• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NeoGAF's Political Leanings

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,579
19,059
1,250
Australia
By all means lets do that.



Never changed my mind on that because in my opinion the evidence showed that at the very least something nefarious occurred and I believe that should disqualify someone from such a key position of government. So that is true.



Admitted I was wrong multiple times.



Admitted I was wrong multiple times and even switched sides in order to hope that he gets jailtime for what he did. And I still do. So that is a toothless accusation.



Not really sure if you are referring to collusion or Russian interference here. So I am not sure which to talk about.



You continuing to list my views and insult me for them is just proving my point and is exactly the problem that I am talking about, but you can't see it. The point of the section should be to discuss opinions and viewpoints not flame or insult people for them. And once again I am saying that I know full well I am part of that problem as well. I know I have done that in the past. But that doesn't make me wrong when I say things shouldn't be that way.




I know? I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to. Quite the opposite actually. As long as it fits within the rules of the forum and its not offensive to my own viewpoints or opinions I could care less what people wanna talk about. And even then I will just be interested in giving my two cents because unless it blatantly racist, homophobic, or whatever I think people should be able to share their views on it even if I disagree with it.
Cool, but thanks to your long history of dishonest behaviour, I don’t believe you. This is what happens when you constantly lie and expect others not to notice. Even your “dishonest little cunt” complaint was presented here without the proper context. @autoduelist posted a thoughtful reply to your whining about America and threatening to leave like a petulant child and you dodged it like you always do when you encounter arguments that are too difficult to rebut. That is dishonest and, in my view, a bit cunty.

Infinitely? Lol.

Yeah. A nation with guns has more gun violence than nations without significant gun culture. Get yer crackerjack prize. A nation without shovels would have less holes, too. What you fall to grasp is that we still want our guns.

Gun violence in the US has been going steadily down for years, despite what the news says. *


Gun ownership:



Well over half if the gun deaths in the US are suicides. Suicide rates in the US generally mirror those of other western countries, meaning people just find other ways [ie, gun suicides are not because of guns].

The simple truth is that the single best way we could lower gun violence would not be removing legal guns, but rather, address the real issue: gang violence. Because that's really what we are talking about.

And sure, we can get into that. But then we'd have to discuss single motherhood. And if we discuss that, we need to discuss the welfare system. And if we discuss that, well, c'mon, let's be serious, we both know you're not going in deep on that. We'd need to discuss drugs. And black on black crime. You ready for that?

And you want to talk mass shootings? Yeah. We can discuss those. But first we need to discuss.... single motherhood. Again. And then we need to discuss the psychotropic pharmaceuticals being pumped into a significant percentage of today's boys: specifically, the most unruly and aggressive of those boys, often without fathers, who instead of learning about discipline are learning to pill pop on doctor's orders. The very ones being told they are toxic and wrong and awful. Yeah. Let's talk about that.

What we don't really need to talk about much is the 2nd amendment. First, because its here to stay. Second, because it's not the driving force behind gun violence. Just like knife ownership isn't the driving force behind knife murders in London.

You know who wants to talk about how to solve the societal problems causing gun violence? The right. You know who wants to blame the results of decades of bad policy on guns? The left. Why? Because they actively discourage talking about any real issue that might contravene their gun control narrative.

Because you're too fucking scared to admit that single mothers are not equipped to handle the most aggressive boys. You're too scared to admit that they are failed at home, then failed by state schools, handed drugs by counselors to control them, then released to the streets with a shit education in democratic stronghold cities incapable of dealing with crime because cops are forced to police with one arm behind their back else you scream brutality. Failure after failure after failure, but that's okay because you point at that failure of policy, of that failure of liberal ideology, and get to scream that its racism instead. Just like the left will find something thing to blame typhus and bubonic plague in California on that doesn't implicate their own failed policy and inability to address homelessness because they're too scared they might offend the mentally ill.

*Charts from:

We’ve also covered this both sides tactic you’ve attempted to pull before.


Glad I’m not the only one who sees it this way. The both sides tactic is just another means of deflecting criticism and is ultimately a stubborn refusal to accept accountability for his own actions.

While I share @guggnichso ’s goals stated in this thread (https://www.neogaf.com/threads/conservative-pussies-have-been-owned-fuck-the-right-wing-establishment.1477495/), I think he’s going about it in the completely wrong way. The environment he is describing has to be built over time by positively reinforcing pro-social behaviours (promoting the truth, being able to admit fault, acknowledging one’s limits, anti-fragility, to name a few) and discouraging anti-social behaviours (outrage baiting, playing the victim, and any of the other numerous narcissistic tendencies that NI so frequently displays). You can’t just both sides your way there because all that does is incentivise the anti-social behaviours and breeds resentment that undermines social cohesion in the long run.

I’m not singling out @guggnichso here — @Yoshi is another who does this frequently, and while I think it’s done with good intentions, it’s a lazy, ineffective and counter-productive parenting method that is actually compounding the problems it claims to want to solve. It encourages spoiled children to avoid accountability because they know that the adults will swoop in to shield them and punish everyone equally whenever they overstep the social bounds. This breeds narcissism and produces adults who cannot function in the real world because they are completely dissociated from corrective social forces. If they can just take everyone down with them, why take the path of most resistance?

NI trying to both sides his way out of this by quoting Stephen Fry — someone he knows will resonate on an emotional level with many of us — and painting it as an “all of us” problem exemplifies this. The absolute worst thing we can do for the culture of the forum as a whole is give in and fail to hold him to account for his anti-social behaviours. This is not the behaviour of someone who has learned anything from Covington, Smollett, Russia, and so on:













https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hatred-of-journalists-whipped-up-by-populist-and-authoritarian-leaders-has-degenerated-into-violence-across-the-world.1477219/page-2#post-254058163

This is just from the last few days.

You have no integrity and the mentality of a 15 year old. Along with your blatant narcissism and clear self-hatred, it’s a deadly combo. You don’t respect truth or decency, and your definition of decency is based on words instead of actions anyway. This is what I meant by parading around a victimhood shield to hide more subtly insidious behaviours. You believe that faking being a good person by saying the right things can make up for your subversive and hypocritical actions. This is why you get insulted, and why you deserve it. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to atone but you are incapable of introspection. You never learn and any time you try to show that you have, it’s clearly fraudulent because you can never just take responsibility for your own actions — you always have to try to drag others down with you (like in this thread). It’s transparent as fuck to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size.

Lie in your bed — you made it.
 

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,554
1,245
610
you make idiotic claims/comments, people will call you out on it. If you continue to do so, you will be remembered as the kind of person who cannot have an honest discussion and will be treated with snark and dismissal. This is what you are seeing as this is what you have wrought with your actions.
Doubt that since i've accumulated an array of stalkers recently.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,504
1,010
445
deaftourette.com
I don't know how anyone sees me on here. I know I don't know everything and I have ADHD (comes with the territory of having Tourette Syndrome), but I do try to treat everyone with respect. The only times I haven't is when a few posters (3 that I can remember) were openly racist towards me or other members (2 got temp bans and one got permed).

That said, I notice that what interests me are left leaning ideas yet I'm not a Democrat and no longer vote (studying to become a Jehovah's Witness)... But this part of the forum is interesting and allows me to be challenged Intellectually which the other forums rarely do anymore.

Anyway... See? That darn ADHD! LOL
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
22,394
16,413
2,075
I don't know how anyone sees me on here. I know I don't know everything and I have ADHD (comes with the territory of having Tourette Syndrome), but I do try to treat everyone with respect. The only times I haven't is when a few posters (3 that I can remember) were openly racist towards me or other members (2 got temp bans and one got permed).

That said, I notice that what interests me are left leaning ideas yet I'm not a Democrat and no longer vote (studying to become a Jehovah's Witness)... But this part of the forum is interesting and allows me to be challenged Intellectually which the other forums rarely do anymore.

Anyway... See? That darn ADHD! LOL
You're fine, DT. Main things we ask are to keep it civil and respectful between the members here, to substantiate arguments with sources as necessary, avoid derailing a discussion around yourself in an attention whoring manner, and avoid advocacy of extremism in any direction. Generally you don't have a problem with any of that.

If you didn't mention your conditions I doubt anyone would pick up on them by reading your posts.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
This is Truth. I remeber after the split there was a time when things seemed more civil and Dogpilling never happened..Thats changed.

Users like @Solomeena just attack and attack .. They dont bother asking questions or are intrested in actual conversation. Just a shouting match.
You have the gall to call me out when you are one of the most aggressive posters on these forums. And i am going to do what you do when you can't reply to me because you have no reasonable answers because you are an insanely extreme liberal who does not want to hear a person out if they disagree with you. You are quite triggered, let me hit that emote on your post like you always do to me.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: AfricanKing

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
8,518
7,255
715
You're fine, DT. Main things we ask are to keep it civil and respectful between the members here, to substantiate arguments with sources as necessary, avoid derailing a discussion around yourself in an attention whoring manner, and avoid advocacy of extremism in any direction. Generally you don't have a problem with any of that.

If you didn't mention your conditions I doubt anyone would pick up on them by reading your posts.
I don't READ crazy ASS diatribes that SCREAM incoherently like BROKEN minds.
 

TrainedRage

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2018
4,595
5,164
705
33
USA
I think OP did a pretty good job of providing a snapshot of the front page. Like a time capsule. However I don't think you can judge peoples politics based on ONE thread they make on the internet.
 

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
1,415
2,129
545
I think all forums need to avoid having celebrity in crowd posters. Over time, popular posters just start getting agreement and swaying threads regardless of what they say because people are used to liking them. Then dogpiling happens against anyone that disagrees with them. In the final form of this form of forum death, they get on the good sides of the moderators and all their friends get to insult people with impunity and never get moderated while anyone that disagrees with them gets banned. And then you have the old Neogaf and REE.

People would all do better to try and read the posts as if an avatar wasn't even there, and try to decide if they agree or disagree based on what's actually typed. All too often I see dumb posts from popular posters cheered on, and insightful posts from hated posters dumped on because people choose teams and just shitpost without even thinking. No one here is special or important, not even Cunth.

Dogpiling definitely happens all the time here, and so do insults. Nobody Important basically nailed it. It doesn't even matter if the site tilts right or left as long as people debate actual ideas instead of shitting on each other. People who can't follow that basic rule honestly should be banned, and the forum would be a better place without them. If you insult someone like that in real life, you are bound to catch a punch to the jaw. But on here, all we have are moderator actions to stop flagrant insults and ad hominem trash posts.

The sad truth is that the community here is devolving compared to when it first started picking up. People are choosing teams and starting to act like assholes.

All ideas are permitted here. It shows a lack of intelligence, vocabulary, and a good argument if all you have left is insults.
 

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,554
1,245
610
You have the gall to call me out when you are one of the most aggressive posters on these forums. And i am going to do what you do when you can't reply to me because you have no reasonable answers because you are an insanely extreme liberal who does not want to hear a person out if they disagree with you. You are quite triggered, let me hit that emote on your post like you always do to me.
I've seen you openly agree with another user but continue to insult them because they are liberal, you quoted me yesterday for using buzzfeed as a source which reported accurately and for no good reason decided to be insulting - i dont waste time replying back to bait like that its not worth anyones time.

In fact I've never once quoted you for anythjng ,you seem to only quote me in a clearly uncivil manner.
 

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
1,070
999
385
Some good discussion in here. This place is infinitely more tolerant of the new minorty - the left - than the other place. I feel like gaf is in really good place right now but that there is nothing really in place to prevent it becoming another hive mind, mod abuse, etc. It would be nice if it were made public who the mod that did the banning, so that there is over sight on their history. But perhaps there is a good argument for not doing so
 
Last edited:

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
204
263
270
Republic of Val Verde
Some good discussion in here. This place is infinitely more tolerant of the new minorty - the left - than the other place. I feel like this place is in really good place right now but that there is nothing really in place to prevent it becoming another hive mind, mod abuse, etc. It would be nice if it were made public who the mod that did the banning, so that there is over sight on their history. But perhaps there is a good argument for not doing so
Hive mentality just means you only need to rebut one person then copy and paste.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
I've seen you openly agree with another user but continue to insult them because they are liberal, you quoted me yesterday for using buzzfeed as a source which reported accurately and for no good reason decided to be insulting - i dont waste time replying back to bait like that its not worth anyones time.

In fact I've never once quoted you for anythjng ,you seem to only quote me in a clearly uncivil manner.
Buzzfeed is shit and you know it. It's like you and your comrades whining about Fox news so i don't want to hear your whining when you get called out for using BuzzShit. As for you never quoting me, i don't care if you do or don't. What i care about is that instead of engaging me all you do is spam the TRIGGERED EMOTE time and time again because you are passive aggressive and lazy.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
Some good discussion in here. This place is infinitely more tolerant of the new minorty - the left - than the other place. I feel like gaf is in really good place right now but that there is nothing really in place to prevent it becoming another hive mind, mod abuse, etc. It would be nice if it were made public who the mod that did the banning, so that there is over sight on their history. But perhaps there is a good argument for not doing so
As 1,000 people keep pointing out day in and day out you just see liberals as the minority because this place actually allows a dissenting opinion without banning hundreds of neogaf members like it use to, of course you are going to think you are the minority when the silenced now have a voice, kinda just need to deal with it.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,158
540
530
Reading, Berkshire
Yeah sorry I am not buying the GAF is this thread.

The reality is the vast majority doesn't post in Politics. And many of the ones that do don't post threads, only replies.

And topics like being pro guns, pro free speech, or anti illegal immigration are not Right of center.

Just because people who are here or were here have moved incredibly Far Left, it doesn't change where Center is.
The center always changes because of right and left shift.

Many stances aren't inherently right or left but how they are framed are.

Example: immigration itself is pretty center. How one views immigrants is another issue.

Some posters talk about immigration though a lens of empathy but still having concerns about whether or not their country can handle the influx, what to do with the current ones from not only the southern border but the various European, Asian, Middle Eastern, African illegal immigrants. Discussing actual policies not simply "lock them up" or "Obama did it too"

And we have other members who routinely talk about whites being overrun, how long until white people need to fight back, and all kinds of identity politic BS. How terrible various minority groups are if not led correctly, etc. Immigration isn't the issue for these posters, race is which is why their only fear are immigrants from the southern border but not a peep about illegal European immigrants.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
And we have other members who routinely talk about whites being overrun, how long until white people need to fight back, and all kinds of identity politic BS. How terrible various minority groups are if not led correctly, etc. Immigration isn't the issue for these posters, race is which is why their only fear are immigrants from the southern border but not a peep about illegal European immigrants.
Can you please link me to these posts of other members talking about whites being overrun and talking about how long until white people need to fight back? I have seen no such thing here and if there we're you should be reporting them and i am positive the staff would get rid of them quickly. When you say other members by the way, can you give us some numbers of how many people do this?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,579
19,059
1,250
Australia
I think all forums need to avoid having celebrity in crowd posters. Over time, popular posters just start getting agreement and swaying threads regardless of what they say because people are used to liking them. Then dogpiling happens against anyone that disagrees with them. In the final form of this form of forum death, they get on the good sides of the moderators and all their friends get to insult people with impunity and never get moderated while anyone that disagrees with them gets banned. And then you have the old Neogaf and REE.

People would all do better to try and read the posts as if an avatar wasn't even there, and try to decide if they agree or disagree based on what's actually typed. All too often I see dumb posts from popular posters cheered on, and insightful posts from hated posters dumped on because people choose teams and just shitpost without even thinking. No one here is special or important, not even Cunth.

Dogpiling definitely happens all the time here, and so do insults. Nobody Important basically nailed it. It doesn't even matter if the site tilts right or left as long as people debate actual ideas instead of shitting on each other. People who can't follow that basic rule honestly should be banned, and the forum would be a better place without them. If you insult someone like that in real life, you are bound to catch a punch to the jaw. But on here, all we have are moderator actions to stop flagrant insults and ad hominem trash posts.

The sad truth is that the community here is devolving compared to when it first started picking up. People are choosing teams and starting to act like assholes.

All ideas are permitted here. It shows a lack of intelligence, vocabulary, and a good argument if all you have left is insults.
I understand your arguments and I think you have some things partially correct, but I disagree overall. Insults are evolved social behaviours that cannot just be suppressed without causing ripple effects that result in other more undesirable consequences. The price of freedom is that you will be exposed to ideas and words that you don't like, but that's good for you. It toughens you up and, assuming you're pursuing truth instead of using GAF politics as a form of competitive sport in which you only ever barrack for your team, it forces you to critically examine your own positions and potentially have your mind changed. Before advocating for top-down authoritarian measures to curb insults, you first need to critically think about why they exist in the first place. Are they being thrown around ad hominem (I agree that this is bad behaviour that needs to be corrected) or are they being used as a form of social correction for other anti-social behaviours that are not as obvious, but nonetheless harmful if left uncorrected? My view has always been that the form of civility you are advocating for must be built from the bottom up, meaning that it is the sum of the parts; that is, the end result of each individual member collectively agreeing to discuss and argue, even heatedly at times, in the pursuit of truth. Lies, hypocrisy, double standards, and general dishonesty must be shunned before you can achieve what you call civility. Civility is not just handed to you on a silver platter by a higher power -- in the case of an internet discussion forum, this would be the moderation team. For me personally, this is why I insult NI. He engages in lies, hypocrisy, double standards, and general dishonesty more than anyone I have ever encountered on the internet. The olive branch is always there should he wish to reach out and grasp it, but this would first require fixing these behaviours. Insults and jokes, often one and the same, are the means of telling him when he is overstepping the social bounds. If he chooses not to acknowledge them and carry on with his same anti-social behaviours, that's his fault.

What we are ultimately talking about are social hierarchies. You say that forums should avoid having celebrity in-crowd posters, and I agree that it's not good to have people who can throw around opinions that are fawned over without being critically questioned, but how do you stop this without attempting to eliminate social hierarchies altogether? Are you simply chasing the utopia? You know that's not achievable without significant top-down authoritarian pressure, right? Even then, history has shown that, when achieved, it is never sustained. You call Cunth out specifically, but why do you think he is so popular? It's because he's a funny cunt who doesn't take himself too seriously. He keeps it light and shifts the Overton Window so that those who take themselves too seriously, like NI and Frustrated Leftist Arkage are operating outside of the social bounds.

From a more meta view, we are dealing with the clashing of masculine and feminine social hierarchies. In the masculine social hierarchy, physical strength and humour are the currency; in the feminine, physical beauty rules all. The threat of physical violence does not exist in the feminine social hierarchy, and so social "violence", for lack of a better term, takes over. This manifests as gossip, manipulation, victimhood politics, and character assassination. In every social hierarchy, there are the proverbial strong and weak, i.e. those who can compete, and those who can't. In traditional real world masculine and feminine hierarchies in which physicality exists, the strong/weak dynamic simply plays out as jocks/nerds and hot girls/not girls. In the animal kingdom, natural selection would eliminate those who can't compete. But we're humans -- we are a higher evolved species who protect our weak. It is incumbent upon the strong to protect the weak, but even more critically, it is incumbent upon the weak to not attempt to invert or even destroy the hierarchies lest the society fall apart altogether. The proverbially weak male who would attempt to invert or destroy the hierarchy is the incel. The reciprocal weak female is the feminist. They are mirror images of each other, and it is critical for every society to recognise what these groups are attempting to do and to have social systems, insults and jokes being a key part of this, in place to prevent them from succeeding. In the west, we have been quite good at managing the weak males, but we have failed miserably at managing the weak females.

Now let us think about the implications of transitioning our traditional social hierarchies to the information age, which let us not forget is only around a decade old -- a mere drop in the ocean compared to our entire evolutionary history. Social media, gaming forums included, is the great disruptor as it removes all forms of physicality from the equation, and so what is left to enforce the social hierarchies? From the masculine, humour; from the feminine, gossip, manipulation, victimhood politics, and character assassination. In my estimation, the feminine social hierarchy has been dominant since the advent of smart phones precisely because the new social landscape was much more amenable to it as a result of the leveling of the social playing field. On the internet, humour is strength, and on GAF prior to the split, humour was outlawed and gossip and character assassination became the default; negative femininity ran roughshod over anyone outside of the Mean Girls-esque cliques that formed, albeit with a social justice and victimhood politics flavour. The weak were allowed to usurp the strong, and we all saw the consequences.

You may be tempted to say that the inverse is happening on GAF now, but that's not true and would be a misinterpretation on your part. As I said above, the olive branch is there for NI (and any others in a similar situation) should he wish to reach out and grasp it, but it is his personal responsibility to fix himself first. We cannot allow him to manipulate the social order to suit his current self, because his current self is broken, and he absolutely is trying to do that as evidenced by yet another attempt at both sidesing his way out of the very deep hole he has dug for himself over the past year. Same goes for Arkage. Neither of them can compete in the new masculine social hierarchy that values humour above all, but rather than work on themselves so that they can compete, they attempt to tear it down and level the playing field. Don't fall for it, but also recognise that they are still welcome here; they are weak and can't compete in our social hierarchy, but we protect them anyway. We insult them and make jokes at their expense not to outcast them but as a corrective social mechanism -- how they respond to it is their choice. Now look over the fence at Ree, who are currently in the process of unpersoning SweetNicole, the former Mean Girl at the top of their evidently feminine social hierarchy. Is humour part of their social order? Absolutely not. GAF vs. Ree in 2019 is ultimately a manifestation of internet-age masculine vs. feminine social hierarchies, and while this particular thread is ostensibly about left vs. right, if you dig beneath the surface you will see that it is an attempt at subverting and inverting the new humour-based social hierarchy.

Now watch them attempt to tear down this post and assassinate my character instead of addressing my points because they're weak and can't compete :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
1,415
2,129
545
I understand your arguments and I think you have some things partially correct, but I disagree overall. Insults are evolved social behaviours that cannot just be suppressed without causing ripple effects that result in other more undesirable consequences. The price of freedom is that you will be exposed to ideas and words that you don't like, but that's good for you. It toughens you up and, assuming you're pursuing truth instead of using GAF politics as a form of competitive sport in which you only ever barrack for your team, it forces you to critically examine your own positions and potentially have your mind changed. Before advocating for top-down authoritarian measures to curb insults, you first need to critically think about why they exist in the first place. Are they being thrown around ad hominem (I agree that this is bad behaviour that needs to be corrected) or are they being used as a form of social correction for other anti-social behaviours that are not as obvious, but nonetheless harmful if left uncorrected? My view has always been that the form of civility you are advocating for must be built from the bottom up, meaning that it is the sum of the parts; that is, the end result of each individual member collectively agreeing to discuss and argue, even heatedly at times, in the pursuit of truth. Lies, hypocrisy, double standards, and general dishonesty must be shunned before you can achieve what you call civility. Civility is not just handed to you on a silver platter by a higher power -- in the case of an internet discussion forum, this would be the moderation team. For me personally, this is why I insult NI. He engages in lies, hypocrisy, double standards, and general dishonesty more than anyone I have ever encountered on the internet. The olive branch is always there should he wish to reach out and grasp it, but this would first require fixing these behaviours. Insults and jokes, often one and the same, are the means of telling him when he is overstepping the social bounds. If he chooses not to acknowledge them and carry on with his same anti-social behaviours, that's his fault.

What we are ultimately talking about are social hierarchies. You say that forums should avoid having celebrity in-crowd posters, and I agree that it's not good to have people who can throw around opinions that are fawned over without being critically questioned, but how do you stop this without attempting to eliminate social hierarchies altogether? Are you simply chasing the utopia? You know that's not achievable without significant top-down authoritarian pressure, right? Even then, history has shown that, when achieved, it is never sustained. You call Cunth out specifically, but why do you think he is so popular? It's because he's a funny cunt who doesn't take himself too seriously. He keeps it light and shifts the Overton Window so that those who take themselves too seriously, like NI and Frustrated Leftist Arkage are operating outside of the social bounds.

From a more meta view, we are dealing with the clashing of masculine and feminine social hierarchies. In the masculine social hierarchy, physical strength and humour are the currency; in the feminine, physical beauty rules all. The threat of physical violence does not exist in the feminine social hierarchy, and so social "violence", for lack of a better term, takes over. This manifests as gossip, manipulation, victimhood politics, and character assassination. In every social hierarchy, there are the proverbial strong and weak, i.e. those who can compete, and those who can't. In traditional real world masculine and feminine hierarchies in which physicality exists, the strong/weak dynamic simply plays out as jocks/nerds and hot girls/not girls. In the animal kingdom, natural selection would eliminate those who can't compete. But we're humans -- we are a higher evolved species who protect our weak. It is incumbent upon the strong to protect the weak, but even more critically, it is incumbent upon the weak to not attempt to invert or even destroy the hierarchies lest the society fall apart altogether. The proverbially weak male who would attempt to invert or destroy the hierarchy is the incel. The reciprocal weak female is the feminist. They are mirror images of each other, and it is critical for every society to recognise what these groups are attempting to do and to have social systems, insults and jokes being a key part of this, in place to prevent them from succeeding. In the west, we have been quite good at managing the weak males, but we have failed miserably at managing the weak females.

Now let us think about the implications of transitioning our traditional social hierarchies to the information age, which let us not forget is only around a decade old -- a mere drop in the ocean compared to our entire evolutionary history. Social media, gaming forums included, is the great disruptor as it removes all forms of physicality from the equation, and so what is left to enforce the social hierarchies? From the masculine, humour; from the feminine, gossip, manipulation, victimhood politics, and character assassination. In my estimation, the feminine social hierarchy has been dominant since the advent of smart phones precisely because the new social landscape was much more amenable to it as a result of the leveling of the social playing field. On the internet, humour is strength, and on GAF prior to the split, humour was outlawed and gossip and character assassination became the default; negative femininity ran roughshod over anyone outside of the Mean Girls-esque cliques that formed, albeit with a social justice and victimhood politics flavour. The weak were allowed to usurp the strong, and we all saw the consequences.

You may be tempted to say that the inverse is happening on GAF now, but that's not true and would be a misinterpretation on your part. As I said above, the olive branch is there for NI (and any others in a similar situation) should he wish to reach out and grasp it, but it is his personal responsibility to fix himself first. We cannot allow him to manipulate the social order to suit his current self, because his current self is broken, and he absolutely is trying to do that as evidenced by yet another attempt at both sidesing his way out of the very deep hole he has dug for himself over the past year. Same goes for Arkage. Neither of them can compete in the new masculine social hierarchy that values humour above all, but rather than work on themselves so that they can compete, they attempt to tear it down and level the playing field. Don't fall for it, but also recognise that they are still welcome here; they are weak and can't compete in our social hierarchy, but we protect them anyway. We insult them and make jokes at their expense not to outcast them but as a corrective social mechanism -- how they respond to it is their choice. Now look over the fence at Ree, who are currently in the process of unpersoning SweetNicole, the former Mean Girl at the top of their evidently feminine social hierarchy. Is humour part of their social order? Absolutely not. GAF vs. Ree in 2019 is ultimately a manifestation of internet-age masculine vs. feminine social hierarchies, and while this particular thread is ostensibly about left vs. right, if you dig beneath the surface you will see that it is an attempt at subverting and inverting the new humour-based social hierarchy.

Now watch them attempt to tear down this post and assassinate my character instead of addressing my points because they're weak and can't compete :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Well that was an extremely thorough and thought provoking response. Geez. I'll think about that for a while.

My first thoughts on it though are that digital social structures are new, but they are not exclusively the first time that people have had discussions and arguments without resorting to insults or violence. All of print media and editorials, politics, political campaigns and presidential debates, all of academia, the scientific method itself, basically all are different ways for ideas to compete without resorting to enforcement from the strong or resorting to insults. Philosophy, literature, almost all contact we have with the entire education system follow those same rules.

I hate SJWs as much as anyone here. I've been banned from almost every website I've ever commented on save for here and like one other. But I think it's tunnel vision and a mistake to try and frame all of social interaction in terms of "incel and feminist" vs. normal people. Social interaction in the real world has infinitely more stuff going on than these niche phenomena. Also, strong people can also insult others with impunity and they can be bullies. It's not the case that a noble class of self-realized strong men keep incels in check from incivility. Social dynamics don't really work that way in reality in my opinion, and I think it's a total fallacy. Oftentimes, the least insulting person can be the most bullied because they have no power.

All insulting people does is really just reduce the effectiveness of exchanging ideas, and the enjoyment people get from posting and reading a conversation.

And something else you said is just not making sense to me when I try to think it through. How do you think, on this site specifically, "the weak usurp the strong?" What does that even mean, specifically? In theory, people on here either follow the Terms of Service when they post content here, or they are usurping the Terms of Service. There is no weak or strong. No one has any clue on here what people are even like in real life - what jobs they have, what personalities they have, what physical or social capabilities they have. All that matters is that you post within the set rules of the site, or you don't. No one here is graded on strength in any way, so I don't honestly get that. I think the narrative you've built is attractive, as someone who also hates SJWs, because it kind of justifies anything you want to do and frames all of life as a virtuous battle against the forces of incel / feminist / SJWs. That battle is there, but I think you've got tunnel vision and you might need to unplug from politics for a week to remind yourself that most of social life has nothing to do with this stuff.

Either way though, I appreciate the effort put into the extremely thoughtful reply. I will keep thinking on it.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
5,110
4,395
575
Cool, but thanks to your long history of dishonest behaviour, I don’t believe you. This is what happens when you constantly lie and expect others not to notice. Even your “dishonest little cunt” complaint was presented here without the proper context. @autoduelist posted a thoughtful reply to your whining about America and threatening to leave like a petulant child and you dodged it like you always do when you encounter arguments that are too difficult to rebut. That is dishonest and, in my view, a bit cunty.




We’ve also covered this both sides tactic you’ve attempted to pull before.





You have no integrity and the mentality of a 15 year old. Along with your blatant narcissism and clear self-hatred, it’s a deadly combo. You don’t respect truth or decency, and your definition of decency is based on words instead of actions anyway. This is what I meant by parading around a victimhood shield to hide more subtly insidious behaviours. You believe that faking being a good person by saying the right things can make up for your subversive and hypocritical actions. This is why you get insulted, and why you deserve it. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to atone but you are incapable of introspection. You never learn and any time you try to show that you have, it’s clearly fraudulent because you can never just take responsibility for your own actions — you always have to try to drag others down with you (like in this thread). It’s transparent as fuck to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size.

Lie in your bed — you made it.
So you tell me that I need to be better and then in the same breath tell me that when I say I am gonna try and be better you call me a liar and say I am incapable of being better. That is a really immature way to critique someone that conveniently allows you to never admit that you are wrong and keep talking shit to me no matter what I say or do. This is just proving my original point yet again. You don't actually give a shit. You just pretend to and use that as an excuse to fulfill your strange need to insult people and try to get reactions from them.



But if that's the case and you aren't gonna believe anything I say anyway then I don't really see the point of having to put up with your bias towards me and your endless insults. Especially after I went through the trouble of giving as detailed an answer as I could to your original question. It's just not worth the hassle to deal with your constant petulance if you aren't even going to behave like an adult when I admit that I'm wrong. I'll just put you back on ignore. I think that will save us both some time and energy in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,583
2,768
440
Righty = I'll hum along to my own beat. What I earn is what I earn

Lefty = I want to see a laundry list of what everyone has in the neighbourhood, and will complain if other people make more money or have a better car
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: brap

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,579
19,059
1,250
Australia
So you tell me that I need to be better and then in the same breath tell me that when I say I am gonna try and be better you call me a liar and say I am incapable of being better. That is a really immature way to critique someone that conveniently allows you to never admit that you are wrong and keep talking shit to me no matter what I say or do. This is just proving my original point yet again. You don't actually give a shit. You just pretend to and use that as an excuse to fulfill your strange need to insult people and try to get reactions from them.



But if that's the case and you aren't gonna believe anything I say anyway then I don't really see the point of having to put up with your bias towards me and your endless insults. Especially after I went through the trouble of giving as detailed an answer as I could to your original question. It's just not worth the hassle to deal with your constant petulance if you aren't even going to behave like an adult when I admit that I'm wrong. I'll just put you back on ignore. I think that will save us both some time and energy in the long run.
I say you need to be better through your actions, not just continue to spew false platitudes to convince everyone that you're better while changing nothing. You can't dodge my response here as you could with @autoduelist 's in the other thread, so you willfully misinterpret the arguments, throw a tantrum, play the victim, and threaten to put me on ignore. Like I said, nothing has changed and you still have the mentality of a 15 year old.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,033
1,951
1,180
I've just read some funny ass shit, LMFAO.
 
Last edited:

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,554
1,245
610
Can you please link me to these posts of other members talking about whites being overrun and talking about how long until white people need to fight back? I have seen no such thing here and if there we're you should be reporting them and i am positive the staff would get rid of them quickly. When you say other members by the way, can you give us some numbers of how many people do this?
Don't waste your breath on them, they'll never understand that islam isn't a religion like the others, it's a political ideology and system of life that controls every aspect of a muslim's life and it's something muslims consider perfect that can therefor never be changed and must be spread and imposed on the whole world. They don't get that the second muslims are the majority in a European country it is their sworn duty to elect muslim leaders that will implement islamic law and destroy democracy and people will be rounded up and told to convert or die. People worry about Iran getting nukes, but the real threat is if islam seizes control in France or the UK and gets a hold of their nuclear arsenals. This could very well become a reality before this century ends if current migration and birthrates hold steady.
Do I fear someone for being muslim? Lol, not a chance, nor does it ever cross my mind.

Do I fear uncontrolled immigration and birthrates of those belonging to the Islamic faith becoming the majority in Western countries which for most of Western history, is unprecedented? Yes, for good reason.

I want free speech to be around forever. I also want to see European countries maintain their unique heritage.
Europe, unless it severely reversed course with their little culture game, will not be Europe in 50 years. It will just be an extension of the Middle East and plagued by the same issues.
When was the last time in human history a culture collectively committed suicide?
It’s insane the level of effort to keep us from reproducing while flooding our countries with foreign peoples.
I thought Muslims came to Europe for a better life.

And now they want to turn it into the same shit they fled of in the first place?
Problems is that whites are in their own nation, not on the "minorities" nations, it is the latter who are tresspassing and invading, also, legal hispanics or legal immigrants lost its meaning somewhat around 65', for USA.
You dont need to look far to find thst kind of rhetoric.

Buzzfeed is shit and you know it. It's like you and your comrades whining about Fox news so i don't want to hear your whining when you get called out for using BuzzShit. As for you never quoting me, i don't care if you do or don't. What i care about is that instead of engaging me all you do is spam the TRIGGERED EMOTE time and time again because you are passive aggressive and lazy.
First and foremost i never used Buzzfees i used a diffrent article for the OP Buzzfeed was never linked .. Only mentioned to add context to my words to clarify that I saw more information about the teacher being racist .. This information was backed up my other news articles reporting about this in more detail. Like it or not Buzzfeed got it right and if the same happens with Fox News I won't mind .. That would be like arguing over what 1+1 is.

You never bothered to contextualise what i was writing you saw red and raged
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,795
4,007
695
Brampton, Ontario
Always like how my posts are always quoted out of context. Like, I don't even have to follow the current conversation going on to know that my words are being interpreted very, very, badly.

By the way, you want to know how my posts are always taken out of context so easily? Ask the same people to find my quotes about Japan or the Native Americans. They ALWAYS leave them out.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,579
19,059
1,250
Australia
Well that was an extremely thorough and thought provoking response. Geez. I'll think about that for a while.

My first thoughts on it though are that digital social structures are new, but they are not exclusively the first time that people have had discussions and arguments without resorting to insults or violence. All of print media and editorials, politics, political campaigns and presidential debates, all of academia, the scientific method itself, basically all are different ways for ideas to compete without resorting to enforcement from the strong or resorting to insults. Philosophy, literature, almost all contact we have with the entire education system follow those same rules.

I hate SJWs as much as anyone here. I've been banned from almost every website I've ever commented on save for here and like one other. But I think it's tunnel vision and a mistake to try and frame all of social interaction in terms of "incel and feminist" vs. normal people. Social interaction in the real world has infinitely more stuff going on than these niche phenomena. Also, strong people can also insult others with impunity and they can be bullies. It's not the case that a noble class of self-realized strong men keep incels in check from incivility. Social dynamics don't really work that way in reality in my opinion, and I think it's a total fallacy. Oftentimes, the least insulting person can be the most bullied because they have no power.

All insulting people does is really just reduce the effectiveness of exchanging ideas, and the enjoyment people get from posting and reading a conversation.

And something else you said is just not making sense to me when I try to think it through. How do you think, on this site specifically, "the weak usurp the strong?" What does that even mean, specifically? In theory, people on here either follow the Terms of Service when they post content here, or they are usurping the Terms of Service. There is no weak or strong. No one has any clue on here what people are even like in real life - what jobs they have, what personalities they have, what physical or social capabilities they have. All that matters is that you post within the set rules of the site, or you don't. No one here is graded on strength in any way, so I don't honestly get that. I think the narrative you've built is attractive, as someone who also hates SJWs, because it kind of justifies anything you want to do and frames all of life as a virtuous battle against the forces of incel / feminist / SJWs. That battle is there, but I think you've got tunnel vision and you might need to unplug from politics for a week to remind yourself that most of social life has nothing to do with this stuff.

Either way though, I appreciate the effort put into the extremely thoughtful reply. I will keep thinking on it.
I think you’ve misunderstood a few of my ideas. I tend to speak in abstractions, so it’s understandable, but I don’t know how else to communicate these ideas.

When I speak of the weak usurping the strong on GAF, what I am saying is that the light-hearted, irreverent, politically incorrect culture of humour that existed from its inception through to ~2012 was gradually displaced by a culture of gossip, social manipulation, character assassination, and victimhood politics (I attribute this in large part to the advent of social media providing a conduit for some truly insidious ideas of academic/intersectional feminism to leak into the mainstream). Prior to this, I attempted to establish humour as being the residual currency of the masculine social hierarchy in the absence of the threat of physical violence (because this obviously doesn’t exist on the internet for the most part). Thus, when I say strong in regards to GAF and the internet age in general, I am referring to my established abstraction of humour as strength. Those who cannot compete on the humour-based social hierarchy are the abstracted weak, and they typically mire themselves in identity politics and the above-listed negative feminine behaviours in order to bring down those who can.

Of course social interactions are more nuanced than just strong vs. weak, but we can’t start at the complicated final answer with all the pieces neatly assembled. We need to start with a simple core conceptual model and build upon it from there. I have attempted to provide this with the discussion of strong vs. weak. I have spoken mostly of negative feminine behaviours, but that doesn't mean that negative masculine behaviours don't exist or shouldn't be addressed. I focused on the feminine because I believe the internet has for roughly the last decade been primarily a feminine social hierarchy due to the absence of physical threat, thus the negative feminine behaviours are more relevant to the discussion, at least for now. I have by no means given a comprehensive answer and there are many more pieces to the puzzle that I haven’t touched on, but you did touch on an important one in asking what we do to discourage the strong from bullying the weak. It’s a question as old as humanity itself and I don’t know if I can fully address it, but I’ll try:

Humans are animals. We are higher evolved animals, but animals nonetheless. I have two cats: a 9 kg male, and a 3.7 kg female. Strong and weak. The male dominates the female to the point that she is constantly fearful of even approaching the food. It's not right*, but it's in his nature to compete for the food and exert his dominance. Did you know that we share 90% of our DNA with cats? We share 98% of our DNA with chimps, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and 60% with fruit flies. We are animals, like it or not, and species is actual spectrum, not gender. I always find it ironic when the modern leftist will with their chest puffed out proudly proclaim that they are on the side of science and then proceed to denigrate anything to do with biology or evolutionary psychology that contradicts their ideology. The key difference separating us humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is the pre-frontal cortex**, which gives us our ability to moderate our social behaviour beyond just base stimulus-response mechanisms. However, the older, more primal parts of our brain are still there, and they have significant influence on the way we socialise and structure our societies. This is Jordan Peterson's lobster serotonin argument that is so frequently misrepresented -- we aren't as far evolved beyond the animals as we like to think we are. How do we deal with it? We have culture, socially evolved over thousands of years, and downstream from culture we have laws. These are the true social constructs. The culture must disincentivise the strong from subjugating the weak and the laws must punish those who do for the betterment of society as a whole, but it requires all members of the society to buy into the culture and the associated social hierarchies. Enlightenment values and Western culture in general achieve this better than any civilisation in history, which is why the culture must be defended and preserved. It pains me to see the denigration of the West in pursuit of a foolish and unachievable multicultural utopia***. You simply cannot have multiple cultures of equivalent political clout living harmoniously together.

* How do we define "right" anyway? In the comfort of the home with a secure and reliable supply of food, sure, I don't think it's right for the big cat to bully the small cat into submission and steal her food. But this is an evolved behaviour -- it is a collective survival mechanism that is hardwired into his little animal brain. Out in the wild, the male cats are the hunters and providers. If the male cat isn't as big and as strong as he can be, he can't effectively hunt the prey and provide the food supply for the other cats. Then they all die. So out in the wild, it is right for him to establish his dominance and ensure that he is fed first. His brain hasn't adapted to the fact that he's not in the wild.

** The pre-frontal cortex isn't fully developed until around 25, so bear in mind that when you are interacting with others on the internet, there is a decent chance that you are dealing with lesser evolved beings, so to speak, because the demographics of the internet skew towards the young.

*** As I have stated many times, race and culture are not the same, so please do not confuse my criticism of multiculturalism with racism. I believe that any person of any race can subscribe to a particular set of cultural values. I am not even white myself, though I think it ridiculous that I should have to state this as some kind of qualification.

On the topic of moderation:

Although Isaac Asimov is best known as a science fiction author, to me his understanding of people is just as good as his understanding of science. In his Foundation series, the protagonist, Hari Seldon, is the most brilliant mathematician in the known universe. He should be the model for all of the ideals you espouse in this thread, but he isn't. He is frequently tripping over his own prideful ego and allowing his emotions to lead him astray, only to be saved by Chetter Hummin, a kind of G-Man persona. Seldon is brilliant, but fallible -- he is human. Hummin, on the other hand, is the ultimate leader of men. He is the supreme diplomat, able to convince and cajole without coercion; able to persuade anyone he encounters to do his bidding without threat, insult, or emotion. But there's a catch: he's a robot. Thus, while we should hold Hummin up as the embodiment of the ideal man -- a superhero archetype, of sorts -- we must also recognise that it is impossible to completely and consistently reproduce him in ourselves.

Towards the end of the first book, Seldon and Hummin are discussing Hummin's role as what amounts to caretaker of the Empire. Hummin states that there are four laws that robots must adhere to:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by a human being, except where that would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence, except where that would conflict with the First or Second Law.

And the fourth, an amendment to the initial three:

0. A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

As laws 1-3 are subordinate to law 0, the prevention of harm to the collective therefore supersedes the prevention of harm to the individual. However, this is not achieved through top-down authoritarian force. Hummin remains behind the scenes, pulling the strings and gently guiding and nudging humanity to ensure that it remains on course, directly intervening only when absolutely necessary to protect it from itself. Humanity is therefore allowed to evolve of its own accord, with all of the emergent behaviours, customs and cultural warts that come with it, but with a higher power working in the background to ensure that it cannot instigate its own self-destruction.

I see the role that Hummin plays as analogous to the role that moderators play on GAF and the current moderation methods are more or less on point. NI and Arkage are crying out for top-down authoritarian moderation to tinker with the social hierarchy so that they can compete, but in my view that would contravene law 0 above. I believe that it would be a kind of affirmative action that would provide the fertile ground for the behaviours that led to the temporary destruction of GAF to once again spread their roots. The culture we currently have is not enforced from the top-down at all -- it has evolved naturally from the bottom-up over the past ~18 months thanks to the new hands off free speech approach. No one is prevented from speaking their mind, so for NI and Arkage to instead focus on tearing down the hierarchy rather than learning how to participate in it and being the change they want to see, to me, is pathetic, and dangerous to the long-term health of GAF if paid any heed.

"Emotions, my dear Seldon, are a powerful engine of human action, far more powerful than human beings themselves realize, and you cannot know how much can be done with the merest touch, and how reluctant I am to do it."

P.S. You mention that print media and editorials, politics, political campaigns and presidential debates, all of academia compete without resorting to insults -- are you sure that's true? The scientific method is so counter to our base human instincts that it is an absolute miracle that it was: a) invented, and b) adopted. This is why I find it so offensive that fields of soft "science" that produce nothing but activists with participation degrees have run rampant through the universities for decades as they have done nothing but erode public trust in academia and the scientific method.

TL;DR: We should aim for the ideals you espouse, but in doing so must recognise that we are animals, not robots.
 
Last edited:
x1

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
77
76
190
Post-schism gaf is decidedly less left-wing (I'm a long time lurker), as most of the leftists with serious conviction departed for elsewhere. So, Neogaf today does not pass purity tests often associated with (but certainly not exclusive to) leftism. It's 'tainted', unclean. So the people who naturally stick around or gravitate are moderates and critics of leftism.

You would hardly see a theocon who grew up deep in the Bible belt willingly go to a Mosque or Satanic Temple, to give you an example from the other side of the spectrum.

Is this a problem? No, so long as this community doesn't persecute and actively boot out those who disagree with them. That's a hard thing to manage though, given that politics have more or less supplanted religion in our daily lives. We clutch it close to our heart and things get personal real fast.

@Schroedinger

Loving the stoic philosophy. #Aurelius
 
Last edited:

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,504
1,010
445
deaftourette.com
You're fine, DT. Main things we ask are to keep it civil and respectful between the members here, to substantiate arguments with sources as necessary, avoid derailing a discussion around yourself in an attention whoring manner, and avoid advocacy of extremism in any direction. Generally you don't have a problem with any of that.

If you didn't mention your conditions I doubt anyone would pick up on them by reading your posts.
I only mentioned the ADHD because sometimes I miss questions and don't answer them or I abandon threads ... I might seem disingenuous or something but I'm not trying to be. I honestly forget sometimes due to work or I get distracted by something else. Or I get bored easily. Of course, Sometimes I just don't engage because I feel the person I'm fonting with is being antagonistic and nothing I say will be good enough. So why bother? I just move around and don't stoke any embers.
 

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
246
464
255
I think you’ve misunderstood a few of my ideas. I tend to speak in abstractions, so it’s understandable, but I don’t know how else to communicate these ideas.

When I speak of the weak usurping the strong on GAF, what I am saying is that the light-hearted, irreverent, politically incorrect culture of humour that existed from its inception through to ~2012 was gradually displaced by a culture of gossip, social manipulation, character assassination, and victimhood politics (I attribute this in large part to the advent of social media providing a conduit for some truly insidious ideas of academic/intersectional feminism to leak into the mainstream). Prior to this, I attempted to establish humour as being the residual currency of the masculine social hierarchy in the absence of the threat of physical violence (because this obviously doesn’t exist on the internet for the most part). Thus, when I say strong in regards to GAF and the internet age in general, I am referring to my established abstraction of humour as strength. Those who cannot compete on the humour-based social hierarchy are the abstracted weak, and they typically mire themselves in identity politics and the above-listed negative feminine behaviours in order to bring down those who can.

Of course social interactions are more nuanced than just strong vs. weak, but we can’t start at the complicated final answer with all the pieces neatly assembled. We need to start with a simple core conceptual model and build upon it from there. I have attempted to provide this with the discussion of strong vs. weak. I have spoken mostly of negative feminine behaviours, but that doesn't mean that negative masculine behaviours don't exist or shouldn't be addressed. I focused on the feminine because I believe the internet has for roughly the last decade been primarily a feminine social hierarchy due to the absence of physical threat, thus the negative feminine behaviours are more relevant to the discussion, at least for now. I have by no means given a comprehensive answer and there are many more pieces to the puzzle that I haven’t touched on, but you did touch on an important one in asking what we do to discourage the strong from bullying the weak. It’s a question as old as humanity itself and I don’t know if I can fully address it, but I’ll try:

Humans are animals. We are higher evolved animals, but animals nonetheless. I have two cats: a 9 kg male, and a 3.7 kg female. Strong and weak. The male dominates the female to the point that she is constantly fearful of even approaching the food. It's not right*, but it's in his nature to compete for the food and exert his dominance. Did you know that we share 90% of our DNA with cats? We share 98% of our DNA with chimps, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and 60% with fruit flies. We are animals, like it or not, and species is actual spectrum, not gender. I always find it ironic when the modern leftist will with their chest puffed out proudly proclaim that they are on the side of science and then proceed to denigrate anything to do with biology or evolutionary psychology that contradicts their ideology. The key difference separating us humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is the pre-frontal cortex**, which gives us our ability to moderate our social behaviour beyond just base stimulus-response mechanisms. However, the older, more primal parts of our brain are still there, and they have significant influence on the way we socialise and structure our societies. This is Jordan Peterson's lobster serotonin argument that is so frequently misrepresented -- we aren't as far evolved beyond the animals as we like to think we are. How do we deal with it? We have culture, socially evolved over thousands of years, and downstream from culture we have laws. These are the true social constructs. The culture must disincentivise the strong from subjugating the weak and the laws must punish those who do for the betterment of society as a whole, but it requires all members of the society to buy into the culture and the associated social hierarchies. Enlightenment values and Western culture in general achieve this better than any civilisation in history, which is why the culture must be defended and preserved. It pains me to see the denigration of the West in pursuit of a foolish and unachievable multicultural utopia***. You simply cannot have multiple cultures of equivalent political clout living harmoniously together.

* How do we define "right" anyway? In the comfort of the home with a secure and reliable supply of food, sure, I don't think it's right for the big cat to bully the small cat into submission and steal her food. But this is an evolved behaviour -- it is a collective survival mechanism that is hardwired into his little animal brain. Out in the wild, the male cats are the hunters and providers. If the male cat isn't as big and as strong as he can be, he can't effectively hunt the prey and provide the food supply for the other cats. Then they all die. So out in the wild, it is right for him to establish his dominance and ensure that he is fed first. His brain hasn't adapted to the fact that he's not in the wild.

** The pre-frontal cortex isn't fully developed until around 25, so bear in mind that when you are interacting with others on the internet, there is a decent chance that you are dealing with lesser evolved beings, so to speak, because the demographics of the internet skew towards the young.

*** As I have stated many times, race and culture are not the same, so please do not confuse my criticism of multiculturalism with racism. I believe that any person of any race can subscribe to a particular set of cultural values. I am not even white myself, though I think it ridiculous that I should have to state this as some kind of qualification.

On the topic of moderation:

Although Isaac Asimov is best known as a science fiction author, to me his understanding of people is just as good as his understanding of science. In his Foundation series, the protagonist, Hari Seldon, is the most brilliant mathematician in the known universe. He should be the model for all of the ideals you espouse in this thread, but he isn't. He is frequently tripping over his own prideful ego and allowing his emotions to lead him astray, only to be saved by Chetter Hummin, a kind of G-Man persona. Seldon is brilliant, but fallible -- he is human. Hummin, on the other hand, is the ultimate leader of men. He is the supreme diplomat, able to convince and cajole without coercion; able to persuade anyone he encounters to do his bidding without threat, insult, or emotion. But there's a catch: he's a robot. Thus, while we should hold Hummin up as the embodiment of the ideal man -- a superhero archetype, of sorts -- we must also recognise that it is impossible to completely and consistently reproduce him in ourselves.

Towards the end of the first book, Seldon and Hummin are discussing Hummin's role as what amounts to caretaker of the Empire. Hummin states that there are four laws that robots must adhere to:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by a human being, except where that would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence, except where that would conflict with the First or Second Law.

And the fourth, an amendment to the initial three:

0. A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

As laws 1-3 are subordinate to law 0, the prevention of harm to the collective therefore supersedes the prevention of harm to the individual. However, this is not achieved through top-down authoritarian force. Hummin remains behind the scenes, pulling the strings and gently guiding and nudging humanity to ensure that it remains on course, directly intervening only when absolutely necessary to protect it from itself. Humanity is therefore allowed to evolve of its own accord, with all of the emergent behaviours, customs and cultural warts that come with it, but with a higher power working in the background to ensure that it cannot instigate its own self-destruction.

I see the role that Hummin plays as analogous to the role that moderators play on GAF and the current moderation methods are more or less on point. NI and Arkage are crying out for top-down authoritarian moderation to tinker with the social hierarchy so that they can compete, but in my view that would contravene law 0 above. I believe that it would be a kind of affirmative action that would provide the fertile ground for the behaviours that led to the temporary destruction of GAF to once again spread their roots. The culture we currently have is not enforced from the top-down at all -- it has evolved naturally from the bottom-up over the past ~18 months thanks to the new hands off free speech approach. No one is prevented from speaking their mind, so for NI and Arkage to instead focus on tearing down the hierarchy rather than learning how to participate in it and being the change they want to see, to me, is pathetic, and dangerous to the long-term health of GAF if paid any heed.

"Emotions, my dear Seldon, are a powerful engine of human action, far more powerful than human beings themselves realize, and you cannot know how much can be done with the merest touch, and how reluctant I am to do it."

P.S. You mention that print media and editorials, politics, political campaigns and presidential debates, all of academia compete without resorting to insults -- are you sure that's true? The scientific method is so counter to our base human instincts that it is an absolute miracle that it was: a) invented, and b) adopted. This is why I find it so offensive that fields of soft "science" that produce nothing but activists with participation degrees have run rampant through the universities for decades as they have done nothing but erode public trust in academia and the scientific method.

TL;DR: We should aim for the ideals you espouse, but in doing so must recognise that we are animals, not robots.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,172
21,735
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
I don't know how anyone sees me on here. I know I don't know everything and I have ADHD (comes with the territory of having Tourette Syndrome), but I do try to treat everyone with respect. The only times I haven't is when a few posters (3 that I can remember) were openly racist towards me or other members (2 got temp bans and one got permed).

That said, I notice that what interests me are left leaning ideas yet I'm not a Democrat and no longer vote (studying to become a Jehovah's Witness)... But this part of the forum is interesting and allows me to be challenged Intellectually which the other forums rarely do anymore.

Anyway... See? That darn ADHD! LOL
You are one of the fairest posters on this site. Don't doubt yourself.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
You dont need to look far to find thst kind of rhetoric.



First and foremost i never used Buzzfees i used a diffrent article for the OP Buzzfeed was never linked .. Only mentioned to add context to my words to clarify that I saw more information about the teacher being racist .. This information was backed up my other news articles reporting about this in more detail. Like it or not Buzzfeed got it right and if the same happens with Fox News I won't mind .. That would be like arguing over what 1+1 is.

You never bothered to contextualise what i was writing you saw red and raged
Dude, all that shit you linked to other members posts has nothing to do with what @Ke0 said at all, what a swing and a miss by you just to try to prove him right which he isn't. Come on @Ke0 , where is your proof that you claimed about people talking about whites being overrun and when to fight, i am waiting. @AfricanKing took a big swing and struck out as usual, you are up.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: AfricanKing