more, if this has negative results for your country/people, so be it. It's this mindset that I hate.
>>76632979
True, I grew up in NYC, with no real identity or community (at this point I don't even live near other English speaking people anymore). Except some vague notion of neighboohood or school pride which is still artificial. so everything I describe about the Internet was already true in real life for my entire life.
>>76631939
>OP needs to get it across to college liberals
Implying I don't teach there already.
But tbqh, desu, what you read here is just an occasional night-time banter. It is not the *real thing*. The way I put it down is tantamount to quality bait. Of course it sounds correct, when I appeal to your intuitions, but this does not mean the picture I describe is true or something.
By saying this, I don't mean to dismiss what I have expressed here. But in order to communicate things better, we need to set other things straight:
>do we want to advocate a cause or just inform people about facts?
>do we want to do both?
>how are the exposed facts verifiable beyond mere appeal to intuition?
So although I welcome your invitation to popularize my own shit, I reckon this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is not unusual you start with something and you end up revising it, or adjusting it to further evidence.
This is just to say I would be cautious when buying the things I said as a whole. Moreover, the quality of my average academic product is way superior to what you find here. Here is more a valve to vent frustration, and even my English (I'm no native) gets lower in quality, especially when I post at 3 am.
Other thing is when you teach you don't want to force-feed shit onto people, but neither you want to subtly brain-wash them.
Otherwise I would be just a shill among the many... whose ultimate goal is a blue-pill (does not matter if Alt-Right or Alt-Left).
Frankly speaking, if I were to provide such material, it would be for the sake of seeing if my studs can rip it apart. Its blatant acceptance might be okay in clubs like this one where we share world-views. But my duty there is to provide people with tools, not to tell 'em what to think.
And I know it is hard, because sometimes we wish we could just force people to stand in line. But that's not the way I want to interact with people, whom I believe have all the abilities to emancipate ourselves.
>>76633420
you're assuming most people can think for themselves. That's simply not true. Democracy is a recent invention for that very reason. The assumption that everyone is capable of that kind of reason is wrong.
IMO there's no such thing as objective teaching that doesn't either force or subtly brainwash. That's literally what teaching is.
>>76633415
That's a shame, I'm kinda lucky since in Belgium scouting is a cool thing, I've heard it's shit in America. So that's kinda my community, but aside from that, there's no real community. Even in a rural town like the one I live in. It's quite saddening.
My view of NYC got completely shattered by this board. English classes and shows like Friends and How I met Your Mother all describe it as the nicest place ever. But apparently it sucks donkey balls
>>76631656
>I think you should compile and edit it into an essay that has a chance of getting published somewhere. It's an important message that needs a better audience than this sewage tank imho fampai.
Thank you, but I think out there there are way better accounts of what I was trying to express.
I guess they have been around at least since the 17th century.
Fact is the wider audience always falls for what I codename "bundle purchases".
Take Marxist communism or even Feuerbach's critique. The "pars destruens" (the criticizing aspects) are usually spot-on -- at least considering the information available to such scholars at the time.
What people argue against is usually the "constructive part" of their work, let alone some "explanatory theories" they put forward.
The problem when you purchase bundle items is that you get also things that are unhelpful together with the helpful ones.
So, nowadays Marx is:
>1. practical critique of Capitalism
>2. theoretical critique of Capitalism (following the idea of general historical trends affecting everyone)
>3. critique of bourgeois mentality
>advocates protest and social movements, unions and civil rights
>4. partly advocates authoritarian solutions to social problems
>5. given his (then) "scientific" approach to issues, there is a lot of statism embedded in Das Kapital.
(cont.)
(cont. from >>76634311 )
Problem is:
1. is spot on
2. is now overridden by our understanding that political action results from psychological trends that are channeled and constrained (but not overly determined) by a series of cultural structures, infrastructures, material availability, and windows of opportunity. So your Marxist philosophy of history goes straight into the bin.
3. is okay. Also all the identification of trends in Judaism, Protestantism, and so on.
4. is something we strongly disagree with
5. is kek-tier, and typical of "grand" philosophers and also totalitarian leaders -- e.g. the idea big problem = big solutions
At the end of this tirade, won't you see that once Marx is de-constructed and broken into pieces, we are able to salvage a couple of things but without entering straight into the mistaken Socialist dream (which history has proven to be a nightmare).
>>76622999
Nice trips
The vast increase in C-sections came after experiments in the sixties where they strangled the umbilical cords of goats and detected decelerations in fetal heartrates. As a result, obgyn units started monitoring those decelerations in fetal heart rate, and the rate of C-sections increased in a few years from <5% to ~22%. Today, in some units, the rate is 40%. It's a process that isn't fully understood and there is currently research ongoing to try to reduce the rate of C-sections.
The New World Order using their governments are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to create and worsen them to bring about a crisis and then the reaction will be the NWO.
This is why they hate Trump, he just wants to solve problems.
>>76634311
this makes a lot of sense. It explains the problems with the American two party left/right system exactly, You're stuck with the bundle purchase of one party or the other while the best option would ideally include elements of both policies. (obvious example: War and Abortion - vote Dem and you get anti-war but pro abortion, vote Rep and you get anti-abortion but pro War but what if you oppose both?)
>>76634168
>he fell for anything jewish media says
>>76634796
>>76634168
There are good parts of NYC but now I realize how fucked up it made me (and anyone else who grows up there unless they're part of a close-knit ethnic community). Glad I'm finally moving out, though ultimately I have dreams of moving somewhere more remote than where I am now for my job.
>>76633980
>you're assuming most people can think for themselves. That's simply not true. Democracy is a recent invention for that very reason. The assumption that everyone is capable of that kind of reason is wrong.
>IMO there's no such thing as objective teaching that doesn't either force or subtly brainwash. That's literally what teaching is.
Man, I cannot enter pedagogy from the main gate, because of the brevity of thread comments, but I will try to do enter it from the back door.
There are, seriously, hundredths of education theories -- and especially the latter ones are strongly supported by studies on how the brain works, etc.
There are theories that view the teacher as:
>provider of tools
>negotiator
>facilitator of learning
There are also theories that stress on the teacher, more or less explicitly, as:
>moral example
>inceptor
>brainwasher
etc.
Now, whether you agree or not, you need to consider recent pedagogy has shifted from a teacher-centred view of education to a student-centred.
So finally we do not talk any more of what the teacher is supposed to be, but, at best, of what duties he is supposed to fulfill.
So, technically, the belief that everyone can think with their own mind (which you disagree with) goes hand in hand with the idea that people are different (which you agree with).
So, now, the idea is that you will NEVER be able to bring everyone to the same level or some shit like this. Nobody believes this any more. If they do, it is some backwater fem teacher in some country town who didn't realize the 70s are over.
The leading idea, nowadays, is that you do your best to give people equal "opportunities". But it is up to them to grasp and reach out. You can facilitate reaching out for stuff, e.g. by informing stuff is there, or by giving tool. But you do not build a house for such people: they have to build it themselves. At best you can provide tools and fucking try to motivate them. But you are not 100% responsible for their success.
>>76634947
Get ready to keep moving as the cancer spreads if Trump loses
If you are insinuating that comunist society is better the fact is that humans will always have ambitions to be better, but what happens in a gavernment where that is renderd impossible? You lose hope in a society that is equaly as constrained as the psuedo fascist capitalist system, you can almost see it in europian films and culture where an expression to be great is not a theme, however, the comfort of a simple life with simple people is expressed. While less people may die than from being subsidised in a capitalist system. It's a pointless fight soldier, wlecome aboard
NONE OF THIS MATTERS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BRING ABOUT ANY CHANGE WHEN THE JEWS OWN THE MONEY, THE POLITICS AND THE MEDIA.
THIS IS ALL POINTLESS UNTIL YOU FIX THAT, but carry on your philosophical circle jerk if it makes you happy.
>>76634659
>Nice trips
Then I must be right. :)
>The vast increase in C-sections came after experiments in the sixties where they strangled the umbilical cords of goats and detected decelerations in fetal heartrates. As a result, obgyn units started monitoring those decelerations in fetal heart rate, and the rate of C-sections increased in a few years from <5% to ~22%. Today, in some units, the rate is 40%. It's a process that isn't fully understood and there is currently research ongoing to try to reduce the rate of C-sections.
Jokes aside, thank you very much for your contribution.
I am well aware that C-sections have a specific medical purpose. But, drawing on what you say, it sounds a lot like appendectomy.
The story goes like this:
>appendicitis was well known in antiquity
>but either it was not prevalent or they simply didn't record many episodes in medical literature
>anyway, with industrialization, it became more common (or more reported). Possibly due to people moving or dramatically changing their century-old dietary intake
>so, in the acute cases, removal is the best option
>surgical techniques were developed, with success and reducing mortality rates
However, nowadays, we don't just look at the acute episode, but we also try to prevent it or to frame it in a life-long scenario.
People have started to investigate:
>how comes a bunch of animals have developed appendixes independently of each other (i.e. without being directly related and without inheriting it from ancestors)?
>maybe the appendix is more useful than we think
>new theories about it hosting "good bacteria" when guts are affected by infections of sort
It sounds a lot like C-sections: an excellent short-term solution, but to address the root causes of the problem it solves, we need to look at the broader picture.
## On a side note:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPP8sy1C6-4
(no gore; amazing video)
>>76634692
>The New World Order using their governments are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to create and worsen them to bring about a crisis and then the reaction will be the NWO.
What about blaming the system instead of individuals?
Suppose you can swap everyone's at the top with someone at the bottom. Do you think things would change?
I argue the structure is so strong that no matter what human being you will put on top, things will follow the same rules.
That is, it does not matter, as you say, that "they are not trying to solve problems".
Maybe they are. Maybe they intend to be "good people" and to "solve shit". It is just that the system we all live in is so biased it keeps *reproducing* the same shit over and over again.
I do not fully stand by the idea we should only blame the structure. However I think it is a good way to start thinking that we need to address things at two levels:
>individual responsibilities (accountability)
>structural elements
>>76635438
I think that's the point of his later posts. He agrees only with some points of Marxism (criticism of consumerism) but NOT with advocating a state-enforced socialist/communist society
>>76634714
>this makes a lot of sense. It explains the problems with the American two party left/right system exactly, You're stuck with the bundle purchase of one party or the other while the best option would ideally include elements of both policies. (obvious example: War and Abortion - vote Dem and you get anti-war but pro abortion, vote Rep and you get anti-abortion but pro War but what if you oppose both?)
That's exactly my issue with most contemporary politics. And where I come from is not much different.
You can have shitty bundles even in a multi-party system. Or the illusion of choice.
Fact is that in pic related, some elements happen to fold onto each other. So you get a bit of everything... sometimes for historical reasons, or incidentally.
Of course, hardly you will find anti-State things in a national party, because it would go against the very idea of governing bodies.
In this sense, both Right and Left Anarchists are the ones who truly try to do something "beyond" the actual system. Whether they are successful or not, is another story.
We should also discuss the idea that maybe there are more than just two axis in pic related. But maybe I'll leave this out for later. Every input in this sense is more than appreciated.
My main question now is:
## CAN WE BREAK THE THIRD WALL OF THIS POLITICAL CHART?
>>76635933
You need to read up on Judaism, the Talmud and History.
It is the religious passion for death and destruction of (((those))) that make up most of the top
They want a world in which their are forever rulers and ruled and never again will they be risen up against or kicked out. They have a prophecy and everything they are fulfilling.
>>76635933
I've almost come to the conclusion that the system is TECHNOLOGY and there's literally no fixing it without giving up most modern inventions including electricity, computers, the internet. Ideologies aren't the system, the system is the technology which determines which ideologies actually get applied to real life. Globalist capitalism for example is the result of global communications, transportation and mass production technologies. I almost don't think there is a way to remove the problems with the system without physcially removing the technologies.
Basically the Unabomber was right. only a neo luddite movement will ever fix anything and even then people won't stop inventing shit.
>>76636335
They don't even hide it and have been working for hundreds of years towards this.
>>76636378
Science is a belief system to distract just like religion. We are living in a holographic matrix of fabricated belief systems that blind us from the duality of existence and the universal energy shared by everything.
Once you remove the Jew, you can start moving towards that.
>>76635438
>welcome aboard
Haha thank you.
>>76636087
Yes, this was the sense of it.
Similarly, I reject the idea of a future "Golden Age" or some other eschatological ( = times to come) promise.
Of course, this is peculiarly relevant in the Communist Manifesto, because the book in question is aimed at fostering (or acknowledging) a social movement, and it has to do so by creating a common narrative and shared myths.
So my critique goes to both aspects of Marx:
- The historical aspects of his scientific program
- The authoritarian aspects of his political proposals
- The messianic (pseudo-religious) aspects of his social narrative
However, if anything, I am more sympathetic with the scientific intentions behind his analysis. But, as I said, historical trends are empty concepts if not supported by study of brain cognition and culture.
>>76636465
The free masons founded the US to oppose the illuminati but they have been subverted and the US is soon to fall without Trump. Then there will be nothing but a quick cleanup war with Russia and the world will be irreversibly conquered.
>>76636378
>I almost don't think there is a way to remove the problems with the system without physcially removing the technologies.
Removing or changing?
Unfortunately, sometimes nature is a matter of layering. e.g. you can build on, but hardly take down completely.
We build on the ruins of ancient people. We build upon their relics. But we also develop starting from where we are: that is, our very starting point is already affected by previous change.
So in a sense you can think of a future in which technologies, as you say, are "neutralized". But I find it hard to picture their complete removal. Things we'll keep sticking out of the mud when you dig -- so to speak.
Everything on the planet has been a war of minds and thoughts, war is just the physical force of thought changing applied.
This is why Memetic Warfare is becoming real.
Just reading through everything you have written OP.
So far I have picked up on quite a few parallels between your thoughts, and those written in the Unabomber manifesto.
If you haven't read it, I would advise you to pick it up/ read it online.
Thank you for posting. A very interesting read.
>>76637208
>This is why Memetic Warfare is becoming real
Better get ready then. Or even take a head-start?
Towards the final victory!
>>76625591
Morality is listed twice. Under safety and self actualization.
>>76637428
UB manifesto should be required reading of /pol/itians.
>>76637511
Oh, so it seems.. a different kind of moralities, maby?
>>76637428
>>76637632
>So far I have picked up on quite a few parallels between your thoughts, and those written in the Unabomber manifesto.
I'm not sure I am familiar with this.
Moreover, where I come from there used to be a terrorist named by the media "Unabomber" after the American one, I suppose. Frankly, this used to be just a frustrated NEET who blew up kids who picked up his trick-bombs when at the seaside.
We fucking hate him for blowing up our kids. I will never go down that slope.
>manifesto
Plus, remember ideology is all about bundles. So the Unabomber seems to be not just a manifesto, but also a bundle that intertwines it with violence.
Will I be able to buy a manifesto without buying the rest of the bundle? Maybe it's not a good purchase at all.
>Thank you for posting. A very interesting read.
Thank you. I'll search what you said.
Do you guys all at least see how the battle against the NWO and the jews is the only step that matters right now? We cannot accomplish anything of worth like this until after we have the power to make change for the better.
Or is this just a circlejerk?
>>76637208
What about the Masonic Lodge named Propaganda Due?
It was at the centre of possibly the biggest scandal ever in Italian history.
They had a manifesto in which they listed things such as:
>infiltrate media outlets and place loyal people in key positions
>control the media in this and that way
I cannot find the English version. It is not tinfoil shit; all of that has been produced at courts during the maxi-trial.
Many got away with membership without being prosecuted. Their names are the names of the most corrupt and embezzled politicians in the country... and some say that, despite the trial, they eventually got what they wanted.
Reading the P2 manifesto now and thinking: "aw shit, it checks. It checks. It checks. They basically made it. 20 years later, but they succeeded"
>>76638128
There must be a strong correlation between chess players and political activism of all kinds.
Look at Russia.
>>76622999
C-sections also negatively impact the child as the fluid of the vaginal wall puts a protective coat over the baby, which can prevent early infections. It's absence puts the child at a 20% greater risk for developing asthma, 40% greater risk for developing immune defects, and 10% for arthritis.
http://sciencenordic.com/giant-study-links-c-sections-chronic-disorders
>>76638409
What do you think I am?
I don't take IQ tests though other than knowing I was over 1 standard deviation above the average from years ago.
>In 1971, he moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water, in Lincoln, Montana, where he lived as a recluse while learning survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient.[8] Seventeen years after beginning his mail bomb campaign, Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times on April 24, 1995 and promised "to desist from terrorism" if the Times or the Washington Post published his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future (the "Unabomber Manifesto"), in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization.
Not sure if I approve. I wish I learned survival skills. But that's about it. It is usually by having repeated contacts with human beings (in real life, not VR here, unfortunately) that my best solidarity emotions are fostered.
Social isolation breeds bad thoughts. I don't like that. But the survival skills part... well, who hasn't thought of that? Every prepper would approve.
>>76638303
Haven't researched that but yes those groups are the real players of conflict. Everything else is just the last dominoe of a chain reaction we get to witness.
The real battle is minds and who controls them.
>>76638938
Being a pro tech person myself, I know better the dangers of technology. It's like what ian malcom said in Jurassic park. Scientists just pursue their discoveries without any ethical reasoning of what it can do to society. For instance, if I were to discover the fountain of youth, I would never let anyone find it simply because I have the hindsight to know what it will wrought on the world.
We live in a world where going to other planets is no longer the priority, but instead, getting a new iphone.
>>76634168
Manhattan is still the ultimate playground for the young & wealthy. But it has a seedy underbelly. Welcome to the states, its 60% white
>>76639697
Well yeah, but it leads to more powerful and better hardware, which can be later used for space exploration, the iPhone, and other products, are just a detour caused by capitalism.
>>76640405
Nothing is as it should be I guess
>>76640952
It still doesnt mean that the iphone itself is going to help space travel, for instance. It's nice to know that video games are what helped advanced computer graphics and computer home tech, but you can easily say that has no ties to actually generating anything significant in our society other than more entertainment software.
>>76641189
Yes, the iPhone itself is useless, but you can't deny that multimedia has boosted technology, with the motivation being money. I agree, we're wasting these innovations, but at least they're leading to some progress, and this progress could once serve a purpose.
>>76639697
>Scientists just pursue their discoveries without any ethical reasoning of what it can do to society. For instance, if I were to discover the fountain of youth, I would never let anyone find it simply because I have the hindsight to know what it will wrought on the world.
In a former thread I lost track of, I debated the fact people usually attach moral value to the proceedings of science. Whereas science is able to discover facts and truth-relations precisely because it is devoid of moral value.
So, in a sense, the problem does not lie with scientists themselves. But for those who take science's meaningful discovery tools also as a way to discover goals and morality.
Basically, this is just another version of the naturalistic fallacy: they see how science effectively tackles its own empirical goals, and they make an unwarranted generalization... such as:
>since the hammer hammers well, the hammer must be a good thing
Or they infer that just because something made you happy in a certain context, therefore it must be the only source of happiness:
>cutting is best done with knives
>cutting is something that I find relaxing
>therefore cutting is all there is in life
>etc.
But cutting doesn't necessarily make other people happy. It might trigger happiness because it is a ritual action that gives you peace. Or it might cause happiness by solving some cooking problems (or by killing your enemies).
But the act itself of cutting is not moral unless you make it meaningful to you.
It is a great mistake to think it would be moral in itself, all things considered, *just because* it has moral relevance for you here and now.
It is wrong to see facts as sources of morality. Moral goals is something only you can build... or you can borrow them from others. But the success of an activity (science) does not automatically determine its moral standing.
>>76641570
But the only progress is simply self pleasure with consumption of useless things. That's my beef with it. It's all going to waste because it's being made more for the individual and less for society, If I were to be generous, I would say the smartphone has brought about a big social change to the world. Laptops are no longer the necessary computer tool, you can see where you are in the world at any time, you can check the whether, you can call someone from anywhere, it's insane what this one invention brought. And at the same time, it brought about a great consequence: globalization.
>>76635679
what are the problems you think stem from c sections?
>>76636378
>>>76637428
>Unabomber
>>76638003
>Unabomber
Guys, I am afraid he said exactly the opposite of what I had in mind. See here:
>>76636961
>So in a sense you can think of a future in which technologies, as you say, are "neutralized". But I find it hard to picture their complete removal. Things we'll keep sticking out of the mud when you dig -- so to speak.
Also, all his manifesto looks like a huge rip-off from Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
That is not to say it is necessarily wrong (or right). As a moral construction, I'd rather say it is neither of the two. It is just about accepting its plan or rejecting it. Here I mean morality as a project, not as a fact.
However, let's say I was expecting more from a high IQ guy.
>>76641846
But I still have a choice of responsibility during that moment of discovery. It's still in my hands whether people know about it or not. Fountain of youth and time travel are not moral based, but as an individual who found it, some people actually will sit there and ponder if this is safe to the world. I dont know if the absence of morality from the aspect itself would discount it not having a moral standing. Its connection to the discover immediately gives it moral standing.
>>76638003
You write like you think you're clever. Unabomber was a legitimate genius. In maths. Read it, or don't.
>>76642149
>what are the problems you think stem from c sections?
Cons of C-sections are:
>lack of bonding with the child
>lack of hormone release (fundamental for bonding, etc.)
Some here >>76638456 have added:
>greater risk of developing asthma
>greater risk of developing immune defects
>greater risk of developing arthritis
What I am just saying is that C-sections might be a fair solution given the mother and the child might be at risk of death.
But in the best of possible worlds C-sections are not something you shop for. Rather, they are "extrema ratio" or "extreme measures". That is, something you do by interfering with a certain course of action. So it is very important to assess the costs/benefits of the procedure.
Many medical teams do.
But others do not (all over the world).
However, my point is not just about the necessity of pain in society. Pain might be necessary, at many stages. What research should try to achieve is not to numb our life-changing experiences (painful or not). Removing pain is not necessarily the solution to mankind unhappiness. The solution might be removing the extreme and direst consequences of our pain.
So I welcome removal of pain for the terminally ill ones. And I welcome removal of pain from surgery. Overall, I am very happy with the removal of pain even during childbirth.
What I am uneasy about is the removal of the onset of pain. Because pain, overall, is a helpful element of our physiology. It is a clear signal, that has a function. What we should avoid is to have people living in situations where such pain signal is permanent, continuous, or rather dysfunctional.
Also, we aim to make acute episodes more bearable, so that they do not give rise to PTSD and the like.
But again, in the cases I have described, removal of pain is tantamount to removal of a dysfunctional mechanism that affects our physiology in unhelpful ways.
(cont.)
>>76642685
>In maths.
In maths. Not in social relations.
High IQ means just this: elevate score in a parameter that measures some skills that are considered relevant at some point of time.
By thinking that High IQ makes you highly moral, you commit the same naturalistic mistake I have described here: >>76641846
You take a scientific measurement and you come to believe it discloses something superior all things considered (i.e. morally superior; not just functionally superior in some relative sense of brain processing power).
What I see here is just a guy whose brain processing power was ranked better than his peers according to some measurement system.
But this makes him a good processor, maybe a good explorer. But not necessarily it makes him a good discoverer of moral truths.
Basically, what you say is something he would disagree with. You say:
>his IQ proves he is morally valuable
He would reply:
>stop thinking IQ-measuring questionnaires and technologies are somewhat morally meaningful, because technology is all I have ever fought against. They are exactly the box I was trying to step out of.
Basically you commit the same mistake of those who purchase the ideological bundles I have described here: >>76634311
You see a man that has the following bundle:
>intelligent in maths
>bad teacher
>bad social relationships
>possibly autism
>sociopath at best
>a plan to subvert society for both personal and seemingly altruistic reasons
>dedicated use of violence as a political tool
>some positive intuitions about the dangers of technology
Frankly, of this bundle I buy just the former and the latter. But don't ask me to buy everything.
>either read him or don't
>accept him or reject him
Your either/or black/white attitude is just a reduction of all the possibilities such a man offer to me.
You tell me:
>accept him or reject him
I respond:
>I'm not buying the whole package. I'm sorry. I don't want to consume all chocolate in the box you are offering me
>>76644532
Reading Ted's articles right now, I can see some of his anarchy thoughts that I may not agree with. But so far, I haven't seen anything relatively biased on his far. He seems to be well educated and I agree with a lot of stuff that he's saying,. particularly cause I have studied psychology and sociology situations myself. I'm a logical thinker, and many people like him find causes and effects for things. So I do not believe it discredits his views. Being a mathematician may not be that significant, but it's a good way to say he's very aware of things lower intelligent human beings are not of.
>>76643534
On the contrary, the cases that concerns me (e.g. excessive number of C-sections) are cases in which maybe, after C-section is done, we should start to wonder:
>why is it the baby comes in a way that can only be resolved by a C-section?
>is it linked to late childbearing age?
>is it linked to other variables?
Fortunately, Leafbro >>76634659 informs us that people are researching the mechanism behind the problems we usually solve by C-sections:
>It's a process that isn't fully understood and there is currently research ongoing to try to reduce the rate of C-sections.
>>76643534
I never once thought about C sections from this sort of perspective but it has really instantly resonated with me. I'm buying what you're selling up here.
>>76644532
Well, you've not really said anything substantive, except that you disagree with him. I think its fine to disagree with him, but you've only played a few clever word games and not actually put a comprehensive set of beliefs out there. His manifesto is nothing if not comprehensive, and he quite successfully encompasses the /pol/ black pill crowd. Not that I agree with that crowd.
> You tell me:
>> accept him or reject him
Well, not so fast. I said:
> read it, or don't
>>76644935
>So I do not believe it discredits his views.
The issue I was pointing at was not an issue of right or wrong. I don't think his views are discredited.
Basically, one of the things he said is:
>The big problem is that people don't believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible.
Following this line of thought, I think we would better define moral not as something you are correct or wrong about, but something you either choose or reject.
I don't think his views are discredited as a consequence. However, we don't have to take all of what he says as truths; rather, we can take it as a project:
>this is my theory about how facts are
>I am unsatisfied with this. I think you should too
>So I propose this plan as the only one capable of achieving change
We don't need to discredit his first point. But the following two are just him trying to sell us something.
Moreover, even his plan is a technology in a sense. It is a blueprint for a better future. The problem with blueprints, however, is that they become obsolete.
Suppose that he was totally right. Change in his times could occur only violently. But what if slight changes in structure and cognitive behaviour, together with shifts in the "geology" of society, result in unprecedented windows of opportunity?
Reality is not ultimately determined in the sense there is always an element of randomness.
I maintain that such element might results in windows of opportunities that allow for ideological blueprints that are utterly different from the ones he proposed.
And this is not to say he is wrong. This is just to say there might be opportunities now he was not in a position to foresee.
TL;DR: the facts he describes are one thing. But in his manifesto he is proposing himself as an architect... as a builder. Not as a dealer of truths. Problem is the house he tries to sell might not be optimal for current year. And might become good again in the future.
>>76645868
I did take into account the time he was growing up in. Tech has grown so rapidly since then, there needs to be a better blueprint created in respect to current times. But that was precisely his point.
>if we don't stop it now, it'll become even harder to stop later, and the consequences for destroying it will only get bigger
For instance, they're talking about a solar storm from the sun that can wipe out a lot of electrical devices and leave people without power for up to two years that may happen later this year. There's no media outage about this or anything either. No call of action. This moreso because nothing in the system has been created to sustain a power outage of that magnitude, which has been a criticism of power systems for a while now. If such an event happens, it's going to affect everyone from new england down to florida. That's going to be distractous.
>>76646432
If Clinton wins, I welcome that solar storm
>>76647022
>>76646432
Just Fuck My Nation Up Senpai
>A more effective protest could have been made with far less harm to innocent people. Most of the people who died at Oklahoma City were, I imagine, lower-level government employees---office help and the like---who were not even remotely responsible for objectionable government policies or for the events at Waco. If violence were to be used to express protest, it could have been used far more humanely, and at the same time more effectively, by being directed at the relatively small number of people who were personally responsible for the policies or actions to which the protesters objected. Such protest would have attracted just as much national attention as the Oklahoma City bombing and would have involved relatively little risk to innocent people. Moreover, the protest would have earned far more sympathy than the Oklahoma City bombing did, because it is safe to assume that many anti-government people who might have accepted violence that was more limited and carefully directed were repelled by the large loss of innocent life at Oklahoma City.
Sauce: http://www.3-3-3.org/docs/Kaczynski%27s%20comments%20on%20McVeigh.htm
>>76647240
Compare with:
>There is one point very much in controversy in opinions about terrorism. Many consider that its use, by provoking police oppression, hinders all more or less legal or semi-clandestine contact with the masses and makes impossible unification for actions that will be necessary at a critical moment. This is correct; but it also happens that in a civil war the repression by the governmental power in certain towns is already so great that, in fact, every type of legal action is suppressed already, and any action of the masses that is not supported by arms is impossible. It is therefore necessary to be circumspect in adopting methods of this type and to consider the consequences that they may bring for the revolution. At any rate, well-managed sabotage is always a very effective arm, though it should not be employed to put means of production out of action, leaving a sector of the population paralyzed (and thus without work) unless this paralysis affects the normal life of the society. It is ridiculous to carry out sabotage against a soft-drink factory, but it is absolutely correct and advisable to carry out sabotage against a power plant. In the first case, a certain number of workers are put out of a job but nothing is done to modify the rhythm of industrial life; in the second case, there will again be displaced workers, but this is entirely justified by the paralysis of the life of the region. We will return to the technique of sabotage later.
Sauce: Che Guevara, Guerilla Warfare
>>76647371
I'm going to go off a tangent a moment and say that discussing stuff that are close to what makes a terrorist makes me feel a little unnerved. I'd never do the activity myself, but I sympathize with a movement if it';s absolutely necessary and saying this makes me feel like a target may be put on my head someday by the government for not thinking like a good little goyim. It frightens me.
>>76622999
>continuously using the word capitalism as a catch all for societal choices
I had to stop reading this cringeworthy garbage here
Capitalism has nothing to do with your complaints, and we have increasingly less free markets and free enterprise and the things you complain about are only growing
Your problem OP is that you take a snapshot of the present, and then deconstruct what is wrong from it. This is something all leftists do, as they are incapable of grasping long term effects and discerning long term causes
You see that we have a capitalist society now, you see that we have x now, and you conclude thusly that if things aren't doing well, it must surely be because of this system
We in the United States had the greatest civic culture in the world, unrivaled by any other point in history. This lasted all the way until like the 80's. To say capitalism is causing all these problems when we were living with it and doing extremely well in every regard you bitch about, it to call yourself an idiot who can't see the forest for the trees.
worth watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVskhzJR6NU
>>76634692
Looking at the picture makes me wonder who would be located at the capstone?
>>76649857
Everyone who isn't in the system, actually. This includes those who are "without influence" too. That means no matter how rich or poor you are, if you are outside its control, you are effectively considered at the top.
