Consider renaming Ethnic fascism to Ethnic… uh… realism?
Mature people recognise that social order is more important than narcissistic individual desire.
I’m gay, and I don’t really give two stuffs if Santorum wants to outlaw gay porn. Porn isn’t exactly a healthy influencer. I’d rather live in a society that values stability.
Gay “marriage” advocates…
Individualism is not a moral code nor a blueprint for the structure of civil society, it is “Reactionary”, specifically reactionary against the cloak of community, nationality, and morality that the state wraps around itself.
It is a defense against those things which have proven time and time again to unravel the natural fabric of society.
Just as state welfare crowds out mutual aid, statist conceptions of the community crowd out natural conceptions of community, and what you are LEFT WITH is atomistic individuals.
And this is why Santorum is so dangerous. He’s obsessed with centralizing power in the name of his goals, and in doing so, has condemned civil society to death.
So I implore you not to judge a politician by the sentiments he tries to convey, but what that politician thinks how those sentiments should manifest themselves.
Also keep in mind that he’s a foreign policy fanatic. If you want fewer Muslim Immigrants going to western Europe, overthrowing Middle eastern governments and bombing Muslim countries into the stone age is not going to discourage
Muslims from going to those places Santorum isn’t determined to obliterate.
2000 years ago, a Jewish man said something along the lines of “All men are equal before God”, and issued a series of diktats about how society ought to be run.
2000 years later, “All men are equal before God” has become “Everyone must have equal rights”, and “original sin” has become “white…
Do you believe a realization, even one that occurred within a relatively short period of time, would NOT be “Too little, too late?”
Positively LOVE this game. It’s actually quite scary, which is great. Most “scary” games rely on cliche horror imagery too much, while this focuses on suspense. I also like the 1800s Prussia Aesthetic and old-timey technology, and the hallucinations from going insane. My fear is tempered by my…
PS:
Aside from the fact that the game would be less scary if you were able to fight back against the monsters. My own explanation for the game is that the monsters themselves are sort of a complement to the ‘shadow’ that is mentioned in the game. I.e. the one that follows you around and you can only ‘run away’ from it.
It’s a stretch, i know.
what they COULD have done, is make it so that you could have fought back against the creatures, but have it so that you cannot actually kill them. So for example, throwing a heavy object at the monster, it would stun him for a few seconds, enough for you to have plenty of time to get away, but they would get back up, perhaps in greater numbers next time.
Positively LOVE this game. It’s actually quite scary, which is great. Most “scary” games rely on cliche horror imagery too much, while this focuses on suspense. I also like the 1800s Prussia Aesthetic and old-timey technology, and the hallucinations from going insane. My fear is tempered by my…
I said “Try Playing Amnesia” and a few days later you come out with a review of Amnesia. Is it a coincidence or do I actually have some sort of power?
Hm…
Try playing Portal 2
Try Playing Napoleon 2 total war
I found minecraft to be scarier than silent hill 4. I have to believe I’m not the only one.
petrellica said: Absolutely. I find myself physically leaving my chair when I hear that “ssssss…” I bet an argument can be made that it has to do with the sense of property and loss that the game…
Try playing Amnesia.
This post is going to be about me. While objectively the most interesting subject in the world, your flawed subjective perception may not view my issues as being too terribly interesting. Just a disclaimer.
Now I had the whole moral nihilist phase. And by phase, I mean it was the phase in which I…
I don’t see the difficulty in this issue at all. Maybe I’m missing something.
Once someone understands what morality actually is, they figure out that the answer to the question to “Why Ought I / We / You / They” is always the same:
You have a certain moral claim, and you ask why it should be treated seriously.
Should “we” care about the children? There answer isn’t *No*, because to say no implies some more important ought. The answer isn’t yes either, for the same reason.
Calling any normative claim into question, and accepting or rejecting the normative claim, either involves treating the claim as a value in itself, without any deeper basis, or involves appealing to some higher basis, which then begs the question of why you should care about that.
I am not implying here either that every moral proposition is therefore equal. [Or rather, that because all moral propositions suffer from the same problems, they should be TREATED equally] After all, doing so is in itself a moral proposition.
In other words, Morality is pre-rational, it cannot be subject to rational analysis. You can find rational explanations for the root of morality, but you cannot rationally explain why morality should be accepted. To do so would merely require invoking the same, or some other form of morality.
There is one big “But”…
Moral argumentation, in my view, is not “fruitless”. Even if it is dishonest. By dishonest I mean trying to convince someone that your code of morality is more “objective”, even when the arguer knows that it isn’t.
Because while it is impossible to say that one moral goal is ‘wrong’, it is possible to say that one moral goal conflicts with others, and as long as that moral goal is viewed as more important, you can, in a sense, “change people’s minds”
You can essentially manipulate these different moralities to achieve a more ‘Harmonized’ morality; namely, that one group of people doesn’t have some “moral conviction” that leads them to advocate things that directly harm other groups.
A simple example of such a thing would be intense religious homophobia [I mean of the Iranian Theocracy kind] - A kind of morality where one person got pleasure out of killing someone else for any sexual reason is, at best, a zero sum game, [and probably a negative sum game]
As such I’m not bothered per say about people wanting to help total strangers . [whether they are Homeless people with mental health issues or Starving African children] The charity donors get the psychological benefits conferred on them by their own moral beliefs, and the person who gets the money is also ‘benefitted’ in a sense.
The problem is when the above morality turns into an excuse for a state, which directly harms me, you, MOST other people. [And as you said, basically destroys civilization itself, slowly]
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll try to live as long as I can, and would violently resist being killed.
But the truth is, I don’t think I have much left to experience. I’ve experienced being ostracized and mobbed, and being adored, I’ve had so much sex that I’m all sexed out. I’ve had the finest food and…
This is why I’m afraid to buy a firearm when I get older. I might get too bored one day and decide to do something permanent >:0
Have you tried learning a musical instrument? It’s kind of an expensive hobby though.
I will say that I can see the obvious parallels between religious and secular ‘religions’. But While I can see the existence of god as clearly giving meaning to someone’s life, I can’t see democracy per-say doing the same thing. World-wide equality or some post-nationalist social-democracy MAYBE…
But maybe that’s because I was never a social democrat.
“I’ve had so much sex that I’m all sexed out.”
Didn’t you say in a video a few months ago that you were a Virgin? You were wearing a leather jacket and sun glasses If my memory serves me correctly Whatever. I can’t believe I’m even asking this.
In response to my previous post, smilezroyale said this:
“Just to command on your last few paragraphs. Start by accepting the fact that you’re going to die at some point, and hopefully you’ll stop being so resentful about it. Just live life the best you can in the context of your morality.
You’re one of the few people on the planet that knows [and was smart enough to realize] that you’re surrounded by mystics. I would suggest not being too upset about the fact that all of us are so much poorer because of their psychotic ideology. And everyone knows that “going to the wall” won’t lend any credibility to what you and I believe.
Sorry I don’t know why I said “Command” on your last few paragraphs. That should be comment.
Caring about what other people think is probably an evolutionary thing as you mentioned. “caring” what other people think of you is similar to your brain “caring” about the fact that your hand is resting on a hot iron and you should probably pull it away. In fact I’m willing to guess that getting personal utility out of knowing that you are ‘accepted’, [and visa versa] is probably a net benefit for the human race.
It sucks in politics though.
That said, I don’t even know if not caring about what other people think Is even possible, and that wasn’t really what I was suggesting. We’ll always have some “human itch” - a prerational disposition that we can’t shrug off easily or at all.
I have a few of those that I won’t list on a public blog :D
Maybe it is possible at a more basic level, IF you can adjust your enviroment. That is, if you choose to only include people in your ‘Dunbar unit’ that are 1. either not statists or not vocal in their politics 2. not judgemental, You can “Afford” to care about their opinions because you know they are good enough people to care about yours, and to make adjustments accordingly.
Random people on the street are irrelevant, and not caring about what THEY think certainly won’t turn you into a sociopath.
It was one of those santa-claus things. I believed in Santa Claus until one day I thought about it, and then said, “Of course he doesn’t exist. That’s impossible.” It was the mere act of letting myself think about it openly.
Recently I’ve been questioning some foundational beliefs I hold. To…
Just to command on your last few paragraphs. Start by accepting the fact that you’re going to die at some point, and hopefully you’ll stop being so resentful about it. Just live life the best you can in the context of your morality.
You’re one of the few people on the planet that knows [and was smart enough to realize] that you’re surrounded by mystics. I would suggest not being too upset about the fact that all of us are so much poorer because of their psychotic ideology. And everyone knows that “going to the wall” won’t lend any credibility to what you and I believe.
If you really want to punish these people, become a politician vote for laws knowing the results will be disastrous.
But yeah. Avoid watching the “news”, and try to enjoy the world the best you can.
