Right Wing Discussion Thread the Third

[Nusaresa]

Skepticism. As someone who has seen things that aren't there, and seen things that were kind of there, and seen things that were there but not as I saw them, one's basic senses are incredibly unreliable.

So what is reliable besides the dogma of skepticism? You are not skeptical about lots of things, otherwise you could not live functionally. Extreme skepticism, like moral subjectivism are things that may be logical, but they are not true to a reality that a human can experience. They are themselves the real spooks.

Stop using spooks I swear to god.

Your senses and your brain are unreliable. Therefore, don't trust them.

I don't believe in miracles. As for the Dalai Lama's selection? You'd need to understand the Buddhist perspective on reincarnation or at least the Vajrayana perspective because they looooove that shit I tell ye.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I used to be one of you, and I remember how much we loved telling people we didn't really believe in reincarnation because of the pedantic distinction between rebirth/reincarnation.

I just don't care about the topic anymore since it's like playing Dark Souls inside one's own head just understanding it. I just believe in the whole charity aspect of it, as well as meditation.

And mindfulness, because that some good shit right there.

[The East Marches]

Meanwhile, dog mothers find little benefit for training their pups to be dogs which seek out the jews, communists, irish, niggers and other assorted degenerates to be tossed into the fire or the dog meat.

H-how did you know thats what I train them to do?

[United Marxist Nations]

Logic 10/10.

Something you think is weird happens. It is clearly real and there is a clear explanation. Why would you not give some thought to that explanation if you cannot find a real one?

Because "ZOMG GAWD" isn't a rational or clear explanation. Its much more likely that there are things that we cannot scientifically understand than it is that there is a mystical being steeped in contradiction. Oh yeah, and hates me.

There it is. You don't really care about what is right, only what benefits you.

[Conserative Morality]

So what is reliable besides the dogma of skepticism? You are not skeptical about lots of things, otherwise you could not live functionally.

Natch. A lot of things go into my acceptance of certain things as 'real' or 'fake', though I freely admit that my judgment isn't perfect. To go down all the things that make me accept or not accept the existence of even a simple thing would be... very time consuming.

Extreme skepticism, like moral subjectivism are things that may be logical, but they are not true to a reality that a human can experience.

By whose judgment? Your's? How very... subjective.

They are themselves the real spooks.

If we're being serious right now, fuck spooks. It's a pointless buzzword.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Because "ZOMG GAWD" isn't a rational or clear explanation. Its much more likely that there are things that we cannot scientifically understand than it is that there is a mystical being steeped in contradiction. Oh yeah, and hates me.

There it is. You don't really care about what is right, only what benefits you.

Its an example of a contradiction. If God "is love" then he can't hate or harm. Yet thats exactly what he fucking does

[The United Colonies of Earth]

How do you account for miracles in other faiths, such as the Dalai Lama's selection?

S A T A N

A

N

T

A

Meanwhile, dog mothers find little benefit for training their pups to be dogs which seek out the jews, communists, irish, niggers and other assorted degenerates to be tossed into the fire or the dog meat.

H-how did you know thats what I train them to do?

You spoke german.
Everybody who speaks german knows that a good Hund is to be raised to hunt down the degenerates.
THE FACETIOUS IS STRONG IN ME
DO NOT DEAT!
/good luck charm
/no seriously I am joking around now

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Speaking of cats.

Yesterday, while I was taking a walk by the harbor, a vicious white cat suddenly yapped in my direction. Within seconds it was chasing me down the lenght of the harbor and I was running for my life. I never knew I could run that fast but I managed to emerge from the incident, unscathed. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened to me; in fact as a little kid cats have attacked me on many occasions throughout various cities around the world. I also cannot stand the sight of cat droppings on the sidewalk.

I have come to the conclusion that cats should be banned. And its not just because I personally don't like them. Here are some reasons why it would benefit public policy to outlaw them.

1. They are dangerous

Cats are very dangerous because they can bite people. Owners can try to control their cats but the fact of the matter is, they can't always keep everything under control; accidents will happen. Cats are a safety hazard, not just to the people who buy them but also to everyone else. When guests come to a house with cats their lives may be in danger; when cats are taken out for walks, pedestrians are in danger. Its not right that someone can buy a cat and then endanger other people.

The power of cat bites must not be underestimated. Some cats have so much power that they can bite human fingers off; they are a carnivorous species after all. I've heard some horror stories about cats going crazy and maiming people. If a cat attacks you and bites you and then you get infected by disease, you could die if not treated. Sure, cat owners are liable and you can go after them for what their cats do. But the system is imperfect (you need to prove stuff, courts are slow). Also, if a cat attacks you and you lose your fingers or a hand... do you REALLY think an owner can adequately compensate you for your loss with money (your body parts are priceless)? If cats did not exist, the danger would not be there.

2. The Dog Droppings

People have a right to walk down sidewalks and throughout parks without having to worry about stepping on cat droppings. People should not have to contend with these sights. Yes in theory owners are supposed to clean up after their cats but in my experience, too many owners don't and its costing the rest of us. I suppose if you accidentally step on cat droppings you could go after the owner and try to sue him but there are obviously problems with this (1. the courts aren't likely to award you sufficient damages 2. you don't know who the owner is, you just know that you've just stepped on some serious crap). If cats were not around in society, there would be no cats droppings. I think we could adopt an approach similar to Singapore, where they have a no tolerance policy towards chewing gum on the floor in public areas with respect to the cat dropping problem.

[United Marxist Nations]

There it is. You don't really care about what is right, only what benefits you.

Its an example of a contradiction. If God "is love" then he can't hate or harm. Yet thats exactly what he fucking does

He doesn't hate you, though, which is why he wants you to overcome your sinful nature along with others. If He hated you, he would leave you be and relish in your suffering after death.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Speaking of cats.

Yesterday, while I was taking a walk by the harbor, a vicious white cat suddenly yapped in my direction. Within seconds it was chasing me down the lenght of the harbor and I was running for my life. I never knew I could run that fast but I managed to emerge from the incident, unscathed. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened to me; in fact as a little kid cats have attacked me on many occasions throughout various cities around the world. I also cannot stand the sight of cat droppings on the sidewalk.

I have come to the conclusion that cats should be banned. And its not just because I personally don't like them. Here are some reasons why it would benefit public policy to outlaw them.

1. They are dangerous

Cats are very dangerous because they can bite people. Owners can try to control their cats but the fact of the matter is, they can't always keep everything under control; accidents will happen. Cats are a safety hazard, not just to the people who buy them but also to everyone else. When guests come to a house with cats their lives may be in danger; when cats are taken out for walks, pedestrians are in danger. Its not right that someone can buy a cat and then endanger other people.

The power of cat bites must not be underestimated. Some cats have so much power that they can bite human fingers off; they are a carnivorous species after all. I've heard some horror stories about cats going crazy and maiming people. If a cat attacks you and bites you and then you get infected by disease, you could die if not treated. Sure, cat owners are liable and you can go after them for what their cats do. But the system is imperfect (you need to prove stuff, courts are slow). Also, if a cat attacks you and you lose your fingers or a hand... do you REALLY think an owner can adequately compensate you for your loss with money (your body parts are priceless)? If cats did not exist, the danger would not be there.

2. The Dog Droppings

People have a right to walk down sidewalks and throughout parks without having to worry about stepping on cat droppings. People should not have to contend with these sights. Yes in theory owners are supposed to clean up after their cats but in my experience, too many owners don't and its costing the rest of us. I suppose if you accidentally step on cat droppings you could go after the owner and try to sue him but there are obviously problems with this (1. the courts aren't likely to award you sufficient damages 2. you don't know who the owner is, you just know that you've just stepped on some serious crap). If cats were not around in society, there would be no cats droppings. I think we could adopt an approach similar to Singapore, where they have a no tolerance policy towards chewing gum on the floor in public areas with respect to the cat dropping problem.

Are you Kefka or just reposting his OP on banning dogs?

[Geilinor]

What's with the obsession about spooks and why are non-Stirnerist anarchists using the term? People are using the word to simply dismiss ideas they don't like or don't wish to engage with.

[Nusaresa]

No. Just flip your sentence.

Empirical evidence is needed, if not, stay skeptical and if you understand your situation, dismiss it. Besides, why bother fapping over some blurry ass picture when you could be like mountain biking or canoeing or some shit.

Physical fitness is better than ruminating on 'what ifs' imho.

Pretty much. Your senses (and you by extension) create bullshit like a cow shitting in a farm.

K. You are above using your senses yet you are typing to reply to me, my writing, which you sense. No words.

Take a hike. Get some exercise.

I already did my rounds before coming home from classes. Biking along the canal and river is quite nice.

No. Just flip your sentence.

Empirical evidence is needed, if not, stay skeptical and if you understand your situation, dismiss it. Besides, why bother fapping over some blurry ass picture when you could be like mountain biking or canoeing or some shit.

Physical fitness is better than ruminating on 'what ifs' imho.

Pretty much. Your senses (and you by extension) create bullshit like a cow shitting in a farm.

This pretty much. ^^

I love everyone who agrees with me. Makes me feel good. What makes me feel even better is when someone intellectually decks me or decks me physically. That feels even better.

[Dagashi Shojo]

Oh yeah, and hates me.

I'm starting to be able to sympathize with him/her/them/it.

[Jumalariik]

So you proved that chaos is unpleasant. How does that prove that it's negative?

In the strictest sense, according to the glorious dictionary definition, it does. In one sense anyway.
Negativity is the quality of being undesirable, damaging or unfavorable. Among other things.

not positive or neutral
(physics) of electrical charge of an electron and related particles [from the 18th c.]
(mathematics) of number, less than zero
(linguistics, logic) denying a proposition
damaging; undesirable; unfavourable  [quotations ▼]
pessimistic; not tending to see the bright side of things. (Often used pejoratively.)  [quotations ▼]
Of or relating to a photographic image in which the colours of the original, and the relations of right and left, are reversed.
(chemistry) metalloidal; nonmetallic; contrasted with positive or basic.
The nitro group is negative.
(New Age jargon) (pejorative) bad, unwanted, disagreeable, potentially damaging, to be avoided, unpleasant, difficult, painful; (often precedes 'energy', 'feeling', 'emotion' or 'thought').  [quotations ▲]
2009, Christopher Johns, Becoming a Reflective Practitioner, John Wiley & Sons, page 15
Negative feelings can be worked through and their energy converted into positive energy... In crisis, normal patterns of self-organization fail, resulting in anxiety (negative energy).
2011, Joe Vitale, The Key: the missing secret for attracting anything you want, Body, Mind & Spirit, [1]
The threat of negative feelings may seem very real, but they are nothing more than mirages... Allow the unwanted feelings to evaporate and dissolve as the mirages that they are.
2011, Anne Jones, Healing Negative Energies, Hachette, page 118
If you have been badly affected by negative energy a salt bath is wonderful for clearing and cleansing yourself... Salt attracts negative energy and will draw it away from you.
Characterized by the presence of features which do not support a hypothesis.

I mean it in the sense so bolded. Chaos is unfavorable, undesirable- I do not want it. It is damaging- it brings harm and distress to myself.
And as such, it is negative. It is to be avoided and cast out like Azazel the goat off some Jordanian or Israeli mountain.

Thanks because you haven't trained your kampfhunds correctly. I would argue that dog training is more difficult than training other humans. At least with humans, somebody else did all the ground work.

Meanwhile, dog mothers find little benefit for training their pups to be dogs which seek out the jews, communists, irish, niggers and other assorted degenerates to be tossed into the fire or the dog meat.

So there are intrinsically good and bad things. We agree. Nobody here is a true moral subjectivist.

Logic 10/10.

Something you think is weird happens. It is clearly real and there is a clear explanation. Why would you not give some thought to that explanation if you cannot find a real one?

Because "ZOMG GAWD" isn't a rational or clear explanation. Its much more likely that there are things that we cannot scientifically understand than it is that there is a mystical being steeped in contradiction. Oh yeah, and hates me.

Do you want to tg about this? If you think that God hates you, you are simply wrong. God gave us these miracles and such to show that He loves us. They are signs to show to us that He does not want us to fall from him, that He wants us to come to him. There is no distance that God won't go to give us a helping hand, we just have to grab it. Sitting there denying this helping hand when confronted with evidence of it is not constructive.

[Novus America]

I can personally confirm this. Dogs are the most patrician choice.

Dogs are the best.

Dogs are weak. You rule the dog. The worship you automatically, do as you say, need you for pretty much everything. They are the "sheeple" in animal form. If they were people most on the right would view them with disdain. Though I guess you can enslave the dog and not the people.

Cats instead know how to use you to get whatever they want. They do not need you, they can survive in essentially any environment.
The dog is your slave. You are the cats servant.

[Conserative Morality]

1640 was well into the Enlightenment,

The Enlightenment was not actually a particularly enlightened time. See: aforementioned masturbatory Frenchman

and there was a great deal of documentation of the amputation of his leg and its restoration, including testimony from the doctor who removed it.

Doesn't really prove anything. Every society has tales of magical cures like that. They could be false, or they could be rare natural phenomenon. Or they could be magic, but seeing as magic doesn't make my computer start in the morning...

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Its an example of a contradiction. If God "is love" then he can't hate or harm. Yet thats exactly what he fucking does

He doesn't hate you, though, which is why he wants you to overcome your sinful nature along with others. If He hated you, he would leave you be and relish in your suffering after death.

If it fucking loved me it wouldn't have senselessly put me in this fucking situation in the first place just to arbitrarily make a stupid fucking law against me actually being fucking happy. No, "god" is a sadistic fucking asshole. So, considering that the Bible claims that this mysterious fantasy sky man is loving, he can't exist, because he contradicts the books he supposedly inspired. Therefore, I can say, from personal experience, god's fake.

[Reverend Norv]

You'll remember that's about the time that a Frenchman jacked off into a pile of leaves and claimed a semiperson grew from it.

1640 was well into the Enlightenment, and there was a great deal of documentation of the amputation of his leg and its restoration, including testimony from the doctor who removed it.

Without wanting to get involved in the debate over miracles, 1640 was well before the Enlightenment by any standard historical definition. The conditions that produced the Enlightenment (a relative increase in European stability, education, and disposable income) postdated the Peace of Westphalia (1648). In 1640, a third of Germany's population was still in the process of dying in the Thirty Years' War, and continental European witch hysteria was toward its apex. It was not a good time in terms of reliably empirical historical sources.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Oh yeah, and hates me.

I'm starting to be able to sympathize with him/her/them/it.

Good for you honey!

Anyway, see ya boys! I'm off for the night, see y'all tomorrow.

[Nusaresa]

What's with the obsession about spooks and why are non-Stirnerist anarchists using the term? People are using the word to simply dismiss ideas they don't like or don't wish to engage with.

Because a) it sounds funny and b) buzzwords and RWDT is like the holiest marriage ever.

[The East Marches]

Dogs are the best.

Dogs are weak. You rule the dog. The worship you automatically, do as you say, need you for pretty much everything. They are the "sheeple" in animal form. If they were people most on the right would view them with disdain. Though I guess you can enslave the dog and not the people.

Cats instead know how to use you to get whatever they want. They do not need you, they can survive in essentially any environment.
The dog is your slave. You are the cats servant.

Dogs possess a trait I've noticed lacking in cats. Loyalty. Dogs understand loyalty to their master more so than any animal I've seen bar parrots. That is why the dog is more Right Wing than the Cat.

What's with the obsession about spooks and why are non-Stirnerist anarchists using the term? People are using the word to simply dismiss ideas they don't like or don't wish to engage with.

Because a) it sounds funny and b) buzzwords and RWDT is like the holiest marriage ever.

^This shit right here.

[The Kievan People]

What's with the obsession about spooks and why are non-Stirnerist anarchists using the term? People are using the word to simply dismiss ideas they don't like or don't wish to engage with.

It's a meme.

Except qualia actually ARE spooks, we perceive them, but they do not exist and cannot even be described without referencing themselves.

[The East Marches]

TIL Right-wing dictatorships are just the BDSM fantasies of the Daddy Dom Dictator.

Not necessarily. However BDSM is rooted in Power, Domminance, Hierarchy and Submission.

Things which are also forming the base for strictly and rigid Organized Military and similar Initiatic Orders. Needless to say that they often have an, often denied or even outright suppressed, sexual character.

There is a reason why there is often nearly omnipresent and more often than not negative obsession with sexuality. Especially among the right-wing.

In that context BDSM is - among many other things - a Way to test the Waters of such environment for those who are unwilling or unable to give up their post-modern Lifestyle (which I here do not condemn but merely point out).

The fetishization of power itself? That is probably the most right wing thing I've ever heard of. I do believe this ties in with your Catholic school article you posted from VICE awhile back. That was particularly enlightening on the topic. I find it interesting that this topic is not discussed more in RWDT. These sort of lot seems like the type of degenerate scum to don their boots without releasing the real potential reason they do so.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Because "ZOMG GAWD" isn't a rational or clear explanation. Its much more likely that there are things that we cannot scientifically understand than it is that there is a mystical being steeped in contradiction. Oh yeah, and hates me.

There it is. You don't really care about what is right, only what benefits you.

I long ago came to deny anything but that was the case for myself.

What's with the obsession about spooks and why are non-Stirnerist anarchists using the term? People are using the word to simply dismiss ideas they don't like or don't wish to engage with.

It got less attention than the word "fascist" has! It's on the pejorativism treadmill. In about 1,000 years or so some new word with a similar etymology to fascist will return to revive the fascist legacy of pejoratives and fuckwits who take domination too far.

In the strictest sense, according to the glorious dictionary definition, it does. In one sense anyway.
Negativity is the quality of being undesirable, damaging or unfavorable. Among other things.

I mean it in the sense so bolded. Chaos is unfavorable, undesirable- I do not want it. It is damaging- it brings harm and distress to myself.
And as such, it is negative. It is to be avoided and cast out like Azazel the goat off some Jordanian or Israeli mountain.

Meanwhile, dog mothers find little benefit for training their pups to be dogs which seek out the jews, communists, irish, niggers and other assorted degenerates to be tossed into the fire or the dog meat.

So there are intrinsically good and bad things. We agree. Nobody here is a true moral subjectivist.

I have no idea where my beliefs fall but if I'm being morally objective I guess I am.

[Jumalariik]

So what is reliable besides the dogma of skepticism? You are not skeptical about lots of things, otherwise you could not live functionally.

Natch. A lot of things go into my acceptance of certain things as 'real' or 'fake', though I freely admit that my judgment isn't perfect. To go down all the things that make me accept or not accept the existence of even a simple thing would be... very time consuming.

Extreme skepticism, like moral subjectivism are things that may be logical, but they are not true to a reality that a human can experience.

By whose judgment? Your's? How very... subjective.

They are themselves the real spooks.

If we're being serious right now, fuck spooks. It's a pointless buzzword.

Radical Skepticism is basically flipping the table on Aristotle. It is basically saying "you proved this, but I'll deny it despite its clear truth." Your senses are kind of all that you really have to know reality. That's why they exist.

[United Marxist Nations]

1640 was well into the Enlightenment,

The Enlightenment was not actually a particularly enlightened time. See: aforementioned masturbatory Frenchman

and there was a great deal of documentation of the amputation of his leg and its restoration, including testimony from the doctor who removed it.

Doesn't really prove anything. Every society has tales of magical cures like that. They could be false, or they could be rare natural phenomenon. Or they could be magic, but seeing as magic doesn't make my computer start in the morning...