Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

DaVinci

Member
  • Content count

    581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

DaVinci last won the day on July 20

DaVinci had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

68 Excellent

About DaVinci

  1. You tell me. I can't answer that question. But I'm not even really interested in that. I only want to know why that thread keeps coming up.
  2. Are you still upset about that thread?
  3. Sam Harris Refuses to Debate Stefan

    A world where no suffering is acceptable sounds ideal, as who wants to suffer? Masochists I guess? I think the problem is how do you achieve that without it becoming so strict to the point of suffocation? Any system meant to protect people, and boundary can become a cage. Parents can be too strict with children. Schools sorting kids by age can hold back kids who are already ahead. A job ladder can be a tool of oppression. To achieve a world of no suffering you would still need a world built on rules, but the rules would have to be much more fluid and malleable than they are today, or at least be much more thorough in a way where they account for human behavior to a much greater degree. Because any tiny thing could cause suffering proportional to that tiny thing, and if no suffering is acceptable than even that tiny thing isn't okay. Would there be penalties for causing suffering? How would you enforce that? Wouldn't the person enforcing the person who caused the first suffering cause suffering on the part of that person as they find suffering in being enforced? Maybe it would also cause suffering on the part of the people who are enforcing the "no suffering" rule because it brings them suffering to be the enforcer? When you take "no suffering" out to the extreme it's almost like an argument to just eradicate humanity, literally through genocide, as that would permanently end all suffering as no one would be left to suffer and there would indeed be zero suffering after the act. Or, if you take it out to the extreme literally in terms of some kind of alive but super controlled society, (with rule generation and judgments coming from advanced computer systems) or you "plug them into the matrix" and have a pseudo-dream state existence, then that would be putting people into a cage. Do people want to be in a cage? Even a really nice cage? Again, rules for society are one thing. A cage is something different. I think we also need to look at the idea of suffering versus unnecessary suffering, because that's where the most important difference is. A workout could easily be seen as "suffering" but it's also necessary to build muscle. Chopping down a tree with an ax could be seen as suffering, but it's also necessary to build a shelter. On the other hand a bully shoving a kid down on a consistent basis (daily/at school) when that kid has done nothing wrong and is being bullied for the sake of it, well, that's unnecessary suffering. Trying to curb unnecessary suffering down to almost nothing is in my opinion a much more realistic if not a more admirable goal to strive toward. I think eliminating all suffering is the goal of someone who sees no end to suffering and wants a way out. That's why the "Trump is bad because he did A." "No, Trump doing A is good" is such an unproductive conversation because in our unconscious the person who says "Trump is bad because he did A" will translate the rebuttal of "No, Trump doing A is good" into "I'm in favor of continued suffering". Because saying "Trump is bad because he did A" is them actually saying "I want to reduce suffering". It's just that by the time "I want to reduce suffering cause I see no end and I think humanity is doomed" gets to the conscious mind, filters through other parts of the personality, bounces into emotions, and then exits the mouth in words it comes out as something that doesn't quite represent the totality of what that person actually thinks. In a sense I think we minimize ourselves by not giving ourselves the time to really think about what we want to say before we say it. It's why I think the move away from long form conversation to Twitter, Facebook, and other super short chunks is going to be the sword that the west dies on. Take note, even some people here don't want to have long conversations anymore. That's a sign things are about to crumble. We had better change it soon or it's all going to disappear.
  4. I think buying time makes sense, but then that time has to be spent wisely. I don't think that's happening. I think the right is out of ammo. Or they are using handgun ammo against a tank. The post-modern monster is recruiting at lighting speed and all we've bought time for is to time to hold hands before we're all murdered by the mob. I'm serious. If the right keeps proceeding the way they are, then the right is actually contributing to digging the grave for the West. There was no point in buying time if it that time was going to be squandered.
  5. Sam Harris Refuses to Debate Stefan

    I think the way Harris is talking is very similar to the way people on the left in general tend to talk about Trump (pointing out perceived flaws, comparisons to Hitler, etc) but I personally don't see the value in trying to reframe what Harris sees as problems with Trump as good things. liberal: "Trump did A. A is bad." conservative: "No, A was good for this reason." I think it actually complicates having a productive conversation. If Trump rescued a box full of kittens from in front of a speeding truck, liberals would more than likely still think he was pure evil, and if Trump shoved a box of kittens away from him conservatives would more than likely still think he was pure good. If someone in a debate can't ever concede any point (liberals think Trump is good in this way, conservatives think Trump is bad in that way) then you just have a verbal chess game motivated by desire, (including the desire to win) and not a conversation with the goal of listening and trying to understand why the other person thinks the way that they do. I haven't seen a single instance where someone says "trump is Hitler cause of this thing he did" and someone goes "No, that thing he did was good cause of this" and the first person responds "Holy crap you're right. I've changed my mind" and if they did respond that way that quickly it would either be because they were 1.) being snarky, or 2.) have genuinely changed their mind in the moment and are thus the exception to the rule. Most people don't arrive at life changing conclusions about themselves, their thoughts, their opinions until they put in a lot of work. I think it's difficult for anyone to get to that place when almost every conversation is unproductive.
  6. Sam Harris Refuses to Debate Stefan

    This kind of conversation is actually what we need less of. Saying Trump is a master persuader, ignores how irate people already were about Obama, ignores PC/victim culture, ignores all the people making meme's, etc. It wasn't just that Trump was a "master persuader". An opportunist? Maybe. A gambler? Perhaps. If this is verbatim what they said then I have to wonder if Adams is intentionally being kind of trolly. Sam Harris might be some shell of his former self as you are saying, (I don't know that cause I don't watch his stuff) but this is not what I would consider a productive conversation, or even a great way to have a debate. I think people need to stop having these chess game style interactions.
  7. Even though I don't think the trolling is a great thing, I can't deny that having opposition provides an opportunity to learn. We need less trolls and more teachers, which is why I'lll take trolls in the absence of teachers because my desire to learn doesn't ever go away. I like the idea of matching people who are near each other's level, to "compete" in order to learn, but actually figuring that out would be hard. It would be more complicated than just an I.Q. score. I would say yes, there are absolutely right wingers here because of the criticism of the left who don't care about peaceful parenting, or anarchy, etc. I was already a non-conformist when I found this place and was already heading out of politics, and so these messages hit me at just the right time. Now you have people who align themselves with the right who are here just for that. Hence someone calling in to the show who hits his kids and tried to justify it. I have no idea if Stef has changed his position on changing minds with facts/reason. I generally don't watch the show anymore because it is 90% taking apart the mainstream narrative, which I already said was singing to the choir to me. So maybe, he has changed? Most of my time recently has been spent watching Jordan B. Peterson. Most of his videos are of his lectures, or interviews, which are varied and cover a much wider range of topics than Stef is hitting these days.
  8. I would include in that definition that the goal is to "win". That's why many "conversations" have become chess games. There is a difference between going into a conversation to be open minded, to observe, to listen, and perhaps to teach something you know to whoever you are engaging with, and going into a conversation to "win". The mainstream narrative is clearly anti-Trump. It is designed to hurt him. So he is, at least by proxy, defending Trump. You might not categorize the videos as "pro-Trump" but it does benefit Trump. My issue with these types of videos is only that it's a case of preaching to the choir to anyone who has been watching Stef for more than a month, and I wonder what other kind of content could be created in its place.
  9. The answer is they aren't. You already said it. The shit posting disaster comment you made. That's happening here too. Since the push to Trump a lot of the conversations here involve people who shit post. Not people who have done any kind of real work on themselves,or who actually understand or care about peaceful parenting/anarchy. That's what bothers me. We don't have conversations here anymore. We have written chess games and shit posting. How many "What happened to FDR" threads have popped up in the past year? I've seen five or six myself. People have come back after not having been here for a while and don't understand why a guy (Stef) who used to say voting was immoral was now making pro-Trump videos, and when they asked they were told to watch the past year's worth of videos, and often also got down voted. If that many people were brave enough to post a "WTF happened?" post then how many came back, saw it had changed, didn't say anything and left never to return? Now we have this Oh forums are outdated in the era of social media remark. What a load of absolute shit. People are fucking starving for conversations. People are gasping for the air of a long form conversation. That's why you see guys like Joe Rogan doing three hour long podcasts in a world where we also have six second clips on Vine. The fact that this thread exists shows that people sense a distinct lack of conversation. ... This isn't healthy you guys. The move away from robust conversation is the right's answer to the left's safe space censorship nonsense. If it keeps going like this it won't be weird to see Western culture dissolve completely. The lack of conversations is actually contributing to the collapse. Chip chip chipping away at the foundation.
  10. I would caution against thinking of having a conversation as a game. Soccer. Chess. etc. Rules for debate are fine, but people take the idea of talking as a game to this extreme where conversations which could be productive for both camps end up being more about the competition as an end in itself and/or "winning". I'm sure for some people the topics here are emotionally draining, but really the problem for most people who come here with an open mind is time. You can't tackle all this complex stuff in a single night. Especially not if you work, have a family, etc.
  11. Why one woman instead of many?

    The complication isn't with multiple women but multiple women who have children from the same man. He would be dividing his time between them, if at all.
  12. Just give yourself time to breathe. Curiosity + Time is the way I look at it. If you have 50 books you want to read, okay. Do the same thing I described above. Which ones are the ones you really want to read? Narrow it down. Get it down to five books, then look at those five books and decide which one or two are at the top. Start reading your number one book. Read a chapter a night. Take notes. When you are done reexamine your book list. Is the number two book now the number one book or did you change your mind? Either way let some other book come up to number one and start reading that. Anytime you are having trouble with a problem give yourself a little time away from all other distractions. Go the the park. Go sit in a restaurant by yourself. Eat. Relax. Bring a notebook to jot down some thoughts. Do what works for you to allow yourself the time to breathe.
  13. Yeah, Stef's subscription number on YT doesn't directly correlate to conversation here, which is unfortunate. I would wager most topics of discussion don't get much traction, or at least not as much as they could given the number of people here. It also doesn't help that there has been a surge in shitposting, which is awesome for memes and useless for having a productive discussion. To take that a step further, I'm not convinced that all the people who came for Trump are going to stick around for peaceful parenting/anarchy. They might not even care about that stuff with so much "winning" happening.
  14. What to Do for the West?

    Working for free is something most people won't do. Not even for future profit. Which is telling. If someone can't think about financial success two years down the road you might not want to work with that person.
  15. I'm sorry to hear you don't have a father. Is this something recent? Or has this been since you were little? In regards to your passions, you must be able to narrow it down. You know a bunch of things you would never do, right? So the problem is probably more like you can't decide between the things you do like? If that's the case then imagine you can only do one thing, one hobby, for the rest of your life. Even if you arrive at two or three answers, that's fine for now. Give yourself time to explore those things but use that time to narrow it down further. If you don't find that one thing you really want to do you could end up wasting your life on something you don't really care about. The good thing is, even if you get really good at one thing that doesn't mean you can't have other interests. You can be a master carpenter and also still go fishing on the weekends, or whatever. Lot's of people have this same problem. Too many options. It probably doesn't have much to do with not having a dad. Even if you had a dad, and he loved you, he wouldn't force you into anything you didn't want to do. He would probably encourage you to do what interested you the most.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.