|
Series DD Funding posted:They as a group obviously have formed their own ideas, since it's distinctly different from what's arrived before. But in general, that's a useless response because to the extent it's a stupidity, it's a universal human one. I know you mentioned it extends to "some liberals" as well, but a political group by definition must involve lots of people copying ideas. It's why they're a group instead of random individual thinkers. What do you mean by "formed their own ideas"? As in, not cribbed from some existing philosophies like libertarianism or whatever? EDIT: I mean it sounds to me like an extra exclusive version of Jehovah's Witnesses with different words in an attempt to be intimidating Chocolate Teapot fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jul 2, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:What do you mean by "formed their own ideas"? As in, not cribbed from some existing philosophies like libertarianism or whatever? I mean the group is distinct from what came before it. Obviously there's parallels with paleonazis and modern libertarianism, but there's differences as well (for example, being explicitly religious).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I mean the group is distinct from what came before it. Obviously there's parallels with paleonazis and modern libertarianism, but there's differences as well (for example, being explicitly religious). They're literally just saying "remember monarchies and church rule? Let's do that again. Also the matrix." The only thing new is to this is the veneer of "spooky intellectual cabal"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Crain posted:They're literally just saying "remember monarchies and church rule? Let's do that again. Also the matrix."
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Crain posted:They're literally just saying "remember monarchies and church rule? Let's do that again. Also the matrix." And modern liberalism is just "let's do the new deal again," right? Monarchies and papal states didn't have to contend with atheism and feminism in their modern forms, or really modern democracy at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And modern liberalism is just "let's do the new deal again," right? Monarchies and papal states didn't have to contend with atheism and feminism in their modern forms, or really modern democracy at all. You are giving way too much credit to a bunch of cosplaying, roleplaying, retards. Crain fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And modern liberalism is just "let's do the new deal again," right? Why do you keep bringing up liberalism, like it's some sort of polar opposite to DE?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:Why do you keep bringing up liberalism, like it's some sort of polar opposite to DE? Which makes sense if you ignore history. They care about liberalism/liberal democracy more than they do about socialism and fascism because of their positioning it as the dominant current 'degenerate' theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:Why do you keep bringing up liberalism, like it's some sort of polar opposite to DE?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
I actually don't think the transition from college Marxist to conservative intellectual is all that seamless, the trope of 'I was a marxist, then I grew up  ' is more a meme meant to undermine the character of (marxist) opposition than a statement of fact. But I will grant you the almost gendered undertones of stuff like 'combat liberalism' - granting space to decadence/degeneracy is a common theme.Series DD Funding posted:And modern liberalism is just "let's do the new deal again," right? Monarchies and papal states didn't have to contend with atheism and feminism in their modern forms, or really modern democracy at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:And? Hitler never had to deal with Genghis Khan, is there a point to these historical counterfactuals, or are you just pulling your usual contrarian gimmick with appeals to a d&d hivemind? The point is DE is, in fact, original thinking, or rather as close as you can get. It's applying and changing old ideas from different sources to new issues and situations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The point is DE is, in fact, original thinking, or rather as close as you can get. It's applying and changing old ideas from different sources to new issues and situations. To some extent this is a bit of a pose, I think. For all Moldbug's talk about reviving extinct philosophical currents, a lot of DE thought is really derived from more recent writers, like Hans Herman Hoppe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The point is DE is, in fact, original thinking, or rather as close as you can get. It's applying and changing old ideas from different sources to new issues and situations. i don't see it as all that original. It's common for 'great thinkers' to paper over holes in their philosophies with vacant appeals to the past, attempting to draw legitimacy in some kind of historic appeal
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The point is DE is, in fact, original thinking, or rather as close as you can get. It's applying and changing old ideas from different sources to new issues and situations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The point is DE is, in fact, original thinking, or rather as close as you can get. It's applying and changing old ideas from different sources to new issues and situations. As enjoyable as you might find this gimmick of yours, you should actually read what you write. Otherwise you end up saying dumb poo poo like 'recycling is as close to original as you can get'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
ronya posted:I think it's analagous to a center-left party playing up radical leftist theories when it is sitting in opposition; as soon as it regains power, it would disavow any unpalatable radicalism. Nonetheless those ideas would have had a brief moment in the sun, and radicals would dispense with remaining ties to the center (likely acrimoniously). So if I understand you correctly then you're suggesting that around the time that neoliberalism and globalism became the dominant ideologies of the mainstream American establishment there was a parallel shift among some demographics toward scientific racism and Austrian economics. This, combined with fears of a One World Government and a lot of resentment toward feminists and blacks, produced the core ideological suppositions of the contemporary far right, including NRx. If that's your position then I certainly don't disagree with the fundamentals of your analysis. The late 1980s and early 1990s certainly saw major transformations within basically all of America's political tendencies, whether they were on the right, the left or firmly within the establishment. However, I'm not sure whether this period was formative for the advocates of NRx specifically. They obviously navigate the same far right ideological ecosystem that was heavily reshaped by the events of the 90s, but it seems mistaken to cite that as their formative period. They're seemingly of a more recent vintage. For one thing, they are really a movement that is very hard to imagine without the internet, which wasn't as much of a cultural force back then. Also they bring in some novel ideas like advocating monarchical government and openly breaking with any allegiance, even rhetorical, to democracy or egalitarianism. Race Realists posted:Not wanting to run away or be considered unconstructive, I'll answer to the best of my ability I think that the rise of the far right in Europe, the electoral success of Syriza in Greece, the decline of the Liberal party in Canada, the growing numbers of internet reactionaries and internet Marxists, and a million other things besides, all share some root causes: namely a bad economy, increasing competition for a scarcer pool of decent jobs, and a widespread sense of decline among some of the citizens of the first world democracies. But while the success of these groups might in part be attributable to common causes, that doesn't mean that they can all be treated the same. The European far right may share some racialist ideas or even a reverence for monarchy with the thinkers of the Dark Enlightenment, but that doesn't mean they're directly rated. The European far right actually has the makings of a genuine mass movement, and under the right set of conditions it might actually achieve some major political success. The Dark Enlightenment, by contrast, has no mass basis and doesn't want one. According to Nick Land they are practicing a form of "anti-politics" that involves an almost total exit from contemporary structures of political life. I I understand his article properly he advocates waiting until genetic engineering or other technological advances elevate the Dark Enlightenment ubermensch into their position of natural superiority rather than wasting time trying to seize control of political institutions. So while there are no doubt some very broad shared causes I don't really see the Dark Enlightenment was being the same kind of movement as the National Front or BNP, and for that reason I do not find them particularly threatening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
In a way the era we're in reminds me of the political agitation just after the great depression, but worse because it's reaction/far-right that's jumped out the gates really hard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So if I take any X that did not exist in some context Y, and apply it to that context, is that automatically a 'new' idea? That's seems like a really low bar to me, so much so that you could do it forever without once having to create something that's actually, you know, new. As in, never been done before. In behavioral science at least, "take any X that did not exist in some context Y, and apply it to that context" counts as a 'publishably' new idea. If I take an extant statistical analysis X from, say, physics (or just mathematical psychology), which hasn't yet been applied to Y (e.g., working memory) and do so, then I have had a new idea. The standard of "new idea" really isn't that high.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:In a way the era we're in reminds me of the political agitation just after the great depression, but worse because it's reaction/far-right that's jumped out the gates really hard. I just feel like in general, we as a society (at least in America) are taking a huge leap backwards to a 1960's mindset. Just my BornAPoorBlkChild fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:I just feel like in general, we as a society (at least in America) are taking a huge leap backwards to a 1960's mindset. Just my When you say "a 1960's mindset" what do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Speaking completely subjective here, I just feel theres this sort of weird fetization with the past in Contemporary American media. I wish I could put my finger on it, I really do 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:Speaking completely subjective here, I just feel theres this sort of weird fetization with the past in Contemporary American media. That has happened in all cultures since the beginning of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Not true, though it is the rule rather than the exception. But the critical 'step' into modernity is the throwing of traditions up into the air, the defetishization of something as special just because it is old. That sort of thinking has unfortunately waned, and so you get dumb fucks romanticizing the brutish and short periods of history, then celebrating the passionate intensity of the vilest people. See: the people in the OP.Zodium posted:In behavioral science at least, "take any X that did not exist in some context Y, and apply it to that context" counts as a 'publishably' new idea. If I take an extant statistical analysis X from, say, physics (or just mathematical psychology), which hasn't yet been applied to Y (e.g., working memory) and do so, then I have had a new idea. The standard of "new idea" really isn't that high.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I've noticed a great majority of the Racial Realists I've encountered online tend to have an over reliance on crime statistics as the End All Be All proof they need. Circumstances are moot when you have proof certain minorities are Inherently More Violent
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:Speaking completely subjective here, I just feel theres this sort of weird fetization with the past in Contemporary American media. It's a combination of things. One is that culture in general has been inclined towards nostalgia recently, due to the recession. Nobody wants to take risks on the new, so they're mining the past and trying to flog sure properties. A lot of movies and TV shows are sequels, spin-offs, and remakes, for example. The other is, without trying to sound like I'm reflexively blaming all that is bad in the world on the "baby boomers," they're getting old now, they were the first generation who could really use films and television as a medium with which to mythologize their own adolescence. They started early, in the '80s ("thirtysomething," The Big Chill), and since then have moved on to have their midlife crises and various struggles turned into drama at a surprisingly rapid rate. It's not exactly an accident that you keep seeing these movies about guys in their sixties and seventies who can still kick rear end and attract younger ladies; they're using that same engine to cope with their old age. The later generations will probably do the same thing, but I have at least a little faith in my generation to shield ourselves from the worst of it with self-awareness and irony, because while Kurt Cobain will always be in the news somehow until the day I die (I'll be 80 and they'll be talking about the later-generation virtual Cobain clones programming themselves with Heroin.exe), the most '90s nostalgia I've seen in the last ten years is Gone Home. Even there it's simply because they wanted a time period where cell phones weren't yet common.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
if u dont have facebook or twitter u would have no idea these things youre freaking out about even exist So basically just turn off facebook and twitter for a few weeks to clear out your system hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:if u dont have facebook or twitter u would have no idea these things youre freaking out about even exist If only that were true I'm not freaking out about it either. Just curious is all. Helsing posted:So if I understand you correctly then you're suggesting that around the time that neoliberalism and globalism became the dominant ideologies of the mainstream American establishment there was a parallel shift among some demographics toward scientific racism and Austrian economics. This, combined with fears of a One World Government and a lot of resentment toward feminists and blacks, produced the core ideological suppositions of the contemporary far right, including NRx. Ah, thank you for the explanation. I've realized now (and am slowly coming to peace with), the fact that no matter what you say to convince these people in debates. The Narrative will always prevail. The Narrative based on Cold Hard Facts and Research (usually videos of minorities committing crimes) The Narrative that proves that YOU are objectively right and THEY Irrational and going purely by emotion and Marxist/"Anti-White" Brainwashing
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:Ah, thank you for the explanation. I think this is kind of the function of ideologies in general? The NRx/HBD people just happen to have a particularly stupid one that's particularly grounded in (some very specific weirdo understanding of) science and rationality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
From my school courtyard
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:As far as 3 goes. Dont you think it's mighty peculiar how Dark Enlightenment became a thing RIGHT around a time where the UK and Europe are going in a insanely far right direction? Nope. How many global economic meltdowns have there been in the past twenty years again? Not to mention two tech bubbles, the War on Terror, the rise of outsourcing and other aspects of modern globalization, the rise and downfall of the EU, and the popularization of the internet. Pretty much any of those things would be enough to stir up radical right-wing opinions all by themselves; the combination of them has been enough to raise a new generation of crazy fascists of every flavor, ranging from the same old nationalistic racism to all-new flavors of crazy like people who think the world should be ruled by a tech CEO philosopher-king monarchy. The root factors leading people to right-wing radicalism are shared in a lot of cases, but there's otherwise no real connection between neo-Nazis on the march in Europe and tech bloggers writing about how Google should rule the country and sterilize minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:From my school courtyard lmao what kind of racist goes to georgia state
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:Speaking completely subjective here, I just feel theres this sort of weird fetization with the past in Contemporary American media. It's not just the media, how many times have you heard "The 50s were great because union membership was high and the rich were taxed 90%"? Hell, how many times have you heard "The 60s & 70s were great when people actually protested before they got sold out by <corporate interest here> with the Great Satan Reagan". computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:lmao what kind of racist goes to georgia state You'd be surprised...
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:They usually reside nowhere near the areas they deem unsafe I think this is a key point. People living near immigrants or in racially diverse areas are typically less racist. Even in cities that genuinely have a lot of crime (like Baltimore), the white people tend to keep perspective, as they actually have experience being there and don't view it as some sort of perpetually burning hellscape. White middle class men with families who don't live near poor blacks and immigrants have actually been the bedrock of respectable/scientific racism for a long time. They have a "tribe" to protect, they are more likely to be loyal to their family unit to the exclusion of everyone else*, they don't want anything they see as dangerous encroaching on that. Mencius Moldbug's terror of things happening to his kids even though he lives somewhere fairly safe is a good example of this. Another factor that I believe is relevant is how many of these individuals have STEM backgrounds. They are interested in quantitative data, not qualitative data. For them, statistics about black people's average IQ or crime rates compared to white people are more or less absolute, and appeals to reasons other than "it's biological" fall on deaf ears. The fact that black IQ has been rising since the inception of records (and is rising more quickly lately) and that violent crime has fallen dramatically across all racial groups is also irrelevant. They are used to a field of inquiry where unambiguous material facts can be discovered, so they apply this to other fields and expect social facts to be objective rather than historically and culturally located. *The idea of being loyal to a small group of people to an almost Geek Social Fallacy extent and not giving a gently caress about anyone else seems very common in this type of person. You can easily have a falling out with a friend like this if a baseline sense of compassion for all other humans is important to you, because they will get offended at your "disloyalty" to them if you call them out for not having decency to people "outside the tribe". To them, compassion for outsiders is not important; to you, not having compassion for outsiders excludes someone from being a candidate for insider.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Weldon Pemberton posted:Another factor that I believe is relevant is how many of these individuals have STEM backgrounds. They are interested in quantitative data, not qualitative data. For them, statistics about black people's average IQ or crime rates compared to white people are more or less absolute, and appeals to reasons other than "it's biological" fall on deaf ears. The fact that black IQ has been rising since the inception of records (and is rising more quickly lately) and that violent crime has fallen dramatically across all racial groups is also irrelevant. They are used to a field of inquiry where unambiguous material facts can be discovered, so they apply this to other fields and expect social facts to be objective rather than historically and culturally located. People using data that fits their beliefs and ignoring the rest of it isn't a STEM thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
It is a quote:They say they believe in freedom and share our values. They say a few bad apples shouldn’t bring down judgment on their entire kind. Don’t be fooled. Though they walk among us with impunity, they are, in the words of Henry Farrell, a political scientist at George Washington University, “a group that is notoriously associated with terrorist violence and fundamentalist political beliefs.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm reminded of an essay from the early 1940s in which Dorothy Thompson, a regular writer for Harper's Monthly, speculated on just what was the appeal that drew people to Nazism (I'd link it but it's paywalled these days). It's not a perfect essay by any means, and gets way too sentimental at times, but I find much of her analysis interesting and insightful. In particular, there's one figure that sort of fits the neo-reactionaries we're talking about : This is a spot-on description of someone I know, and beautifully written, but I guess that's just anecdotal. computer parts posted:People using data that fits their beliefs and ignoring the rest of it isn't a STEM thing. I agree, and people staying in little online echo chambers that only circulate stories that confirm their worldview is obviously something we see all over the political spectrum. I was specifically talking about the focus on numbers and facts rather than the reason behind the facts, though, which I do believe is a STEM or at least a positivist thing. Women and minorities fare poorly when such an approach is taken, so even when you are engaging the data in good faith, if that data is purely descriptive it can lead towards a right-wing interpretation. You could equally argue that trying to explain away the statistics with qualitative data and over-analysis is more common on the left. In any case, there is at least a correlation between positivism in sociology and more traditionalist perspectives (and vice versa), even if I have the causation wrong. The reactionaries themselves know this, and that's why many of them propose that only people with STEM backgrounds should be in government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Weldon Pemberton posted:The fact that black IQ has been rising since the inception of records (and is rising more quickly lately) and that violent crime has fallen dramatically across all racial groups is also irrelevant. A Very Special Type Of Person would retort that by mentioning the number of African Americans with mixed DNA, and then go from there so sayeth The Narrative
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Crafting a narrative that fits your beliefs and ignores contradicting evidence is the norm for human thinking. Some ideologies might be a bit more prone to it than others but I've had the opportunity to talk to a lot of people across the political spectrum in my life and as a rule the majority of people are like that to a greater or lesser extent. My point being: an explanation of why these particular ideas are apparently so appealing to some people requires a deeper analysis than just "they craft a narrative and ignore the contradictions to it". It's not in any way wrong, it's just insufficiently precise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
oh for sure there are some freakshows there, it's a giant university, but i'd think the only reason a white supremacist would go to a mediocre majority black school in a majority black city is if they didn't get into UGA or some other first pick lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:31
|
|