Posted: 2017-12-07 11:15
6) You rightly note that there are some positive trends at least in recent history, ., in crime. This may refute an “everything’s getting worse” narrative (to which I don’t subscribe), but it doesn’t refute the claim that we ought to adopt certain conservative policies, re: (again, .) crime. For example, it may be that crime has declined because blacks (it’s mostly black crime that has fluctuated in the past 55 years) have moved away from blaming whites for their problems, or because cities realized that not going after black criminals because of white guilt was a bad idea (even if they couldn’t come out and put it in precisely those terms). See this revealing interview in Macleans, for example: http:///?content=75565666_669568_669568. Thus, that crime has dropped is far from an argument against these policies or ideas.
Your empiricism is commendable and I especially liked your reasoning on urbanization and politics, because it is a very important piece of the puzzle and has recently been getting much needed discussion among twitter reactionaries. I also commend you on moving more meta, you are now aware that Neoreactionaries aren 8767 t super-Conservatives, something you consistently seem to have gotten wrong in your previous criticism. You still get the Cathedral wrong, but that is ok, despite much effort expended to clarify it, even many self-described reactionaries don 8767 t understand it.
But I should not be too harsh on Moldbug. He goes on to admit we probably do need a fourth layer of protection, beyond the three he has mentioned. And he even steel-mans the case against him, noting that in a higher-technology world, more and more people will become unproductive until, instead of being a tiny proportion of citizens, it may become the majority or (in the post-Singularity case) everyone who has to worry about this. He gives a few possible solutions:
I searched the crowd the whole time for an escape, but had no success. I eventually ended up pulled to the center of the crowd and was forced to dance with a group of women, all wearing silver and gold gowns, face paint, and headdresses. I had never been so embarrassed in my life as I stumbled through the song. Every so often, the crowd would part and I would have a chance to leave, only to be pulled back, forced to keep up this horrible dance. If there was a hell, this was it. I 8767 d gladly return to the battlefield than stick around here any longer.
Some guy who linked to this post observes that it is monopolised by consideration of empirical claims, while those of reactionaries may be less quantifiable. I think he 8767 s in a minority of reactors who care about architecture, art and so on, because most of them appear to be stats geeks and highly sexed men, but if people are interested in the anti-modernity case on these issues they could do worse than reading conservatives like Roger Scruton and Theodore Dalrymple.
This whole debate is a sideline – the important argument is men and women have had different roles that have caused them to have vastly different personalities – I was using intellectual capability and interests as an example of the obvious differences between the sexes. Some people don’t see it that way – fine – doesn’t change the substance of the argument because there are so many other data points. The whole point was to disagree with Scott’s premise that men and women don’t differ in personality.
7) A lot of reactionaries question 8775 happiness 8776 as an effective term. For instance, the people on 8775 Honey Boo Boo 8776 might feel happy, and report that they are happy, but would we call the mindless and self destructive hedonism of their lives 8775 good 8776 . I think a lot of reactionaries question the value of hedonistic happiness, and believe there are other more meaningful kinds of joy in life that modern society fails to provide.
Actual monarchies are less like the Reactionaries 8767 idealized view in which revolt is unthinkable, and more like the Greek story of Damocles in which a courtier remarks how nice it must be to be the king, and the king forces him to sit on the throne with a sword suspended above his head by a single thread. The king 8767 s lesson that monarchs are well aware of how tenuous their survival is is one Reactionaries would do well to learn.
I see a lot of evidence that the gender differences in automatic in group bias ( http:///pubmed/65996779 ) apply to the respective movements. Basically feminists are sexist, TRP/PUAs think women and men are both equally worthless (though I have seen more calls for execution and suicide aimed at men than at women in that community) and you should get pussy while the pussy 8767 s good, and Men 8767 s Rights activists are genuinely attempting to bring justice to wronged men (can you tell whose side I am on?) I 8767 m pretty open to being convinced I am wrong, but people will need to do something besides conflate TRP/PUA and MR and then ignore the anti-male side of TRP/PUA in order to convince me.
You also have statistics for Germany that seem to show the population increasing, but the line for non-Germans includes very little data compared to the main curve, to the point where it is still possible that the curve for German-speakers only, which equals the difference of two of the curves in the graph, could plausibly be catastrophic if the non-German-speakers one has sharply increased before data was available.
As a possible small nit, it 8767 s worth considering whether the murder rate was flat (and the violent crime rate grew) in the 6955-7555 range in part because of improvements in medicine. In other words, more people shot per thousand, but less people dead from shooting, due to improvements in ER medical practice. This has certainly been the case in war zones perhaps it 8767 s also the case to some degree in civilian zones.
Women’s free sexual choice is a coordination problem that will destroy civilization very quickly.
Basically women are smaller, weaker and less intelligent but still have genetic aims.
Women are herd creatures to a much greater degree than men are and will basically try to figure out what the culture asks of them and do it.
For the few men there’s only so many times you can hear “we’re not having sex tonight” (which is confirmation that you two are going to fuck) or “I don’t normally do this” or find out she’s got a boyfriend or a guy she lives with or a husband before you’re simply accept that women are almost always lying to everyone about everything sexual – most importantly to themselves.
Yes, the best way to win people over is by calling them pea brains. Thanks but I think I will take the testmonies of thousands of people who witnessed the events over one little pea of a person who wasn 8767 t even there any day. And even if I 8767 m wrong so freaking what? We all gonna die in the end and you can 8767 t take your so called knowledge with you. The only thing you can is your integrity and you and your attittude reveals you have none to take with you or leaving anything behind. Not even a crap skidmark. Your post is full of undercover bigotry so don 8767 t even try that.
Here 8767 s what I know: They 8767 ve been married for thirty years. They come from an equal economic background, they have an equal level of education. They had exactly the same opportunity costs. They both have careers they take a certain amount of pride in. And they both had to forgo carreer opportunties and certain personal amibitions for the sake of the family and they both have at times been somewhat bitter about it (midlife crisis ) but they both got over that and seem for the most part pretty content with their various compromises now.
Haz waves lazily to her, beckoning for her to join them. She pickes her way behind the circle of men, the silk around her ankles catching every now and then against the feet and knees of those already seated. 8775 Excuse me I beg your pardon excuse me, 8776 she whispers each time the silk catches, each time her silk covered knees brush against the back of the men 8767 s heads. She 8767 s never been so close to so many strange men before. She think 8767 s she 8767 ll faint from their proximity.
As you said, finding a 8775 soulmate 8776 is in fact quite difficult. Being an interesting person who excites others as opposed to just a merely ok person who blends in with others is difficult, and I suspect that 8767 s the primary component to it. Think of it in Fun Theoretic terms: the opposite of happiness is not sadness but boredom , and your significant other should in fact be a major contributor to your Fun score. Just being not-an-asshole isn 8767 t enough to excite people, sexually or otherwise. As to what we can do for the people who are just boring people, well yeah, it 8767 s a hard problem.
And yes, it is noble to give to charity. I didn 8767 t say otherwise. I just don 8767 t see why national boundaries should matter in this, or why the state should do it for you by using force to make others pay. Also, allocating the responsibility for reproduction where it belongs (to the individuals who make reproductive choices) works in any situation, including the plausible near-malthusian equilibria of the future given certain technological innovations (such as faster reproduction).
If it was just about rights then civil unions, which attempt to create all the exact same rights but just have a different name, should have been enough. However, they were not so this shows it was never about rights. Moreover, the rhetoric used by the gay lobby is never about rights (which are independent of behavior) but natural rights (gays are just like straights so there is nothing morally wrong with it and they deserve it).
Different realist ethical and metaethical theories disagree about what it is that makes a moral statement true, but they agree that there is something that makes moral statements true. So, as long as there 8767 s something that can make moral statements true (and that something is not opinion), moral realism is true. Rather than making arguments for views I don 8767 t agree with, I 8767 ll argue for why I believe moral realism is true. (This is a rough outline, but I hope it gets the idea across.)
Why accept this stupid standard for the definition of 8775 demotist 8776 ? Because a more reasonable one like 8775 elected by the people 8776 or 8775 liked by the people 8776 or 8775 not universally hated by the people and he has to have a giant army to prevent them from immediately killing him 8776 would exclude for example Stalin, the figure Reactionaries are most desperate to paint as 8775 demotist 8776 .