Blackpill Credit Masturbation - Have you heard of it?

[Deleted member 27204]

It is not "biased". It plainly says that Christianity was superior to other religions (although the author is clearly not a Christian). And he explains why. Having the courage to say that some religions (therefore cultures) might be superior to others is a rare thing today. Yet, he is obviously not a stromfontcel either. In particular, he says nice things about Judaism

That is the definition of biased. It's Judeo-Christian apologist type talk cloaked in "understanding things better."

Anti-colonialism and feminism are the same thing, promoted by the same people. Are you going to defend feminism, next?

That isn't necessarily true. Anti-colonialism is tied with feminism only because anti-colonialist type foids and SJWs think they have a monopoly on that view.

Anti-colonialism is about the do no harm and leave me alone, I leave you alone principle. It's not intrinsically tied to SJW causes. SJWs have only tried to advance this notion because they are obsessed with race and inserting their narrative everywhere.

Colonialism was also a precursor to globalism, which has been a net negative for the average man because of how much competition it's opened up for the average man in all areas of life.

 

[K9Otaku]

tbh the whole book read like pseudoscience and Abrahamic apologist views even if there were some interesting points brought up.

You have to choose who you want to be friends with: Incels or Wokesoytards? "pseudoscience" and "Abrahamic apologist" are brushes the Wokesoytard crowd loves to tar its enemies with. Are you part of that crowd?

 

[Deleted member 27204]

You have to choose who you want to be friends with: Incels or Wokesoytards?

Incels don't have to be theocratic and clung to the Abrahamist view of things. @ReconElement is an example of such people.

"pseudoscience" and "Abrahamic apologist" are brushes the Wokesoytard crowd loves to tar its enemies with. Are you part of that crowd?

No I'm not part of that crowd. But there's nothing that says that they should have the monopoly on those criticisms of Abrahamist views. By trying to make it seem like that's who I'm associating with you are giving them dominion over those views.

Just because someone doesn't completely buy into the alleged superiority of Judeo-Christian values doesn't mean they are a feminist or wokesoytard.

 

[K9Otaku]

That is the definition of biased. It's Judeo-Christian apologist type talk cloaked in "understanding things better."

That is woke logic: "If you reach the conclusion A>B, you must necessarily be biased for A"

That is the opposite of blackpilled. With this logic it is impossible to say that men are better at innovation than women, for example.. IT applies that logic to trash incels all the time

 

[ReconElement]

That is woke logic: "If you reach the conclusion A>B, you must necessarily be biased for A"

That is the opposite of blackpilled. With this logic it is impossible to say that men are better at innovation than women, for example.. IT applies that logic to trash incels all the time

That's what you're doing too, you think if someone is not with you in some matters, he's against you in all aspects. Things don't work in binaries.

 

[K9Otaku]

Incels don't have to be theocratic and clung to the Abrahamist view of things. @ReconElement is an example of such people.

No I'm not part of that crowd. But there's nothing that says that they should have the monopoly on those criticisms of Abrahamist views. By trying to make it seem like that's who I'm associating with you are giving them dominion over those views.

Just because someone doesn't completely buy into the alleged superiority of Judeo-Christian values doesn't mean they are a feminist or wokesoytard.

You do not have any counter arguments against the points this book makes.

You are just saying: "Muh, biased" because you do not like its conclusion. That is typical IT/woke style of "reasoning"

 

[Deleted member 27204]

That is woke logic: "If you reach the conclusion A>B, you must necessarily be biased for A"

But the text is biased in favor of Judeo-Christian values and history.

That is the opposite of blackpilled. With this logic it is impossible to say that men are better at innovation than women, for example.. IT applies that logic to trash incels all the time

So if they apply that logic that means anyone who applies that logic in a different context is automatically the same as them?
I don't believe that's true. There's people here like @PPEcel that have views very similar to neoliberal wokes. Yet they still disagree with a lot of what neoliberal wokes say about incels and regularly argue against them.

 

[K9Otaku]

That's what you're doing too, you think if someone is not with you in some matters, he's against you in all aspects.

Absolutely not. Read the book, discuss its arguments. That is not what you are doing

 

[Deleted member 27204]

You do not have any counter arguments against the points this book makes.

This book tries to simplify all the problems of the world down to one root cause of not being precise in language and society not having a certain level of trust. It then tries to extend this to saying that Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Christianity are better suited for having a society built on trust and not fake credit.

I don't think problems in society are this simple.

You are just saying: "Muh, biased" because you do not like its conclusion. That is typical IT/woke style of "reasoning"

No I am saying it's biased because repeatedly just like in the Old Testament it paints people that believe in polytheistic views as inherently prone to corruption and primal desires and repeatedly asserts the superiority of monotheism.

 

[K9Otaku]

But the text is biased in favor of Judeo-Christian values and history.

No it is not. It concludes that Christianity is superior and it explains why. Again, you are stuck in a loop "he says A>B THEREFORE bias for A". You are under woke influence. One can conclude in favor of something over something else without being biased if one explains why.

This book tries to simplify all the problems of the world down to one root cause of not being precise in language and society not having a certain level of trust. It then tries to extend this to saying that Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Christianity are better suited for having a society built on trust and not fake credit.

I don't think problems in society are this simple.

"It is more complicated". Woke argument

The book does not simplify anything. It is hard to read precisely for that reason. It references many things and weaves them into a rather complex line of argument. The fact that you do not fully understand what it says does not authorize you to say: "Muh oversimplification". That is woke-style laziness in argumentation

 

[Deleted member 27204]

No it is not. It concludes that Christianity is superior and it explains why. Again, you are stuck in a loop "he says A>B THEREFORE bias for A". You are under woke influence. One can conclude in favor of something over something else without being biased if one explains why.

Ofc one can be in favor of Christianity even if one isn't a Christian. Take cultural christians for example.

Still it's not just at the conclusion that Christianity and Abrahamic monotheism (excluding Islam) is stated as superior but throughout the chapters where the book tries to convince the reader that polytheism is closer to enabling primal urges and allowing Authority-S to assert itself over Authority-L.

A lot of the stories about polytheism being closer to enabling primal urges are similar to what is said in the Old Testament, where civilizations suddenly decline because the inhabitants started "whoring after other gods" and no longer worshipped a single god. In the context of polytheism in general this is a very simplistic argument to make.

It neglects other factors in social decay like excessive spending getting the country into debt, military expansion beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, natural disasters and reversion to petty jobs because real jobs and a reliable income are no longer as available.

"It is more complicated". Woke argument

You are trying to classify everything you don't like and that doesn't provide a flattering description of this text as a woke argument. It's like redditors saying that everything they don't like is incel.

The book does not simplify anything. It is hard to read precisely for that reason. It references many things and weaves them into a rather complex line of argument.

If a book is hard to read and the message can be interpreted in many different ways that isn't necessarily a strength of the book. A book should be understandable and not leave room for error.

The fact that you do not fully understand what it says does not authorize you to say: "Muh oversimplification". That is woke-style laziness in argumentation

But the book is oversimplifying societal problems to simply being about a lack of trust.

You can also argue then that societal problems are due to a lack of love, which many woke SJWs argue. But both arguments would be simplifying complex systems like society where things are subject to change and influence and pre-determined pathways aren't always followed or followed in the exact same way everytime.

 

[K9Otaku]

... chapters where the book tries to convince the reader that polytheism is closer to enabling primal urges and allowing Authority-S to assert itself over Authority-L.

The book does not speak about "primal urges". You are doing woke generalizations again

 

[Deleted member 27204]

The book does not speak about "primal urges". You are doing woke generalizations again

It doesn't speak about "primal urges" directly but it talks about how primal desires (lust, envy, greed, idolatory) are more likely to assert themselves in polytheism than monotheistic beliefs but only points to examples where coincidentally polytheistic civilizations decline. I've seen such things also said in the Old Testament. A lot of the stories in this book read like a secular interpretation (but still justification) of the stories in the Old Testament.

 

[K9Otaku]

Ofc one can be in favor of Christianity even if one isn't a Christian. Take cultural christians for example.

I.E. if you say something good about Christianty, you are necessarily a bad guy. Same reasoning as: if you say anything good about incels, you are necessarily a rapist. IT logic

 

[Deleted member 27204]

I.E. if you say something good about Christianty, you are necessarily a bad guy.

I never said that though.

Sam reasoning as: if you say anything good about incels, you are necessarily a rapist. IT logic

If anything you are doing more reddit tier logic than anything else.

Defending anti-colonialism somehow means you are a feminist.
Saying that societal issues are complex means you are woke.

 

[K9Otaku]

It doesn't speak about "primal urges" directly but it talks about how primal desires (lust, envy, greed, idolatory) ....

These are not "primal" desires. The book does not call them such. You CHOOSE to call them "primal" because you have a predetermined frame of thought

 

[BoramHyunKi]

Hi DL'd this last week and have been reading. Reminds me of an X-files episode. I have a few questions too and plan to keep reading.

 

[K9Otaku]

Defending anti-colonialism somehow means you are a feminist.
Saying that societal issues are complex means you are woke.

Yes, that is what it means. Look around you.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

These are not "primal" desires.

Do you want me to use a different classification then?

The book does not call them such. You CHOOSE to call them "primal" because you have a predetermined frame of thought

Lust, greed, envy, wrath are all base instincts. What should they be called if not primal then? Primal here means in the sense that it's the most instinctual.

 

[K9Otaku]

A lot of the stories in this book read like a secular interpretation (but still justification) of the stories in the Old Testament.

So? Why would that be wrong?

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Yes, that is what it means. Look around you.

You are pointing to coincidental examples of where the most avowed anti-colonialists are feminists while neglecting that there are anti-colonialists that are not in any way feminist.

You are claiming that saying that societal issues have many different causes and are not that simple is "woke" yet there are many scientists that look at the different causes of a phenomenon that in no way have woke views (as evidenced by how they do not try to get the results of their work to match up with their theories).

 

[K9Otaku]

Lust, greed, envy, wrath are all base instincts. What should they be called if not primal then? Primal here means in the sense that it's the most instinctual.

No, they are not "the most instinctual". The book makes the case that they are negative, of course, but related to our language instincts, hence, highly evolved. The book describes the Ishtar cult as a technology, therefore as something highly artificial. Not something primitive. Again you are missing the point and arguing against a strawman

 

[Deleted member 27204]

So? Why would that be wrong?

By itself it's not wrong.

But the assertion of monotheism being a superior system (just like Western civilization being superior) has been used to justify subjugation and ruling over of ethnic people in the past. It's the way that the assertion of monotheism being superior has resulted in events like religious wars that is the reason a lot of people are wary of when monotheism is said to be superior to polytheism.

No, they are not "the most instinctual". The book makes the case that they are negative, of course, but related to our language instincts, hence, highly evolved. The book describes the Ishtar cult as a technology, therefore as something highly artificial. Not something primitive. Again you are missing the point and arguing against a strawman

Do you believe that humans don't instinctually have desires like lust, envy, greed but these are somehow implanted by a malevolent force? That sounds a lot like how in secular humanism it's claimed that humans naturally know right from wrong and that incorrect or socially undesirable behavior is due to bigotry.

 

[BoramHyunKi]

That is woke logic: "If you reach the conclusion A>B, you must necessarily be biased for A"

That is the opposite of blackpilled. With this logic it is impossible to say that men are better at innovation than women, for example.. IT applies that logic to trash incels all the time

new to the site but I just got back from a hellish time in the U.S. I did a Masters in Philosophy so I recognize some of the logic here from L. Wittgenstein (from his later days) and I have to agree ! I'm fed up with not being able to say in those circles.

I.E. if you say something good about Christianty, you are necessarily a bad guy. Same reasoning as: if you say anything good about incels, you are necessarily a rapist. IT logic

I also have found what you are saying here to be true !

But the text is biased in favor of Judeo-Christian values and history.

So if they apply that logic that means anyone who applies that logic in a different context is automatically the same as them?
I don't believe that's true. There's people here like @PPEcel that have views very similar to neoliberal wokes. Yet they still disagree with a lot of what neoliberal wokes say about incels and regularly argue against them.

And what if it is ? I just got through chapter 5, and I can see that it might be perceived as a "bad" thing in our times today.. But there is a lot more the author seems to be saying about Christianity (among other things) and calling it biased just yet is, in my opinion, not reasonable !

 

[K9Otaku]

But the assertion of monotheism being a superior system (just like Western civilization being superior) has been used to justify subjugation and ruling over of ethnic people in the past. It's the way that the assertion of monotheism being superior has resulted in events like religious wars that is the reason a lot of people are wary of when monotheism is said to be superior to polytheism.

When an argument is used for wrong ends it does not means it is wrong. Nazis were the first to make anti-tobaco campaigns. Does that make it bad?

Do you believe that humans don't instinctually have desires like lust, envy, greed but these are somehow implanted by a malevolent force? That sounds a lot like how in secular humanism it's claimed that humans naturally know right from wrong and that incorrect or socially undesirable behavior is due to bigotry.

No, it is not at all like that. That is not at all the case the book makes

Humans do have instincts. But they are not what we call lust, envy, greed and especially not idolatry. The desire to mate is an instinct. Lust is not. Lust is what culture (the wrong kind) transforms the desire to mate into. Same with envy and greed. Idolatry is entirely artificial. There is no "idolatry instinct"

 

[Deleted member 27204]

When an argument is used for wrong ends it does not means it is wrong. Nazis were the first to make anti-tobaco campaigns. Does that make it bad?

Anti-tobacco campaigns didn't potentially result in the deaths of thousands of people, upending of way of life, mass migrations, terrorism and so on. Arguments and assertions in favor of monotheism being superior carry that baggage even if it by itself a simple assertion that monotheism is superior doesn't. It's the actions associated with people thinking that monotheism is superior that is the problem.

Also just saying monoetheism is superior is toothless if not followed by enforcement of that. And enforcement of that has lead to and been a justification for deaths of thousands of people, upending of way of life, mass migrations and terrorism.

No, it is not at all like that. That is not at all the case the book makes

Humans do have instincts. But they are not what we call lust, envy, greed and especially not idolatry. The desire to mate is an instinct. Lust is not. Lust is what culture (the wrong kind) transforms the desire to mate into. Same with envy and greed. Idolatry is entirely artificial. There is no "idolatry instinct"

That's a very optimistic view of human nature. It's like arguing that women aren't naturally bad but the jews made them that way. It takes the blame off of human nature and offloads it to cultural factors.

 

[JayGoptri]

It is not "biased". It plainly says that Christianity was superior to other religions (although the author is clearly not a Christian). And he explains why. Having the courage to say that some religions (therefore cultures) might be superior to others is a rare thing today. Yet, he is obviously not a stromfontcel either. In particular, he says nice things about Judaism


Anti-colonialism and feminism are the same thing, promoted by the same people. Are you going to defend feminism, next?

Yeah I didn't get the impression the author is only a Christian or an apologist. It seems to be expressing more !

Absolutely not. Read the book, discuss its arguments. That is not what you are doing

@ReconElement - I suggest the same. I don't think thats what @K9Otaku is saying at all !

 

[K9Otaku]

It's the actions associated with people thinking that monotheism is superior that is the problem.

This idea has been implanted in your brain by woke teachers (the same who told you that women could do no wrong). Don't trust it.

 

[BoramHyunKi]

That is the definition of biased. It's Judeo-Christian apologist type talk cloaked in "understanding things better."

That isn't necessarily true. Anti-colonialism is tied with feminism only because anti-colonialist type foids and SJWs think they have a monopoly on that view.

Anti-colonialism is about the do no harm and leave me alone, I leave you alone principle. It's not intrinsically tied to SJW causes. SJWs have only tried to advance this notion because they are obsessed with race and inserting their narrative everywhere.

Colonialism was also a precursor to globalism, which has been a net negative for the average man because of how much competition it's opened up for the average man in all areas of life.

when i was at Colombia any time i heard someone use the "anti-colonialism" i knew they were into all sorts of SJW nonsense as well. It is WOKE stuffs !

 

[Deleted member 27204]

This idea has been implanted in your brain by woke teachers (the same who told you that women could do no wrong). Don't trust it.

No it wasn't implanted. And despite having these views about being wary of praise for Judeo-Christian religions over others that you claim are similar to woke SJWs, I don't believe women can do no wrong. So already that itself shows that just because you say some things that SJWs say doesn't mean you agree with everything SJWs say.

As @ReconElement said it's a dualistic mindset to think that if you believe anything the opposition does then you are the opposition. Where have you seen that also?
Ironically enough with SJWs, where they claim that if you believe anything the alt-right says you are automatically alt-right.

 

[JayGoptri]

when i was at Colombia any time i heard someone use the "anti-colonialism" i knew they were into all sorts of SJW nonsense as well. It is WOKE stuffs !

I agree. That and calling everyone who makes a point about Christianity an "apologist". It's Atheist-woke stuff !

 

[K9Otaku]

That's a very optimistic view of human nature.

Optimistic? Why? Because you think that changing the culture is easy? It is anything but

One of the point that the book makes is that Christianity eventually succeeded in rolling back the Ishtar virus. Even if you agree, you have to consider that it took it almost 2000 years to reach that goal. Culture is hard to change and we do not control it anyway.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Optimistic? Why? Because you think that changing the culture is easy? It is anything but

Optimistic because naturally humans are pretty shit toward each other. The experiences of people on this forum proves it. Their accounts of normies liking to shit on others to boost their status proves it. The accounts of people here saying that even incels would stab each other in the back for a pretty glance from women proves it.

One of the point that the book makes is that Christianity eventually succeeded in rolling back the Ishtar virus.

That doesn't mean that a more rigid polytheistic view that is also not liable to co-option or vague interpretations couldn't do the same.

Even if you agree, you have to consider that it took it almost 2000 years to reach that goal.

Idk what is or what isn't. It's like the history of America. It keeps getting revised and rewritten and the old sometimes thrown out or merged with the new to make it unrecognizable.

 

[K9Otaku]

No it wasn't implanted. And despite having these views about being wary of praise for Judeo-Christian religions over others that you claim are similar to woke SJWs, I don't believe women can do no wrong. So already that itself shows that just because you say some things that SJWs say doesn't mean you agree with everything SJWs say.

As @ReconElement said it's a dualistic mindset to think that if you believe anything the opposition does then you are the opposition. Where have you seen that also?
Ironically enough with SJWs, where they claim that if you believe anything the alt-right says you are automatically alt-right.

I am not saying you ARE an SJW. Obviously, if you were one, you would not be here. What I am saying is that you react like one, which means that your reasoning capacities are impaired by woke influence. This is, sadly, extremely common.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

I am not saying you ARE an SJW. Obviously, if you were one, you would not be here.

Okay.

What I am saying is that you react like one, which means that your reasoning capacities are impaired by woke influence. This is, sadly, extremely common.

What SJWs strive for and what they actually do are too different things. They claim to be against injustice and unfairness: how wouldn't that be desirable particularly for many incels that have drawn the short straw in life? But how it's applied is more the problem.

And because of identity politics framework and culture wars permeating into everything even serious discussions about injustices in the past have become saddled with an inherently feminist and liberal view but it doesn't have to be that way.

And again by itself there's nothing inherently wrong about saying Judeo-Christian values are superior but that never suffices for others. They feel the need then to enforce this view on others. Just like cucks enforce their view on us concerning how they privilege women and won't tolerate people believing and expressing unflattering things about women @Robtical

 

[JayGoptri]

When an argument is used for wrong ends it does not means it is wrong. Nazis were the first to make anti-tobaco campaigns. Does that make it bad?


No, it is not at all like that. That is not at all the case the book makes

Humans do have instincts. But they are not what we call lust, envy, greed and especially not idolatry. The desire to mate is an instinct. Lust is not. Lust is what culture (the wrong kind) transforms the desire to mate into. Same with envy and greed. Idolatry is entirely artificial. There is no "idolatry instinct"

What @K9Otaku explained here makes more sense to me than what you just said @your personality.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

What @K9Otaku explained here makes more sense to me than what you just said @your personality.

Okay what did I say to you that didn't make sense?

 

[K9Otaku]

Optimistic because naturally humans are pretty shit toward each other. The experiences of people on this forum proves it. Their accounts of normies liking to shit on others to boost their status proves it. The accounts of people here saying that even incels would stab each other in the back for a pretty glance from women proves it.

No, it doesn't. None of this is NATURAL behavior. In a highly evolved society there are no NATURAL behaviors. Everything is transformed by culture.

That doesn't mean that a more rigid polytheistic view that is also not liable to co-option or vague interpretations couldn't do the same.

That is too vague to be used in a productive argument. Yes, no, maybe ... You should build your arguments on actual cases, like the book does. You cannot talk about "polytheism" in general. It is too vague. That is why the book discusses specific examples: Sumero/Akkadian religion, Graeco-Roman religion, Indian religion. Even talking about "Judaism" or "Christianity" is too vague (and "abrahamic faiths" even more so). That is why the book talks in a lot of detail about specific periods and events in the history of these cultural currents

Idk what is or what isn't. It's like the history of America. It keeps getting revised and rewritten and the old sometimes thrown out or merged with the new to make it unrecognizable.

Interpretations change, yes. But not the facts. We have not degenerated to the level of making up the facts of history yet. When you read Wikipedia, you can still discern the factual outline, regardless of the spin that is put on it

 

[Deleted member 27204]

No, it doesn't. None of this is NATURAL behavior. In a highly evolved society there are no NATURAL behaviors. Everything is transformed by culture.

That same argument can be used to excuse how women mistreat low status men as more a fault of the culture. It's the exact same argument traditionalists make to let women off the hook and blame men for letting culture "degenerate" to some undesirable level.

That is too vague to be used in a productive argument. Yes, no, maybe ... You should build your arguments on actual cases, like the book does. You cannot talk about "polytheism" in general. It is too vague. That is why the book discusses specific examples: Sumero/Akkadian religion, Graeco-Roman religion, Indian religion.

Polytheism as in hinduism and buddhism. If those religions were more strict in deciding who is truly a follower and who isn't they wouldn't have been so close to fall into disarray and being co-opted as a fashion statement imo. The existence of multiple gods doesn't mean you can't enforce a code of conduct and set guidelines.

Interpretations change, yes. But not the facts. We have not degenerated to the level of making up the facts in history. When you read Wikipedia, you can still discern the factual outline, regardless of the spin that is put on them

There's people that disagree with the notion that civilization started in the Middle East. Some Chinese nationalists say it started in China. Some Indian nationalists say it started in India. Some African nationalists say it started in Africa. All of them provide some amount of convincing evidence although it's not entirely convincing. Idk just like anyone else what the true history of the world is. It's only speculation and reliance on some old accounts that you can infer what might have happened. No one knows for sure and particularly about all the intricacies unless you were actually living during that time.

 

[K9Otaku]

What SJWs strive for and what they actually do are too different things. They claim to be against injustice and unfairness: how wouldn't that be desirable particularly for many incels that have drawn the short straw in life? But how it's applied is more the problem.

And because of identity politics framework and culture wars permeating into everything even serious discussions about injustices in the past have become saddled with an inherently feminist and liberal view but it doesn't have to be that way.

And again by itself there's nothing inherently wrong about saying Judeo-Christian values are superior but that never suffices for others. They feel the need then to enforce this view on others. Just like cucks enforce their view on us concerning how they privilege women and won't tolerate people believing and expressing unflattering things about women @Robtical

That is precisely why we need a new intellectual framework to discuss what "injustice" and "unfairness" mean. If we keep using the old SJW vocabulary, we will repeat their nonsense. This book is an honest attempt at doing this. Try to really understand it before pissing on it.

Also, calling "allies" to the rescue by tagging them in a message is typical SJW tactic. When you do that, it means that you want to win, not to understand

 

[Deleted member 27204]

That is precisely why we need a new intellectual framework to discuss what "injustice" and "unfairness" mean. If we keep using the old SJW vocabulary, we will repeat their nonsense. This book is an honest attempt at doing this.

But by surrendering use of formerly neutral words to SJWs you give them sole dominion over those words. Remember that many words in old SJW vocabulary were originally neutral.

Try to really understand it before pissing on it.

I'm not pissing on it. I said it had some good parts. But I'm not going to wholesale praise it. I am playing devil's advocate on some of the things otherwise this thread could turn into a thread that only looks at the positives of this book and not its deficiencies. It's good to look at things from a more critical view. Doing so isn't going to hurt blackpilled incels.

Also, calling "allies" to the rescue by tagging them in a message is typical SJW tactic. When you do that, it means that you want to win, not to understand

No I want others that I know share similar viewpoints to say their part. Me and @ReconElement don't agree with everything but I want his perspective on the monotheism versus polytheism debate too.

 

[ReconElement]

But by surrendering use of formerly neutral words to SJWs you give them sole dominion over those words. Remember that many words in old SJW vocabulary were originally neutral.

I'm not pissing on it. I said it had some good parts. But I'm not going to wholesale praise it. I am playing devil's advocate on some of the things otherwise this thread could turn into a thread that only looks at the positives of this book and not its deficiencies. It's good to look at things from a more critical view. Doing so isn't going to hurt blackpilled incels.

No I want others that I know share similar viewpoints to say their part. Me and @ReconElement don't agree with everything but I want his perspective on the monotheism versus polytheism debate too.

Monotheism is great at fighting external enemies and creating internal ones, polytheism is great in just minding your own business, in the information age it makes sense, however in most cases polytheistic views generally have monotheistic devotion towards certain deities however they're not exclusivists in most cases but they can turn exclusivists like with Tutankhamen who only worshipped the sun deity. I have tests, so my apologies I can't be of much help lol

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Monotheism is great at fighting external enemies and creating internal ones,

Unification around a dualistic mindset of good versus evil where there is little room for nuance is definitely a driver in wars.

polytheism is great in just minding your own business,

And also introspection and looking inward (not excessively ofc because then it's just self absorbed behavior).

in the information age it makes sense, however in most cases polytheistic views generally have monotheistic devotion towards certain deities however they're not exclusivists.

Interesting

 

[K9Otaku]

Polytheism as in hinduism and buddhism. If those religions were more strict in deciding who is truly a follower and who isn't they wouldn't have been so close to fall into disarray and being co-opted as a fashion statement imo. The existence of multiple gods doesn't mean you can't enforce a code of conduct and set guidelines.

In practice, it precisely seem to do just that. Being Japanese, I know Buddhism quite well and through it I know quite a lot about Hinduism (the 2 are highly intermixed). Neither religion is clear about anything. There are factions and currents all over the place. Socrates himself is said to have summarized the problem quite well when he asked "What is piety?". He was told "Piety is doing what pleases the gods". To which he replied: "if there is more than one god, haw can I know that what pleases one will not displease another?" There is no way to avoid that problem.

There's people that disagree with the notion that civilization started in the Middle East. Some Chinese nationalists say it started in China. Some Indian nationalists say it started in India. Some African nationalists say it started in Africa. All of them provide some amount of convincing evidence although it's not entirely convincing.

None of the "evidence" for that is credible. Civilization started in southern Irak (Sumer). The best proof of that is that this position is held by white European archaeologists and historians. Are they "Iraki nationalists"? White Europeans are the only ones who DO NOT say that civilization started in their country ...

But by surrendering use of formerly neutral words to SJWs you give them sole dominion over those words. Remember that many words in old SJW vocabulary were originally neutral.

These words are dead. They have been disfigured beyond recognition. New words. and new concepts, are needed

 

[Deleted member 27204]

In practice, it precisely seem to do just that. Being Japanese, I know Buddhism quite well and through it I know quite a lot about Hinduism (the 2 are highly intermixed). Neither religion is clear about anything. There are factions and currents all over the place. Socrates himself is said to have summarized the problem quite well when he asked "What is piety?". He was told "Piety is doing what pleases the gods". To which he replied: "if there is more than one god, haw can I know that what pleases one will not displease another?" There is no way to avoid that problem.

But at the same time arguments over who is the one true god and what that god truly represents and his exact plans are also a source of strife in monotheism and there doesn't appear to be a way to avoid that problem.

None of the "evidence" for that is credible. Civilization started in southern Irak (Sumer). The best proof of that is that this position is held by white European archaeologists and historians. Are they "Iraki nationalists"? White Europeans are the only ones who DO NOT say that civilization started in their country ...

It depends on what you consider civilization. A lot of anthropologists believe the out of Africa theory so who's not to say that the first civilizations began in Africa even if they weren't what is today considered civilization?

Also consider a motive for why White Europeans would want to think civilization started in the Middle East and not Western Europe: it goes fits in with the religious history of the religion that White Europeans at the time believed in (Christianity).

 

[K9Otaku]

I have tests, so my apologies I can't be of much help lol

Spoken like a true SJW "ally" who is flaking out on you when you counted on him to shout down your oponent with nonsense.

 

[JayGoptri]

In practice, it precisely seem to do just that. Being Japanese, I know Buddhism quite well and through it I know quite a lot about Hinduism (the 2 are highly intermixed). Neither religion is clear about anything. There are factions and currents all over the place. Socrates himself is said to have summarized the problem quite well when he asked "What is piety?". He was told "Piety is doing what pleases the gods". To which he replied: "if there is more than one god, haw can I know that what pleases one will not displease another?" There is no way to avoid that problem.

Yyep! I can attest to what he is saying also @your personality. Hinduism is the very definition of "unclear". Sanskrit has some good vocabulary to describe things from eastern and I guess could be applied in understanding some western civilization but otherwise it's weak.

@K9Otaku - btw that's another reason I am drawn to this online book. I think it seems to avoid getting sucked into anyone of those category traps...which is refreshing.

 

[ReconElement]

Spoken like a true SJW "ally" who is flaking out on you when you counted on him to shout down your oponent with nonsense.

Lol, I'm not SJW dude, I don't even think much about woke people, I have tests, plus this is good place to engage in discussions with other incels. Everything's not war.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Spoken like a true SJW "ally" who is flaking out on you when you counted on him to shout down your oponent with nonsense.

No he just has work. Not everyone here is a NEET. And again I wanted his perspective on this because I do not know of many other people here that are more critical of monotheism or practice polytheism. You are the one that sees me as an opponent even though I only disagree with some things you've said and not all.

 

[K9Otaku]

It depends on what you consider civilization. A lot of anthropologists believe the out of Africa theory so who's not to say that the first civilizations began in Africa even if they weren't what is today considered civilization?

Civilization, not man. Lucy is not supposed to have invented civilization

Also consider a motive for why White Europeans would want to think civilization started in the Middle East: it goes fits in with the religious history of the religion that White Europeans at the time believed in (Christianity).

Did Christianity begin in Southern Iraq?

All Western archaeologists have been SJWs for over 50 years. They certainly do not defend Christianity. Yet they still say that Civilization started in Southern Iraq