What is wrong with our culture?

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Those who control modern forms of media [TV, radio, print, internet] are doing this for us subconsciously - the attentive might notice in most broadcasts, Male lead roles that depict strong alpha status are being reversed: Women are now being portrayed as the stronger alpha leaders, while men are portrayed as being weak and need to be rescued more often by the females [if you go back and watch older movies, the opposite is true]. Nearly every movie from Hollywood from the last 10-15 years is doing this, or something similar. Even computer games are doing it. What happens when you consistently promote a lie as truth? It will eventually be believed as truth.

BTW, not all alpha males are assholes.

I wouldn't say 10-15 years, maybe the buildup, but it's certainly noticeable in this decade. It's no secret that cultural Marxists produce such propaganda. But the way to fight it is most certainly not the crypto-Marxist Zeitgeist movement.

If you haven't checked out the channel I recommended to you earlier in this thread, you should do so. You certainly seem interested in the subject matter.

 

[Akratus]

I wouldn't say 10-15 years, maybe the buildup, but it's certainly noticeable in this decade. It's no secret that cultural Marxists produce such propaganda. But the way to fight it is most certainly not the crypto-Marxist Zeitgeist movement.

If you haven't checked out the channel I recommended to you earlier in this thread, you should do so. You certainly seem interested in the subject matter.

Yeah I was using the term social marxism too, untill I found out it's mainly used by right wing idiots.

Marx was actually a good guy, ya know.

 

[Serifan]

is it bad I read it as what is wong with our culture.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Yeah I was using the term social marxism too, untill I found out it's mainly used by right wing idiots.

Marx was actually a good guy, ya know.

So.... people who value race, nation, culture, heritage, tradition and family are idiots (only if they're white, of course).

And the guy who created a stupid philosophy which, besides being wrong, has resulted in the most murderous regimes in the history of mankind is a good guy.

 

[Akratus]

So.... people who value race, nation, culture, heritage, tradition and family are idiots (only if they're white, of course).

And the guy who created a stupid philosophy which, besides being wrong, has resulted in the most murderous regimes in the history of mankind is a good guy.

And white is better than black.

 

[zegh8578]

What's most important, is to avoid mass killing, I think is the bottom line.

If you are a socialist, and think sharing wealth is important - do it without killing people.
If you are a nationalist, and think your particular nation needs conservation as is - think what you do, without killing people.

The problem is, both the above^ went super-busy with killing people.

In the end, we're trying to avoid lots of killing, I think - hope - we can at least agree about that! Absolutely minimize the ammount of killing, as a result of whatever philosophy we adhere to, agreed? D:

(Also, no preemptive-killing strategies. Killing in order to avoid killing, still counts as killing. Just mentioning it, since it tends to come up. Socialists want to kill those who threaten the act of sharing generously, and fascists want to kill everyone who threaten the society they want to maintain as kill-free as possible. Both end up killing as much as possible, in order to minimize their killing, and as such, failing at their non-killing ambitions... )

(Also, I use terms rather freely here, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Nationalist, Fascist, who gives a shit, my point is - avoid killing!)

(Oh, and also avoid destroying lives. Which is pretty much as good as killing.)

(Also, avoid generalization. I guess I'm generalizing here too, but at least I'm not killing in a generalized manner. In fact, I don't kill at all. Well, insects and stuff - but even that I try to minimize. Not so much for ethical reasons, but because any kind of unecesary killing seems to me a bit psychopathic. Like people who feel the urge to step out of their way, to kick flowers out of the ground, and through the air. Wtf man, stop killing flowers!)

(I eat meat. Killing is as natural as it is unfair and grotesque. Killing only when absolutely necesary, and only for self defense)

(Killing socialists in a rally, or killing tourists on vacation, does not count as self defense - even if the argument is that "our future is threatened", it only counts as self defense if a person is being immediately and directly threatened)

(Immediately and directly threatened is not the same as exposed to foreign cultures, or customs you are not used to.)

(I really hate political debates, but I think I've covered every single angle by now. Don't kill. Only kill when under immediate attack and in imminent danger.)

(Oh, and tons of people having tons of sex is NOT the same as "genocide", for those who want to bring that up. Genocide is when people are killed, not when people stroke each others clitorises, and such each others penises. This to all those who claim that race-mixing is the same as genocide, for then to go on kill-spree ambitions, to stop this from happening. Race mixing is two people of different races making sweet sweet love, and pooping out a race-mixed baby. This is as far from "genocide" as anything can be, since both the different-race parents remain alive after birth, and their bundle-of-joy runs around the house on tiny feet. Genocide is something very different.)

(I'm exasperated. Oh, and as much as I like to paint myself with a red brush, I'm not really a commie, since I recognize the utopic nature of the doctrine, and it would be like imposing a kind of Disney-land structure on the world. People will rebel, and have. But I'm done adding further parantheses now)

(Don't kill)

 

[Crni Vuk]

You know what's fun?

Tell someone that 70 people in the world own half of the riches of this planet. They will just shrug, and walk away.

And now tell them that a Syrian refugee owns the newest Iphone.

 

[zegh8578]

You know what's fun?

Tell someone that 70 people in the world own half of the riches of this planet. They will just shrug, and walk away.

And now tell them that a Syrian refugee owns the newest Iphone.

What!? THE NERVE!!! How dare they own items of any kind of value? Aren't they supposed to have "lost everything"? Talk about farce! I'm never taking another refugee seriously ever again!
It's like with these Romanian import beggars we got sitting around Trondheim streets, claiming to be cold, claiming to be poor, claiming to have no home - but what do I see? Haircuts! Hell, some of them seem to have actually combed their hair! I don't even comb my hair!

As we say in Norwegian - they gotta tell that story further out in the countryside. It sounds better in Norwegian.

 

[Akratus]

Because financial disenfranchisement is our reality. We already knew the corporations fucked things over for us decades ago. Tell someone that and they just roll their eyes because they know you and them can't change it.

The refugees though that's tonight's entertainment. Scan the headlines and glue yourself to your tv and froth at the mouth!

 

[zegh8578]

They're coming for us all! Once we drag them up from the Mediterranean that is, and CPR some of the dying infants. But then - watch out!

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

You know what's fun?

Tell someone that 70 people in the world own half of the riches of this planet. They will just shrug, and walk away.

And now tell them that a Syrian refugee owns the newest Iphone.

You're comparing people who are on the top because they are likely more competent than everyone else to the guy who asks you for some money to survive and spends it on frivolous trinkets.

If the government is taking your money at gunpoint, the guy they want to give it to in form of welfare damn well better be a saint.

I'd love to go on, but I'm likely to get banned if I do.

They're coming for us all! Once we drag them up from the Mediterranean that is, and CPR some of the dying infants. But then - watch out!

Their infants wouldn't be dying if they made their countries less shitty. All they have to do is copy the example the west has set. But it's easier to just come to the west for gibsmedats.

If they wanted European welfare, they could have stayed European colonies.

 

[Akratus]

 

[Crni Vuk]

What ever if they made their fortune legaly, illegaly, with competence or their birthright doesn't matter.

Think about it. YOu have let us say 200 people, owning all the riches in the world, while at least 2/3, probably 3/4 of the world is living in poor conditions, up to extreme poverty - and there is no doubt that some, if not many of those "rich" people benefit from it, one way or another.

Would it be moraly wrong to take their riches away to feed the rest of the world? 200 people, against 4-5 billion.

You can call it unrealistic, imoral, what ever you want. But if you ask me, it would be, on paper at least, a pretty good deal.

I'd love to go on, but I'm likely to get banned if I do.

I can tell you, you won't get banned for your opinion here. As long as you follow a few simple rules.

Don't post racist bullshit. Don't insult a poster. Accept the fact that some here will challange your opinion.

So please, do go on! I love a good heated discussion.

You can believe in what ever you want, even in Hitler as humanist. If that would be your thing. I won't judge. I mean I don't know you after all! But, I sure will try to challange you on your opinion.

And after that I will make sure that you get banned

 

[Akratus]

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yep. Capitalism. It just works.

There is no doubt that money created an elite. The advantage they have, capitalism has become like a religion. Most people don't have to understand it. They have just to believe in it. This goes for the average American and European alike.

We get told. That it gives everyone a fair chance, like with free enterprice. That everyone can be succesfull. That it is about freedom. That everyone can achieve wealth, trough hard work and education. That you have to let the money work for you. That it is the only system that actually works. And that everyone else, has to take an example on us.

This whole thing is probably one of the bigest wind-up in human history.

 

[DVL]

So.... people who value race, nation, culture, heritage, tradition and family are idiots (only if they're white, of course).

Those are buzz phrases that don't mean anything in the abstract. Everybody values those things to one degree or another.

Marx believed that wealth redistribution of some kind was going to happen as technology/culture could evolve that capability and that it would happen as a historical inevitability, not that it should be forced at a lower level of civilization that couldn't support it. And sure, that view may ultimately be a utopian pipedream. (Cyberpunk versus transhumanism, as it were.)

Star Trek takes that idea to its extreme. If you have food replicators, antimatter reactors, viable FTL and a post-scarcity society, then people don't really have an incentive to take jobs to make money, but because they're motivated to do it. They do it for status, personal idealism or because they enjoy it. You're a Starfleet officer because you want to be, not because you have to be.

The direct examples can be made to corporatism and games. The way we make games is dictated by the realities of capitalism and it isn't a perfect system by any means.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

What ever if they made their fortune legaly, illegaly, with competence or their birthright doesn't matter.

Think about it. YOu have let us say 200 people, owning all the riches in the world, while at least 2/3, probably 3/4 of the world is living in poor conditions, up to extreme poverty - and there is no doubt that some, if not many of those "rich" people benefit from it, one way or another.

Would it be moraly wrong to take their riches away to feed the rest of the world? 200 people, against 4-5 billion.

You can call it unrealistic, imoral, what ever you want. But if you ask me, it would be, on paper at least, a pretty good deal.


I can tell you, you won't get banned for your opinion here. As long as you follow a few simple rules.

Don't post racist bullshit. Don't insult a poster. Accept the fact that some here will challange your opinion.

So please, do go on! I love a good heated discussion.

You can believe in what ever you want, even in Hitler as humanist. If that would be your thing. I won't judge. I mean I don't know you after all! But, I sure will try to challange you on your opinion.

And after that I will make sure that you get banned

Even if you did steal their riches (and let's not sugarcoat it by calling it "taking away") you would be able to feed the people you want to feed for how long? A month? A week? A day?

You couldn't just throw all the stolen wealth around like that. You would have to appoint someone to run the enterprises you have stolen, and the people running them would probably be harebrained populists (because you already fucked over the people who have proven themselves as competent, and this massive heist would require a large critical mass, hence a populist would be the only one capable of preventing the businesses from being looted into oblivion) who would run them into the ground.

Just look at what happened in Rhodesia when they decided to exile the elites and steal their property.

Also, a lot of those 3/4 wouldn't even be around if capitalism didn't create such an abundance of resources.

"Racist bullshit" is a very vague term. But I do not doubt that I would be able to live up to your standards on it if we continued talking about the invaders.

 

[DVL]

Look you're tilting at a windmill.
Marx proposes how things should be and how he thinks they will be, even if he's not clear on the exact details as to how that'd happen. Stalin and Lenin are completely different people from Marx. And obviously, you can't trust an autocrat to be able to handle the kind of task needed for communism to work.

Nietzsche gets butchered to support Nazi ideology, even though the man hated their party. He was too anti-establishment to ever go along with anything like that.
The same goes with religious types who are convinced that Darwin advocated Social Darwinism, even though the idea is pseudoscience which was proposed by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.

It would really help if you recognize that people aren't all part of a single monolithic ideology just because they use vaguely similar-sounding terms or use other people for inspiration.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Those are buzz phrases that don't mean anything in the abstract. Everybody values those things to one degree or another.

Marx believed that wealth redistribution of some kind was going to happen as technology/culture could evolve that capability and that it would happen as a historical inevitability, not that it should be forced at a lower level of civilization that couldn't support it. And sure, that view may ultimately be a utopian pipedream. (Cyberpunk versus transhumanism, as it were.)

Star Trek takes that idea to its extreme. If you have food replicators, antimatter reactors, viable FTL and a post-scarcity society, then people don't really have an incentive to take jobs to make money, but because they're motivated to do it. They do it for status, personal idealism or because they enjoy it. You're a Starfleet officer because you want to be, not because you have to be.

The direct examples can be made to corporatism and games. The way we make games is dictated by the realities of capitalism and it isn't a perfect system by any means.

Buzz phrases which are allowed to everyone but white people (especially the race part).

Even in the Star Trek universe, the tricky parts of the system are not shown. The way the Federation works for civilians is probably an over-regulated mess. If there was any realism in Star Trek, the Ferengi would rule the universe.

The gaming market does a good job at servicing the needs of the majority. The people who like games like the first two Fallouts are a niche market. And even for that niche market, great games like Underrail pop up!

Look you're tilting at a windmill.
Marx proposes how things should be and how he thinks they will be, even if he's not clear on the exact details as to how that'd happen. Stalin and Lenin are completely different people from Marx. And obviously, you can't trust an autocrat to be able to handle the kind of task needed for communism to work.

Nietzsche gets butchered to support Nazi ideology, even though the man hated their party. He was too anti-establishment to ever go along with anything like that.
The same goes with religious types who are convinced that Darwin advocated Social Darwinism, even though the idea is pseudoscience which was proposed by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.

It would really help if you recognize that people aren't all part of a single monolithic ideology just because they use vaguely similar-sounding terms or use other people for inspiration.

But I wasn't talking about Marx, or Stalin, or Lenin. I was explaining what would happen if Crni's idea of stealing everything the 70 richest people on the earth owned in order to feed everyone came to fruition.

 

[DVL]

Buzz phrases which are allowed to everyone but white people (especially the race part).

You're like a nationalist yelling at his political opposition by asking, "Why do you hate freedom?"
Or a religious crazy yelling at somebody asking them, "Why do you hate God?"
You're not really coming across as being rational. In all cases, you're assuming a false premise about their position and throwing at a vague term you haven't defined in any meaningful way in this context.

For example, we're all Fallout fans. Clearly we have some concept of tradition otherwise we wouldn't hate Bethesda so much. And it's not like we're rigid purists either. That has literally nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative. What you're really saying is you value a very personal idea of tradition or that you consider some traditions more valid than others. Everybody does.

Get over yourself.

Even in the Star Trek universe, the tricky parts of the system are not shown. The way the Federation works for civilians is probably an over-regulated mess. If there was any realism in Star Trek, the Ferengi would rule the universe.

Suspension of disbelief. Nobody looks at Fallout by going, well clearly all of that is impossible. Life wouldn't be cartoonishly that bad. Fallout is dystopian and cynical where Star Trek is utopian and optimistic.

You accept on premise that they've figured it out somehow without it being an over-regulated mess. (Anarchists essentially posit that it's possible for a lot of things to get done without a lot of hierarchy/regulation being necessary at all. A controversial position obviously. But at least I know what their position is.)

And honestly, I love the Ferengi characters in DS9, not because I have any political leanings. Federation officers have to respect Ferengi by accepting their money or paying them for services rendered. Which raises all sorts of interesting problems. And some episodes have Ferengi wanting to institute liberal (by Ferengi standards) political reforms. And Ferengi are using the power grid of the station but charging for their services and one wonders what sort of horse-trading happens under the table over that.