Sexuality, Human Expression, and Personhood

[Rapidblaze]

got to have some variety sometimes

[Shie]

YES! When that concept is taken literally totalitarianism then becomes justified in pursuit of actually realizing this concept.

But one cannot fully destroy identity. It is, and I mean this quite literally, impossible. I'm not even talking ethics. I could care less about ethics. The fact is that people will always find something to call their own and claim it, thus creating individuality within the totalitarian system.

After-all, you yourself advocated for the idea of a nuclear family. That is an identity. "I am a Father" "That is my Mother" "My Cousin" "My Aunt", those are all things which structure society. You cannot have both.

I think the nuclear family can still apply with the Head of State being the "Father of all Fathers" or the all-encompassing patriarch.

[Seperates]

The concept is a product of the super-organic, not the super-organic itself. The concept itself changes with time. The super-organic does not.

This entire realm of politics and society sucks.

The Super-organic must die painfully. Good thing it never existed.

Actually, this surprisingly comes from neither political nor sociological theory. It comes purely from anthropological theory, which just happens to apply to politics and society, as politics and society apply to it. All said it was a well meaning attempt to make anthropology more based in law making science than in the 'wishy-washy' humanities.

I wouldn't say it never existed, it was a popular theory for a short time in anthropology. It's just that, again, it is far to reductive for a subject as complex as anthropology.

[Shie]

Propaganda needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism has never worked. Brutal oppression of all individuality is never justified.

Anything can be justified if it's not negatively worded.

[Pandeeria]

This entire realm of politics and society sucks.

The Super-organic must die painfully. Good thing it never existed.

Actually, this surprisingly comes from neither political nor sociological theory. It comes purely from anthropological theory, which just happens to apply to politics and society, as politics and society apply to it. All said it was a well meaning attempt to make anthropology more based in law making science than in the 'wishy-washy' humanities.

I wouldn't say it never existed, it was a popular theory for a short time in anthropology. It's just that, again, it is far to reductive for a subject as complex as anthropology.

Interesting. Though I would say psychology, politics, society, culture, etc. Are linked to anthropology because everything we do is because we are humans.

[Seperates]

So totalitarianism needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism?

Propaganda needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism.

Again, are you familiar with the point-counter-point of the Hegelian dialectic? Propaganda can also have adverse ideological effects.
Propaganda will only justify totalitarianism to those whom totalitarianism is already justified.

[Shie]

Propaganda needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism.

Again, are you familiar with the point-counter-point of the Hegelian dialectic? Propaganda can also have adverse ideological effects.
Propaganda will only justify totalitarianism to those whom totalitarianism is already justified.

Being inclined to follow authoritarianism isn't some innate belief that only the stupid among us have, anyone can believe that totalitarian governance is justified through persuasion. Propaganda isn't the only means of justifying totalitarianism to those who disagree with it, there's false-flags and psychological warfare can be employed by each to their own ability.

[Seperates]

But one cannot fully destroy identity. It is, and I mean this quite literally, impossible. I'm not even talking ethics. I could care less about ethics. The fact is that people will always find something to call their own and claim it, thus creating individuality within the totalitarian system.

After-all, you yourself advocated for the idea of a nuclear family. That is an identity. "I am a Father" "That is my Mother" "My Cousin" "My Aunt", those are all things which structure society. You cannot have both.

I think the nuclear family can still apply with the Head of State being the "Father of all Fathers" or the all-encompassing patriarch.

There is still identity. I mean, even if you Brave New World it and literally design people for certain tasks, clever people will find ways to create individuality and artificial hierarchy within the system. As long as humans have any private space, any space to call their own, they will form identity. Why do you think that the communists created communes? In an attempt to destroy individual identity and create a communal identity. And much to their chagrin, they found that people will create individual identity even then, or even form communal identity against the force that put them in the commune.

[Seperates]

Actually, this surprisingly comes from neither political nor sociological theory. It comes purely from anthropological theory, which just happens to apply to politics and society, as politics and society apply to it. All said it was a well meaning attempt to make anthropology more based in law making science than in the 'wishy-washy' humanities.

I wouldn't say it never existed, it was a popular theory for a short time in anthropology. It's just that, again, it is far to reductive for a subject as complex as anthropology.

Interesting. Though I would say psychology, politics, society, culture, etc. Are linked to anthropology because everything we do is because we are humans.

That's why I study it. It applies a little bit to everything.

[Shie]

There is still identity. I mean, even if you Brave New World it and literally design people for certain tasks, clever people will find ways to create individuality and artificial hierarchy within the system. As long as humans have any private space, any space to call their own, they will form identity.

We can put cameras in all places that are already considered public and those once considered private.

Why do you think that the communists created communes? In an attempt to destroy individual identity and create a communal identity. And much to their chagrin, they found that people will create individual identity even then, or even form communal identity against the force that put them in the commune.

People can always be sent to rehab facilities.

[Seperates]

Again, are you familiar with the point-counter-point of the Hegelian dialectic? Propaganda can also have adverse ideological effects.
Propaganda will only justify totalitarianism to those whom totalitarianism is already justified.

Being inclined to follow authoritarianism isn't some innate belief that only the stupid among us have, anyone can believe that totalitarian governance is justified through persuasion. Propaganda isn't the only means of justifying totalitarianism to those who disagree with it, there's false-flags and psychological warfare can be employed by each to their own ability.

I never said it was innate. Nor did I say that it had anything to do with intelligence. Although relying on deception is a rather distasteful method of persuasion. Here's the thing though. You will never be able to justify totalitarianism to me. Why? Because we would fight for different reasons. You would fight make the world safe by eliminating human diversity. I would fight to make the world safe for human diversity. How can I justify using your methods and tactics when our end goals are fundamentally different? I simply cannot.

[Novia Soviet Socialist Republic]

There is still identity. I mean, even if you Brave New World it and literally design people for certain tasks, clever people will find ways to create individuality and artificial hierarchy within the system. As long as humans have any private space, any space to call their own, they will form identity.

We can put cameras in all places that are already considered public and those once considered private.

Why do you think that the communists created communes? In an attempt to destroy individual identity and create a communal identity. And much to their chagrin, they found that people will create individual identity even then, or even form communal identity against the force that put them in the commune.

People can always be sent to rehab facilities.

Is your plan to make everyone as miserable as possible?

[Threlizdun]

We can put cameras in all places that are already considered public and those once considered private.
People can always be sent to rehab facilities.

Is your plan to make everyone as miserable as possible?

Considering the fact that their ideology appears to be derived solely from passages from 1984, that's quite likely.

[Shie]

Being inclined to follow authoritarianism isn't some innate belief that only the stupid among us have, anyone can believe that totalitarian governance is justified through persuasion. Propaganda isn't the only means of justifying totalitarianism to those who disagree with it, there's false-flags and psychological warfare can be employed by each to their own ability.

I never said it was innate. Nor did I say that it had anything to do with intelligence. Although relying on deception is a rather distasteful method of persuasion. Here's the thing though. You will never be able to justify totalitarianism to me. Why? Because we would fight for different reasons. You would fight make the world safe by eliminating human diversity. I would fight to make the world safe for human diversity. How can I justify using your methods and tactics when our end goals are fundamentally different? I simply cannot.

Distasteful? As long as the consequences of your deception help your goals then you're okay. You could say that you need to enforce martial law to ensure that the world is safe for human diversity. The means are irrelevant to the end which would be protecting human diversity which you could argue necessitates totalitarianism without even defining what "diversity" is.

[Seperates]

There is still identity. I mean, even if you Brave New World it and literally design people for certain tasks, clever people will find ways to create individuality and artificial hierarchy within the system. As long as humans have any private space, any space to call their own, they will form identity.

We can put cameras in all places that are already considered public and those once considered private.

Why do you think that the communists created communes? In an attempt to destroy individual identity and create a communal identity. And much to their chagrin, they found that people will create individual identity even then, or even form communal identity against the force that put them in the commune.

People can always be sent to rehab facilities.

And yet what that means is that your system is a failed one. Because it has failed create a system under which there naturally no individuality, instead creating a system where people are hyper-aware of their individuality because they are always trying to hide it. And you are attempting to support your hobbling ideal with a crutch of technology.

[Shie]

Is your plan to make everyone as miserable as possible?

Considering the fact that their ideology appears to be derived solely from passages from 1984, that's quite likely.

Their? Don't refer to me with pronouns like I'm not even here.

[Threlizdun]

Considering the fact that their ideology appears to be derived solely from passages from 1984, that's quite likely.

Their? Don't refer to me with pronouns like I'm not even here.

I referred to you with a singular, gender-neutral pronoun because I am not fond of making presumptions about one's sex or gender identity over the web.

[Shie]

Their? Don't refer to me with pronouns like I'm not even here.

I referred to you with a singular, gender-neutral pronoun because I am not fond of making presumptions about one's sex or gender identity over the web.

Just call me Shie.

[Juggalo world]

I belive in two consenting people having sex, but not if one of them cheats if they are married thats just fucked up. Once you marry someone stay loyal to them, dont sneak off before your hunny moon and fuck someone else.

[Shie]

I belive in two consenting people having sex, but not if one of them cheats if they are married thats just fucked up. Once you marry someone stay loyal to them, dont sneak off before your hunny moon and fuck someone else.

Consensual sex ought to solidify loyalty before the marital seal of approval unless those people weren't supposed to be together. If their actions were illegal then it doesn't matter whether or not they consent to those actions because their actions were still wrong.

[Juggalo world]

I belive in two consenting people having sex, but not if one of them cheats if they are married thats just fucked up. Once you marry someone stay loyal to them, dont sneak off before your hunny moon and fuck someone else.

Consensual sex ought to solidify loyalty before the marital seal of approval unless those people weren't supposed to be together, thus negating their illegal consent.

Okay so a married couple both agree they can fuck other people while still married? Why bother being together with one another instead of just remain single?

[Seperates]

I never said it was innate. Nor did I say that it had anything to do with intelligence. Although relying on deception is a rather distasteful method of persuasion. Here's the thing though. You will never be able to justify totalitarianism to me. Why? Because we would fight for different reasons. You would fight make the world safe by eliminating human diversity. I would fight to make the world safe for human diversity. How can I justify using your methods and tactics when our end goals are fundamentally different? I simply cannot.

Distasteful? As long as the consequences of your deception help your goals then you're okay. You could say that you need to enforce martial law to ensure that the world is safe for human diversity. The means are irrelevant to the end which would be protecting human diversity which you could argue necessitates totalitarianism without even defining what "diversity" is.

I disagree. I personally believe that the method of production affects the quality of the product. Will your product initially work as specified? Sure. But will it last intact? No. And in six months you will have to make another one. And another one. And you will have to continue to have the capital necessary to facilitate the manufacturing process, wasting time and energy, when you could have spent a couple months going through a process that made one that lasted longer but created a product that will endure for six to eight years before needing to be replaced.

'Diversity' means diversity in identity and ways of living. And I cannot enforce martial law to do that. I can barely enforce any laws to do that. I mean, I can pretty much rule out any way of life that includes murder (as that interferes with living), but that's about it. But then, that's one of the reasons I don't want to be a leader. I have strong opinions, but I don't know what is right and what is wrong. And I don't want to be a position where I have to claim that sort of authority in such a way that it directly forces another living being to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. I will let other people have that.

[Sun Wukong]

Any person who condemns the private actions of consenting adults, who harm no third party, is immoral, and should be socially unacceptable.

Freedom of opinion should not be considered socially unacceptable and nor should casual sex.

Freedom of opinion does not constitute freedom from criticism.

[Shie]

Okay so a married couple both agree they can fuck other people while still married?

I see no reason to allow that. What would the purpose for allowing that?

Why bother being together with one another instead of just remain single?

To produce one child for every family.

[Novia Soviet Socialist Republic]

Okay so a married couple both agree they can fuck other people while still married?

What would the purpose for legalizing that?

Why bother being together with one another instead of just remain single?

To produce one child for every family.

And what if they don't want children or the woman is sterile?