L
Lebensmüder
Soon to be deleted account
★★★
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
- Posts
- 5,202
The core doctrine of modern leftism (or liberalism) in general is that the nature of human beings is inherently good and that bad actions are only the result of social restrictions, their claim is that a free human being would behave far better.
They claim that hierarchical thinking is something artificial, that people aren't born with it, that it is the result of a capitalist society and that after making people financially and in terms of rights equal it would stop.
However the behavior of the liberated woman (and therefore our fate) is the best evidence against that thesis. The freedom of the dating market didn't make it more inclusive/egalitarian, unlike what the 68ers said. Rather, it made people more selective/more exclusivistic, so much that even the SS or any other elite force in the past had lower (physical and mental) standards for men than a liberated, modern woman (a hyperbole, but still accurate).
Instead of "freedom" making people equal it resulted in a far greater hierachy, the dating market shows that hierarchies naturally arise if people are left to govern for themselves (like on Dating Apps) and that these hierarchies that arise on their own without interference of a government or a ruler are even more brutal/unforgiving than that of many turbo-capitalist or even "fascist" states in terms of criteria you must fulfill to be able to live a decent life and in terms of social stratification. The Gini coefficients (as measures for economic inequality) are for Tinder far more dystopian than for the worst hellholes in the world.
View: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
In the abstinence of an outside force restricting the "freedom" of people you just have mob rule (an ochlocracy) where explicit laws are replaced by implicit laws and where everything changes depending on the mood/the dynamics of the mob.
And it shows you that finances are only one of many metrics for the evaluation of the different worth of people, if we took finances away as a factor for competition/measuring worth of humans other factors (like looks/physical strength/intelligence) would just fill the vacuum.
You would just change the axioms for the quantification of success and not the fact that this world is a world of struggle, the game itself would never change, the competition would just be based on different criteria, hatred and jealousy from the underprivileged in this new world wouldn't disappear as well as disdain and self-righteousness from the privileged ones.
Back then slavery was justified with the fact that black skin was the Curse of Ham, therefore a symbol of inherent sin, nowadays every male that struggles in dating gets automatically accused of being a bad person, the basic principle remained the same, be it in a secular world or in a religious world, those at the top of a given system will find any excuse/justification for their rule, most of the time it's the "You are bad people/inherently evil"-excuse. Those who win in rigged games will deem them to be fair.
And now imagine their perfect commune, there people would still vary due to intelligence/strength, a stronger/more intelligent individual would still have to work for people that could never do the same, of course he would think of them as parasites or ask himself the question why they are even kept around if they cannot do anything worthwhile either due to ineptitude or unwillingness while the less fortunate individual sees in the stronger/more intelligent/more beautiful individual always a constant reminder of his own shortcomings, particularly if said individual always gets the resonance he craves, but cannot acquire due to lacking skills/abilities because things like respect/love will always be things that the best (within a given system) will preferentially get, while the rest can hope for tolerance or pity at best - so even if money didn't matter, jealousy and contempt would still define the life of humans (like they always did), simply because individuals vary in their traits (which is a thing in every species), their basic premise of equality among humans is already wrong/broken. There will always be people at the top and at the bottom - everywhere.
The modern dating market also shows you that hierarchical thinking is deeply ingrained into human nature, no matter how much so(y)cialist shit a woman speaks when it comes to sex she will always be a capitalist that wants more and more, it shows that greed and not being content with what you get no matter how good it is is deeply ingrained into human nature, particularly female nature - and this although leftists claim that women are the empathetic/inclusive gender that wants everyone to be happy. Even after everything got "deconstructed", this behavior still remains, isn't that a prove that it isn't socialized, but rather natural? What world did women now create on their own? A world where suicide, depression and mental illness rates for men go through the roof due to so many men being left behind, if feminism benefitted men why is this happening (despite better mental health/social services, better working conditions and a more "open" society)?
And we show that "freedom" - the greatest value of our "great western" civilization- is nothing more than theory on a paper, "freedom" is good as long as people have something that others need/want/require, because freedom implies the ability to refuse a certain action in that moment all other people have only their "freedom" on paper, because if that person doesn't like you for whatever reason you are forced to perish. Funny thing that most people are able to grasp that concept as soon as money is involved, but when it comes to immaterial things they suddenly act retarded.
And it shows another thing: That vengenance on a given group after changing power dynamics and a cycle of oppression is always the norm with equality being an ephemerous state/an instable fix point at best due to the Tocqueville effect and other factors (just look how many feminist women often confess that what they do to modern men is a well deserved revenge for what was done to women decades ago), it disproves their claim of the "good victim with a heart of gold", e.g. that suffering makes a person more empathetic towards others and that people care about oppression/injustice in general and not only about the fact where they think that they themselves stand, the truth is: Suffering (even perceived one) can make a person bitter/unempathetic/cruel, only the role of oppressor/oppressed changes - not the game, people only hate bullying if they are bullied. Our own behavior is a prove of that thesis too, be honest: How many don't wish exactly the same shit on women that we have to endure?
Our mere existence is the prove that they are wrong about the inherent goodness of human nature, something that humanists/liberals can never tolerate: The fact that humans aren't better than animals, that our nature is like all of nature inherently beyond subjective, everchanging, arbitrary/mental constructs like good and evil.
They claim that hierarchical thinking is something artificial, that people aren't born with it, that it is the result of a capitalist society and that after making people financially and in terms of rights equal it would stop.
However the behavior of the liberated woman (and therefore our fate) is the best evidence against that thesis. The freedom of the dating market didn't make it more inclusive/egalitarian, unlike what the 68ers said. Rather, it made people more selective/more exclusivistic, so much that even the SS or any other elite force in the past had lower (physical and mental) standards for men than a liberated, modern woman (a hyperbole, but still accurate).
Instead of "freedom" making people equal it resulted in a far greater hierachy, the dating market shows that hierarchies naturally arise if people are left to govern for themselves (like on Dating Apps) and that these hierarchies that arise on their own without interference of a government or a ruler are even more brutal/unforgiving than that of many turbo-capitalist or even "fascist" states in terms of criteria you must fulfill to be able to live a decent life and in terms of social stratification. The Gini coefficients (as measures for economic inequality) are for Tinder far more dystopian than for the worst hellholes in the world.
View: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
In the abstinence of an outside force restricting the "freedom" of people you just have mob rule (an ochlocracy) where explicit laws are replaced by implicit laws and where everything changes depending on the mood/the dynamics of the mob.
And it shows you that finances are only one of many metrics for the evaluation of the different worth of people, if we took finances away as a factor for competition/measuring worth of humans other factors (like looks/physical strength/intelligence) would just fill the vacuum.
You would just change the axioms for the quantification of success and not the fact that this world is a world of struggle, the game itself would never change, the competition would just be based on different criteria, hatred and jealousy from the underprivileged in this new world wouldn't disappear as well as disdain and self-righteousness from the privileged ones.
Back then slavery was justified with the fact that black skin was the Curse of Ham, therefore a symbol of inherent sin, nowadays every male that struggles in dating gets automatically accused of being a bad person, the basic principle remained the same, be it in a secular world or in a religious world, those at the top of a given system will find any excuse/justification for their rule, most of the time it's the "You are bad people/inherently evil"-excuse. Those who win in rigged games will deem them to be fair.
And now imagine their perfect commune, there people would still vary due to intelligence/strength, a stronger/more intelligent individual would still have to work for people that could never do the same, of course he would think of them as parasites or ask himself the question why they are even kept around if they cannot do anything worthwhile either due to ineptitude or unwillingness while the less fortunate individual sees in the stronger/more intelligent/more beautiful individual always a constant reminder of his own shortcomings, particularly if said individual always gets the resonance he craves, but cannot acquire due to lacking skills/abilities because things like respect/love will always be things that the best (within a given system) will preferentially get, while the rest can hope for tolerance or pity at best - so even if money didn't matter, jealousy and contempt would still define the life of humans (like they always did), simply because individuals vary in their traits (which is a thing in every species), their basic premise of equality among humans is already wrong/broken. There will always be people at the top and at the bottom - everywhere.
Winners overlook rigged games' lack of fairness, study finds
WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to fairness and privilege, a new study finds it really is not about how you play the game. It's about whether you win or lose.
apnews.com
Curse of Ham - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The modern dating market also shows you that hierarchical thinking is deeply ingrained into human nature, no matter how much so(y)cialist shit a woman speaks when it comes to sex she will always be a capitalist that wants more and more, it shows that greed and not being content with what you get no matter how good it is is deeply ingrained into human nature, particularly female nature - and this although leftists claim that women are the empathetic/inclusive gender that wants everyone to be happy. Even after everything got "deconstructed", this behavior still remains, isn't that a prove that it isn't socialized, but rather natural? What world did women now create on their own? A world where suicide, depression and mental illness rates for men go through the roof due to so many men being left behind, if feminism benefitted men why is this happening (despite better mental health/social services, better working conditions and a more "open" society)?
And we show that "freedom" - the greatest value of our "great western" civilization- is nothing more than theory on a paper, "freedom" is good as long as people have something that others need/want/require, because freedom implies the ability to refuse a certain action in that moment all other people have only their "freedom" on paper, because if that person doesn't like you for whatever reason you are forced to perish. Funny thing that most people are able to grasp that concept as soon as money is involved, but when it comes to immaterial things they suddenly act retarded.
And it shows another thing: That vengenance on a given group after changing power dynamics and a cycle of oppression is always the norm with equality being an ephemerous state/an instable fix point at best due to the Tocqueville effect and other factors (just look how many feminist women often confess that what they do to modern men is a well deserved revenge for what was done to women decades ago), it disproves their claim of the "good victim with a heart of gold", e.g. that suffering makes a person more empathetic towards others and that people care about oppression/injustice in general and not only about the fact where they think that they themselves stand, the truth is: Suffering (even perceived one) can make a person bitter/unempathetic/cruel, only the role of oppressor/oppressed changes - not the game, people only hate bullying if they are bullied. Our own behavior is a prove of that thesis too, be honest: How many don't wish exactly the same shit on women that we have to endure?
Tocqueville effect - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Our mere existence is the prove that they are wrong about the inherent goodness of human nature, something that humanists/liberals can never tolerate: The fact that humans aren't better than animals, that our nature is like all of nature inherently beyond subjective, everchanging, arbitrary/mental constructs like good and evil.