|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43646 Posts
On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on.
I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position.
|
On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on.
Toss it in a spoiler. That way if someone wants to skip it, it doesn't take forever.
|
On August 17 2017 13:10 Slaughter wrote:
Cultural homogeneity is A) Impossible in today's globally connected world unless you go full North Korea B) Is moot because the US is already really diverse C) Cultural homogeneity has many weaknesses in of itself.
I find it funny that this is even worth an argument. I don't understand where that comes from. The US was literally built by and on immigrants. The US is inherently culturally diverse. Before you start "project cultural homogeneity", you'd need to figure out what culture you want to base that homogeneity on, because what you call "american culture" is simply a cesspool of many different subcultures like german, italian, british, french and the sorts.
American culture literally boils down to that. Many cultures coming together and mixing it up.
edit: after looking it up, i realised that cesspool isn't actually the correct word. I intended to draw something similar to "a stew", which apparently a cesspool really isn't.
|
White supremacist propaganda is not worthy of debate. I don't care who repackaged it.
|
I'll try to read through it and cut it down some. I think it might mostly be ranting anyway, which might be more satisfying for me to type than for you guys to read. I usually try to be more careful in what I post.
|
Not sure if this is really US politics, but since Ford is a US company, I'd thought I'd toss this here.
Lawmakers have cautiously supported automakers' experiments with self-driving vehicles, but they've been split on whether cars need a steering wheel at all times in case humans need to take over. But with more and more concepts ditching control elements (wheels, pedals, gear shifts) entirely, it's likely a matter of time before those wholly autonomous options head to consumers. In the meantime, Ford has received a patent that splits the difference: A wheel and pedals that are completely removable.
Ford actually filed the patent in February 2016, and it was awarded to the automaker last week on August 10th, as originally reported by Motor1. It's not a perfect solution, the document notes: Designers will have to reconsider how they implement airbags, which are traditionally situated in the steering wheel. Ford's patent proposes one in both the wheel and dashboard behind it, electronically switching off the latter if the wheel column is locked in.
But it isn't just about popping a wheel in and out: This redesign would probably require major structural changes, as the steering column is an integral part of any car's frame. While this is only a patent, it shows that automakers are thinking hard about steering and control compromises that will let them sell autonomous vehicles in countries with different legal requirements -- along with users who might just want to take the wheel from time to time.
Source
I need to hurry and get my invention out. Otherwise I'm going to lose millions/billions in the coming years.
|
On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on.
Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have.
|
On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it.
I'm not that interested in culture writ large, but political philosophy I am. In a libertarian order people can worship whatever or whoever they want. They can celebrate whatever holiday, bang whoever the fuck they want, rent their property or sale to whoever they want, and people are free to come and go (in line with Lockean non-proviso property rights). So, when I talk of "culture" I am specifically talking about the concerns of individuals and rights. If you have a community of communists and libertarians, there's going to be conflict and strife. I want libertarians to have their own polity. I want communists (as dare as much I can), to have their own as well. On down the line. If people want to have an only white community, that's their choice, one I'd disagree with, but again, their choice. The problem with the US is you people are trying to cram into one central polity a million different ideas of rights and individualism. People in CA don't have the same views as someone in New Hampshire, or someone in Idaho. We were able to as a country inculcate ourselves from some amount of conflict because we gave a lot of power to localities and states, but that has been eroded. As it has been eroded, the amount of social strife and conflict has risen in direct proportion. People are too blinded by ideology to see what's in front of their very faces. This salient point - that we'd be better off with smaller and less centralized polities and people would in general be happier and more fulfilled is lost to the nationalists of left and right stripes. Nation state uber alles is a huge selling point to a lot of "lefties" on this site. God forbid you talk about not wanting to be politically associated with the Potomac, or with other states in the country. You're the DEVIlL. THE DEVIL.
|
On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have.
Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that.
|
On August 17 2017 13:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position.
Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism.
|
On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have.
In the same way Hitler himself did.
|
Libertarians aren't relevant in Us Politics or reality. Nothing in your post works in reality and none of it is relevant to Us politics.
|
On August 17 2017 13:23 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it. I'm not that interested in culture writ large, but political philosophy I am. In a libertarian order people can worship whatever or whoever they want. They can celebrate whatever holiday, bang whoever the fuck they want, rent their property or sale to whoever they want, and people are free to come and go (in line with Lockean non-proviso property rights). So, when I talk of "culture" I am specifically talking about the concerns of individuals and rights. If you have a community of communists and libertarians, there's going to be conflict and strife. I want libertarians to have their own polity. I want communists (as dare as much I can), to have their own as well. On down the line. If people want to have an only white community, that's their choice, one I'd disagree with, but again, their choice. The problem with the US is you people are trying to cram into one central polity a million different ideas of rights and individualism. People in CA don't have the same views as someone in New Hampshire, or someone in Idaho. We were able to as a country inculcate ourselves from some amount of conflict because we gave a lot of power to localities and states, but that has been eroded. As it has been eroded, the amount of social strife and conflict has risen in direct proportion. People are too blinded by ideology to see what's in front of their very faces. This salient point - that we'd be better off with smaller and less centralized polities and people would in general be happier and more fulfilled is lost to the nationalists of left and right stripes. Nation state uber alles is a huge selling point to a lot of "lefties" on this site. God forbid you talk about not wanting to be politically associated with the Potomac, or with other states in the country. You're the DEVIlL. THE DEVIL.
I just want to know what happens when I decide to renounce my centre left ways to become a white nationalist, only to be told I can't move to the white nationalist polity because of their immigration laws.
|
United States43646 Posts
On August 17 2017 13:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:19 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position. Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism.
You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity.
|
Wrong about what? If you think he's racist and flirts with white supremacy, what exactly are you thinking I might cure you of? The belief that he made good games? Or just whether he's an actual white supremacist or just flirts with them?
|
On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have. Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that.
The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one.
|
On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have. Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that. The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one.
OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy.
|
On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:19 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position. Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism. You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity.
Or it could just be some higher level trolling. All I did was report what he says, taking at face value his explanation for what the Alt Right is and why he included Point 14. Again, it's his position, not mine.
|
On August 17 2017 13:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have. Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that. The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one. OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy.
No one is going to bed happy.
|
On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:19 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position. Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism. You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity.
The 14 words are interesting because you can imagine someone reading it and not immediately recognizing why it's racist (the neo-Nazis were kind enough to attach it to "Heil Hitler" so you wouldn't get confused).
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
The obvious question is why does it specify white children? But more importantly, what does it suppose we are protecting white people from? What do neo-Nazis see themselves as "defending" against? White people certainly seem to be successful and prolific everywhere you look, and there's not much reason to think that's going to change soon. Nobody's advocating for genocide of white people, and even if they were, nobody has the power to do it.
And now after asking a series of questions I will state my argument like a person. They're not "defending" white people from being killed, they're "defending" them from ceasing to be white. It's good old-fashioned anti-miscegenation. The problem is that too many white people nowadays are happy enough to date, fuck, or even marry other races! Some white men (cucks, in the modern parlance) even let their daughters marry black men! In fact, it's gotten so confusing that it can be hard for a young, dating neo-Nazi to tell if potential mates are really white or whether they're some small percentage Asian or something. Imagine, you hook up with a girl on Tindr, and afterwards find out her great great grandmother was Chinese! The horror!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
