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

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

1 Follower

About SnapSlav

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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... >=)
  4. Personality Test

    INTJ-T, the "Architect". From the title I wouldn't have agreed, but upon reading the description it made much more sense. "It's lonely at the top." Indeed it is.
  5. The Overpopulation Argument

    Totally missed the point I was getting at, but whatever... I'll just accept and enjoy the irony at this point, as little as I can. I should think it's pretty obvious why they think this: because that's what they've been told. Do people spontaneously come to the conclusion that the planet is warming dangerously because of human activity? No, they think that because that's what they've been told. Do people out of nowhere arrive to the same conclusion on a massive scale that there is society-wide racial injustice occurring where they can't possibly know about it? No, they think that because that's what they've been told.
  6. The Overpopulation Argument

    One is a description of a character archetype (e.g. "the well-meaning, but uninformed, who is capable of being convinced"), the other is an admission of personal fallibility (e.g. "they are or they aren't that type of person, I don't know yet"). Words underlined represent those distinct uses of the words "can" and "maybe can" that you are referring to. These are two separate statements, not contradictory statements. Personal fallibility doesn't mean the person can't be reasoned with, it just means the observer doesn't KNOW (yet) that they can or cannot be reasoned with, but as I explained in the topic introduction, my interactions with these particular individuals is that they appear to be of the persuadable variety, with the proper approach/method/information. Ergo, the topic, asking, "What are these approaches/methods/knowledge-bombs that I may use?" I mean, for fuck's sake, what bigger cue do you need that someone IS of the variety that CAN be convinced, than them being a leading member of their school's debate team, and going into college to major in Philosophy? I'm not saying it's 100% shut and closed, without any possibility of being otherwise, but that's closer to 100 than 0, that's for damn sure... Right, that's the whole POINT of the topic: Methods to use to separate those who can be saved from those who cannot... I'm not interested in assertions that a group is a monolith... until it's not. On top of being nonsensical, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. I didn't ask, "Are there people who can be convinced that this is not true?" I stated, "I don't think this is true," and also asked, "What can I present to convince these people (of whom I believe to be persuadable) that it is not true?" Obviously some people are just "meant" to be part of those psychopathic hive-mind groups... whether their upbringing "broke" them in just the right way that that's where they "belonged", or whether they were just born that special kind of evil... I don't think "why" matters. They cannot be saved. I've indicated several times that I don't give a damn about these people. If it is your assertion that they're ALL of this variety, then would that not preclude you from having any input in this topic, since the topic was about the kinds of people you're asserting that they are not?
  7. Why Bad Boy?

    Like I said, we're talking about "in the moment". We all know what things are good qualities in people. Some people simply choose not to act on that knowledge. There's no special "lesson" to give our daughters/sisters/cousins/etc that will prevent them from picking bad boys. They either have the capacity to see past instinctual urges and think about the long-term impact of their decisions- what Stef refers to as "deferral of gratification" -or they don't. Find me a women who when asked whether they'd date a man who was honest or who never told them the truth they'd pick the latter, because I'm positive they'd all say they want the honest man. But that doesn't mean they will actually pick a man with integrity over a serial liar, when presented the choice. Again, we're talking about instincts, here. Rational thinking (sadly) does not apply. After all, the question you posed was not "how can we change them" but "why do they do this?"
  8. The Overpopulation Argument

    At the risk of feeding a possible troll... The difference is one is spiteful and the other is empathetic. Both believe the same lie, but they react to it completely differently. One can be reasoned with, the other cannot. Obviously we reserve the snarky comebacks for the ones who cannot be reasoned with, because why waste our time trying to explain a reasoned argument to them if they're just going to reject it, when you could just be a jerk to them, accomplish just as much, but at least elicit some slight enjoyment out of the exchange? By contrast, the other is responding to the lie with thought-out plans to try to help however they can. Clearly they mean well, aren't getting in anyone's face being belligerent, and maybe- just maybe- can be reasoned with. It's like pointing out the difference between a Communist who believes it because they're broken in all the right ways that they will reject any efforts to persuade them, and a Communist who believes it because they've been propagandized their whole lives, but would embrace the truth if it were ever presented to them. One can be saved, the other we call Antifa. A wonderful list of examples of what I was getting at. If it isn't a problem with fertilizer, it's new methods of accessing more fossil fuels. If it's not fossil fuels, it's nuclear power. Etc etc. The list of possible technologies to provide for the future keeps infinitely expanding, and I just don't see us "exhausting" our resources anytime soon. Like Boss said at the top (and I agree), it's an economic issue. We'll never reach "overcapacity", because if we ever near "capacity", we'll correct for that, so long as there are market incentives (common sense) to do so. I look at all technology from the perspective of, "how did the average citizen perceive 'fuel' when they were heavily reliant on whale oil?" To me, the answer is, "they had no idea what could be invented in the future", which means we have no idea what will be created in the future, either. So all the doom-and-gloom naysayers insisting that we're going to run out of X are implying that technology is and will always be what they can currently expect/understand, when it's more likely a matter of "people will find a way, we just don't know what that way is yet".
  9. Why Bad Boy?

    Oh, I wouldn't be THAT charitable. That might take out a sizable chunk of the world's problems, but I'm sure there are PLENTY more woes in the world to solve that would give Stefan ample content to work with... unfortunately. Sexual selection doesn't really target the qualities that make "good men", such as virtue, honesty, integrity, for the same reason as explained above in the 4 vs 200 point. These were not "valuable" traits in the hunter gatherer sense of survival needs. They seek assertiveness and aggressiveness in male partners because that's what safeguards and provides in that primitive environment, and both alphas and bad boys exhibit those qualities. So on an instinctual level they can't distinguish between the two. They want alphas, but they don't have filters for the important characteristics that differentiate an alpha from a bad boy, so they go for both indiscriminately. And for the women who are smart enough to KNOW the difference, good luck winning the argument between her frontal lobe and her lizard brain. In the moment, we all follow our instincts. On an aggregate level, some women will get lucky and nab an alpha by following their instincts, while most will just get caught up dealing with the bad guys they ought to steer clear of. "Serene" and "kind" are just not traits that women select for, unfortunately.
  10. Why Bad Boy?

    Again, we're talking about 4 having less of an impact than 100-200. Even if we included ALL of human history post-agriculture, we're only talking about 11, which is still nothing compared to 100-200. A couple thousand years aren't enough to change our genes so drastically. Considering 4 thousand years "a long time" genetically is just a mistake, because that's just a flash in the pan that is our genetic history. Additionally- again -it's not that "bad boy" genes are advantageous (to the males who have them), it's that female behavior to submit to "bad boys" is what's advantageous (to the women who have that). Think of it as guy A running a successful business versus guy B owning of a subsidized "business". Guy A doesn't understand how guy B could stay in business, because he has poor business practices, wastes money, has little diligence or hard-work ethics, so HOW could he still be running a business? It's not that he's running a successful business at all, he's just being kept "in business" because tax-funded subsidies are keeping him afloat. This is what female selection versus male exception is all about. If women choose poorly, you get more of the bad genes, and if you've paid ANY amount of attention to the "single mother" series of videos of Stefan's, you might notice that there are many women who make very bad choices. Some men spread their genes by being exceptional, some men spread their genes simply because women chose them. Maybe the way you can look at it is that all those "efforts" to make better sexual selection is really only giving us better people. But that's still just select individuals, which you have to seek out and identify with great care over a long period of time. It's not the species as a whole.
  11. Why Bad Boy?

    No, you misunderstand. The evolutionary advantage is in the women submitting to "bad boys", not the men being bad boys. So the bad boys get to spread their genes, but only because the women accepted them, and the women accepted them because it was either submit or die. Men didn't have that choice, it was either kill or be killed, and bigger, badder male usually got to live another day by killing the less big, less bad rival male. Also, we're not talking about the last few thousand years, we're talking about primitive times where there were no such thing as "armies". Remember, most of human history was over a hundred thousand years of hunter gatherer small and primitive tribal society, and only relatively recently have we had civilization. Our species is adapted to that huge period of primitive living, where rival tribes would kill everything that wasn't them, not armies following orders. So, to recap, for most of human existence, there were tiny tribes of primitive hunters and gatherers. They featured stoic men who would hunt to provide for the tribe, and rarely express their "emotions" (disappointment, fears, worries, etc) because it was evolutionarily disadvantageous to air your grievances/failures if you came back to the camp from an unsuccessful hunt without any food because it would only spread panic that could destabilize and endanger the tribe. Then there were the physically weaker, open and supportive gatherer women women who needed those communal bonds and openness instincts to nurture the children and aid each other in their daily tasks (being physically weaker and requiring teamwork) to keep the tribe alive. In that environment, when a rival tribe decides that it's easier to eliminate their rivals than to relocate and find better hunting grounds, the men have no option but to kill their enemies, or they die. The women have a different choice: submit to their invaders, and they can survive. This is the origin of the preference for "bad boys". It's not that the men have ANY kind of genetic advantage for possessing this trait. It's that women are bred to select this trait, because doing so guaranteed their own survival. Make more sense when it's explained that way?
  12. Catalonia attempting to separate from Spain

    Major motivations can be attributed to Europeans, in general, seeing through the filter of ethnicity. Borders are a matter of race, historically, not ideas or alliance, or who-won-what-battle. Scotts don't want their own country because they think they have anything to gain from being a separate country up in the North without much chance of having any halfway decent economy. They want their own country because they're not English. The Russians in the Crimean peninsula didn't want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia because they didn't like they politics, they did it because they were racially Russian, and not Ukrainian. Catalans are also very ethnic-distinction-minded and by and large make the distinction whenever possible. They may benefit from having more localized control with a smaller local government. They may benefit from having a better economy that isn't shackled to a "sinking ship". But really, all that doesn't matter nearly so much to them as "we're not Spaniards" does.
  13. Why Bad Boy?

    So I'm seeing the topic as two main questions. As for the question of, "Is there an explanation as to why women keep falling into the same trap," I think this is way too much overthinking of a relatively simpler issue. The attraction to "bad boys" is simple evolutionary psychology. If women are the more communal, cooperative, and openness-centric of the two sexes because our evolution as a species necessitated that it be so, then women going along with their invaders and accepting the biggest and the baddest of the stronger and often-more-violent men worked to their advantage, because by that point their defenders had all been killed. Biologically, evolutionarily, psychologically, it just makes sense that they go for that, because it ensures the propagation of their genes. So women are built to be that way. That's the reason. Really the only reason. The other question, the matter of the assessment of the "bad boy" himself, and your own psychology, personal history, etc... I'll leave that for someone else far more qualified to comment on such matters. Sieg did a damn fine job thus far, so I'll defer to him on the matter. =]
  14. Lot of good stuff here. Basically there is no connection between the two, as they are practically polar opposites in the gradation scale of pursuit of women versus avoidance of women. PUAs pursue them, MGTOWs avoid them. The reasons why don't really matter. Some PUAs do it because they want sex but DON'T want to get into a relationship, while other PUAs do it specifically because they want to find their OTP (one true pairing). Either way, they're pursuing women. However they don't do like like it's some kind of game; it is a game, and they play it, and practice it, and aim to get better at it CONSTANTLY. On the MGTOW side, it's the same story with "the reasons don't really matter". Either they're losers who just call themselves MGTOW as a convenient excuse, or they're cynics who don't see the point/value in companionship or procreation, so they ward off all interaction with the fairer sex all to maintain their independence. Does the distinction make a lick of difference? No, they're avoiding relationships with women, regardless of their reasons. So they don't share any commonalities, really. About the one thing they "share" in common is that they're both men, but that's like saying liberals and conservatives are "alike" in that they're both human. That's just bad categorization if you can find an excuse to call polar opposites "similar" through some form of bullshitting. The "middle" would be someone like a PUA who does it for a partner, or someone who just wings it and tries their best to get a happy living without any kind of community to "teach" them how to do it, or any study to research what many have done before them to know what works. Basically, your average Joe Blow is the middle. "Purple Pill" is just nonsense. There's no such thing. There are only 2 pills. You either escape the matrix, or you submit to the matrix; there is no third choice, no "middle" option. What some people call "Purple Pill" is people who haven't faced the crossroads that defines the alternatives. They haven't been "woke" but neither have they decided to reject enlightenment, either. They're "in the matrix". They may choose to take the red pill or the blue pill if the choice presents itself, but it hasn't. Thus, the "middle" is said Joe Blow making the best that he can. One side uses methodology to achieve its goals. The other side just... is. They don't have special secrets/skills/wisdom/techniques to impart onto others in order to be what they are. They just subsist. Frankly, I'd choose PUA any day of the week, given the choice. It just makes more sense. If you're an analytical person, it's a lifestyle that takes the dynamics of the interactions between the sexes and it analyses the ever-loving-shit out of it, systematizes it, and weaponizes it! You can choose to study just out of curiosity and never pull the trigger, or you can use the weapon for the purpose it was designed for. The choice is up to you...
  15. The Overpopulation Argument

    Again, wrong audience. There are the kinds of people who will bemoan "there are too many people", and then there are people who will explain away their decisions because "overpopulation". We're dealing with the latter, not the former. I frankly don't even engage with the former, if I can help it. But the latter are people who CAN (possibly) be "saved". Thus the question of how to convince them.
×

Important Information

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