RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Cekoviu]

the primary differences between these two measurements are that OCI compounds contribution measurements exponentially, logarithmically decreases the weight of shitposts (as a user who shitposts frequently causes less damage by shitposting on her 55th time doing so than a new user on her 1st time doing so, since people adjust to it), and does not control for post total. OCI determines the direct amount of influence a user has on the RWDT, whereas PQI measures the merits of a user's posts without regard to the number or history.

actually very intelligetn

be honest: did you steal this from a similar study or u made it urself?

very thorough and well done

nope, i made it up myself -- pretty sure there arent studies on NSG post quality to steal it from
i have a bit of background in statistical analysis of behavioral trends. technically in cockroaches, but they're close enough to RWDTers in cognitive abilities and social skills that i was able to extend my experience :^)

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

There are, no doubt, additional arguments but, even within the framework in which we're presently operating, you cannot rationalize casual sex as ethical or a moral good. This is more of an elaborate "no you" than anything and, given my own admission that business relationships are by nature a form of objectification, supposing no other context, it's not a very successful one.

It was my weakest point.

If my weakest point is as strong as your fundamental acceptance of what is true, then I have won the argument lol

But I think that's silly, my goal was just to demonstrate to you that using people as an object is already fundamental to our order and can coexist with civilisation. I demonstrated that in order to show ...

I'm presenting an argument that a self-professed social democrat or socialist would find compelling

Because religious cons dont have a backbone their beliefs appear like the beliefs of leftists five minutes ago.

Tradcons should stand up and say, we believe in perpetual union between man and woman because it generates perpetual civilisation, free love in the bin and its proponents in jail.

But they won't. Because they can't. Because they're conservatives. So in ten years gay marriage and adoption will be a mainstream conservative opinion in the US, as it is already in Europa.

I don't understand this. You clearly think that it's wrong for men and women to have sex in this context. Ok man! Guess what? That's fine! You got to find a good way to rationalise it that is true independently of what people who don't agree with you think otherwise you do not have a position. You think it's bad for Chad and Stacy to hook up at the club, have sex once then ghost each other? Go for it!

But don't play the lame "mmm they're defiling each others agency" card, which as you rightly pointed out is something a socdem would say. Put your real opinion out there, irrespective of how rationally relatable leftists find it, and stand by it. It's clear to the rest of the thread that you're sufficiently intelligent to stake a position and hold it without respect to how other people will think about it, so do it.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

There are, no doubt, additional arguments but, even within the framework in which we're presently operating, you cannot rationalize casual sex as ethical or a moral good.

When you can say 'this is what I think our society should do because this will generate civilisation and what you're saying society should do is fucked up because it will decline civilisation', then your position, even if its wrong, will be a civilisation-generation position. Until then your position, even if it's right, is a civilisation-decline position. Do you understand what I'm saying? Have I made myself clear enough?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

actually very intelligetn

be honest: did you steal this from a similar study or u made it urself?

very thorough and well done

nope, i made it up myself -- pretty sure there arent studies on NSG post quality to steal it from
i have a bit of background in statistical analysis of behavioral trends. technically in cockroaches, but they're close enough to RWDTers in cognitive abilities and social skills that i was able to extend my experience :^)

I'm impressed.

I won't say that to you again lightly, so...

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

I have 4x as many effortposts as Novus America, but 2x as many miniposts and 8x as many shitposts. And the same # of normalposts.

Seems about right.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tbh I gave up on effortposts because no matter how many you did and no matter how many sources you used nobody would be open to changing their opinions and beliefs and it was a waste of time. I'll still talk seriously about a topic if I find it engaging enough but beyond that it's just not really worth the time investment when you can largely make your point in a much shorter post.

[Bienenhalde]

The Yahwists should return to their polytheistic roots, Yahweh and Asherah not Jesus and Mary okay : ^ )

Considering nearly all of their great civilizational and cultural accomplishment came after adopting monotheism, I am not sure why you think this is such a great idea.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Yahwists should return to their polytheistic roots, Yahweh and Asherah not Jesus and Mary okay : ^ )

Considering nearly all of their great civilizational and cultural accomplishment came after adopting monotheism, I am not sure why you think this is such a great idea.

Well that's just not true at all anon

[Cekoviu]

Tbh I gave up on effortposts because no matter how many you did and no matter how many sources you used nobody would be open to changing their opinions and beliefs and it was a waste of time. I'll still talk seriously about a topic if I find it engaging enough but beyond that it's just not really worth the time investment when you can largely make your point in a much shorter post.

i used to feel like that, but i've become somewhat more optimistic about making them because some other people's effortposts have actually made me change my mind or at least re-evaluate my beliefs. obviously there are some audiences who just can't be swayed, but there are also intelligent and open-minded people here who can be worth engaging with.

[Bienenhalde]

Pro-gun social conservative populism is unlikely to permanently lose Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and Texas. Especially if it's pro-oil.

Guns and oil are, respectively, killing the American people and the biosphere that we depend on for life. If the Republican Party is to actually grow a backbone and stand up for moral principles instead of capitalist greed, it must stop shilling for the gun industry and the oil industry.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Tbh I gave up on effortposts because no matter how many you did and no matter how many sources you used nobody would be open to changing their opinions and beliefs and it was a waste of time. I'll still talk seriously about a topic if I find it engaging enough but beyond that it's just not really worth the time investment when you can largely make your point in a much shorter post.

The purpose of us arguing isnt to change each others minds?

Why would you think that? You think if you and I, a total stranger, have a "debate", I will change my position because of what you suggest?

Dude no. Nobody is like that.

This thread is one long conversation that people dip in and out of. They lose or gain interest. They like some topics and dislike others. They get banned. They go and do real things and come back.

But through the course of the conversation they learn things. Either they learn things because someone they agree with puts a position forward better than they could or they debate with someone a topic and they learn themselves by force of wanting to continue that engagement with another person. Both of those things are called learning and personal growth. Trying to "change someones mind" or "win the debate" is neither, that's high school tier crap.

Neither Novus America nor Fahran have changed my position on America. Cekoviu hasn't made me believe in social justice progressivism. ND hasn't turned me into an ancap or a Catholic. And my positions likely haven't turned their attention away from their beliefs to something else either. Why would they? What we do here is use each other to make our own understanding of the world better. So as many debates as I can have with these people, even though we don't see eye to eye and even it can get vitriolic, expands my understanding of my own perspective and allows me to develop my view of humanity even more than it already is.

Besideswhich this thread acts as a second purpose, which is to de-hostilitise the enemy. We gain exposure. I can see from Novus America & TEM both, that there's still a branch of American nationalism that wants to better their own country and not just pointlessly murder other people for freedom, even though I agree with TEM's worldview a lot more than NAs. For instance. I hope that my own posts, the ones I put effort into, have made other people think not about why I'm right but why I'm wrong. And the people who I agree with and find interesting common ground, even though we don't agree on everything, like Nakena & UMN & Italios, give me opportunity and space to develop my own ideas.

The only thing that matters about people fundamentally is their agency. I don't want to live in a world where everyone around me is an agencyless drone. Neither I want to live in a world where my words can instantly convert others to my point of view. The good thing about humans is their agency. The good thing about humans is if we are intelligent then we all have something to say.

In this context, "debate to win" is childish lame high school shit.

If you have something to contribute, which you probably do, even if I find your ideas morally repugnant and I'd probably put you in jail, then say it. If you engage with people they will engage with you back but they will never, ever engage with you in the idealistic way you want. They will engage with you in their way. And that's how you learn about them and yourself.

[State of Turelisa]

You would be mistaken to worship Mary, we are to worship God.

However, there's no better way to get to Christ than through his mother. Ask her to pray for you, compliment her, give her your time. She needs our attention, especially because she experienced such great sorrow in her life. After all, she saw her only son tortured to death for all of our sake. Love her dearly, and in turn love all women the same.

The political implications of Marian devotion are programs like paid-maternity leave, child tax-credits, etc.

tbh that sounds pretty much like worship with a different name

It's idolatry in my book, and 'my book' is the Bible - Scripture and Gospel and nothing-else. Sola scriptura Catholicism verifies Biblical truth as that which is compatible with Church dogma and authorised by the Church's infallible authority.

[Fahran]

It's idolatry in my book, and 'my book' is the Bible - Scripture and Gospel and nothing-else. Sola scriptura Catholicism verifies Biblical truth as that which is compatible with Church dogma and authorised by the Church's infallible authority.

>sola scriptura
>Catholicism

You get one.

[Sundiata]

tbh that sounds pretty much like worship with a different name

It's idolatry in my book, and 'my book' is the Bible - Scripture and Gospel and nothing-else. Sola scriptura Catholicism verifies Biblical truth as that which is compatible with Church dogma and authorised by the Church's infallible authority.

Sola scriptura is not Catholicism, it's heresy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tbh I gave up on effortposts because no matter how many you did and no matter how many sources you used nobody would be open to changing their opinions and beliefs and it was a waste of time. I'll still talk seriously about a topic if I find it engaging enough but beyond that it's just not really worth the time investment when you can largely make your point in a much shorter post.

The purpose of us arguing isnt to change each others minds?

Why would you think that? You think if you and I, a total stranger, have a "debate", I will change my position because of what you suggest?

Dude no. Nobody is like that.

This thread is one long conversation that people dip in and out of. They lose or gain interest. They like some topics and dislike others. They get banned. They go and do real things and come back.

But through the course of the conversation they learn things. Either they learn things because someone they agree with puts a position forward better than they could or they debate with someone a topic and they learn themselves by force of wanting to continue that engagement with another person. Both of those things are called learning and personal growth. Trying to "change someones mind" or "win the debate" is neither, that's high school tier crap.

Neither Novus America nor Fahran have changed my position on America. Cekoviu hasn't made me believe in social justice progressivism. ND hasn't turned me into an ancap or a Catholic. And my positions likely haven't turned their attention away from their beliefs to something else either. Why would they? What we do here is use each other to make our own understanding of the world better. So as many debates as I can have with these people, even though we don't see eye to eye and even it can get vitriolic, expands my understanding of my own perspective and allows me to develop my view of humanity even more than it already is.

Besideswhich this thread acts as a second purpose, which is to de-hostilitise the enemy. We gain exposure. I can see from Novus America & TEM both, that there's still a branch of American nationalism that wants to better their own country and not just pointlessly murder other people for freedom, even though I agree with TEM's worldview a lot more than NAs. For instance. I hope that my own posts, the ones I put effort into, have made other people think not about why I'm right but why I'm wrong. And the people who I agree with and find interesting common ground, even though we don't agree on everything, like Nakena & UMN & Italios, give me opportunity and space to develop my own ideas.

The only thing that matters about people fundamentally is their agency. I don't want to live in a world where everyone around me is an agencyless drone. Neither I want to live in a world where my words can instantly convert others to my point of view. The good thing about humans is their agency. The good thing about humans is if we are intelligent then we all have something to say.

In this context, "debate to win" is childish lame high school shit.

If you have something to contribute, which you probably do, even if I find your ideas morally repugnant and I'd probably put you in jail, then say it. If you engage with people they will engage with you back but they will never, ever engage with you in the idealistic way you want. They will engage with you in their way. And that's how you learn about them and yourself.

Oh that wasn't in reference to RWDT, I don't and really have never tried to change minds in here. It was just more of a generalized statement on the forum as a whole, especially in regards to topics where one side is very much objectively wrong but refuses to acknowledge such no matter how many times you throw evidence at them.

RWDT and LWDT are good for learning things at least, I do genuinely quite enjoy the exposure to other viewpoints and the criticism my own receive. Especially on topics like economics and religion, there's a very wide range in viewpoints here on both topics and it's certainly a lot better than a circlejerk at least.

I would like to contribute more here but nowadays I focus on my religion and just trying to make a comfortable life for myself out in the woods more than anything and I'm not one to proselytize so at times there's not a lot to say tbh. Except that TEM is a NEET who should stop buying H&K of course :^)

tbh that sounds pretty much like worship with a different name

It's idolatry in my book, and 'my book' is the Bible - Scripture and Gospel and nothing-else. Sola scriptura Catholicism verifies Biblical truth as that which is compatible with Church dogma and authorised by the Church's infallible authority.

What on earth is sola scriptura Catholicism? I know what each is separately, but I've never heard of them intermingling. Surely it would cease to be Catholicism, no?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

It's idolatry in my book, and 'my book' is the Bible - Scripture and Gospel and nothing-else. Sola scriptura Catholicism verifies Biblical truth as that which is compatible with Church dogma and authorised by the Church's infallible authority.

>sola scriptura
>Catholicism

You get one.

Reply to my post.

[State of Turelisa]

I'm afraid I neglected to put a period mark between 'sola scriptura' and the beginning of the next sentence. 'Sola Scriptura' was of course meant to be 'apposite' with 'the Bible, Scripture and Gospel and nothing-else.'

Sola scriptura is not Catholicism, it's heresy.

Only within the Catholic Church is it heresy. We Calvinists are continuing the work of Jesus and preaching the Gospel together with observance of Scripture Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or. the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil MATTHEW 5:17.

[Fahran]

It was my weakest point.

If my weakest point is as strong as your fundamental acceptance of what is true, then I have won the argument lol

I would not proclaim that so boldy given that you have first-hand experience of both my stubbornness and my ability to pointlessly pursue online discussions that lack any reasonable conclusion. My acceptance of the truth that a good many relationships amid modernity are fundamentally transactional and dehumanizing does not mean that I believe this is ethical or desirable, either broadly or in the specific context of casual sexuality.

But I think that's silly, my goal was just to demonstrate to you that using people as an object is already fundamental to our order and can coexist with civilisation. I demonstrated that in order to show ...

It can coexist with civilization in particular contexts but not in all contexts. Additionally, many vices coexist with civilization. This does not mean that vices have become ethical, desirable, or even conducive to the continuity and robustness of civilization. Importantly, casual sex specifically predates civilization in all likelihood with formalized institutions accompanying civilization curtailing its prevalence as a facet of human experience specifically to facilitate a more functional social dynamic.

Because religious cons dont have a backbone their beliefs appear like the beliefs of leftists five minutes ago.

Tradcons should stand up and say, we believe in perpetual union between man and woman because it generates perpetual civilisation, free love in the bin and its proponents in jail.

I have asserted in previous discussions that free love and polyamory are not socially advantageous and that their advocates should remain in the minority whatever the cost. I actually jumped into this discussion and raised a couple of issues about sexuality and ethics related to it. Importantly, the absence of objectification doesn't make sexuality moral or ethical by default. It's simply one of many necessary elements.

But they won't. Because they can't. Because they're conservatives. So in ten years gay marriage and adoption will be a mainstream conservative opinion in the US, as it is already in Europa.

This reminds me of Oakeshott's brand of conservatism more so than Russell Kirk's or the conservatism of the Southern Agrarians. One weakness of conservative paradigms at the moment is that the Overton Window only seriously incorporates liberal paradigms - it's why many socialists and nationalists still "hide their power levels" by masking their policies with discussions of liberal freedom and such. In my case, I was trying to present one element of a broader argument that might sway a particular audience.

I don't understand this. You clearly think that it's wrong for men and women to have sex in this context. Ok man! Guess what? That's fine! You got to find a good way to rationalise it that is true independently of what people who don't agree with you think otherwise you do not have a position. You think it's bad for Chad and Stacy to hook up at the club, have sex once then ghost each other? Go for it!

But don't play the lame "mmm they're defiling each others agency" card, which as you rightly pointed out is something a socdem would say. Put your real opinion out there, irrespective of how rationally relatable leftists find it, and stand by it. It's clear to the rest of the thread that you're sufficiently intelligent to stake a position and hold it without respect to how other people will think about it, so do it.

It's not that they're "defiling each other's agency." It's that they're pursuing shallow relationships where sexuality is inordinate and improper that are not worth as much as more profound and intimate relationships where sexuality is ordinate and proper. I'm quite insistent on the acknowledgement of disparities in value and worth in this context. And on maintaining that, while vices may be a fact of life, they're still vices and not to be encouraged. Because vices, by their nature, are morally repugnant and harmful to the social fabric when taken to extremes.

[Servilis]

asking a bunch of right wingers which videogames they'd like to shit on was a good idea.
i got some unique jokey perspectives.

thank u right wingers...

(ur still not based tho)

[Fahran]

Reply to my post.

Talk to me like a guy I deliberately left on read again, Questers. See what happens.

I responded. I'm actually quite enjoying the conversation. Partially because we're both smug.

[Fahran]

asking a bunch of right wingers which videogames they'd like to shit on was a good idea.
i got some unique jokey perspectives.

thank u right wingers...

(ur still not based tho)

Video games are left-wing.

Playing outside is right-wing.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

See what happens.

Nothing's going to happen, other than you're going to keep responding to my posts

[Cekoviu]

asking a bunch of right wingers which videogames they'd like to shit on was a good idea.
i got some unique jokey perspectives.

thank u right wingers...

(ur still not based tho)

Video games are left-wing.

Playing outside is right-wing.

tabletop games = radical centrism

[Sundiata]

Video games are left-wing.

Playing outside is right-wing.

tabletop games = radical centrism

That explains that.

[Fahran]

Nothing's going to happen, other than you're going to keep responding to my posts

Well, I might go ride my horse instead. Once it cools down a bit. Anyway, you got your reply. And a bit quicker than you usually would have given my sloth.