Total posts: 323
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol what are you talking about?TWS is a normal Conservative. You can disagree with him politically, but a "white supremacist" and "well known liar?"Jesus, dude. Calm down.Anyone who is a conservative is a white supremacist in this guy’s eyes. I hope he runs for office one day to get obliterated
It's just a bot. Imagine having your worldview ripped apart from the existence of a Black conservative.
No nuance. No original thought. Just an ideologically possessed zealot.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean, I don't really care what people here think of me irl. So, if you think I'm a loser irl, it literally is 0 fucks given by me.
Dear RationalMadman,
You really need to:
(1) Learn to let things go
(2) Not be so sensitive
Your entire existence on DDO and Dart has been riddled with doing the opposite of those two things. So many of your issues with imabench and the general DDO and Dart community wouldn't exist if you hardened up mentally. You're going to keep getting trolled and harassed until you heed those basic life lessons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
But I wonder where it comes to certain individuals. Like, some of you right wingers are obviously decent people. But then you get the likes of TWS69 or who cares, a 70 year old man raving about blackwashing of Ariel the fucking dolphin or whatever she is. Or Trump gets the KKK, same shit.
Sure, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether "Ariel the fucking dolphin" is Black or White. If this was an isolated, singular event, I would also laugh at people who cared about this.
However, the blackwashing of movie characters is indicative of a greater, anti-White movement that is attacking White people. When you have repeated, similar, individual circumstances of "Ariel the fucking dolphin" being blackwashed, it slowly but surely becomes a serious threat to White people.
So, we actually need to push back against blackwashing or else many, many things are going to be blackwashed, not just "Ariel the fucking dolphin" whom few care about.
That is to say, there's obviously decent people on the right. But also absolute fucking lunatics.
Yes, there are plenty of lunatics on the right, and I think they are a burden more than anything. Alex Jones and his endless list of conspiracy theories springs to mind. It's irritating because sane, non-controversial people would be far better suited to championing right-wing ideals. The right should really move away from this 'every governmental narrative is false' angle and shift to a healthy skepticism of governmental narratives (rather than outright rejection).
Then with the exception of RM, the left is all the same one thing, you know what you're getting, it's not so bad. Ramshutu through to oro, they all just like to suck a cock every now and again.
Uh no it's actually super bad. These people, RM included, are functionally anti-White and would love nothing more than to wipe your genetic lineage from the planet. That's far worse than whatever after-hours activities they do.
Danielle is a lesbian, basically.
I'm pretty sure Danielle is/was an AnCap. She might catch some transmissions from the anti-White institutional nexus, but she's functionally different to the standard NPC libtard because the standard NPC libtard can't articulate AnCap talking points.
So, well, the good guys. Thett for example.
Yeah, Thett has always been a good guy. It's been interesting to see him shift away from his intelligent, goofy Club Penguin demeanor, to his more vocal, serious, opinionated one.
Skep is also gay, questionable.
People like Skep have always been a conundrum for the right wing. He's clearly wise and well-read, and he'll defend his version of traditional conservatism quite well. But he is gay and according to old world religion (and specifically historically Catholicism -- his religion), that's super sinful. But he's no doubt a good guy.
But what happens if your votes make for TheWhiteSaviour69 becoming president of America. Or who knows. ThankWhiteySlaves. TheyWillSuck. Just. He's an obnoxious fucking loser really. I'm drunk lol. I wish I could think of something fucking sick burn for his dumbass acronym. TheWhiteSerpent. Something.
I don't know who that is.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your NPC, anti-White monologues are of no value other than a warning beacon to steer clear of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Sure:(1) Detonate a nuclear bomb large enough to wipe out the Earth(2) Sterilize the human population (perhaps through additives in water)(3) Blast Earth off its orbital axis, destroying Earth's temperanceNo more breeding after any of those events.I'm sure you could think of more.Human nature being what it is, those implementing all those things would most likely make sure that they, their friends and families survived, because being superior, antinatalism wouldn’t apply to them.Yes, I don't think you'd ever get humans en masse to agree to abandon their most basic biological instinct. That's why the force detailed above might become necessary, if antinatalism is indeed valid.I would sure want antinatalism to be assessed before anything that drastic were to take place, though.That’s the problem; those applying the force wouldn’t want to apply it to themselves.
Antinatalism is a seriously cerebral, emotionally detached belief. Antinatalists are some of the last people you'd expect to succumb to emotional whims, because you don't become an antinatalist on emotional whims. You become an antinatlist by realizing how horrible overall life is objectively for **all** creatures -- that's completely removed from their subjective, emotional experience.
Besides, if you truly believed that existence was harmful and that childbirth was a harmful imposition on those birthed, you would want those closest to you to be removed first if anything, if you were to be swayed by "human nature".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That’s my point though. People can be walking around with all that rage-envy and still for the most part not do a thing about it because of mass affluence. If there was a sustained economic/technological collapse that led to the return of Malthus the country would collapse overnight of course.Where we disagree is that the system can’t last. Unfortunately I think it very much can and will. The US has enormous economic advantages and rather than stagnating our industries in important fields like aerospace and technology are pulling away. Our agricultural sector is thriving. The dollar is pulling away…the US economy looks a whole lot more stable and prime for growth than anywhere in the EU or China that’s for sure
Let's assume that the US economy is going to be thriving over the short and medium term (I think it's debatable, due to the mass import of 3rd world genes, but whatever).
Even with that assumption, mass affluence doesn't resolve the other racial/cultural issues. Sure, most people are going to walk around with the rage-envy and only type angry internet words with it. I agree with you there. It's easy, passive and all most people are capable of. But there are those who won't -- you have to see this part. There are those who will orchestrate terror events to right injustices they see, and major terror events obliterate social cohesion, trust and psychological wellbeing for any society involved. For example, are you aware of the societal impact 9/11 had on the US?
When people see other races getting free handouts or doing better than themselves (ESPECIALLY if it appears unearned), even if their own relative living standards are truly affluent, there is going to be jealousy and racial hatred. No amount of GDP and lowering of unemployment helps with that. People don't conceptualize the great abstract wealth they have, especially in comparison to what they would have had in a poorer country (they have to literally visit the poorer country, but they soon re-acclimatize to US standards upon re-entry).
People see their neighborhood Black momma getting big government checks for all her 6 kids from 5 different dads. People hear that NEET Arab blasting his ethnic music at all times because the government pays for his existence. People see that Black serial thief on the streets again for the 5th time because NYC doesn't want to be too harsh on crime, and he can survive on government checks. THAT'S the kind of disparity that inspires people to march in the streets and perhaps do a little more.
The death the white majority has been exaggerated. It’s been greatly diminished of course but there’s kind of this insane one drop rule going on where someone like Ted Cruz is not white, or a person with one Mexican parent whose genotype is like 80-85% European is not white because they have brown hair and brown eyes. And normie white Americans and second generation hispanics don’t have that many cultural differences and vibe pretty well. It’s not believable to me that a race war is going to break out between these two groups of people. But it’s telling that leftists seem to believe that these groups do hate each other that much and support mass immigration anyway. Truly a sick and hateful mindsets these people have
Yes, those admixed Hispanics aren't as likely (or even likely at all) to inflict major racial injury to White people.
But there are certainly Hispanics who don't consider themselves to be White. You only have to look at groups like La Raza to see this: La Raza - Wikipedia
As far as the widespread violence thing I’m really skeptical. There’s already ubiquitous low level political violence from the left and I only see that spreading/escalating is if the right started doing the same thing. Biden has at least twice now threatened to bomb his political opponents and said you can’t fight me because you don’t have planes. He’s completely opened the border, destroying a key component of national sovereignty. He personally tried to take away the livelihoods of tens of millions of people. Inflation is at 8.5%, meaning the vast majority of people are noticeably poorer now than when he got in office.
The right will do the same thing.
The right will start to realize, either inadvertently or consciously, that talking with the left doesn't have much of an impact because the right is literally Hitler. They are literally the devil, Trump is Satan incarnate, and their entire being is a wrong. Their White skin is the problem and there is no talking your way out of that. After getting silenced, cancelled and racially abused, what will be left for White people on the right? How do you get these left-wing authoritarians to stop?
Despite all this, it looks like Republicans will barely limp to an anemic victory this November and may not even take the senate. Now the polls could be wrong. But I’ll believe widespread violence from the right is likely when there’s almost 100% voter turnout in rural areas, when almost 100% of working class whites are voting,etc. Voting can’t solve all your problems but it’s certainly a hell of a lot easier than actually committing violence. If many aren’t even doing that…The truth is that despite all their tough talk few conservatives are ever going to stick their necks out. Symptom of mass affluence. When you’ve got a paid off house, half a million in your 401k, and a pension you’re not going to be fighting a civil war
The stolen election narrative has convinced a lot of right-wing people that voting doesn't work.
But sure, maybe there is more wriggle room before violence starts to take place. I suspect that if we see larger working class White and rural turn outs, we're still going to have the same racial/cultural issues.
What’s actually going to happen is things will get much much worse before they get better. The Kyle Rittenhouse of the future isn’t going to get a fair minded boomer judge who yells at the prosecution for being dishonest. He’s getting a judge that excludes exculpatory evidence for the defense and allows hearsay for the prosecution. But in the long term though liberalism is a genetic death sentence. And technology is probably going to solve even more of our problems the further in time we go
Technology needs to find a way to re-write the human genome because that is the nexus of all these issues. It's no good solving more of "our problems" because the human psyche produces an endless number of problems through its incessant hedonistic treadmill.
Liberal utopias are deathcamps for humans, but they might not be for transhuman/posthumans, and could be far better than the realistic traditional conservatism that works (for a time) with humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
As I have said previously I have no dispute with the logic of Benatar’s argument but no matter how logical it is unless it can be realistically implemented it simply isn’t viable.
Sure:
(1) Detonate a nuclear bomb large enough to wipe out the Earth
(2) Sterilize the human population (perhaps through additives in water)
(3) Blast Earth off its orbital axis, destroying Earth's temperance
No more breeding after any of those events.
I'm sure you could think of more.
Again, you wouldn't need to necessarily "convince" people to stop, either. It would make things easier, but plenty of people throughout history have done things without being convinced.If they are not convinced then what is their motive and what would motivate people to abandon their most basic biological instinct to survive and to ensure the survival of their genes?
Yes, I don't think you'd ever get humans en masse to agree to abandon their most basic biological instinct. That's why the force detailed above might become necessary, if antinatalism is indeed valid.
I would sure want antinatalism to be assessed before anything that drastic were to take place, though.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Is this what you are talking about little girl? You really are a racist. Is it your goal in life to marry a KKK member? There’s Nothing uglier than a female racist.John Philippe Rushton (December 3, 1943 – October 2, 2012) was a Canadian psychologist and author. He taught at the University of Western Ontario until the early 1990s, and became known to the general public during the 1980s and 1990s for research on race and intelligence, race and crime, and other purported racial correlations.[1] He theorized a heritable component in altruism and developed Genetic Similarity Theory.Rushton's work has been heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research,[2] with many academics arguing that it was conducted under a racist agenda.[3] From 2002 until his death, he served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, an organization founded in 1937 to promote eugenics,[4][5] which has been described as racist and white supremacist in nature,[6][7][8] and as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[9] He also published articles in and spoke at conferences organized by the white supremacist magazine American Renaissance.[10]Rushton was a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association[11] and a onetime Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.[12] In 2020, the Department of Psychology of the University of Western Ontario released a statement stating that "much of [Rushton's] research was racist"was "deeply flawed from a scientific standpoint", and "Rushton's legacy shows that the impact of flawed science lingers on, even after qualified scholars have condemned its scientific integrity."[1][13] As of 2021, Rushton has had six research publications retracted.[14][15]
In white supremacy circles maybe. What a dummy.
This NPC, anti-racism babble is trite and doesn't hold any intellectual weight, so I won't bother addressing any of it.
However, I still have a use for you, if you wouldn't mind answering this question:
Can something be racist and correct at the same time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The feelings are a result of whether it's evolutionarily advantageous. Rape is not, so that explains why there are a lot of hard, negative feelings towards it.Religion is an evolutionary advantage. It's Atheism that is the disadvantage. Firm Atheistic beliefs will never capture human emotion like religious ones did/do. Also, religious tribes could whether the harshness of evolution better through their beliefs, even if those beliefs were total bs. That's the point of the thread.So the point of the thread is religion is an evolutionary advantage even if those beliefs were total bs.
Exactly :)
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You're a good boy for cooling it with the Ad Hom! Proud of you <3
What proof do you have for this [slightly typo'd] statement?
Genetic similarity theory, attraction theory etc.
They're well established in psychology and have nothing to do with Trump, so you don't have to sperg over them.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
TWS is a normal Conservative.If by “normal conservative” you mean ignorant whack job, I agreeNo, I meant a normal Conservative, so that's why I wrote "a normal Conservative".Try to relax so you can engage in productive conversation, instead of launching into wild Ad Hom attacks.Spoken like a true racist [...] Avery is in charge of putting out the snacks at her local KKK meetings
You obviously haven't relaxed yet, lol.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
No, I mean you saying TWS is a normal conservative and isn't a white suprmacist, that is batshit crazyEthnic nationalism is normal. Wanting your own ethnic space is normal. People of the same ethnic group are genetically closest to you (compared to other ethnic groups), and all people are the world prefer being with people similar to themselves.I've never seen a hit piece on China being too Chinese, or Israel being too Jewish, or Kenya being too African.It's only White people wanting their own ethnic space that it's criticised for being too White, that it's "white supremacist".TWS is on here advocating for White people, calling out double standards against White people, and calling out attacks against White people. This is normal Conservative behavior. Chinese, Israeli and Kenyan Conservatives will do the same.Calling normal Conservative behavior "batsh*t crazy", is batsh*t crazy.Nope, still wrong, saying racism is normal Conservative behavior is batshit crazy.Common, yes, normal, no.
You haven't demonstrated that:
(1) What I said is "wrong"
(2) How all races wanting their ethnic spaces is indicative of "racism"
Until you demonstrate those essential premises of your argument, you have no valid argument.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
No, I mean you saying TWS is a normal conservative and isn't a white suprmacist, that is batshit crazy
Ethnic nationalism is normal. Wanting your own ethnic space is normal. People of the same ethnic group are genetically closest to you (compared to other ethnic groups), and all people are the world prefer being with people similar to themselves.
I've never seen a hit piece on China being too Chinese, or Israel being too Jewish, or Kenya being too African.
It's only White people wanting their own ethnic space that it's criticised for being too White, that it's "white supremacist".
TWS is on here advocating for White people, calling out double standards against White people, and calling out attacks against White people. This is normal Conservative behavior. Chinese, Israeli and Kenyan Conservatives will do the same.
Calling normal Conservative behavior "batsh*t crazy", is batsh*t crazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Well, many 'different subjects, conclusions, ideals are brought up,That to know what I agree and disagree with, I'd have to go back and read it all.
Okay :)
I do think I agree with many of your points, and that you argue well, lay out your views well.
Thank you for the kind words. It was enjoyable having a reasonable conversation with you about this topic!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The Human mind is single unitary thing, a whole so to speak, and therefore tribalism is too interrelated with other requisite functions to simply be removed
How did you conclude that this is the case?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sure he is the "fun guy" at parties.
He probably has no idea what "parties" means. He probably think you mean political parties, like Democrat or Republican.
Seems to me like a wild, out-of-control person.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
TWS is a normal Conservative.If by “normal conservative” you mean ignorant whack job, I agree
No, I meant a normal Conservative, so that's why I wrote "a normal Conservative".
Try to relax so you can engage in productive conversation, instead of launching into wild Ad Hom attacks.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
TWS is a normal Conservative.OK, good start, that's what I'm talking about, batshit crazy stuff like that.
Oh so you're one of those people who think normal Conservatives all believe in "batsh*t crazy stuff".
A perfectly reasonable position.
Do you ever go outside?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You’re a well known liar and a white supremacist just like Trump.
Lol what are you talking about?
TWS is a normal Conservative. You can disagree with him politically, but a "white supremacist" and "well known liar?"
Jesus, dude. Calm down.
Created:
Regardless of whoever or whatever is behind this, the effect is clear: erasure of White culture. This anti-White push replaces White people with Black people. This is an attack on White culture and thus White people. All these statements are descriptive facts about the situation.
Meanwhile, White people are not getting to whitewash other Black people's cultures, such as those found in Kenya, Chad or Mauritania (if you disagree, find me an example). This is purely a double standard which harms only White people.
White people need to stop allowing other races to get away with their various forms of anti-Whitism double standards and start seeing themselves again as a racial group with political interests worth protecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Still thinking on what you've posted and linked,Nothing obviously as wrong comes to my mind,
Looks like we agree then :)
Though all variables in society, might not be the same,Technological developments, in communication, widespread learning, travel, so on.
True.
I 'do agree, and think that most people as we are now, as I am myself now, would be bothered by the purple skinned space aliens,Though some vocal individuals on the Left might not be, or some transhumanists, (I am not referencing any individual in 'particular).
The skin color would certainly make people cautious (as differing skin colors already do). Depending on how different the alien was to humans overall bodily structure, you'd get a range from caution to disgust/avoidance. But that's just a guess.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Classic hypocrisy to ask another to provide information that they themselves have been unwilling to provide (in their profile). *facepalm*
Yes, you're right. He's got nothing on his profile lol. And then he dodges your point: "I am not debating anyone. So there is less reason to know."
Pretty sure he wants more of my info to creep on me: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)
Rule for thee but not for me!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.Most South Africans hold a similar belief. It started with Apartheid then spread to every aspect of life.
Show that "most South Africans hold a similar belief".
Created:
-->
@Shila
--> @ShilaA little shaking from you in the right places could lighten the situation.Then I rather it stays as dark as modern Europe.Twerking in the dark won’t help Europe either.
Yeah but seeing you in the dark is the only way to stomach you.
Created:
-->
@Shila
A little shaking from you in the right places could lighten the situation.
Then I rather it stays as dark as modern Europe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
--> @ShilaAvery is convinced only rape can turn her fantasies into reality. The evolutionary advantage Rape brings has convinced her to solicit such pioneers.I've explicitly said, throughout the entire thread, that rape is not an evolutionary advantage.Here are some examples that took me two minutes to find:"It's not evolutionarily advantageous." ... "Rape may help the ugly, hopeless loser, but that doesn't help the gene pool in the long-run (hence, isn't evolutionarily advantageous)." Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com)"In the plainest English: rape is an evolutionary disadvantage." Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com)"Nope. I've argued that it's disgusting **because** it's evolutionarily disadvantageous." Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com)You are simply not reading what I say.So now you are against rape being an evolutionary disadvantage. You find that disgusting.But your links say religion is an evolutionary advantage, which too would be disgusting to an atheist.You just need more time to decide which disgusts you more.
The feelings are a result of whether it's evolutionarily advantageous. Rape is not, so that explains why there are a lot of hard, negative feelings towards it.
Religion is an evolutionary advantage. It's Atheism that is the disadvantage. Firm Atheistic beliefs will never capture human emotion like religious ones did/do. Also, religious tribes could whether the harshness of evolution better through their beliefs, even if those beliefs were total bs. That's the point of the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
If I was to step outside my personal life and emotions, then I would be indifferent to 2 year olds dying from dehydration.You would need to convince people to cease reproduction and that isn’t going to happen as it goes against a most basic instinct. Even in a world that is becoming overpopulated people are not going to stop reproducing.
The veracity of anti-natalism exists independently of the masses accepting it. Similar to how we don't allow schizophrenics to cut themselves up because voices told them to, we shouldn't allow people to breed if it's objectively wrong to do so.
Again, you wouldn't need to necessarily "convince" people to stop, either. It would make things easier, but plenty of people throughout history have done things without being convinced.
I accept the validity of Benatar’s argument from a logical position. But pleasure and suffering are not objective concepts, they are subject to human perception and the problem with the argument is that it is looking at existence from a human perspective which is driven to an extent by emotion and yet is trying to introduce a concept that attempts to bypass that emotion. It doesn’t work.
They are subject to human perception, but pleasure is always going to be good, and suffering is always going to be bad, no matter the variables. It's an objective analysis of those subjective experiences, and there is an initial conclusion that is obvious: suffering is guaranteed but pleasure is not.
Unless you want to argue that the collective pleasure of everyone's life outweighs the collective negative, then another conclusion is obvious: life is a net negative for humans.
I don't see how there is any issue with attempting to "bypass" emotions and be objective about them, using Benatar's framework.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.Oh I'm sure you'd like more "information" about me, you grotty little stalker. I'm sure it would greatly help you when making use of comments like this: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)Your response does not qualify you as a debater.
You're a no-name noob with no record yourself to speak of.
Why would anyone need to justify their debate record to you LOL
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I have a tendency of disappearing for multiple weeks at a time - I have taken almost a week to reply to some of the more trivial objections - At a time where I have a generally lower workload - which does not lend itself well to having a debate without potential forfeits.Saying that, if you’re unable to actually acknowledge any of the deficits in your argument here; it’s unlikely you’ll be able to do so in a debate either.
Oh so you have the time to post 10,000's of characters in the forums, but you don't have the time to do the same in a debate. I mean just look at all the lengthy posts you've made attempting to deconstruct what I've said:
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race. (debateart.com)
You've been consistently responding to me within days, so don't give us this bs "multiple weeks" excuse.
You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. I stopped in the forums when we started to repeat our arguments again; there's no point in continuing that. If you truly think I'm wrong, put some skin behind what you're saying and defend it in a debate, instead of cowering away in fear because of 'I aM sO bUsY!' when you're clearly not.
Step up or shut up.
Created:
-->
@Shila
--> @RamshutuI still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".When are you available?Can you provide more information about yourself so we know you are qualified to debate?Based on the information you provided wouldn’t even qualify you as a female. No education, no income, no country, no language listed.
Oh I'm sure you'd like more "information" about me, you grotty little stalker. I'm sure it would greatly help you when making use of comments like this: Callout thread: Novice_II and debates for free wins. (debateart.com)
Created:
The way i see it, you have 2 options Barney, abuse mod privileges to tweak the reasoning via mod-editing or drop the battle and go 'fuck I was an absolute idiot in that justification for banning you and how I reasoned in your protest threads.'I give you a chance to save face, drop the sword and make a better topic to debate. Don't use characters being too large as an excuse. Our showdown should be high-character so both can fight back extravagently to what the other brings.Of course, there's option 3, run away like David and be a coward. Is that the type of man you are?
Barney must be LITERALLY SHAKING at this terrifying callout.
Scary stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
I have a positive 1-0 record against you, RationalMadman, due to beating you on DDO. You can multi-post and make excuses all you want, but it's a fact that I beat you as a "permanent spectator".'I cAn ToTaLlY sTiLl TrUlY bEaT yOu, I jUsT nEeD 2 lIkE mY oWn PoStS & iNsUlT u 4 mY eGo 2 fEeL GoOd. OH! FaCe u? Na, i Am 1-0 & ThAT iz Da Pr00f nEeDeD!'I don't consider Oromagi or Novice to be top tier or second rank debaters, although I haven't looked too hard into their records. Novice seems to be getting much better, though, so he's probably already surpassed you.'ThEy iz BaD if I SaYs so but... I Iz g00d 4 my ratingz and da 1-0 heehaw' :D
This is the most reasonable you've ever sounded.
Created:
Posted in:
I am a top tier debater, the thing is I have a lot of shades to the level I try
'I wAsN't TrYiNg My BeSt!'
Literally a 6 year old.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable. There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions. The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.
I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".
When are you available?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think the march of technology has already rendered tribalism to be much less relevant than it could be. I really don’t think a country like the US could exist in the Malthusian hellscape that was pre Industrial Revolution life (most people have absolutely zero clue what things were like in stagnant zero growth societies where every single niche was filled but that’s a different thread.) As soon as something bad happened like a famine the various groups that hate each other would relish the opportunity to fight about it. Nobody wants to admit it—see the endless retarded “We grow all your food and produce all your oil!” Vs “we pay the taxes for your infrastructure!” Country vs city bullshit—but at the end of the day there are extremely powerful economic incentives keeping New York City and somewhere like Oklahoma in a union. Without technology enabling almost immediate exchange of goods and the economies of scale and other economic terms I’m not smart enough to know the names for that make both places richer there would be no reason for places so different that low key hate each other to be in a union. This is without getting into any of the race/ethnicity stuff.
Okay so it's just a ticking time-bomb. As soon as the gravy-train reaches the end of the line, these people will suddenly remember just how much they really hate each other. You still have the tribalism problem; it's just masked by a prosperous economy. People aren't thinking about what is best for the entire country; they're just making sure their group has their hand in the cookie jar. You have to constantly re-adjust economic instruments to make sure people forget how tribal they are, and yet they're still going to collectively bargain for things anyway.
It's just so inefficient as it teeters on a knife's edge...
One thing I think about often is how Hitlers philosophy of lebensraum was already obsolete by the time he came to power. Obviously agricultural land and territory are still important but they aren’t the end all be all. Germany came to dominate continental Europe anyway despite sacrificing a generation of young men and having millions of Germans ethnically cleansed from places they’d lived for centuries. In a way the entire war was fought over false assumptions and the failure to realize that created a lot of lasting harm. I think a lot of modern politics is like that. We are fighting over these issues that probably aren’t going to be relevant very soon. Unless we hit a wall technologically things will change in ways we can’t really anticipate. To actually answer your question human psychology is tribal since that’s the state our ancestors were in for like 190,000 years so I don’t think technology can eliminate it but it can continue to marginalize it. If technology ever advances to the point it can eliminate tribalism and other negative aspects of human nature, that would be full trans humanism imo like your asking and we would’ve transitioned into something else. But is that type of change possible I’ve got no clue. I see a future of people seething at each other online and then not ever doing anything about it because they don’t want to go to jail
I'm looking through stats and figures and I'm just not seeing this "marginalize[d]" tribalism. People still view race as their most important self-identifier. People still vote for the Black guy if they're Black. You get the odd White Progressive who has been totally brainwashed into buying 'anti-racism' (read: anti-White), but most other people haven't abandoned their racial in-group. It doesn't take much for a couple of tribalistic people to fly a couple planes into two buildings and cause utter chaos, too, even if most people are seething online.
Also, this is compounded by the issue that they groups being let into America are a net drain on the economy. At some point, even after quick-cash like fracking and cutting funding for nature trails and parks, America is just going to run out of money. Printer can only brrr for so long.
All this simply can't last.
The groups that seethe at each other in 50 years probably won’t be the exact same ones that exist now btw. For example in the states liberals love to gloat that “non Hispanic whites” (one of the dumbest terms ever) are losing their numbers in the USA. But if you look under the hood what’s happening is that Hispanic people are becoming more like normie white people culturally through assimilation, and phenotypically through intermarriage, while white libs are self genociding through South Korea tier birth rates. Just another example of how some of the stuff we’re fighting over is kind of dated 20 or so years in the past
Hispanics do have a surprising amount of White DNA in them, but yeah it's not the smartest term.
I do agree with the rest of what you said here. Even more promising is that Conservative Whites are breeding at above replacement rates, so if the in-bound immigration borders were shut for 50 years, most of the white lib genetic would simply die off.
But I think we'll see large-scale violence before then. It's way too hard to predict what and when exactly, but there are too many explosive elements for there not to be a boom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What do you mean by better morals?What is your definition of morality?
Better morals as in codes of conduct that allow societies to flourish, for example, people being more generous and charitable to the people who deserve it.
My definition of morality: pro-social behavior that helps groups survive.
Fair point on Japan being a rather homogeneous country, though I'd imagine there 'are some differences in beliefs, people, culture,It 'does seem to me that they would have 'less differences than some other countries, such as Brazil, South Africa and America.
Yeah Japan will have cultural differences within itself. People always find a way to be tribal, even when the group is super similar.
But,Something I've thought on now and then, I've British, Danish, Norwegian, and various other ancestors in my tree that I forget, many more I'm sure, the further back one goes,X Color identity, is a fair bit odd I think,For plenty of British, Danes, Norwegians fought against each other, likely dehumanized each other in conflict,
That's true. White groups have fought each other a lot.
However, they're still closer related (genetically) than people of different skin colors. So, it's easier to make them form a group, than it is with differing races, but yeah they're not always going to form the 'White' group.
If there wasn't such an 'emphasis on this group or that group,It'd often fade a fair bit, I think,As I don't 'think white supremacists care about hair or eye color very much, yet many of our ancestors might have, I imagine.
It's really only fading in White people wherein they're brainwashed to not care about their racial in-group (or even hate it). You get Jordan Petersons coming along and saying 'racial in-group voting is stupid', and all that does is affect the White group.
All the other racial groups, at least in America, have this racial in-group bias. You'll find individual Africans and Hispanics who don't, but not big groups Non-Whites of Every Stripe Vote Democrat – The Alternative Hypothesis
People feel threatened when X group is identified, and they imagine some mass of them coming, changing one's everyday view, expectation,But would it really matter if they were X ethnicity?Surely a mass of blue or purple haired people would be scary to some people as well?
Well they would (to some extent) get their views changed because the other group would be genetically different, plus the other group is going to do the racial in-group bias thing.
It's not just ornamental features like the color of your hair. Phenotypic traits run so deep that they produce large differences in political views Political Ideology in America by Race – The Alternative Hypothesis
International law, conflicted nations becoming less conflicted, Japan 'might be homogeneous 'now, but internal wars aplenty in the past,One can simply argue some diverse nations haven't found their footing yet,
How long is it going to take to find the footing? I've never seen a diverse nation find their footing. I've searched through history and diverse nations seem to have issues due to their diversity. Modern diverse nations are not great. I think we've tried that enough, don't you think?
Britain had wars aplenty in the past, massacres, English, Irish, Protestant, Catholic, yet is more at peace now than the past I imagine.I would think given time, other countries, such as Brazil, South Africa and America, can also find less conflict between groups.
It's true that White people have fought each other. We're currently having White people fight Russia atm.
But the major point is this: White people are more genetically similar than White and Africans, White and Hispanic, White and Asian etc.
Though, maybe one can't even say we've lost our tribal sense, simply 'expanded our ingroup,If purple skinned aliens appeared, would it matter to many people if they promised to share our values and laws, so long as end result was that what we identified as was replaced? As in all humans died, replaced by the aliens?
It's only a minority percentage of Whites who are doing this. All the other groups are not, and even not all Whites do this. This is inhuman.
We've already tried the 'if they share my values' approach. Liberia copy-pasted America's constitution and it's no better off than the other African countries. Democrat, Moderate and Republican Blacks en masse voted for Barrack Obama. Blacks and Hispanics will vote for the things that benefit their in-group, even if they "strongly disagree" that they deserve it. This is the race hurdle that has prevented all of the brainy ideas of 'race-neutral' politics from coming to fruition.
Re-reading older posts in topic as I think, noticed these posts talking about empathy for outgroup,I'd argue that such empathy can be felt because the outgroup is 'also an ingroup,Take soldiers of different countries at war,Ingroup one first thinks of is their nations,But they also have ingroups of their humanity, as fellow soldiers, as same ethnic group or culture at times.
Most people don't ever think like this. You'll get the odd special person who is able to be post-tribal, but this is abnormal. Maybe copying these post-tribal people's genetics is the way to go, rather than trying to force tribal people to think like them.
I'm still reading it, thinking on it.
I hope it's useful :)
Created:
Posted in:
Lmao. 1 is nothing. That can be down to topic imbalance and many factors and I was much weaker back then, had less depth to the cunning in what I would debate, it was not tailored to my opponent.
It's more than you've won against me.
You need a bunch of excuses as to why your record is not better. The top debaters don't. Their records speak for themselves. You have a 67% win ratio whilst I had a 90%+ one. You've never beaten me but I've beaten you.
You can talk all you want about cunning, topic imbalances and doing multiple debates at once, but they are all excuses to cover one fact: you're mediocre.
Created:
Posted in:
I have a positive 1-0 record against you, RationalMadman, due to beating you on DDO. You can multi-post and make excuses all you want, but it's a fact that I beat you as a "permanent spectator".
I don't consider Oromagi or Novice to be top tier or second rank debaters, although I haven't looked too hard into their records. Novice seems to be getting much better, though, so he's probably already surpassed you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lair77
Tbh, I might even rate Madman over Barney. Barney only has like 7 actual debates. The other 30 are trolls, forfeits, grammar arguments or terrible opponents.I'd rather lose to good opponents than rarely face them.
IIRC, Barney had 88 debates on his DDO account (Ragnar). If you add his DDO and Dart accounts together, he's gone well over 100 debates without losing. Even if it's all against no-name noobs (I can't remember, but I'd bet there was the odd harder debater in there), winning all those debates across a bunch of topics is worth something.
Meanwhile, Madman has racked up losses against mediocre and poor debaters. A 67% win ratio is poor, even if he has done many. Danielle had about a 90% win ratio with about the same number of debates, and she seemed to face a similar number of tough opponents. However, people don't even seem to mention Danielle in these recent 'who was the best?' discussions. If she's second rank with that record, then what is Madman with a far inferior one?
So, what do we have? We've got a guy with a flawless record who probably hasn't ever debated a first or second rank debater on either website (IIRC), versus a guy who has lost to various ranks of debaters (albeit he has won a lot more tougher debates than Barney). I'd rather take the guy who hasn't lost or been tested, versus the guy who we know is above average and nothing more.
But yeah if you only saw Barney's account on here, you might be tempted to take Madman.
Created:
Posted in:
It's quite funny to see people's reactions to this thread, particularly the people who are specifically talked about.
Not sure what Barney means by "lower end of A", but I checked his debates on here and they are worse than the ones on DDO. At a quick glance, he's only faced a couple guys with a positive win ratio. It's virtually all noobsniping. He's never been tested and I don't think he'd cut it in a top tier debate. I'd say he's like an 80th percentile debater.
RationalMadman has never backed up his big talk. He's lost the majority of his large debates and has proven time after time that he's simply not anywhere near the top. You look at his w/l ratio now and it's pretty bad. He's losing against mediocre debaters on the regular. I'd say he's like a 65th percentile debater.
Whiteflame's debates are clearly a cut above Barney's. He's always been mixing it with the best, and whilst he hasn't always won, he's been in the hunt. Just go and look at his most recent debates and most of them are against big names on the site. I'd say he's like a 95th percentile debater.
Thett is largely the same as Whiteflame. 95th percentile debater. Tejretics might be there, too.
I think the three who are guaranteed to beat Barney (in like a best of 10 debate format) are: Whiteflame, Thett and Tejretics. There might be others, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lair77
Barney never faced serious opposition on DDO or here. He has a fantastic w/l records because he never gets into debates with top-tier debaters.This. Debates are opt-in and there isn't much of a tournament scene. In chess and other pvp games, high elo players are forced to face each other. But here, all the high elo people can just noobsnipe and never face each other.I'd also argue that top-tier debaters don't exist on this website because it isn't competitive. There are probably a million in the world with experience in debating teams or moot courts in university that could handily beat most users on this site. But those have better things to do with their time. They're either focusing on their career or farming their GPA/other accolades.
I think the high elo people can just noobsnipe, but you've got personalities who won't. Whiteflame and Thett spring to mind. To his credit, RationalMadman will take on harder opponents (even if he rarely wins against them). There are probably others I don't know yet.
You're right in saying that Dart isn't competitive, at least in a top-tier sense. Top-tier debaters exist here but not because of the website. They've gained debate skills elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the notion of other races living in America was alien.This has to be sarcasm. They didn't mind them living in America as long as they could work on the railroads.
Living wasn't the right word.
Replace it with 'being considered citizens'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Here's one example:From history we have:Egyptian PharaohsRoman CaesarsArabian RoyaltyEnglish Upper CrustThe Un family in North KoreaChinese Emperors
None of these people are 600 lbs slobs incapable of basic human activity.
There's a difference between choosing to be waited on (i.e. various royals and that strange lady you cited), and having to be waited on (i.e. being 600 lbs).
I think the difference is meaningful because humans are designed to do things. When you're incapable of that, when you're wasting away doing nothing, your mind starts eating you alive because you're not self-actualizing.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I hate slavery so I am anti-white. Slave owners were white, so I must hate white people.Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites.That makes whites as low as other races.
You originally said: "slave owners were white". You've now implicitly conceded that other races also enslaved: "as low as other races".
Hence, you've demonstrated that you unfairly targeted Whites.
Also, White people were the first race to push for the end of slavery.Whites ended slavery after sleeping with slaves became fashionable.
If you "hate slavery so I am anti-white", why would you hate Whites when they instigated the abolition of the thing you hate? Shouldn't you be pro-White because it's Whites attempting to end the thing you hate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Apparently, western values are not as "self-evident" truths as claimed.
America was conceived in White nationalism. To the founding fathers and pretty much everyone in America at the time, the notion of other races living in America was alien. When they were talking about the "self-evident" truths, they meant for White people in America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
RationalMadman: Also, this is a callout thread but Shila has been obnoxious to me so idc.You are very sensitive for someone who is a RationalMadman.
That one landed xD
Oof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
However, people are going to be miserable being 600 lbs and watching tv all day. Being that helpless and immobile is soul-destroying.There are people out there who love being waited on hand and foot. To them being immobile isn't soul crushing but the best luxury in life.
Who.
Show me them.
BMI doesn't get any ethnic group but White's "completely wrong".Not true:
I don't see anything "completely wrong".
For example, the healthy BMI for Asians is only off at the top end by 2 points. That's not "completely wrong" in any common sense of that phrase.
I agree with everything else you wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Muslim culture is not compatible with western culture.
Places like Saudi Arabia and Iran are relatively peaceful, but if you start speaking about atheism, issues with the Quran, or wanting to get into Mecca as a non-believer, that won't last long. Islam is built to be the dominant religion wherever it goes.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Muslims, but they just wreak havoc in whatever foreign, non-Muslim land they come across. They attempt to undermine, balkanize, and eventually dominate the culture. Not every Muslim causes this havoc, but if you import enough of them, especially random refugees, you can kiss your non-Islamic culture goodbye.
These people should have been kept in their homelands and allowed to have their culture there. Wanting a massive, multiracial/cultural empire is a timeless mistake that White people just don't bloody well get, no matter how many times they make it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I disagree that the function of continued existence is 'Morality,Though I'd agree that it's often a consideration of people,
I'm not saying continued existence is solely determined by morality.
What I'm saying is that societies with better morals were more likely to survive. When you're not dealing with thieves and liars as frequently, when you can walk down the street without having you head caved in by a thug, that gives you time to focus on other, more productive things.
Did better morals guarantee existence? Absolutely not, but they helped.
I'm doubtful about the Catholic Church suggestion,Though I'd be willing to look at suggested source,
Control+f for the heading "The War on Murder": First Worldism Part 5: The European Revolution – The Alternative Hypothesis . The article sources the relevant studies.
I'm not saying that the Catholic Church was a saint, but their push to kill off the top 2% most criminal of each generation had a wonderful effect.
Not that nature isn't a component of an individual or people,But Japan no longer has internal wars,Is unification, shared moral values, tolerance, concern of humans, not a reason?
Japan is currently a rather homogeneous country with not a whole lot of tolerance for foreign ideas. There's not a lot of infighting because they're so homogeneous and Asians are typically less violent than any other race. They don't have to bother with silly ideals like "tolerance" or "concern of humans" because their immigration policy is so strict. So, it's not surprising that there are no longer internal wars.
Look at diverse places like Brazil, South Africa and America, wherein racial fights and cultural clashes are daily.
If you give people the slightest excuse to form groups, they will and they will fight for their group.
There is more food in world than past,More explanations of events, weather, disease, rather than blame the unknown.
There are plenty of other things to fight over, such as land, laws etc.
@NoOneInParticularThough perhaps a person or society could exist 'without such,Though I view myself as a nihilist,Well, I wake, eat, interact, experience outrage,'Idea of nihilism, does not overcome habit and genetics,No error, error, does not compute,No strings cut, unmoving,
I agree that there is no objective value. In the grand scheme of things, if humans were deleted today, there would be no difference. If no one remembered your life and what you achieved, it wouldn't matter. If I reach all or none of my life's goals, there is no difference.
It's the most liberating and scary realization: nothing you do truly matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
As to whether life is worth continuing, I’m not sure how to evaluate “worth” I don’t think you can, we are simply animals and there is no more worth to our existence than any other living thing.
I'd agree with you that our life is not more valuable than any life, if suffering and pleasure are involved in all.
Due to the asymmetry with suffering and pleasure, and since both are valued by humans (and other animals), I think if life has far more suffering than pleasure, then we can conclude that life is not worth living. That's the mechanism in which worth is generated.
Our existence only matters to us and is of such importance many of us refuse to accept the finality of death, hence a belief in an afterlife. That is why I think any attempt to realise David Benatar's argument would fail, because we are not totally driven by logic, we are driven by emotion and instinct, and our most basic instincts are to survive and procreate.
Yes, those are problems, but that does not affect the veracity of the Benatar's argument.
If you were able to step outside the maze of your personal life and the emotions involving it, and looked at all life in general, what would you conclude? Would you think 2 year olds dying from dehydration in Africa was good? How about prey, like rabbits and antelopes, living in fear most of their lives? That's the argument which should be addressed because it accounts for all life and objectively evaluates the situation.
Furthermore, you wouldn't need to convince everyone that life isn't worth living, in order to carry out its logical conclusion (cessation of reproduction). Not saying I'm about to do anything of that sort, but it's something to understand.
Is non-existence neutral, I don’t see why not but if it is neutral then there is no better or worse.
The existence of suffering is always negative. The existence of pleasure is always positive. Those are the better and worse. Those are the only real values. In absence of them, there is nothing, neutrality, or whatever you want to call it.
Created: