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

SnapSlav

Member
  • Content count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SnapSlav last won the day on November 23

SnapSlav had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

1 Follower

About SnapSlav

  1. Childhood Trauma

    I am sad that this topic has received so little attention. It's both a good question, as well as one I would love to have answers for my own use, like yourself. Planning for the future, and not being "in the position" to need it right now. I suppose the latest video from Stef kinda addresses your questions of "what happens when someone suffers all of this" and "an example of someone who does not overcome it as an example". The answer is "Charles Manson". The man had almost every kind of childhood trauma piled on top of him, and he turned into a psychopathic cult-leader implicated in a mass-murder conspiracy, and he clearly did not "overcome" his traumas. In essence, #12 is Charles Manson. I know that really just answers 1/24 of your question, but... hey, more progress than has been seen previously? =/
  2. Concerns about the Alt-Right and Supremacist Ideology

    The problem with this hypothesis is that it asserts that a potential cause of increased racial tensions is the focus on the ethnostate. The reality is that racial tensions are already rising as a direct result of what's going on with the focus on leftist politics. A focus of "diversity is our strength", which is the absolute antithesis of promoting an ethnostate. Actually IMPLEMENTING an ethnostate will eliminate these racial tensions. But certainly, if the country suddenly decided to "purify" itself and become a white ethnostate, there would be roughly 100 million people being displaced and that would cause some "tensions", to say the least. But does that mean they have the wrong idea? Again, racially homogeneous countries stand as an example of peace rather than conflict. The problem in their ideas is that there is something in-between points A and B, and many people will not like the transition. It's a question of how do you justify a preferable end when there's no optimal means to suggest to get to it. This is kinda obvious, but sure, we should. The problem is that you're projecting a capacity to rationalize and think critically on the rest of the population, and most people lack this capacity. Smart people are the tiny minority, and confusing them for everyone else is going to lead to trouble. Most people WANT to focus on race, because they're inherently tribalistic and the most immediate example of "their tribe" is "their race" and that's where they will default. "If everyone could just stop this tribal way of thinking, we could eliminate all these racial tensions!" That's just socialist-utopianism all over again... pretending that human nature can be altered. Well, it can't. Utopia is impossible, so don't even dare to attempt it. It will only result in the worst of atrocities. Instead, try to come up with solutions that can actually be executed within the limits of human nature, because those are our only options. The Alt-Right is at least doing that much. I'd say we just need to culturally reinforce the value of Free Speech, so the Alt-Right can continue spreading its message, and people can respond to their message with their own messages. The disagreements can be hashed out with weapons, or with words. I prefer words. We'll figure out the "right" solution somehow only if that's what we do.
  3. Some people are saying it's great that she had the foresight to record the meeting, and that it's the only way things will change. But... nothing's changing. Not improving, anyway. (Just look at Evergreen University.) Those "apologies" are just blips in time where these administrations play a political game of shedding some crocodile tears right before they go back to resuming their status quo. They're not being put through the wringer. They're not being pressured to change. Their university isn't going to revamp its structure. This is all just Monica Lewinsky all over again: public outcry, they're briefly embarrassed, some new "shiny object" will come along to distract everyone, fast-forward to 19 years later and people will have fond memories of them. As I indicated in my description of my reaction to the audio recording.. these people believe that they're not being Left enough! Nothing's changing, except that they're just moving further and further in the wrong direction...
  4. So I just watched the full video of the audio of the interrogation of Lindsay Shepherd. Wow. I am blown away by what I heard. I knew that leftists believed their bullshit, but now I hear them saying that their worldview is that people aren't left enough! It's a disturbing listen, so those who look up this video (provided by 1791L youtube channel), be forewarned, it is both dull and horrifying all at once. For those who don't know, a graduate student Teacher's Assistant, Lindsay Sheperd, played a few minutes of a youtube video of a Jordan Peterson discussion in a classroom setting. Some students complained, and she was disciplined for her actions. As a result of the ugly process she was put through, she's grown totally disillusioned with academia and is going to leave the university setting. This video is just the audio of the meeting in which the administration grills Ms. Shepherd for playing Jordan Peterson, and it was just the beginning of the trials and tribulations for Shepherd... all because some students' feels got hurt. As someone who lived through something similar, this disturbed me greatly. Listen at your own peril. Thoughts?
  5. So in other words... if you're 14, dating is off-limits unless they're older than you. Got it! Kidding, of course. But that's an interesting rule of thumb to go by. Not sure that I agree, but somewhere around that sounds reasonable. After all, 32 now, and I'm gonna start looking around the early 20s when I get back into the game, so 16+7=23, going by that rule I shouldn't touch anything that's 22. Well I dunno about that. Anyway, this is off-topic... . . . . . I'm not exactly sure how "does not exist i.e. it is not a physical object that has an existence in the universe, but is a concept that we value therefore we support it" is such a difficult concept to grasp. I often tell people "science does not exist" for the very same reasons Stef says "the state does not exist". I'm not saying I hate science, but that when someone looks at accumulated human knowledge and acts as if there's some physical, gigantic almanac somewhere on the planet, and refers to "science" as some kind of resource, I have to counter that, because it's not a tangible thing. It's a method. It's like BBQ; if you point to a grill and call it a BBQ, you're just wrong. There is no thing called BBQ; BBQ is a method. A building is a tangible thing, but what that building represents is not tangible. "Protection from the elements" is a concept, not an absolute found within nature. Indeed, it is opposite to what is naturally found. Human beings are capable of abstract reasoning, so understanding that what we're doing is abstraction of non-physical concepts is important. It doesn't mean those abstractions are pointless just because we recognize their intagibility. On a slightly tangential note... I don't believe it's been brought up, but how about liberties? I learned it like this: God gave us Liberties, Man gave us Rights. Whether you're theistic or not, the premise is that one is inalienable (cannot be separated from the being) while the other isn't. The U.S. follows the premise that our three absolute Liberties are life, freedom, and pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness. But we have a Bill of Rights which is CONSTANTLY being amended- added to and subtracted from -and debated. By existing, we have the inalienable capacity for those three liberties, but the rights have to be defined by some form of agreement between individuals. Such is the case with property rights. When you're born into the world, some random object isn't inextricably linked to you forever and ever, but at some point you can claim it is yours, and there has to be some form of agreement that it is or it isn't.
  6. Let's talk dating!

    I dunno... I think ALL I needed to see was that TERRIBLE grammar in both posts. Hey, we all make mistakes, but "Not typical, but I'm not your typical" redundancy? "[A] man that for his shit together"? No thank you. I don't think you have enough of the genes associated with IQ for me to be interested... Those "I make terrible choices and I don't take ownership of that" signals were just cannons fired at an already-sinking ship.
  7. Assuming this was directed at me, cause it was part of the post following quoting mine... Presently no. I'm too busy getting my business off the ground, so I'm putting dating on hold. I briefly started doing "beginner-level pickup" around late last year or early this year, doing my approaches and all that to get over the social anxiety, then I started my new career in April and had to abandon that pursuit for the time being. In my younger years (early 20s) I went through a spell of reckless philandering, and if I ever made the mistake to assume that all women were like my worst interaction, then I might've sworn off women altogether. But I knew she was just a particularly nasty person, and I just got unlucky/careless associating with her. I should count my stars that stealing a couple hundred bucks from me was ALL she took! (That and all the time... and the headaches...) When I first heard about MGTOW, I was sympathetic to their cause, because they're not wrong about how slanted the legal system is against men in women's favor. But the more I observed it, the less sympathetic I was. (Kinda like the first time you hear about the alt-right, you initially think, "Hey, that sounds like me!" Then months later you watch as it distills itself into something very different, and far from relatable.) Just too much whining, beta-cuckery, excuse-making, and fleeing from problems rather than trying to tackle them and resolve them. I don't begrudge men from checking out, if that's what they wanna do. But there are better ways and outlooks with which to do it than MGTOW. Jordan Peterson may have been a bit too rough on them in his infamous answer about it a few months back, but he wasn't exactly wrong, either... Luckily for me, my line of work (sales-heavy) demands going out and interacting with people CONSTANTLY! So when I finally do get back in the game, I won't exactly have fallen completely off the horse! =D
  8. Philosophically interesting games

    Good "moral choice" games are a huge recommendation from me. Contrary to what many publishers would insist, simply advertising "tough choices" is NOT the same thing as a tough choice. Todd Howard insisted that it would be a difficult choice to weigh your options when choosing to drink contaminated water or to not in Fallout 3, but the reality is there were no heavy consequences in that game, and zero tough choices. It insisted it was a morality driven game, but it was just childish interpretations of hard choices, not actual hard choices. Bioshock is a good recommendation, not because the "choices" you have are particularly compelling, but because the game does a damn fine job of blending ludonarrative elements with the story. Your ability to choose to spare or kill the Little Sisters isn't a really tough choice, and if they'd spent more time building up the two characters who advocated for opposite choices (The good guy advocating kill, the "Nazi scientist" advocating save, who do you believe?) then maybe the choice would have been tough or compelling. But it's the fact that the story plays on the role of free will that makes the opportunity given to the player so compelling. Not only are you directed by glowing objects telling you what to interact with, giant floating compass markers telling you where to go, and a voice on the radio instructing you what you've got to do, the game's story LITERALLY hinges on the point that you had no free will the entire time... except where the Little Sisters are concerned. So since this was your one and only act that was entirely up to you to choose, it makes the choice actually quite poignant. It's a brilliant indictment of games as a whole, that advertise how "open" they are when in reality they're just really big railroads, rather than small ones. I don't really see the problems that Stefan alludes to when he dismisses the game, because I found it to be an insightful introductory to Objectivism, not a scathing criticism at all. It's a brilliant thinker's game, and the more you think about it, the deeper it gets. It's a real shame, then, that the two sequels did everything in their power to completely negate all the good ideas that came of Bioshock. I'd highly recommend the first game, and advise to avoid the following two. My favorite games are ones that have fantastic writing that makes me doubt my choices constantly. Namely the (good) Fallout games: 1, 2, Tactics, and New Vegas. I've recently started playing Wasteland 2 and so far in I'd say it also deserves a mention. When you're given an opportunity to make a choice in THESE Fallout games, it's not some cartoonishly simple view of morality. The villains have very good reasons for doing what they're doing, and when you face off against the end-game adversaries, you find very human people trying to do good things, and you realize that doing good by your standards is going to ask to do bad... by your own standards. You're not presented a simplistic, "Do I save a bunch of innocents, or do I torture them and laugh like a nefarious villain?" Instead, you're given a real conundrum, such as, "Do I shut off this damaged reactor and stop the contamination of these crops, or do I transfer power over to the survivors so they can escape, dooming the crops?" In either choice there are winners and losers, and it's up to you to decide your own justification for why you should pick one or the other. The game won't judge you either way. It'll just present the opportunity to you, and let you make your own decisions. Unfortunately, Fallout and Fallout 2 haven't aged terribly well (better than some, but not ideal), so I can understand some people having a tough time enjoying them. But if you can get past the outdated interface and the old graphics, they are amazing games to play. Tons of fun, and very thought-provoking. But it should go without saying, DO NOT play FO3 or FO4 and expect the rest of the series to even REMOTELY resemble those atrocities... If you don't want to think too hard, and you enjoy pointless, mindless catharsis, then by all means, play them. But if you like your games treating you like independent-thinking individuals and respecting your moral agency, then skip over Todd Howard's abominations. Play the originals, and New Vegas. They warrant your attention.
  9. The Art of the Argument

    Got my copy a few days ago, and I'm only a couple pages in so far. Loving it for the most part, but I did find a disagreement fairly early on. Early into the book, he defined two distinct types of arguments, truth arguments, and value arguments. He asserts that truth arguments don't matter if we don't value the truth, and value arguments only matter if they're true, so the two aren't inseparable. I have a criticism for this outlook in that I think there may be a bit of a conflation going on. In economics, we're taught that there are two types of statements: positive and normative. Contrary to what many think, positive statements are not reinforcement or compliments, they're just statements of fact. Normative statements are meanwhile statements of how things "should be" rather than how they are. So you can see the parallel between the two pairs of categories; truth arguments are another name for positive statements, and value arguments are another name for normative statements. My criticism comes with his assertion that the two aren't always separate, because of the aforementioned cyclical "only if we value truth and only if true" validations. Well, my understanding of normative versus positive statements is that you can make a sort of "prescription" using solely positive statements, rather than relying on normative ones. The example given by one of my former professors was him teaching his daughter about the different chemicals in sodas and why she "shouldn't" drink this soda or that. He could have made prescriptive normative claims that it's unhealthy so she shouldn't, but instead he gave her positive factual descriptors about caffeine and sweetness additives whenever she'd ask "what about this soda?" until she came to a drink where he had no facts to give her that would compel her not to drink it. So he in effect conveyed a "as should be" argument, but not by using a value or a normative claim, rather by sticking to facts (as he knew them). It's not that you think drinking soda is unhealthy, it's that you know the following consequences come from the following components of the following drinks, draw your own conclusions. A value argument was completely unnecessary, in spite of "preferable" behavior being advocated. So perhaps I'm just saying there's a bit of a simplification going on. But then again... isn't that the whole point of the book? It's not for the intellectual titans exclusively, it's for those who love philosophy as well as those just dipping their toes in the philosophical waters. So some simplifications are necessary, I suppose. The important thing is I am enjoying the read. =)
  10. Now it all makes sense

    It was pretty damn obvious that "the left" wasn't trying to brainwash people but rather actually believed in its own bullshit back when Project Veritas Action uncovered the bird-dogging scandal at the tail end of the election. These people, caught on undercover camera, weren't talking like they knew they were wrong but waned to win. They expressed genuine belief that they knew what was best, that they were going to make the world better with "their way", and that their enemies REALLY were as evil as they insisted that they were. "Liberalism is a mental disorder". The thought process of pushing boundaries for the sake of boundary pushing, the mentality that change is always an improvement, the belief that humans can be "changed" and that there is no such thing as human nature, the ability to inhabit other characters' minds as if they were yours because you have no mind of your own, has always been the product of a broken mind. Liberals are the way they are because they've always been diseased of the brain. The adages "Every villain is the hero of the story in their own mind" and "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" have long existed for a reason.
  11. Sounds like Commie hokum. The ultra rich- like the moderately rich -all do the same thing: they invest and they give to charity. Both of these things are the opposite of "hoarding", they're actively throwing their capital out into the world. Every time someone bemoans "the 1%", they're usually just pernicious and envious, and this is an even greater exaggeration of that, because it's the top 10% of 1%. Extra envious. Even the worst of the worst "amoral billionaires" are doing the opposite of this "hoarding" claim, disproving this assertion. As Stef pointed out in his recent video about Soros, the man has donated $18 billion dollars to his open society organizations. So even the worst isn't "hoarding". Stop it with this "the rich need to spread the wealth" nonsense. They already are. They need to STOP, because they're paying people to continue being impoverished and unproductive. The impoverished need to worry about themselves, not blaming everything on the rich. The problem isn't wealthy people, it's this absurd notion that wealth needs to be "spread" amongst the people. No, no it does not.
  12. Don't go deliberately misrepresenting change in law. That's wrong. Or, if you genuinely believe that's what happened, I'd suggest this video on the subject: He breaks it down excellently, explaining what the law change actually does, while still being entertaining. So your "it's a-okay to purposefully infect someone with HIV" is just pure bullshit. A misdemeanor is not "a-okay". Most states have it as a misdemeanor or less of a crime, so California was CORRECT (for a change) on the matter. Being a lesser crime like most states, and to match its own criteria for similar actions with other infections, is not remotely the same thing as approval. Not even close. Don't get me wrong, I'd WAY prefer that it wasn't lowered to a misdemeanor, and still a felony, but they did not make it legal, let alone "a-okay". Again, see the above video. Matt does a damn fine job explaining the law change. Either way, the law (even its previous harsher-punishment variant) is almost impossible to enforce, because proving intent in law is ridiculous.
  13. Well, they DO have an aunt and an uncle, according to you. It's just that they're not in the children's lives. I can sympathize with your conundrum. I don't have wife or kids yet, but I've resolved that "certain family members" will never ever meet my children, when I do. So obviously my answers will probably lean toward "no keep doing what you're doing" rather than telling you to invite them into your kids' lives. I think the justification for staying the course and removing your parents/siblings from your children's lives is that your children need stable, loving parents infinitely more than they need orbital family. If someone strikes a chord with a cousin and the two grow close and stay close for life, that's nice, but the first step would be that neither are bad influence on one another. It doesn't sound like the rest of your family qualifies as "not a bad influence". At one point in your story, it almost sounded like your parents mellowed out, until it became clear that they were just being manipulative. But even if they had genuinely mellowed out, I'm a big believer that you don't accept "repentance" from someone when they lose all their power and influence. It only matters if they mend their ways when they still have the power to be abusive, but decide against it. When someone's old and feeble, of knocking on death's door, any apologies they have amount to less than nothing. If your father was abusive when you were younger, and that really only stopped when you were big enough to fight back, and now that he's arthritic, his chumminess is even less convincing. So, yeah, I'd advocate severing ties. The simple presence of more family is not in and of itself worth it if the family in question is so abusive, hostile, dishonest, manipulative, and unhealthy. That's my 2 cents, anyway.
  14. Why Bad Boy?

    It might seem like I'm making the deterministic argument, but I'm fundamentally not, because I'm always advocating for personal agency. You always have agency in your decisions, even if the decision is just, "I'm not going to associate with someone whose genes are the reason they're that type of person." That's because when it comes to the matter of "nature vs nurture", I'm nowhere near the fence, I'm unabashedly on the "nature" side of the yard. I place the bulk of the emphasis on genetics. But that doesn't mean the nurture effect isn't real, and I do recognize that many things that people are up to are a direct result of their childhood. (See Sieg's comments for a perfect example, in how he's probing for childhood history to answer his questions.) But that does mean that I'm ignoring the nurture element because it's a minority of responsibility, to me, and therefore not as important to address. I'm not discarding the effects of environment, nor am I advocating that anyone just do whatever-the-fuck they want because it won't affect them at all (it really would), I just don't want to add tedious little disclaimers of "not all [insert]" or "not every time" to all of my statements, just to acknowledge that 20-40% of developmental impact. That's a waste of time. It's much more expedient (to me) to just assume that we all understand that there are exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't discount the rule automatically. The obvious difference between a "true" alpha and a bad boy is empathy. A real alpha would not extract pleasure from corrupting others, or witnessing them experience any kind of pain. But this is not a characteristic that you can gauge by simple observation. Just like how a genuinely good person and an absolute sociopath can both exhibit amiable behavior outwardly, the distinctions that differentiate the two won't be observed until you delve deeper and discover the things about themselves that they actively hide. But are there other differences that are easier to spot? Yeah, there are: the friends they keep. You can tell a lot about someone by their company. It will tell you 2 very powerful things abouthem: 1) Who they want in their company, and 2) Who they despise. You can learn a lot about someone by who/what they hate. If you walk into someone's room, and it's immaculate, with everything neatly organized, color-coded, etc, you might conclude that this person despises disorderliness, and that makes them neurotic, and chances are you'd be right. A person who keeps a lot of weak people around him might not be a true alpha, because he's surrounding himself with people that make him look good. People who are easily influenced and pose no threat to that person's authority. But what if a person is surrounded by egotistical giants who act very competitively? Clearly that person isn't out to control them, because he can't. Maybe that means he's confident that he deserves their companionship? Maybe that means he knows he can compete with them (and win)? That's an alpha. The problem with women seeking out the defining characteristics is that they don't embody them, so they can't readily identify them. Hyper-competitiveness is a distinctly masculine attribute, so guys will more easily identify drive and motivation in a competitive environment, whereas women might instead identify threats or obstructions. Big differences in perception. So yes, they "have no clue", because you're asking them to understand a language they do not speak. It's not a deterministic point, because it can be learned (in a manner of speaking), but inherently they do not start out equipped with it.
  15. The Overpopulation Argument

    Oh, I didn't forget to mention their arguments... They didn't present any arguments. Remember, I said the subject came up as an explanation for why they said they wanted to adopt instead of having their own children, and then everyone else just affirmed them when they expressed that. There was no arguing, and when I pushed back against that even slightly, they had no "points" at the ready to make. I avoided going full debate-mode, because these are people in and around my work-space, and I didn't want to make my working area/office antagonistic towards me, so I didn't even put up any effort. A little background... I'm from Southern California, which has been dubbed "Commiefornia" by many, and not without good reason. We're a "hip/young" culture out here, and hip and young is socialist. We're inundated with leftist platitudes in the news, the movies, TV shows, and even everybody's favorite youtube channels (just look at the hosts of Buzzfeed, all kids, all sickly, all "rainbow-haired"). Everywhere you go, you're bombarded by leftism, and it's just taken by everybody who's out and about that these things are a given. They regurgitate, they don't cognate. By contrast, the conservative or non-liberal people keep to themselves. They don't speak up, they don't rock the boat, much like how I was cautious around everyone else at work. But we're not silent, we just gauge our audience before we say anything. Having done a lot of door-to-door, I know I've seen MANY good-minded people, but they're usually shut up in those houses, not interacting with anybody, because they don't want to find themselves on the receiving end of a pitchfork. They're the silent Trump voters that the NY Times didn't predict, because they didn't make their intentions loud and clear. They're there, but you don't know that they're there. So if a leftist ideology ever comes up in conversation out here, people are likely to just agree out of habit. They don't ask tough questions, they don't stick out their neck and say that they disagree. The couple times when "overpopulation" was mentioned around the office, everyone just nodded, looked solemn, and said "right". One guy I spoke to at the office said something that I had thought on my own, when the both of us had gauged each other as "safe" to confide in: "liberalism is a mental disorder". These people are just mental children. They don't have arguments, they just repeat what they've been told. So the issue is a tad more complicated than having valid points to bring up to them. It's also how you approach them with those facts. "Hey, remember that conversation we had earlier? Well I was thinking about it, decided to do my research, and I'd like to tell you now that you were completely wrong. Interested in what proof I've got?" Might go over well with an analytical person like myself, but these touchy-feely kids will just explode. To me, the Socratic method, and constantly begging the question might be the most effective. On the other hand, it might just make the "conversation" repetitive and go nowhere, because asking them questions will yield no results. But I do agree with you. The people you described are evil. The question isn't how we save them, it's how do we save the victims of their virus-like ideology from becoming them in the future? These people I'm talking about were kids. Late teens, early twenties. They grew up in that socialist bubble of Commiefornia. They grew up in Plato's cave, and the light will blind them temporarily, so they won't accept it without some kind of a fight. The question is how do you introduce them to that light as gradually and comfortably as possible. I think I might just be TOO gradual to be effective... But that "anyone who thinks there's too much of something doesn't value that thing at all" point was pretty good. I think I'll rework that in a disarming way the next time they say that... >=)
×

Important Information

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