Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 85
  1. #61
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    471
    Reputation
    1272
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Wrong. Propertarianism is built around treating every dispute as a property dispute, hence the name, but we won’t get into that one again eh!
    Well, yes, but they derive it by that method only, but yeah, whatever it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    The first I agree with 100%, the second not so much. I try to be independent and self-reliant but within the constraints of collective and state control. The rule of law is necessary. Societal rules are necessary. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be questioned when they become imbalanced.
    Yeah, please dont take my using the word "Individualism" too literally here in this case, I was actually referring to your way of life, and this is the closest word I got. Sorry if it led to any misunderstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Again, not so. Freedom of speech is important, incredibly important. It is the vocalisation of your beliefs and nothing more. Lying is something different entirely, it is the vocalisation of things in which you don’t believe. In fact lying could be considered the opposite of free speech.
    Well, debating freedom of speech was not my point at all, and its pointless anyways because no real data. But, just for a little bit more info on their line of reasoning, it goes similar to, lets say I am your neighbor, but my toilet is not working and I am too poor or ignorant to fix it, so I just go out and take a dump in my front yard, which is still my land. If I do it again and again, then the freedom to use my own land the way I see it can create problems. Thats the closest analogy I can think of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Hmm. Maybe so, but these ‘boxes’ are created by others to make you fit into ‘their’ narrative, it is not my narrative. It’s nothing different to people calling you gay just because you don’t want to get involved romantically with women. Fuck everyone that tries to put me into a box, they’re likely to get a very unpleasant surprise.
    Exactly !! We are actually agreeing here and your last sentence is PRECISELY my point. Few posts ago I said, that regardless of who creates the boxes, everyone does end up in a box, and some boxes are incompatible with each other and create a conflict. Them getting a very "unpleasant surprise" from you is a conflict ! The ONLY way to avoid a conflict, is to separate the people who belong to these different boxes.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    199
    Reputation
    1046

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    What does being in power actually mean... it means ability to exert your ways on other group by force, which can be direct violence or a threat of that. It can also mean the ability to outrightly eliminate other group, by killing them or exiling them from any territory. In both the above cases, what you get in the end is, a society where everyone follows same ideology, either willingly or unwillingly.
    Or it could mean the ability to prevent other groups forcing their ways on you or others.
    "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

    -Robert A. Heinlein.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    199
    Reputation
    1046

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Atheistic ideologies have killed way way way more people than any religion, at any time.
    While this maybe true and lets assume it is, why it is true is far more relevant.


    Atheism as we define it now is a very recent thing compared to religion and i may be right in assuming that the killings you are referring to were mostly done in the last 100 years or so and as such population numbers as well as technology played a major role in why "way way way more people were killed by atheist ideologies".

    I would not want religious fanatics from the past to have the kind of technology for mass destruction we have right now would you?

    Communism. Single handedly has killed more humans than all the religions combined, throughout all human eras. This is the most disgusting ideology. It is anti-human, it is nihilistic, seeks power at any cost and will not hesitate to starve its' own population to achieve its' goal.

    100 million deaths in the 20th century alone.
    Communism is not Atheism though.

    Plus as i mentioned above the world population in year 0 was estimated to be around 190 million going up to 600 million by 1700.

    The population of China alone was 660 million in 1958 when Mao's great leap started, much larger population numbers means more total deaths but its a flawed comparison for obvious reasons.
    Last edited by ian2211; March 24, 2020 at 7:44 AM.
    "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

    -Robert A. Heinlein.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    711
    Reputation
    2121
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    Communism. Single handedly has killed more humans than all the religions combined, throughout all human eras. This is the most disgusting ideology. It is anti-human, it is nihilistic, seeks power at any cost and will not hesitate to starve its' own population to achieve its' goal.

    100 million deaths in the 20th century alone.
    I’ll see your 100 million and raise you another 95 million.



    How many deaths have been caused by religion? Here's a list of religiously motivated wars and genocides and their death tolls. Let me know if I missed any!


    • The Crusades: 6,000,000
    • Thirty Years War: 11,500,000
    • French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000
    • Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000
    • Lebanese Civil War: 250,000
    • Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000
    • Congolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000
    • Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000
    • Rwandan Genocide: 800,000
    • Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000
    • Nigerian Civil War: 1,000,000
    • Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000
    • First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000
    • Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000
    • The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000
    • Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000
    • Iraq War: 500,000
    • US Western Expansion (Justified by "Manifest Destiny"):20,000,000
    • Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000
    • Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000
    • AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000
    • Spanish Inquisition: 5,000
    • TOTAL: 195,035,000 deaths in the name of religion.
    Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/com...n_the_name_of/


    But to be honest, for the most part we have no idea if these deaths, both many of those listed above and communism were truly motivated by religion as there were many factors involved.

    There are those though that we can be sure about such as human sacrifice, executions for heresy and witchcraft etc. In the thousands of years that religions have existed how many countless millions have been put to death strictly in the name of religion? You cannot say the same about atheism.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  5. #65
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    471
    Reputation
    1272
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    I’ll see your 100 million and raise you another 95 million.
    ...
    I wonder, out of those wars and conquests, how many would've been such that their top people knew its not about religion but some economic or political interest, but used religion to get the foot soldiers ready to die for them.

    We will never know the exact figure, but I suspect its probably disgustingly high.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    199
    Reputation
    1046

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    I wonder, out of those wars and conquests, how many would've been such that their top people knew its not about religion but some economic or political interest, but used religion to get the foot soldiers ready to die for them.

    We will never know the exact figure, but I suspect its probably disgustingly high.
    Very interesting question.

    Do you think the Popes and other heads of the various religions who sent followers off to holy wars were in fact unbelievers?

    I think many were true believers AND saw the wealth, power along with the conversion of unbelievers to their faith via conquest and war as being inseparable and a great package deal. I expect a few kings and other leaders of that sort were not exactly believers, Henry VIII for example founded the Church of England simply because the Pope would not let him get a divorce.

    Although now i consider it does it really matter if the leader was a true believer or not if religion can get the masses to go to war for them regardless of if the leader is or is not?
    "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

    -Robert A. Heinlein.

  7. #67
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    471
    Reputation
    1272
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by ian2211 View Post
    Very interesting question.

    Do you think the Popes and other heads of the various religions who sent followers off to holy wars were in fact unbelievers?

    I think many were true believers AND saw the wealth, power along with the conversion of unbelievers to their faith via conquest and war as being inseparable and a great package deal. I expect a few kings and other leaders of that sort were not exactly believers, Henry VIII for example founded the Church of England simply because the Pope would not let him get a divorce.

    Although now i consider it does it really matter if the leader was a true believer or not if religion can get the masses to go to war for them regardless of if the leader is or is not?
    I think a lot of them, if not complete unbelievers, might be so intoxicated with power, that they might've believed that they hold some special position in the eyes of god, and/or they are doing so much for humanity that they deserve some indulgences here and there. I mean if you believe that god is very real and watching you from the sky or wherever, and you are doing lots of crap and still not getting any punishment, I dont think its hard to go into the zone of justifying your actions on made up fictitious basis. It can be said that its a kind of going into a denial (that they are also mere mortals like other humans).

    Again, its a guess, and I agree with your last sentence. It doesnt really matter in the end. Whether they were non-believer scammers, intoxicated with power or really believed they represent god's will, a shitty action is still a shitty action, and will have shitty results.

    Though I will exempt one case, where the party was just being defensive. If I attack you based on your religion, but end up getting injured or dying because you retaliated purely out of self defense, then violence from you cannot be called based on religion. But again, there is no way to know all the little details from history.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  8. #68
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Ghost town USA
    Posts
    1,805
    Reputation
    8360
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Religion, morality, and the ability to decipher and delineate the two is literally impossible from here on group W bench!

    https://youtu.be/b0a6iWHSWbA?t=25
    A man's only "safe space" be in his sovereignty, free from the illusions and misconceptions of a unity that only serves to bind him to tyranny and perdition.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Hoppes#9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    The Carolinas
    Posts
    256
    Reputation
    732
    Type
    Monk mode

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Made me think of the 1970-ish song by John Prine called "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore".. in the lyrics there is the part that goes "Now Jesus don't like killing....no matter what the reason for....".

    Religious wars and Christian Soldiers.....smmhh......

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    199
    Reputation
    1046

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    I think a lot of them, if not complete unbelievers, might be so intoxicated with power, that they might've believed that they hold some special position in the eyes of god, and/or they are doing so much for humanity that they deserve some indulgences here and there. I mean if you believe that god is very real and watching you from the sky or wherever, and you are doing lots of crap and still not getting any punishment, I dont think its hard to go into the zone of justifying your actions on made up fictitious basis. It can be said that its a kind of going into a denial (that they are also mere mortals like other humans).
    You get that you are describing womens psyche and the hamster lol.

    Ok they get there via a different route due to the mix of egocentrism, solipsism and narcissism in their psyche replacing the need for a external god but they still need to deal with all the dysfunctional behaviors those traits produce without taking responsibility for them and in doing so destroying their self worth.. and lo from that the hamster is born.


    Again, its a guess, and I agree with your last sentence. It doesn't really matter in the end. Whether they were non-believer scammers, intoxicated with power or really believed they represent god's will, a shitty action is still a shitty action, and will have shitty results.
    True Dat.

    Though I will exempt one case, where the party was just being defensive. If I attack you based on your religion, but end up getting injured or dying because you retaliated purely out of self defense, then violence from you cannot be called based on religion. But again, there is no way to know all the little details from history.
    Agreed and it fits nicely with a comment i made earlier in regards to your thought on what it means to have or be in power and i expect many agree with you and i do as well to a extent.

    What does being in power actually mean... it means ability to exert your ways on other group by force, which can be direct violence or a threat of that. It can also mean the ability to out-rightly eliminate other group, by killing them or exiling them from any territory. In both the above cases, what you get in the end is, a society where everyone follows same ideology, either willingly or unwillingly.
    Or it could mean the ability to prevent other groups forcing their ways on you or others.
    The framers of the US constitution were well aware of the abuses of power you rightly point out so set the rules in a way that instead of giving the state power it limited it instead. When it came to the freedom of the individual (liberty), it clearly and expressly forbade the use of power to exert one groups ways on other group or individual by force, either by direct violence or a threat of that.

    The sentiment was flawless even if the implementation needed some work...

    In many ways MGTOW follow that same line of reasoning in my opinion.
    "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

    -Robert A. Heinlein.

  11. #71
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    471
    Reputation
    1272
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by ian2211 View Post
    You get that you are describing womens psyche and the hamster lol.

    Ok they get there via a different route due to the mix of egocentrism, solipsism and narcissism in their psyche replacing the need for a external god but they still need to deal with all the dysfunctional behaviors those traits produce without taking responsibility for them and in doing so destroying their self worth.. and lo from that the hamster is born.
    Yeah now you say it, I notice it too. And thinking of it, the basic situation in both cases are same.

    1. Belief that they deserve indulgence. Religious leaders believing that they are doing great work for god, women are believing that they are being oppressed.

    2. No punishment for bad behavior. God isnt punishing those leaders, atleast not immediately, and likewise the society/law is not punishing women enough. This is incentivising their bad habits.

    Quote Originally Posted by ian2211 View Post
    The framers of the US constitution were well aware of the abuses of power you rightly point out so set the rules in a way that instead of giving the state power it limited it instead. When it came to the freedom of the individual (liberty), it clearly and expressly forbade the use of power to exert one groups ways on other group or individual by force, either by direct violence or a threat of that.

    The sentiment was flawless even if the implementation needed some work...
    Oh I have a lot to say about US Constitution !! I've been following some movements which are trying to produce a revised one. Its just that I cannot discuss too much about it here without breaking a few of the rules. It is focused very heavily on fixing the wordings of constitution to make it more (much more) in line with formal logic, and less like legal jargon vulnerable to a billion interpretations. What this effort will eventually lead to, or when, I have no idea. It can roughly be said as an answer to Communist Manifesto, as in many ways its polar opposite to it.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    199
    Reputation
    1046

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    Yeah now you say it, I notice it too. And thinking of it, the basic situation in both cases are same.

    1. Belief that they deserve indulgence. Religious leaders believing that they are doing great work for god, women are believing that they are being oppressed.
    Very very good.

    As you said though, religious leaders in many cases convince themselves that they are acting on behalf of god/doing good works even when they are not ESPECIALLY when such acts benefit themselves..

    Hmm does that remind you in any way of a certain group that considers itself to be working for womens "equality" when its really a supremacist group..

    Feminism then with its tenents of faith that result in supremacy rather than the claimed equality (like
    Female Hypoagency and Male Hyperagency) is a belief system/religion that unlike typical religions that are based on a external separate God is a organized religion created/born of Female Solipsistic Psychosis (women only see what they want to see and will not see what they do not want to see). A example would be them pointing out that world leaders and top CEO's are overwhelmingly male while not even considering that the overwhelming number of homeless and people at the bottom are male, the men at the bottom are not just being ignored they do not exist in her view of reality.

    So while a normal religious leader justifies unjust actions to themselves and others with "god wanted me to do it so its ok", women and feminism via the hamster say "i wanted to do it and here are my rationalizations that justify it and more importantly prove the bad result was not my fault".

    Another difference is that as its internal so the more erratic the woman the more incoherent the excuses the hamster produces.

    Oh I have a lot to say about US Constitution !! I've been following some movements which are trying to produce a revised one. Its just that I cannot discuss too much about it here without breaking a few of the rules. It is focused very heavily on fixing the wordings of constitution to make it more (much more) in line with formal logic, and less like legal jargon vulnerable to a billion interpretations. What this effort will eventually lead to, or when, I have no idea. It can roughly be said as an answer to Communist Manifesto, as in many ways its polar opposite to it.
    Interesting as i have always been of the mind that adding complexity increases the ability to re/misinterpret something and that (aside from being poorly implemented as i already mentioned) it was the later additions/revisions that allowed for it to be re/misinterpreted.
    "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

    -Robert A. Heinlein.

  13. #73
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,310
    Reputation
    10661
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    I would not want religious fanatics from the past to have the kind of technology for mass destruction we have right now would you?
    No, I myself am a STAUNCH Atheist!

    The difference between religious fanatics and Communists, is that religious fanatics are stupid, infantile and easily manipulatable. You can easily defeat them, because of how infantile and backward they are.

    The communists are highly intelligent, believe in science (as a religion) and can cause havoc if allowed to spread their ideology.

    Arguing from context actually doesn't address the issue, because although we have religious fanatics nowadays, they still have not made use of science/tech to the extent the communists have. Again, this is because they are barbaric and infantile.

    They can cause a lot of damage, but it tends to be localised, even if they have a universalistic ideology. The communists meanwhile, have a universalistic mentality in their core. They don't only think they have the right to control this world but also outer space, and other domains.
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  14. #74
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,310
    Reputation
    10661
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    As for Indulgences, I agree that the narrative states that people were being promised the keys to gates of Heaven, but when you ‘question the narrative’ as you say what was really happening was something quite different.

    People with power and influence were committing offenses against church doctrine, offenses that were clearly stated should result in excommunication and that would mean the end of their power base and that could not be tolerated. Indulgences were little more than a sap to the powers that be because anything else would mean war between church and state.

    As for its legality, I assume you mean within the church and not government. So, within the church were they ever made illegal? All things are legal until made illegal and I am unaware of any such ruling, that being said I’m in no way knowledgeable in this area so maybe I’m mistaken.
    Indulgences, in the way I was taught, were being used by the Catholic Church to promise salvation. This is the "mainstream" liberal narrative.

    When you dig deeper, you realise this is liberal propaganda. The catholic church never said that indulgences can guarantee salvation. Indulgences are the kind of thing that would have been used to trick people into thinking so. It was a system ripe for manipulation, so I understand the backlash from people.

    Luther said that he revolted against the Catholic Church simply because of indulgences and how people were being manipulated (which was partially true). But this was not the motive of Luther. He revolted because he had a difference of opinion on what meant 'salvation'. He believed in being saved by faith alone. And he didn't like the fact that he couldn't engage in sex as a monk.

    So he created his own thing. And the Nation states like Saxony etc, had their own kings who loved Luther because it meant that once you break away from the church, you don't own them any money or land. And you don't have to be beholden to a pope in Rome.

    That is what I mean by questioning the narrative. And again, I am not defending the crimes committed by the Catholic Church throughout history. I am just highlighting what tends to ''glossed'' over.
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  15. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    199
    Reputation
    1046

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quick note to those from the USA and others, when Hayek refers to liberalism he is referring to classical liberal/libertarian values not the more recent progressive/liberalism you may be more familiar with that is in reality a collectivist ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    No, I myself am a STAUNCH Atheist!

    The difference between religious fanatics and Communists, is that religious fanatics are stupid, infantile and easily manipulatable. You can easily defeat them, because of how infantile and backward they are.

    The communists are highly intelligent, believe in science (as a religion) and can cause havoc if allowed to spread their ideology.

    Arguing from context actually doesn't address the issue, because although we have religious fanatics nowadays, they still have not made use of science/tech to the extent the communists have. Again, this is because they are barbaric and infantile.

    They can cause a lot of damage, but it tends to be localised, even if they have a universalistic ideology. The communists meanwhile, have a universalistic mentality in their core. They don't only think they have the right to control this world but also outer space, and other domains.
    So we could say that communism is really just a modern religion that accepts science rather than rejecting it but retains the authoritarian attitudes we see in older religions. Older religions made the claim that "all people are equal in the eyes of god" (although as we know the people at the top lived like kings) while for communism it was "all people are equal in the eyes of the state" (and similarly as we know the people at the top live like kings) and both are simply authoritarian collectivist ideologies that are in direct opposition to individual liberty.

    These are traits that all forms of authoritarian collectivist ideologies share be they religious or otherwise, in fact as Hayek wrote in his book "The Road To Serfdom" when comparing communism to fascism:

    "The relative ease with which a young communist could be
    converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to
    the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis
    clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties
    simply because they competed for the same type of mind and
    reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice
    showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the
    man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of
    the old type
    (meaning the classical liberal/libertarian).
    While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist
    the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits
    made of the right timber but have listened to false prophets,
    they both know that there can be no compromise between them
    and those who really believe in individual freedom."

    What a great line "
    made of the right timber but have listened to false prophets"


    Hayek also points out:

    "It is significant that this abandonment of liberalism, whether
    expressed as socialism in its more radical form or merely as
    ‘organization’ or ‘planning’, was perfected in Germany. During
    the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of
    the twentieth, Germany moved far ahead in both the theory and
    the practice of socialism, so that even today Russian discussion
    largely carries on where the Germans left off. The Germans, long
    before the Nazis, were attacking liberalism and democracy, capitalism,
    and individualism.
    Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists
    were using techniques of which the Nazis and fascists later
    made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces
    all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which
    claims to guide his views on everything, was first put into practice
    by the socialists. It was not the fascists but the socialists who began
    to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations
    to direct their thinking. It was not the fascists but the socialists
    who first thought of organizing sports and games, football and
    hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected
    by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that the
    party member should distinguish himself from others by the
    modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who, by
    their organization of ‘cells’ and devices for the permanent supervision
    of private life, created the prototype of the totalitarian party.
    By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in
    Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it"

    -F. A. Hayek, The Road To Serfdom.

    A great read if you have the time and a free condensed version is available online.

    A few jacket notes written by the an himself you may also enjoy:

    Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that in our
    endeavor consciously to shape our future in accordance with
    high ideals we should in fact unwittingly produce the very
    opposite of what we have been striving for?
    • The contention that only the peculiar wickedness of the
    Germans has produced the Nazi system is likely to become
    the excuse for forcing on us the very institutions which have
    produced that wickedness.
    • Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe
    the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations
    of what in theory we call socialism.
    • In a planned system we cannot confine collective action to the
    tasks on which we agree, but are forced to produce agreement
    on everything in order that any action can be taken at all.
    • The more the state ‘plans’ the more difficult planning
    becomes for the individual.
    • The economic freedom which is the prerequisite of any other
    freedom cannot be the freedom from economic care which
    the socialists promise us and which can be obtained only by
    relieving the individual at the same time of the necessity and
    of the power of choice: it must be the freedom of economic
    activity which, with the right of choice, inevitably also carries
    the risk and the responsibility of that right.
    What our generation has forgotten is that the system of
    private property is the most important guarantee of freedom,
    not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for
    those who do not.
    • We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not
    prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may
    prevent its use for desirable purposes.
    • We shall all be the gainers if we can create a world fit for small
    states to live in.
    • The first need is to free ourselves of that worst form of
    contemporary obscurantism which tries to persuade us that
    what we have done in the recent past was all either wise or
    unavoidable. We shall not grow wiser before we learn that
    much that we have done was very foolish.
    "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

    -Robert A. Heinlein.

  16. #76
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    471
    Reputation
    1272
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by ian2211 View Post
    classical liberal/libertarian values
    Those values have all the benefits, but one major flaw. And that flaw often becomes their downfall. Downfall as in, other ideas routinely displace them all the time, be it religion or communism or even post-modern whacky liberalism.

    Disclaimer: The following was not my own opinion originally. But now I agree with this.

    And that flaw is tolerance. Its a positive trait if you tolerate each other in a culturally homogeneous group, but when you face cultural opposition, and you try to be tolerant, you will let them gain the political ground, inch by inch, and you will realize that you are left with nothing.

    I give a contrived example, say a bunch of hindu people in a family, live in a community of christians. I come from a hindu family, and while I myself am not religious, I know their customs, the common and obvious ones atleast. There is this festival we call Diwali (and you must be knowing about it too if you lived around Indians), and its customary to burn some firecrackers during late evening, and sometimes well past midnight. And some of them can be loud. If that family, in my hypothetical situation does it, the rest of the community can respond in two ways.

    The tolerant approach. The christians realize that its the hindu culture, and they are doing once a year, so no big deal. It would be a total asshole move to stop them from celebrating one of their most sacred and ancient custom.

    The intolerant approach. The christians gather around and tell them to stop the loud bs in the middle of night. And threat with violence (legal/police or direct) if their demands are not meant. In modern culture, this mode will be viewed as extremely racist/xenophobic/whatever.

    The libertarians in general completely fail when it comes to second mode, especially when the transgression is very minor. The intolerant view says that its the minor transgressions only where you need to make a very hard and aggressive stand, otherwise those transgressions will increase over time.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  17. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    199
    Reputation
    1046

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    I suppose its a matter of cultural differences being acceptable as long as they are within the bounds of the existing cultures norms, laws and customs (using your example in the UK we have similar days where we set off fireworks, November 5th, new years eve, xmas eve etc) so its a bit hypocritical to complain when others have or want one.

    Cultural opposition is another thing though as it suggests that said culture has laws, norms or customs that are incompatible with the existing cultures and unfortunately we have seen a lot of that in the UK over the last few decades. I am of the opinion that we hold to our laws, cultural norms and values and let anybody who wishes to live here know that they have to as well (within reason as seen above with your example) or they can head back to their country and culture of origin.

    As you can imagine this makes me a how did you put it "racist/xenophobic/whatever" in the eyes of many, i suppose xenophobic would work if i had such a attitude towards any and all differences rather than just the extreme ones.

    One question i like to ask our typical lefty activist is would they be fine with it if hundreds of thousands to even millions of Far Right Wing types were coming from abroad to the UK and they varied from those simply thinking Nazism was ok and as such lived by its principles to those thinking everybody should be converted, killed or enslaved and even a few who were willing to commit acts of terrorism in the name of Nazism to further that goal.

    Me i can say clearly that i would not be ok with it just as i am not ok with hundreds of thousands to even millions of Far Right Wing types coming from abroad to the UK who follow a ideology that, in the places it has power and influence, has similar attitudes, beliefs and most importantly behaves towards unbelievers and minorities it disapproves of very much like Nazism did.

    However ultimately when it comes down to making a decision i tend to go for the option that allows for the most individual freedom or at least the potential for it, its a undervalued commodity nowadays and getting more rare by the day.
    Last edited by ian2211; March 31, 2020 at 10:08 AM.
    "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

    -Robert A. Heinlein.

  18. #78
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Ghost town USA
    Posts
    1,805
    Reputation
    8360
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Durka durka, mock Allah, JIHAD!
    A man's only "safe space" be in his sovereignty, free from the illusions and misconceptions of a unity that only serves to bind him to tyranny and perdition.

  19. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    711
    Reputation
    2121
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by ian2211 View Post
    However ultimately when it comes down to making a decision i tend to go for the option that allows for the most individual freedom or at least the potential for it, its a undervalued commodity nowadays and getting more rare by the day.
    This ^^^.

    I have no problem at all with individuals believing anything they wish whether it be religious, political or any other philosophy. My problems begin when they try to impose their views on others, whether through enforcement (direct threat by legal or other means) or by manipulation (social stigma).

    The herd mentality while being perfectly natural, birds of a feather etc., can very quickly become oppressive. What is happening today on many social media platforms (facefuck, twatter etc.) is the perfect example.

    Traditionally individuals usually had very little power when it came to persuading others; they first had to convince a few, then a few more and keep this going until you had built your own 'herd'. Today that has changed insofar as you can find a ready supply of people that already share your opinion - instant herd building, and once you have that critical mass you can change your tactics from persuasion to coercion.

    And it's this collectivism that's the problem IMO.

    To continue RKSPSM's analogy a single Hindu in a christian society would probably forego most of their traditions in order to be accepted and would be very tolerant of the wishes of the majority even if seeing them as oppressive. Put that same person in a large community of Hindus, albeit still a minority and they will instantly change their stance and over time will become more demanding that the majority adjust to the minority rather than the other way around.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  20. #80
    Senior Member Joetech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    774
    Reputation
    2324
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    There is truth in these words, but more and more I see even the most devout blue-pillers turning away from relationships with women. They (women) may well have won the battle, but in their latter years they are coming to see that they have lost the war!

    We won lots of battles in Viet Nam, then we lost the war.
    "Don't follow in my footsteps. I stepped in something."


Similar Threads

  1. A fair and balanced system!
    By Jackoff in forum Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 9, 2020, 4:08 PM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 20, 2018, 10:09 PM
  3. Turn around is fair play
    By The_Joker in forum Lounge
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 3, 2016, 6:43 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 5, 2015, 12:07 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 28, 2015, 10:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •