Was Hitler a socialist?
Yes, but there are critical differences between Prussian-style national socialism and Fabian-style international socialism.
Liked by:
Henry Gloucester
Ask @antidem
Previous
When has science been wrong?
When it tried to be a philosophy, a religion, or a political theory instead of being, y'know... science.
Liked by:
Sir Piragon The 3rd
Did rear ends come extra padded with the intentional added benefit of being a (relatively harmless) place to spank, or was it just a happy happenstance?
Well sure, and sometimes you have to even with reactionary girls.
Related users
You're the one who brought up burning at the stake. I understand the difference between varying expressions of force. Steves mentioned stiff beatings as a disciplinary measure; I favor slapping. It's really that simple. You going all streisand by waffling about "Totalism" is drama at its worst.
Among the parts of its own rhetoric that Official NRx doesn't understand is "Become worthy". That doesn't mean "Get to the point where you feel like a real alpha bro". It means "Establish that you can be trusted to responsibly use the power that you propose to accept". So far, they've attempted to do that with public advocacy of alcoholism and wifebeating, an exhortation to start being passive during the most "happening"-heavy year in two generations, odd and unverifiable claims of founding shadowy cabals, paranoid and excessive secrecy, use of the banhammer on critics who question the state of the Emperor's clothes, and a general attitude of: "We just want power and it's none of your fucking business what we'll do when we get it".
Not a good start.
Not a good start.
Liked by:
The Bechtloff
...........
It almost seems as if the last 30 days alone contained more happenings (good and bad) than basically all of 2015. Is the world coming to an end or what explains this sudden acceleration?
Spengler said that as the Civilization Phase of a civilization winds down and collapse in earnest sets in, things seem to speed up, with one failure cascading into the next. It could be that. It could be the resurgence of the a right that refuses to be browbeaten and cowed into submission by insane utopian fanatics. It could be the unfinished business of 1968 resurfacing. It could be that this is the new normal, all the way down.
The long hot summer will be long and hot indeed. And after that? I suppose we'll see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHugEELD8o8
The long hot summer will be long and hot indeed. And after that? I suppose we'll see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHugEELD8o8
What is your favorite mahou shoujo madoko magico and why is it Mami and her mammies
I admit to being sexually attracted to Homura. It isn't easy for me to have to bear the stigma of being a Homusexual.
Anything to plug today?
Yup - New on my YouTube channel: My review of Ghostbusters (2016):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM-HOGOc2hk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM-HOGOc2hk
Obv no husband should ever do serious harm to his wife for disobedience (eg adultery). But how do you suggest an authoritarian patriarch should act in such situations without straying into wifebeating territory?
I don't know.
One frequently-seen example of the Talmudic argument style is the assertion that if you don't have a 100% effective, universally-applicable answer for a certain problem, then you can't say that any obviously terrible or immoral solution should be taken off the table. For example, if you don't have a foolproof plan for putting every unwanted child in a suburban McMansion and paying for their tuition to Harvard, then you can't oppose abortion. Balderdash. What's the solution to the fact that some children will be conceived in bad circumstances and face lives of poverty? I don't know - but I do know that murdering them isn't the right answer. What's the solution to the fact that wives may cheat or engage in otherwise destructive behavior? I don't know - but I do know that wifebeating isn't the right answer.
One frequently-seen example of the Talmudic argument style is the assertion that if you don't have a 100% effective, universally-applicable answer for a certain problem, then you can't say that any obviously terrible or immoral solution should be taken off the table. For example, if you don't have a foolproof plan for putting every unwanted child in a suburban McMansion and paying for their tuition to Harvard, then you can't oppose abortion. Balderdash. What's the solution to the fact that some children will be conceived in bad circumstances and face lives of poverty? I don't know - but I do know that murdering them isn't the right answer. What's the solution to the fact that wives may cheat or engage in otherwise destructive behavior? I don't know - but I do know that wifebeating isn't the right answer.
Liked by:
Furlan
In terms of corporal punishment of ones wife, I think it is objectively a problem situation; however, I can see the cane, switch or paddle being acceptable in a traditional society. Would you concur?
Why are people on my Ask.FM having such difficulty with the concept that not all uses of force are the same - that a slap, a spanking, a "stiff beating", and burning at the stake are all expressions of force that exist at VERY different levels, and that what may be an appropriate level of force in one scenario would not be in another. If the commies are invading your capital city, you don't respond by trying to turn them over your knee and spank them; if your kid misbehaves at McDonalds, you don't call in an airstrike to drop napalm on him. Is this really that hard an idea for all of you to wrap your heads around?
Liked by:
Sir Piragon The 3rd
Scary people. It looks like anon is trying to justify those stiff beatings by using the difference between a small mammal/horse as an analogy for the stiffening of a spine through regular beatings. Do they realize how bad this sadism looks to others? Do they even care?
I notice that the "stiff beating" thing is now being walked back by its proponents, and has thus morphed into "striking" or "slapping" instead. Presumably the message of how crazy and distasteful it looked finally sank in.
Shitlibs are now making fun of Melania Trump when they otherwise pretend that an attack on one woman is an attack on all women. Have these people ever taken a principled stand in their entire lives?
Leftists have no principles, only ideology. For them, the only important thing is victory - at any cost and by any means necessary. And why wouldn't they? What kind of awful person would let *anything* stop them from creating paradise upon the earth? These are people who will murder millions of innocent people - in Pol Pot's case, literally half the population of his own country - in the name of victory for their cause. Did you really think that some abstract principles about consistency and fair play would restrain them?
Liked by:
Ian
Sir Piragon The 3rd
G. R.
Rather strange for a self-described Catholic to identify with an AnCap like the k1ke Molyneaux, isn't it? You're like a Marrano, Antiphlegm. Why not reference Aquinas and other traditional Catholic thinkers?
Seriously, go away.
*Molyneux. 'Not an argument'. OK. Refute these 3 statements I made about the cultist. 1) He's a poseur. 2) He's a flip-flopper who reversed his useless theories on atheism. 3) Hawking said that modern philosophers haven't kept up with the latest developments in science, e.g., theoretical physics.
No. It's not my job to deal with your bizarre obsession with Stefan Molyneux. If you want to debate him, call his show.
Also, Stephen Hawking is no more an authority on philosophy than Regis Philbin is. Being a qualified expert in one field does nothing to establish your credentials in a completely unrelated field. If you're going to lean on credentialism, at least make sure that the person you're talking about has some relevant credentials.
Also, Stephen Hawking is no more an authority on philosophy than Regis Philbin is. Being a qualified expert in one field does nothing to establish your credentials in a completely unrelated field. If you're going to lean on credentialism, at least make sure that the person you're talking about has some relevant credentials.
Liked by:
Ian
Haha. Stefan's facial expressions are priceless. He is still a poseur, however. He also gives flip-floppers a bad name. He is confirmation of Hawking's observation that philosophy is dead. Now, if only he would shut up and perfect those absurd face pulling techniques.
Do you ever think about the money you don't have?
Liked by:
Bahaa Mohammed
The Bechtloff
I'd object to a theoretical king "having people burned at the stake for jaywalking". An immoderate response. Can you conceive of a king who'd wish to do that? I'd be equanimous in the face of him burning at the stake those 'men' who have waifus though.
I don't doubt that a small mammal would experience a slap as a stiff beating. A horse would experience that slap as a slap. Any talk of injustice about the way a man governs his own home is moot: he governs the damned home. Others can do as they wish - keeping order is his objective and his priority
1) Again, if you're confused about the difference between a slap and a stiff beating, I'll be glad to demonstrate it for you any time you like.
2) Is our theoretical husband married to a "small mammal"? To a horse? If not, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?
3) "He governs the damned home" - is that a descriptive or a normative? If a descriptive, prove it through verifiable observation. If a normative, you're free to make the case for it, but I've already explained why means over ends (which this most definitely is a case of) is a philosophical error. Since you've done neither, Hitchens's Razor says: in the trash it goes.
2) Is our theoretical husband married to a "small mammal"? To a horse? If not, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?
3) "He governs the damned home" - is that a descriptive or a normative? If a descriptive, prove it through verifiable observation. If a normative, you're free to make the case for it, but I've already explained why means over ends (which this most definitely is a case of) is a philosophical error. Since you've done neither, Hitchens's Razor says: in the trash it goes.
Liked by:
Henry Gloucester
The problem is that some people only fear a certain type of punishment. The harshest kind. Are you such a Kantian that you would prescribe the same penal system for Somalis and (indigenous) Finnish people? No. Well, why do you assume that a slap to keep a wife (not yours) in line is *always* unjust?
RTFB: https://antidem.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/lion-and-ox/
Also, the specific term used was, and I quote, a "stiff beating". If you don't understand the difference between a slap and a "stiff beating", come on over and see me sometime and I'll demonstrate it for you.
Also, the specific term used was, and I quote, a "stiff beating". If you don't understand the difference between a slap and a "stiff beating", come on over and see me sometime and I'll demonstrate it for you.
Liked by:
Henry Gloucester
Do you think Dick Spencer actually makes good alt-right leadership material? I'm beginning to have my doubts, and not just because of the lacking intellectual depth of his work...
Spencer okay. Satsuki better:
https://antidem.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/richard-vs-satsuki/
https://antidem.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/richard-vs-satsuki/
Heavens! The very idea that a man has the authority to punish his wife for transgressions! The very idea that a strong deterrent is proposed to try to prevent the evils that result from allowing families to fracture and moral laxness to occur. Nip the canker in the bud. All's fair in love and war.
Way to miss the fucking point, which is that just punishments must have some proportion to the offense committed, and that some punishments can and should simply be off-limits for anything. Christ stopped the crowd from stoning an adulteress - he didn't tell them that adultery is okay or that there shouldn't be any consequences at all for it. In the same vein, nobody is questioning the right of a king to punish criminals, but if the king is having people burned at the stake for jaywalking, then you've got a fucking problem on your hands.
You have two major philosophical errors going on here:
1) Totalism, which can be defined as the idea of no middle. You've implied that there are only two choices: violent tyranny or utter chaos. We must embrace the former, or be condemned to live under the latter. Not only that, but anyone who has the slightest reservations about violent tyranny must, of course, be on the side of chaos. Totalism is, of course, a childish way to see the world that leads to predictably bad results.
2) The signal failure of all Modernist thinking: confusing product with process and means with ends. More specifically, ending up prioritizing the process over the product and putting the means before the ends. That's how you ended up with communists starving, shooting, torturing, or imprisoning millions of workers and peasants and never once stopping to ask themselves: "Hey, is what we're doing *really* delivering a workers' paradise to the downtrodden masses?"
We must remember that every system we advocate - monarchy, aristocracy, hierarchy, patriarchy - is a means to an end. That end is a decent, just, orderly, sustainable society. Where the means no longer serve the ends - and beyond a certain point, *any* means can fail to serve its ends - they become a hindrance and should give way to whatever will best accomplish the ends. If we ever lose sight of this, we start along a path which leads to Robespierre, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Wifebeating is not a part of a decent, just, orderly, sustainable society. If you think it is, then you don't understand what a decent, just, orderly, sustainable society looks like, and also you have severe personality disorders that will require intensive psychotherapy and high doses of antipsychotic medication to mitigate. If you think that public advocacy of wifebeating is a good idea for your movement, then you deserve the creeps and lowlifes who are going to infest it looking for fancy-sounding rationalizations for the shitty behavior that they're prone toward.
You have two major philosophical errors going on here:
1) Totalism, which can be defined as the idea of no middle. You've implied that there are only two choices: violent tyranny or utter chaos. We must embrace the former, or be condemned to live under the latter. Not only that, but anyone who has the slightest reservations about violent tyranny must, of course, be on the side of chaos. Totalism is, of course, a childish way to see the world that leads to predictably bad results.
2) The signal failure of all Modernist thinking: confusing product with process and means with ends. More specifically, ending up prioritizing the process over the product and putting the means before the ends. That's how you ended up with communists starving, shooting, torturing, or imprisoning millions of workers and peasants and never once stopping to ask themselves: "Hey, is what we're doing *really* delivering a workers' paradise to the downtrodden masses?"
We must remember that every system we advocate - monarchy, aristocracy, hierarchy, patriarchy - is a means to an end. That end is a decent, just, orderly, sustainable society. Where the means no longer serve the ends - and beyond a certain point, *any* means can fail to serve its ends - they become a hindrance and should give way to whatever will best accomplish the ends. If we ever lose sight of this, we start along a path which leads to Robespierre, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Wifebeating is not a part of a decent, just, orderly, sustainable society. If you think it is, then you don't understand what a decent, just, orderly, sustainable society looks like, and also you have severe personality disorders that will require intensive psychotherapy and high doses of antipsychotic medication to mitigate. If you think that public advocacy of wifebeating is a good idea for your movement, then you deserve the creeps and lowlifes who are going to infest it looking for fancy-sounding rationalizations for the shitty behavior that they're prone toward.
Liked by:
G. R.
The Bechtloff
Henry Gloucester
Testis Gratus
http://ask.fm/tooqamuhammad/answers/137197954519 - The type of people who think that this is smart and edgy are currently polluting the ASKS of Western alt-righters. I know that you can't help it when strangers fav your answers, but is it a sign that you're doing something wrong if they follow you?
https://medium.com/@Burzenland/why-the-replacement-of-neoreaction-with-the-alt-right-was-a-good-thing-68e0206d2b22#.r0lc3r7aa Thoughts?
Have you had the Ayrabs mass-liking your answers yet? You don't speak Paris talk. They mostly speak pidgin English. It's sometimes good *not* to talk.
Liked by:
Sir Piragon The 3rd
http://ask.fm/antidem/answers/139365309889 Best MonMusu for sure!
I think somebody's forgetting a certain arachnid...
Also: "One of the most troubling aspects of Official NRx's slide into the abyss has been the development of a creepy contempt for women..." Sources or shut up.
1) Sources: Yuray's posts on Social Matter, Warg's posts on The Future Primaeval, and NBS's posts on Ask.FM. I'm not going to bother digging for specific URLs because CBA - look them up yourself.
2) No, I won't shut up, and neither you nor Official NRx can make me. In saying that, let me be clear: I'm hoping to teach them a valuable lesson in how power actually works by showing them the folly of claiming to have power that nobody gave them, they did nothing to earn, and they don't actually have. Official NRx claimed to have power and started issuing directives, at which point everyone who didn't like the directives simply told them to fuck off and went on with their lives. Nothing could have made Official NRx look more foolish, which they should have fucking known because that was the same exact kind of shit that got King Potato laughed off the stage - including by them.
You see, it turns out that...
1) Become worthy
2) Accept power
3) Rule
...only actually works if you're already, say, Prince Hal and you're already in line to inherit the throne. Otherwise, it's a little more complicated than that. If you weren't born of royal blood, then loudly proclaiming "I'M WORTHY NOW!!! EVERYBODY OBEY MY ORDERS!!!" is only going to get you an involuntary one-way ride to Creedmoor.
2) No, I won't shut up, and neither you nor Official NRx can make me. In saying that, let me be clear: I'm hoping to teach them a valuable lesson in how power actually works by showing them the folly of claiming to have power that nobody gave them, they did nothing to earn, and they don't actually have. Official NRx claimed to have power and started issuing directives, at which point everyone who didn't like the directives simply told them to fuck off and went on with their lives. Nothing could have made Official NRx look more foolish, which they should have fucking known because that was the same exact kind of shit that got King Potato laughed off the stage - including by them.
You see, it turns out that...
1) Become worthy
2) Accept power
3) Rule
...only actually works if you're already, say, Prince Hal and you're already in line to inherit the throne. Otherwise, it's a little more complicated than that. If you weren't born of royal blood, then loudly proclaiming "I'M WORTHY NOW!!! EVERYBODY OBEY MY ORDERS!!!" is only going to get you an involuntary one-way ride to Creedmoor.
Liked by:
The Bechtloff
Next