Jump to content

Posthumanism ala ATEO


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I took a little political quiz, and I thought I could pontificate on the questions/answers. Feel free to post others in this thread, if I feel like it/have the time, I'll do the same. I'd prefer the ones that don't take an hour to do.


Quiz I took -> I got Switzerland


#1. Should military service be mandatory?

Not in the sense of this question. But military service, or an 'equivalent' thereof should be mandatory in order to earn voting rights. Totally stole this idea from Starship Troopers, zero fucks given. I would include as well things like service as Police, Firefighter, EMT, Nurse; achieving a doctorate in a slew of academic fields, and some other things I'm probably too stupid to remember.


#2. Should pornography, depicting consenting adults, be legal for the adult population?

Yes, no real legal argument here. But I don't think society should embrace unadulterated hedonism, a little shaming is healthy for a society. Kink/fat/whatever have you shaming is probably indicative of a healthy society. Only a bunch of nihilistic retards would think adult men constantly masturbating around the clock to drawn images of little schoolboys in girl's clothing is "perfectly harmless".


#3. Should abortion generally be legal on request?

Yes, with some caveats. It's an absolute yes for cases in the extreme, rape, underage mother, incest, medical issues, abnormality with the unborn child, etc.. etc.. But elective abortions, while legally provided, should come with something like a three strikes rule. If you have three elective abortions, that is to say you don't want the child because it's boy not girl, or girl not boy, or you're not financially ready or what have you. The abortion clinic should tie your tubes, or whatever is the most appropriate medical procedure to eliminate future need under these circumstances. Any functional society should be able to provide a reversal surgery within the means of any woman who's ready to provide for her children. Any such "War on Abortion" should never be focused on the access to abortion, or any other form of honest healthcare for women's reproductive systems. It should be entirely focused on eliminating the need for them. Abortion is a demand, not a supply problem.


#4. Should prostitution (the exchange of sex for money) be legal?

Yes, but with the same general auspices as #2. I would definitely support general legislation that sex workers be required to undergo regular testing, Amsterdam/Vegas rules p much.


#5. What are your thoughts on same-sex marriage marriage?

I don't really care, I don't believe the state has any business defining marriage. I believe freedom of speech/freedom of contract are par for the course of any decent society. And all official marriages should be nothing more than an interpersonal contract. People should define marriage for and among themselves, and not rely on the state to do it for them. Plus married couples are an economic boon, let the gay boys get hitched and gentrify neighborhoods.


#6. Do you support the death penalty?

No, not really. I think it's sensible in cases of absolute material evidence, but those are few and far between. And if the American legal/justice system is any model, it's less costly to simply imprison them. I also think that any dilemma about such a policy's efficacy is offset by the warranty that our society doesn't execute innocent people. I think in certain cases it should be an option, but that's in my estimation not the meaning of the question. I also think any prisoner serving a life sentence, should freely be able to opt out of his/her sentence by death. All executions, btw, should be public hangings done the English way ->

(p decent movie btw)


#7. Do you support single-payer universal health insurance?

Yes, I think this is perhaps optimistically the best system. I think a truly private system with real consumer controls on prices works too. But I think healthcare is something of a national investment and ought not to be a profit motivated market. I don't think it should be "free" however, comma space, unless persons are of relatively good upkeep (fat tax), not actively participating in habits destructive to their health (smoking, alcohol, drugs), getting regular checkups, and following any significant directions from their medical professionals.


#8. Should college education be provided free of charge by the State?

This is a bit of a slippery one. My answer to the question was No, because I don't believe in truly free college education for all. I think something akin to the GI Bill, as well as a program wherein the college education is free provided the degree sought out upon application of the student loan is achieved, and of course your general variety of grants and scholarships. I also think there should be some means of assuring truly exceptional students have the means to access education in line with their abilities. But the notion that any significant population is going to have all adults college educated is just ludicrous.


#9. What kind of income taxation do you support?

I answered "flat tax" because I believe in a functional monetary/economic system that would be fair and efficient. But I would emphasize I don't think income disparity is good, certainly not the sort we have in the US today. But also the concept that all persons with more or less earn equally, is just as retarded. I'd be fine with a myriad of flat tax/progressive tax schemes and hybrids. It's really a money in, money out question. From an idealized standpoint we should try to be minimal from what we take from all persons, use said money judiciously, and take it in a non-damaging and fair way.


#10. What are your thoughts on private business regulations?

This one is kinda dumb as a question, because it's a ridiculously complex question with a measly set of multiple choice answers. My pick was "I mostly support business freedom, though I believe some regulations are necessary" as to me that sounds reasonable, although I don't know how the quiz writers consider such a position. I think regulations ought to be clear, concise, and terse. Anything that requires a profundity of complex language should probably just be scrapped. Environmental protections are important but can probably be achieved in a more meaningful way via incentives to 'do good' than bureaucracy that exists to scrutinize; a dash of both would be bestest. This could literally be it's own topic, Raor's Business Legislation, but even I don't have the real patience to pan that all out.


#11. Should the State allow the expression of views that challenge its authority?

Yes, absolutely. I don't think this one even needs explanation.


#12. Should the State allow free elections?

Yes, I suppose I'm putting confines on this. But I certainly intend for honest and open elections. Same rational as #11.


#13. What are your thoughts on gun control?

Really bad two-options on answers here but "Private individuals should generally be free to own guns" will have to suffice. I think generally speaking people ought to be allowed to have firearms. But I wouldn't mind something akin to a Federal ID that would include basically a status for individual 'clearance' to purchase firearms. I think owning stuff like machine guns, cannons, the big machine gun shoot stuff should at least require either a military/police background or certified training through an accredited agency to the general equivalent thereof. Basically someone has to know how to gun before they can buy howitzers, can't just be some schlub off the street. Criminal background checks should be required for professional dealers, and encouraged to be used by private sellers to private buyers via a local/reputable FFL/pro dealer. But scrutiny over sound suppressors, short barrels, magazine capacities, registrations, etc.. etc.. is just autism safety blankets.


#14. Should recreational marijuana consumption be legal?

Yup, I'd say marijuana should be 'more' legal than alcohol by consideration of their effects on individuals and populations. People ordering food with the munchies and wanting neato burrito bongs helps the economy. Drunk driving fatalities and alcohol related illness hurts it. Hemp is also p fkn cool.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Quiz #2

-Answers are in a Yes/Maybe/No format and given a check box if "this is a critical issue".


1) Should abortion be legal if the mother's life is not in danger and the mother is over 18 years of age?

Yes - Critical

2) Should gay marriage be legal?

Yes - Non-critical

3) Should additional restrictions be placed on lethal firearm purchases?

No - Non-critical

4) Should more money be invested in the military?

Maybe - Critical

5) Should the government be concerned with global warming?

Yes - Critical

6) Should there be a government healthcare option?

Yes - Critical

7) Should marijuana be legalized in the same way as alcohol?

Yes - Critical

8) Should the US have a hand in helping to create Democratic governments?

No - Critical

9) Should the government financially assist corporations under any circumstances?

No - Critical

10) Should a flat tax be implemented?

No - Critical

11) Should the government currently have military involvement in the Middle East?

Maybe - Critical

12) Should the government implement barriers to foreign labor?

Yes - Critical

13) Should the government expand offshore drilling?

Maybe - Critical

14) Should the government engage in talks with hostile nations?

Yes - Critical

15) Should the US help to increase the viability of the UN?

No - Non-critical

16) Should ANWR be opened up for drilling?

Maybe - Non-critical

17) Should the government implement public works programs?

Yes - Critical

18) Should the government impose stricter standards on emissions created by automobiles and factories?

Maybe - Critical

19) Should the government have restrictions on International free trade?

Yes - Critical

20) Should more money be invested in alternative energy research?

Yes - Critical




#1. This is basically a gimme to 'do you think Roe v. Wade was decided correctly', and while I do. I don't think it went far enough. I think women should have unfettered access to both reproductive education and healthcare. I also think they should be fully entitled to abortions if they so choose, for whatever reasons. Elective abortions, that is to say ones that do not involve medical necessity, rape, incest, or health concerns for the unborn (like Down's syndrome or some other major birth defect); need to be done in the first, maybe second trimester. But I also think men shouldn't be inherently obligated as fathers for child support. Can't have 'my body, my decision' with 'his money'.


#2. IDC about the 'institution of marriage' I don't think religious institutions should be tax exempt, and therefore have no trouble with them choosing their own means of discrimination. Let any sort or number of adult citizens choose to enter a marriage contract of their own freewill. The government ought to treat them more or less as individuals all the same. The only concerns come into play with things like healthcare/hospital visitation and death related chicanery. Both of which should be handled on their own merits and not entangle a monstrous legal paradigm that dicks up a lot of stuff.


#3. Bleh, we have probably too many bad gun control laws, not enough of the few good ones we could use.


#4. Money should be more wisely invested in our military. We do not need separate branches of the military for terms of national defense. All branches work together in the field/combat/wartime, and should be organically together. You can keep the names, but the money saving alone from having a single administrative architecture and set of uniforms/equipment/etc.. would be in the billions. We do need a better military for facing future threats, infantry grunts and weekend warriors do not fight asymmetric counter-insurgency very well.


#5. While I don't think global warming is some looming eminent threat, I certainly don't think we should be ignoring it. The US, however plays a pretty small role in the larger scheme of things with regards to C02 output. iirc the US could cut all automobile emissions for a year, and it's like China turned off for two weeks. We ought to be good shepherds of our environment, for pretty much every reason in the book. EPA still sucks donkey dick, however comma space.


#6. Yup. Regular checkups, generally healthy, follow medical professional advice should = free healthcare. Tax fat ppl, smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts; or just let them die (really for the actual drug addicts). Get rid of insurance and lawyers and focus on actually providing healthcare as an investment in American productivity in terms of both physical health and more whole-spectrum well-being. Happy and physically healthy people are productive as fuck, and the people any decent government should desire to foster.


#7. I said maybe, because I think alcohol is a lot worse than marijuana. Marijuana isn't without some problems as a drug, but it's basically the least harmful drug out there. I'm honestly more interested in what can be done with hemp than with marijuana. But how about we have both?


#8. No, nation building and regime changing is neocon zionist bullshit. The US should exist to be an example to other countries, and be the bestest place there is. It should encourage other nations/populations to make moves towards that greatness. But we shouldn't expend our blood or treasure to make that shit happens. Change comes from within.


#9. No, corporate socialism is cancer. Either business stands free of Government interference, with exceptions to national protectionism. Or it can be nationalized, as I kinda think healthcare ought to be, but not really. I think healthcare should basically be a private competition for Government money, and good budget management will be the market force of choice. I don't believe in economic subsidies or bailouts, sink or swim.


#10. Maybe in some idealized never going to happen world. But basically there's nothing wrong with a progressive tax scheme. To me it's moreso about alleviating tax pressure off the bottom earners, than taking more from the top earners. It's greedy to want to keep your own money if you're rich, but it's not greedy to want someone else's money for things you want = liberal logic. The only true merit to a flat tax is that it's simple. I definitely think the tax code should be as simple as possible.


#11. ISIS is clearly a problem that could call for a good ol' fashion war type response, if the US wasn't so sick and tired of fighting bullshit wars in the region. Generally I'd say fuck other regions, let them fight it out. But frankly we created ISIS, and we ought to clean it up; shouldn't even be that hard if we had the guts to do what is necessary. Que Batman Begins scene of Liam Neeson telling Christine Bale "the will is everything, the will to act".


#12. Absolutely. International trade ought to exist to bring in novel goods and services, and if needed alleviate problems of a 'we don't have enough people to do X-job' sort. Not to simply puff up corporate profit margins and "increase economic growth" for the next couple of decades. We shouldn't send jobs that could exist in a functioning insular economy, overseas to line the pockets of the wealthiest.


#13. I think we use too much in the way of fossil fuels, primarily for the production of household and infrastructural energy. I don't think cars a big issue. I don't know if off shore drilling is really the fix. I'd think ideally we just use that gasoline belching algae that Craig Venter has been working on. But if needs be, and done correctly, I have no big issue with off shore drilling. Main thing is it's done in a manner that doesn't result in BP/Horizon type disasters.


#14. I mean you don't make peace with your fucking friends. Not talking to hostile nations is basically fucking retarded. Taking them at their word is also retarded. A non-interventionist foreign policy prevents a lot of these entangling issues. Alliances are fucking stupid, in a strategic sense, because the policies of governments the world over change with the wind.


#15. Fuck the UN, gigantic waste of money 90% of the time. I'd still be part of it, but the other member nations need to pony up to the bar and pay their expected portion for US global protectionism, which I wouldn't provide.


#16. Probably not, but if there's good reason, idk. I don't like destroying nice nature reserves, but I also hate Native Americans. There's probably a lot more sensible ways for the US to produce it's own oil/etc.. than drilling up in Alaska.


#17. Absolutely, rebuild roads, bridges, power lines, hydroelectric dams, airports, everything you can. Especially high-speed rail, the US should have a network of high speed rail that let's anyone cheaply travel to any major metropolitan area within a day or twos travel. Instead of using a gazillion semi-trucks to inefficiently move shit around the interior of the country, use high speed rail for that. One of the main reasons the US is an economic superpower is because we have such tremendous maritime access and willingness to use it. We should probably put some money into developing new ship technology, greener cargo vessels, and all that shit as well.


#18. These are some things that come into some actual contention and lack of my own knowledge on the subjects. I don't think the Government should tell Ford to make cars that produce less C02, Ford should do that on their own, because that's what people want and good engines don't burn up fuel for no reason other than to be a jackass. On factories it's basically a multiple standard, apply the radiation emissions standards for nuclear power stations to coal fired power plants and there wouldn't be one left running in the country.


#19. Fuck yes, global free trade is a rat race to the bottom for 90% of the human population, and a gravy train for the top 0.1% in the economically developed countries. And It's about as dumb as giving yourself cancer because you own istock in a company that makes chemo drugs.


#20. Absolutely, we should be funding alternative nuclear, like MSR/LFTR and researching fusion options. We should be looking at where we can make use of hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar, tidal and be doing that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were the prince of darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world in darkness.

^ Ok, Jeebus talk.

I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — thee.

^ Slightly Jeebus, but not really relevant to any point.

So, I would set about however necessary to take over the United States.

^ You can say this is Jeebus, or anti-Communism, considering 1965.

I’d subvert the churches first, and I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

^ Ok, Jeebus talk #2.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”

^ Slightly Jeebus in tone. But I find it speaks to the regression of group-oriented ethical/moral thinking to simplistic individualistic thinking. From this font comes forth the thinking that thousands of adult men masturbating to cartoons of little schoolgirls is of zero concern, perfectly normal, and absolutely harmless to society.

To the young, I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince the children that man created God instead of the other way around. I’d confide that what’s bad is good and what’s good is square.

^ Ok, Jeebus talk #3.

And the old, I would teach to pray after me, “Our Father, which are in Washington …”

^ Deification of the Government is a bad thing, the 20th Century ought to have taught us this lesson.

Then, I’d get organized, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting.

^ Degeneration of popular culture, deconstruct downwards and forget building upon higher ideals in hopes of inspiring people to higher levels of achievement.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

^ Drugs are bad m'kay. If you wanna have out a discussion of drug use, get at me. But I'm not going to type it all out here.

If I were the devil, I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.

^ A bit Jeebus'y, but the idea of deconstruction of the family unit is very real. I know you won't see this as a legitimate thing however, comma space, because you think it's a good idea.

And with promises of higher ratings, I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

^ If this doesn't parallel America in the here and now, I don't know what does. Aldous Huxley eat your heart out.

If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellect but neglect to discipline emotions. I’d tell teachers to let those students run wild. And before you knew it, you’d have drug-sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

^ Accurate with regards to current goings-on, and certainly a real problem.

With a decade, I’d have prisons overflowing and judges promoting pornography. Soon, I would evict God from the courthouse and the schoolhouse and them from the houses of Congress.

^ Pornography is bad, m'kay.

Prison-industrial nonsense is also bad, I hope I don't have to elucidate on that. The God/courthouse-schoolhouse-Congress part, Jeebus-y.

In his own churches, I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I’d lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls and church money.

^ First part I'll give you #4 on. The second part is definitely ringing true with all this pedophilia/child-porn/child sex trafficking. Yes, Pizzagate.

If I were the devil, I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

^ If people are getting something for nothing, someone somewhere is getting nothing for doing something. So much for grasping the means of production. kek

What’ll you bet I couldn’t get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

^ Gambling is bad, m'kay.

I’d convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun and that what you see on television is the way to be.

^ A lot of legit studies conclude in a quiet fashion that the 'sexual liberation' movement is a large source of long-term unhappiness in people, particularly in women.

And thus, I could undress you in public and lure you into bed with diseases for which there are no cures.

^ HIV is bad, and San Fran has butt cancers medical science doesn't have a clue how to handle, let alone what they are.

In other words, if I were the devil, I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.

^ Jeebus #5.


I decided to break down this little, thing, idk what you'd call it for LS. Because his reaction to my take-away is, CHRISTCUCKS GET OUT REE. And yes, it's definitely charged in Christianity, but this is from 65. So, you kinda gotta take that in stride. But you can read the above.


LS, I'll give you 5 of the 19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...


I think those things are irrelevant beside the point of fostering the ability to communicate more deeply, to better facilitate interpersonal understanding


Interpersonal understanding is the closest thing to the point of human life I can define

And that is partially based on the wide disparity between how any two individuals' minds work

And I don't think those variations happen along any particular demographic lines

IE I don't think there is a feminine mind and a black mind and a 12yo mind

There are just minds and they're all totally fucking different

Apparent commonalities along demographic lines are maya, if you're familiar with that concept

Disruptive illusions basically

Superficial similarities trick people into overlooking the similarities and differences that actually matter

Resulting in people marrying people they don't fucking know

And having friends they would hate if they ever actually communicated with them

And being generally miserable and alone because they don't even have a real identity because they've never been able to form one, because that takes interaction on a meaningful level


I think those things are irrelevant beside the point of fostering the ability to communicate more deeply, to better facilitate interpersonal understanding


With regards to the utility of ethnically homogeneous societies vs the utility of what it is you're talking about. It's "here's a ton of really good and useful benefits" vs "here's an entirely unknown". But furthermore it's a "this is hard, but plausible if the will to do so is there" vs "we haven't the slightest fucking idea of how we'd go about doing it".


You talk about this idea of educating people in such a way that it diffuses this entanglement of tribal thinking. That is to say their nationality, their ethnicity, their culture, their religion, their language, their regional origin and/or identification; and every sort of 'label' that people apply to themselves. That's basically talking out your butthole as we haven't the slightest ground on which to stand and make the claim this is possible, let alone we could do so effectively or without negative recoil. I would point out that post-modernism was basically an attempt to do exactly what you're talking about, in moving passed labels. But this is basically impossible. In virtually every known instance when you try and force-hand 'equality' (something between equality and equity) you end up creating greater divisions among these lines of 'identification'.


This was the basis for my "scratch my ass" vs "build anti-matter drive" analogy. You're looking (in my corner) an idea that has known tangible benefits, and pretty significant ones; as well as being plenty enough within the realm of possibilities. In your corner, you have something that is for all intents and purposes impossible, and benefits that cannot be quantified. You simply believe this has to be better, because current system has flaws you can identify. This is why I tell you to write a short story about 'this' society you so propose. What would it be like, talk about how people talk to one another, discuss ideas, live their lives. I think if you did, you'd start to realize the serious issues with this idea. You'll probably wave this off and simply say this 'new people' will operate wonderfully in ways we simply cannot understand. Well that sounds plum-fuck retarded, it's akin to "the lord works in mysterious ways".


Interpersonal understanding is the closest thing to the point of human life I can define

And that is partially based on the wide disparity between how any two individuals' minds work

And I don't think those variations happen along any particular demographic lines

IE I don't think there is a feminine mind and a black mind and a 12yo mind

There are just minds and they're all totally fucking different


The problem is this isn't a, either we're all different, or we're all the same by group or otherwise, type problem. The thing is there is no Platonic 'feminine' mind and 'black' mind or '12yo' mind. Those are conceptual ballparks for attributes common to those groups. Odds are the 'feminine' mind isn't interested in football, where to find free 4k POV pornography, or watching videos of how shit is made or how tools work; certainly not to the same extent as the correlated 'masculine' mind. As these group definitions become less concrete and/or more temporary, irrelevant, or blurred between the lines as it where; the accuracy of this 'tool' of group identification from the use of X-person trying to understand Y-person belonging to any such series of 'groups'.


This also belies that most/all people are interested in their interpersonal relations to work entirely on individual abstracts, they are not. I would love to see you really try and argue there's no value to thinking of perhaps this sort.


- X-person's birthday is approaching

- Oh, I should get them a gift

- X-person is A/B/C

- A/B/C type folks tend to like these things

- I can't think of any specific interpersonal interactions that would lead me to conclude that some portion of those things would make an acceptable gift

- I will get them THIS


I have tried to put it to you on more occasions than I can count. The problem with "the way we do" in the here and now, that you have, so far as in-group/out-group thinking; is not something inherent to said system. It's the execution, in that most people try and spend as much of their time on Earth as close to brain dead as possible. And all of this belies the notion things would just devolve back to where they are, under your 'system'. Because let's be real fucking clear, you seem to be a fan of the notion there's no functional variance in cognition along demographic lines. That's just flat out bullshit, there are definite but not terribly vast, cognitive differences along lines of race, gender, age, cultural values, and so forth; and for cultural values, those are almost irrevocably tied to the others.


Instead of trying to turn human nature on it's head and propose some alien way of doing civilization, wouldn't it make more sense to simply operate society in such a fashion that it takes into account human nature; with room to change as said nature changes, given time?


Apparent commonalities along demographic lines are maya, if you're familiar with that concept

Disruptive illusions basically

Superficial similarities trick people into overlooking the similarities and differences that actually matter


I guess I follow you, but that's not I'm not repeating my previous text block.


Resulting in people marrying people they don't fucking know

And having friends they would hate if they ever actually communicated with them

And being generally miserable and alone because they don't even have a real identity because they've never been able to form one, because that takes interaction on a meaningful level


People marry people they don't fucking know because we've been drafted into a culture that puts marriage on a social pedestal, and especially for women secures they're long-term well being. When they're basically guaranteed, either their husband will take care of them, or they'll be getting child support and/or alimony, for what is to the person in the moment, forever.


People having friends they hate if they ever actually communicated with them is attributable to a bunch of things. But more importantly, people organically form bonds along lines of the very sort you seem to find the most detestable. If you get a group of men who are roughly of the same age, economic background, linguistic background, ethnic group, and put them together professionally; odds are they will all be fairly good friends. Half the problem is we've created a culture where everyone is two-faced if not more duplicitous, because we've vilified a whole slew of thinking in the name of what is socially acceptable, political correct, and polite.


Having a meaningful identity, you gotta be fucking kidding me, when there's a number of mainstream psychologists, sociologists, and even (((economists))) who are talking about the massive long-term problems of a society&culture that identifies white males as enemies to all, and those males who have historically been the backbone of Western civilization are basically checking out and playing video games. You're never going to stop people from seeing themselves along demographic lines, unless you literally wipe those lines out; but even then, we'd find new ones to divide upon. There's no known functionality to this, it's entirely theoretical, and what we do know is attempts are massively destructive.


Meanwhile, entirely rational set of ideas must be rejected because they are 'mean'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for another political quiz review.


Quiz in question.


Answers are all in the form of: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral/Unsure, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.


#1. Oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments. - Neutral

Kind of a loaded question, they're both bad. But the obvious implication is if you disagree, you're some Capitalistic ideologue, and if you agree, you're socialist/whatever. Oppression of the nation's people by anyone/anything is bad. Doesn't matter what's raping you, it's the raping you're concerned with. I would imagine, but sometimes I start to wonder.


#2. It is necessary for the government to intervene in the economy to protect consumers. - Agree

While this is another loaded question, like pretty much all of these, it's an obvious yeah sometimes buddy. Things like outlawing lead, asbestos, etc. are objectively good ideas. The problem is Government has a really hard time with, doing what needs to be done, and stopping there. It's one of those, oh look a new avenue to shekel for votes and take public money and garner favor.


#3. The freer the markets, the freer the people. - Agree

Kinda hard not to agree, if you can't do what you want economically as an individual, kinda limits your freedom. Not to mention history pretty much backs this up 100% t. Milton Friedman.


#4. It is better to maintain a balanced budget than to ensure welfare for all citizens. - Disagree

Economically speaking, you want the Government to generally run a deficit, you do want to keep it under control, but running surplus = Government is taking money out of the economy. Furthermore the welfare of your nation's citizenry comes first and foremost. Salus populi suprema lex esto, fam.


#5. Publicly-funded research is more beneficial to the people than leaving it to the market. - Neutral

It's not really a matter of where the money comes from, it's a matter of how it's distributed. The American system of grant allocation is p shitty, as we give a lot of money to a handful of groups/individuals, when we ought to be giving a little bit of money to a lot of people. Canada has been doing this better than us, however comma space, they're moving towards a system like ours.


#6. International trade is beneficial. - Agree

Hard to disagree with, different countries have different resources, trade is largely going to always have a force for bettering both parties involved with the trading. But currently it's a pretty disgusting selling out of the American public by American corporations and government. Doesn't change my answer, however comma space.


#7. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. - Disagree

First half is fine, second half is retarded. You can create needs artificially, and we accept this from people. What is to stop someone with fuck all skills, aka zero ability and therefore no input; from having 20-30 children, aka a fuckton of needs? Nothing, the problem with this retardation is basically this. The whole reason we reward ability is to incentivize people to garner ability to satisfy their needs, and furthermore their wants; which is something this Marxian meme completely ignores.


#8. It would be best if social programs were abolished in favor of private charity. - Disagree

Charities are great and should be encouraged, but also monitored so people know who's wasting how much money and the 'market' can weed out douchebags. But some social programs are simply too important to let off the hook that way, and others are just better executed by the state. I'm not going to get into this one, but these principal judgements are pretty goddamn retarded


#9. Taxes should be increased on the rich to provide for the poor. - Neutral

Taxes are increased on the rich, to provide for the poor. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income taxes. Now until we get a better economic system with regards to minimizing our catastrophic income disparity, a progressive tax system is definitely called for. Ideally we could have a flat tax, there still would be wealth inequality, but people would be on the individual level be able to move up and also down the ladder based on their abilities. There's some more meta-memes in economics like financial turnover rates that you'd probably wanna look into as well.


#10. Inheritance is a legitimate form of wealth. - Agree

Doesn't mean we can't tax it, but it is legitimate. The connotations of saying inheritance is illegitimate are pretty baffling. Basically you might as well tell kids they can't use fucking highways until they pay their taxes.


#11. Public utilities like roads and electricity should be publicly owned. - Agree

Roads are, but yeah this is one I can get behind. That doesn't mean the services are government operated, per say. I think it would be better if for example, companies competed for portions of handling public roads. The companies that can do it for less, keep the contracts, the ones that waste money lose the contracts. Use capitalism for the public good, so to speak. But I also think the Government is/ought to be in the business of building them.


#12. Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy. - Strongly Agree

Oh how I could pontificate on this one. But I won't, just gonna say end all subsidies.


#13. Those with a greater ability to pay should receive better healthcare. - Agree

There's no point in disagreeing, they are going to any which way, unless you want totalitarian healthcare.


#14. Quality education is a right of all people. - Strongly Agree

Abso-fucking-lutely, this is probably my 2nd most important maxim for good governance. Numero uno being public welfare as a whole, second being sure the next generation gets the best possible education both in the sense of investing in our nations' future, but also making sure the individuals have all the opportunity and tools to make their lives better.


#15. The means of production should belong to the workers who use them. - Disagree

Basically, if I spend the dosh to open a business, buy the equipment, pay the workers, pay the electric bill; why the fuck should the schlubs who say make drinks and mop the floors own it? At the same stroke, businesses that adopt this model, more or less, say like WinCo are p gud. So I'm not going to stop someone from doing that. But I think it's folly to make people do that.


#16. The United Nations should be abolished. - Disagree

Maybe as it is, sure. But functionally something like the United Nations ought to exist, as an international forum for diplomacy. I think it needs some changes, bigly, however comma space.


#17. Military action by our nation is often necessary to protect it. - Neutral

I won't say it's often, but I'm not going to disagree. We should look to have the strongest military possible, within limits of reasonable government spending, but also try to use it as little as possible. Not only because war is bad, but because it seems that where outside military force is used, generally speaking chaos follows. So let's try and do as little of that as possible.


#18. I support regional unions, such as the European Union. - Disagree

EU sucks dicks, fuck off m80.


#19. It is important to maintain our national sovereignty. - Strongly Agree

"We will no longer surrender this country to the false song of globalism"


#20. A united world government would be beneficial to mankind. - Strongly Disagree

Double question, no points awarded.


#21. It is more important to retain peaceful relations than to further our strength. - Neutral

Sort of a dumb question. If it means maintaining peaceful relations with a powerful nation vs like getting some pointless "furthering our strength" obviously that's a bad trade. If it annoys Andorra and makes us stronger, it's worth it. Silly fucking principal questions.


#22. Wars do not need to be justified to other countries. - Agree

There's no requirement for any country to justify itself to any other country to declare war. But I also think what we're during currently is war without declaration, and is therefore wrong.


#23. Military spending is a waste of money. - Strongly Disagree

There's waste, but a military is very necessary.


#24. International aid is a waste of money. - Agree

Teach a man to fish > give a man a fish.


#25. My nation is great. - Strongly Agree



#26. Research should be conducted on an international scale. - Strongly Agree

Hell yeah science.


#27. Governments should be accountable to the international community. - Neutral

This is something I'll have to make a post about onto itself along with a couple other questions. But basically accountability is a matter of might = right, so if you can do what you want, it's the right thing; that's always been the case, and will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.


#28. Even when protesting an authoritarian government, violence is not acceptable. - Disagree

Violence works, it's just less effective in peaceful means can work in their stead. Sometimes tho, knowing is half the battle, the other half is violence.


#29. My religious values should be spread as much as possible. - Disagree

I'd probably say strongly disagree, but I just don't. But I also don't think I have religious values, inb4 LS spergs on about this. :nyasu:


#30. Our nation's values should be spread as much as possible. - Agree

But by example, not by force. Organic change = the only change that's gonna stick, the only change worth having.


#31. It is very important to maintain law and order. - Strongly Agree

Gotta do it


#32. The general populace makes poor decisions. - Strongly Agree

If it ain't obvious, I can do nothing for ya son.


#33. Victimless crimes (such as drug use) should not be crimes at all. - Agree

Obviously drinking and driving isn't victimless, but yeah the true spirit of that statement is true. Suicide should be legal if doesn't pose a direct danger to anyone. Yadda yadda


#34. The sacrifice of some civil liberties is necessary to protect us from acts of terrorism. - Strongly Disagree

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"


#35. Government surveillance is necessary in the modern world. - Strongly Disagree

See above.


#36. The very existence of the state is a threat to our liberty. - Agree

Such is the nature of power.


#37. Regardless of political opinions, it is important to side with your country. - Agree

There's time for discussion, dissent, disagreement, and such; there's also time to shut the fuck up and toe the line. In what I believe is the sense of this question, war or something like it. That is correct.


#38. No authority should be left unquestioned. - Stronly Agree

Authoritarian systems are bound to fail.


#39. A hierarchical state is best. - Agree

This is about the most pointless question possible, as there's no such thing as a state that isn't hierarchical; despite LS's protestations to the contrary. He don't think it be like it is, but it do.


#40. It is important that the government follows the majority opinion, even if it is wrong. - Disagree

Democracy sucks, it just tends to suck less than most other forms of governance. People are wholesale fallible.


#41. The stronger the leadership, the better. - Agree

It's a double-edged sword, but nobody wants weak leadership.


#42. Democracy is more than a decision-making process. - Disagree

As much as some people want it to be, it's not.


#43. Environmental regulations are essential. - Strongly Agree

Ain't gonna last long if you're busy shitting where you eat and/or sleep.


#44. A better world will come from automation, science, and technology. - Strongly Agree

I dunno if we're ready for it, but it's gonna happen. Fuck yeah science.


#45. Children should be educated in religious or traditional values. - Agree

More for lack of a religious set of values worth teaching. Tradition, however comma space, does serve purpose; not in material or literal tradition, but spiritual traditions of say advancing oneself and thereby mankind, seeking truth and justice, being righteous. The good shit. Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire.


#46. Traditions are of no value on their own. - Disagree

Traditions are many things, and many valuable things. If nothing else you need something to structure a framework of thinking in our memetic world, otherwise you're just gonna bungle around like some dopey nihilist. And that's no good, to quite Doc Peterson.


#47. Religion should play a role in government. - Strongly Disagree

Seperation of church and state.


#48. Churches should be taxed the same way other institutions are taxed. - Stronly Agree

All are equal under the law.


#49. Climate change is currently one of the greatest threats to our way of life. - Neutral

Could be, might not be, we don't really know. It is definitely worth investigating, and funding said investigation vigorously but also diligently.


#50. It is important that we work as a united world to combat climate change. - Agree

I'll give like a half point of agreement from #49 and this one to make this an agree. If it's something that needs to be worked on, it's gotta be on a global level. Kinda retarded otherwise.


#51. Society was better many years ago than it is now. - Strongly Agree

By basically any objective metric it is, (((we))) sow most of our own problems out of lack of legitimate ones now.


#52. It is important that we maintain the traditions of our past. - Agree

Kinda already did this one, no points awared.


#53. It is important that we think in the long term, beyond our lifespans. - Strongly Agree

Short-sighted, drunk, fat, and stupid are no way to go thru life son.


#54. Reason is more important than maintaining our culture. - Unsure

I don't even understand the meaning of this question, aside from it just being (((asked))). Our culture and reason ought to be fairly similar, or at least our culture values reason to the point that reason ought never to threaten our culture. Merchants of ill reason aside.


#55. Drug use should be legalized or decriminalized. - Agree

Same caveats as from before, no smoking crack and driving cars, etc.. etc..


#56. Same-sex marriage should be legal. - Agree

So much as I typically argue this one, I'm gonna just say agree. Everyone kinda knows my stance at this point.


#57. No cultures are superior to others. - Strongly Disagree

Basically a full retard statement. There's definitely better and worse cultures. Cultural relativism is a meme of echo-y origins.


#58. Sex outside marriage is immoral. - Disagree

I wouldn't say it's immoral, studies might show it's increases risks of negative outcomes, but that's not really a moral question.


#59. If we accept migrants at all, it is important that they assimilate into our culture. - Strongly Agree



#60. Abortion should be prohibited in most or all cases. - Disagree

Abortion should be combated by fighting the demand, not the supply. Roe v. Wade was a step in the right direction.


#61. Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason. - Strongly Disagree

Shall not be infringed.


#62. I support single-payer, universal healthcare. - Strongly Agree

With caveats a plenty for sure, but healthcare is an investment in the health and strength of our people and our nation. Fuck yeah make sure they're happy and healthy and thereby productive.


#63. Prostitution should be illegal. - Disagree

Regulated, but not illegal, most human relations are just a convoluted form of prostitution anyhow. :nyasu:


#64. Maintaining family values is essential. - Strongly Agree

I think the majority of Americans would disagree with me on what those values are, but oh well, families ought to be strong, and values are pretty goddamn crucial to that aim.


#65. To chase progress at all costs is dangerous. - Strongly Agree

Batman Begins fight on ice, footing > killing stroke.


#66. Genetic modification is a force for good, even on humans. - Strongly Agree

How many fuck yeah science question are there?


#67. We should open our borders to immigration. - Stronly Disagree

Fuck off, we're full.


#68. Governments should be as concerned about foreign citizens as they are about those within their borders. - Neutral

Government(s) should be concerned about people who pose threats, not everyone by virtue of being alive.


#69. All people - regardless of factors like culture or sexuality - should be treated equally. - Disagree

People are unequal to pretend they're not is like trying to navigate the ocean with the doodles of a retarded child for a map.


#70. It is important that we further my group's goals above all others. - Agree

First of all, human nature. Secondly to do otherwise is self-destructive. Finally, my "group" is more accurately groups, because nobody belongs but to one label.




I'll give it 8/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...







We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

  • Misquoted by Diane S. Dew (2001)
  • Omits words from a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble Sanger proposing the "Negro Project", where Sanger wrote: "And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
  • The quote was similarly misused in "Women, Race, & Class" (12 February 1983) by Angela Davis, where it is implied that that Sanger was organizing an extermination campaign and the minister would be the main propaganda milling machine.

So what she said was -> "And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."


And that's supposed to nullify the misattributed quote's meaning?


:thinking emoji:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah well, millions of dead unborn since 1973 don't lie neither.


It's something hilarious to bring up with virtue signal cucks, because ACTUAL white supremacists and such support abortion rights as it categorically impacts black replacement rate more than it does the white replacement rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

State of Danger rules, on


#1. Trans kids


To cut thru some diatribe, here's the deal. Pretty much all kids grow out of these "feelings" by puberty, not even by the end of puberty, just by the time they hit puberty. SoD will not allow any medical treatments for minors. No hormones, no hormone blockers, no surgeries; until you're an adult. So far as people's obligation to identify you as you choose to identify, you can go fuck your horse. You're not entitled to not having your feelings hurt. That said, malicious targeting of individuals requires no special legal treatment as malicious targeting is always a crime to begin with. Should little Suzy want to be called Mitch in school, it's sort of one of those things that has to be social contract. If the kids/teacher are like, ya cool, whatev. If not, oh well. Life and reality do not bend to the dictates of your fancies and wims, if you can't handle it, SoD doesn't need or want you.


I would also invest state resources into legitimate psychological, psychiatric, clinical, and neuroscientific studies on the matter. As much as it is fin foil red light alarm bells, there probably is some argument to the idea of xenoestrogens and phytoestrogens in processed foods and products having a role to play, stuff like BPA and soy. But I'd gamble cultural/societal influences are far greater. The end game being what is functionally the greatest pathway to human happiness and fulfillment. Perhaps, to me at least, the most obvious factor that condemns the idea of gender transition as therapy is the zero impact it has on mental health outcomes. Post op and pre op transsexuals have the same rates of suicide/attempted suicide, depression, co-morbidity with other serious mental problems, etc.. etc..


It also runs into a different topic all together, which is basically the "degenerate" lifestyle of the LGBT community. Promiscuous sexual practices taken to the extreme (hundreds and or thousands of partners, large portion of whom are strangers), high rates of mental illness and instability, high rates of STD infection, etc.. etc.. You can't just pretend a group of people is "perfectly normal" when they have such negative statistical correlations that are orders of magnitude higher than the 'general populace'.


Basically, you're free to do as you please as an adult. Kids are not allowed to take drugs or undergo surgery to groom them for gender or sex transition. Pending studies looking further into the matters of both childhood and adult trans-identity stuff. Probably a special emphasis looking at the potential harm in parents 'grooming' their children to meet a specific standard. Namely both the notion of parents who say smack their son around for not being 'manly' but also parents who would face their daughter to participate in typically male activities in some weird fucked up home that she becomes transgendered. I think LS and I both agree, kids as much as possible, should be left the fuck alone; with regards to the very existentially dreadful shortcomings of most human adults.


#2. Abortion


I think Freakenomics is the best case for abortion, period. But I also highly empathize and understand, or so I hope, the arguments against it's allowance in society. You simply cannot rule out the positive impacts of basically reducing unwanted children from a society. It's quite terrible to think about, especially when you consider the numbers.


SoD will allow legal abortions, pretty much without any caveats under certain conditions, including but not limited to cases of..




-medical necessity

-birth defects of a serious nature


First three are somewhat obvious. I think it should go either way in the first instance. Should a man rape a woman, the woman can choose to abort the child. Likewise, should a woman rape a man, the man should be able to decide if wants to be a father or not (biological or otherwise). In the case of incest it should be the woman's decision. If either/both party is underage also allowable; obviously statutory rape charges and all that would have to be involved. However, comma space, I think putting up legal requirements for abortion clinics to report things to the police in any but the most egregious cases should be really deeply considered. I do not say women who were raped, not seeking an abortion, because they still live in fear of their rapist; that sort of thing. However, comma space, the push should be to eliminate that concern as a larger socio-cultural development. I would also like to be able to say the SoD conducts a "war on abortion" but on the demand side, not the supply side. By seeking to educate men and women, primarily about human health and anatomy, but also safe sex practices. I don't know what the best way to do that is, but I know we're not making much of an effort now, and we might want to in hopes of improving society. But basically I'd like to live in a society where abortions are legal, but generally speaking not gotten except for sorts of cases listed above.


The last two can get a little tricky. Medical necessity is basically a medical judgement in which a doctor says "you carry this baby to term, you have an X% chance of dying and/or the baby dying". I think cases in which the pregnancy has a dubious likelihood of success, abortion is an allowable practice. The birth defects of a serious nature, should basically be stuff that really prevents a child becoming a productive adult. But I will also indulge in my bias towards passive eugenics, and probably allow a fair bit more under this umbrella myself then most people would like. I'd be cool with aborting kids for things like down syndrome, but not oligodactyly. Furthermore, as much as possible abortions should be done in a timely manner. Ideally all abortions take place as soon as possible. I will go ahead and put an axe on the idea of late-term abortion for any reason not listed above. If it's not one of the above listed reasons, let's call them elective abortions. Elective abortions must take place in the first X-months of pregnancy, as I'm not an expert I'm not going to stamp a firm number in there. But conservatively, I'd easily say it has to be before the 6th month, probably earlier. Again, this emphasizes the importance of education, so women recognize the signs of pregnancy vs realizing 8 months down the road they're pregnant.


When it comes to elective abortions, I will throw in a couple more caveats. I think people with serious criminal convictions, or are getting repeat abortions; should be passively taken out of the reproductive game. I don't mean forced hysterectomies, but probably making them get their tubes tied would be a good idea. And if they want to have them untied, they can pay for it themselves. Someone who is wishing to have children, who can't afford that (in my hypothetical society, as it wouldn't be covered in SoD's national healthcare plan, for obvious reasons) has no business having children. I also think similar actions could be done with male criminals, to be entirely frank. But I entertain no idea of permanent alteration to a person's person, without concrete evidence. Which, oddly enough, will be covered in another topic.


#3. Crime and Punishment



I'm going to be somewhat terse with this one, as it's otherwise a very broad subject. But to hit the important points, I don't believe in the utility of incarceration for the most part. I'm a fan of Malcom Gladwell's talk on the "Three C's" (Above). I definitely think any crime that could be considered non-violent or victimless shouldn't be punished with incarceration. I also believe there's sort of two (or maybe more) tiers to evidence that result in conviction.


A - Eye witness testimony, circumstantial evidence

B - Video clearly showing the criminal act in progress


With evidence from exhibit A, I would never condone permanent solutions such as capital punishment. But under B, I would be open to their consideration. So if you were convicted of murder, you'd at worse get life in prison. Unless we found like video of you actually killing people, then we'd execute you. This is a really idealized concept, and I have no actual idea of how functional it would be in the magical world of legal language. But it's basically what I'd want, without concrete evidence of a crime, all considerations for punishment have to be kept within the realm of things we'd want to allow the state to do to people, without said concrete evidence. Because eye witness testimony is basically shit, and so is circumstantial evidence when you have it being pushed by professionals in the profession of convicting people for crimes; and further masterminded by DA's who's job it is to get those convictions to stick. Let 1,000 guilty men go before imprisoning 1 innocent, sort of notion.


But I also think a lot of things we consider laws suitable to punishment when people violate them are retarded. I don't believe in the necessity of state vehicle registrations, at least when they are of cost to the private citizen. If you're worried about emissions and stuff, try to do things in the opposite way. Keep your vehicle tested and up to date, get a tax break. Not a, pay us money on an annual basis or we'll slap you with a ticket should we catch you at whatever abysmal rate that happens to be, see video above.


More serious crimes, incarceration is probably an option, but certainly not as it's done in the United States. I think the notion of letting various models operating to try and find a better solution, is a good one. Looking internationally to countries with low recidivism rates, and low crime rates would probably be a decent start. But let's also not be stupid, there's no fucking way Norwegian prison would work for society's purposes with members of MS-13. But locking up people for an ounce of pot is basically shooting yourself in the dick. And that accounts for a LARGE number/percentage of federal inmates. State's prisons tend to be filled with actually violent offenders, which are another matter to address.


Basically, spend some money in an intelligent fashion. Find some keen minds and motivated individuals to work on the problem, how do we reform criminals and/or sort out ones that will not be reformed. Furthermore the largest factors for crime are two fold, urbanized population density and poverty. While we can only do so much about that first one, we certainly can make attempts to deal with the later. We shouldn't be surprised that areas without meaningful and legitimate work, high birth rates, and pretty fucked up standards of living; have massive crime problems. Legalizing drugs and eliminating them as a stream of income to finance organized crime and violence, probably wouldn't hurt either. And if nothing else, you can put some people to work who have expertise with drugs, selling them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...