Discussion Would you say the concept of a society has failed?

[Deleted member 24160]

@SuperMario64DS made a thread saying most people follow slave morality and that we're stupid for hating women and elite men because naturally they're better than us. And it made me think on whether society as a concept can even work. What do you think?

 

[Pengwin]

People are more comfortable with traditional gender roles. And I use the word comfort in such a way as to intend both the physical and emotional kind.
We all know the answer to gender roles just look at your grandparents they were probably together 40+ years mine 653 years. Succes trying to do that today.

 

[Deleted member 22685]

And it made me think on whether society as a concept can even work

And what alternative did he propose?

 

[Deleted member 24160]

And what alternative did he propose?

He didn't offer one just said that by nature's laws chads and women are "good" and ugly and average men are "evil" and that we're coping by thinking that they're useless towards society.

 

[SuperMario64DS]

And what alternative did he propose?

It was a question of what morality and ethics as a society we should embellish -

That of the pagans of old, where dominance, strength, wealth, sexual liberty, romance, war, and power were idolized as literal gods

Or that of Judeo-Christian values where weakness, poverty, chastity, asceticism, were valued.

My argument that I copied and pasted from Nietzsche was that Judeo Christian values are ultimately vanity because they are at odds with human nature and human desire, and our animalistic spirit to dominate, and are more an attempt to either
A. Create an equality among men that doesn't and cannot exist because men are inherently unequal
B. Allow the weak to be superior to the strong, when in reality the weak are not superior to the strong.

The reality of this is harsh, but "B" is why if given the choice between dominance and weakness, the strong almost always invariably pick dominance.


It's more or less a comparison of the pagan societies of old which viewed strength, dominance, wealth, and sexual liberty as inherent goods (Pagan Germanic kingdoms, Pagan Greece, Pagan Rome, Pagan Middle East) and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic civilization which viewed weakness, poverty, and chastity as inherently good.

 

[Deleted member 22685]

He didn't offer one just said that by nature's laws chads and women are "good" and ugly and average men are "evil" and that we're coping by thinking that they're useless towards society.

Of course he didnt, it's easy to point something out but it's a whole different thing to propose a fix/alternative for the problem, even more so for a functional fix/alternative.

 

[AnonAutist]

Your question asks us to define what the goal of society ought to be. Do the oppressed, deprived and downtrodden deserve emancipation? Should help with that emancipation even exit?

The leftist answer would have been an unconditional 'yes' - although now I am not so sure, the liberal answer is 'as long as they are free, no further emancipation needed' and the (illiberal) right wing answer is simply 'no they are exactly where they deserve to be'.

 

[SuperMario64DS]

To answer your question OP,

Society will never "work" in the sense of removing suffering.

Whether a society is better than another is pretty much subjective. In some ways Medieval Europe was way less degenerate, functional, and happier than our own; other ways it wasn't and was way more degenerate.

 

[Tenshi]

To answer your question OP,

Society will never "work" in the sense of removing suffering.

Whether a society is better than another is pretty much subjective. In some ways Medieval Europe was way less degenerate, functional, and happier than our own; other ways it wasn't and was way more degenerate.

I don't think we should aim such things as they're virtually impossible but I think we have the capacity to create a just and better society than the one we have today.

Just like we deal with crimes, the goal of laws are not exactly extinguish a particular action as it'd be impossible, but rather make it less prone to occur. With that being said, if we understand that somethings are not passible of change and in most cases life is a sum zero game, maybe we could create a not-so-unfair scenario.

I mean, we need to understand that by nature we are not equal, therefore we should find a middle ground where most people can be satisfied and the ones who are not going to be "fully" satisfied, still can somehow have an enjoyable life.

Just look at the price we're paying for making women supposedly fully satisfied. In the long run, this choice will be proven to be a failure. When men were satisfied, women still were satisfied somehow (and this is backed by real data, not anecdotals). We choose the wrong option, and now everyone is unsatisfied. Men and women.

 

[SuperMario64DS]

I don't think we should aim such things as they're virtually impossible but I think we have the capacity to create a just and better society than the one we have today.

But because "justice" and "goodness" are impossible to achieve, and because the way that this impossibility is manifest in this world means that there will always, always be a question about what is "better" and what is "more just," isn't it ultimately subjective?

Just look at the ethics of economic redistribution. Is it "better" to redistribute the wealth of the rich and give it back to the poor? Good luck answering that.

Progressivism today hinges on creating a "more just," "better," and "more equal" society in ways that are utterly repulsive to us, primarily due to how illogical it is when applied to the real world and how it attempts to redefine reality. It also does not help that most of us probably come from conservative, moderate, or religious upbringings and we are, from those experiences, naturally inclined to be repulsed to the "progressivism" and "corporatism" of our society.

If "good" can be easily seen as "strength, dominance, and power"; or "good" can be seen as "weakness, poverty, and impotency," would it not make sense to go with a definition that is clearly in line with the cruel reality of our biology?

I'm not advocating, by the way, that morality is completely subjective in terms of how it manifests itself in an organized, human society, or "justice" does not have some kind of objective measure in the same way. No society, neither the Pagan Greeks or the Greek Orthodox Christians would view ordinary, in the course of life (outside the context of war or anarchy), robbery of a single mother a good thing.

 

[FallenPrime]

People are more comfortable with traditional gender roles. And I use the word comfort in such a way as to intend both the physical and emotional kind.
We all know the answer to gender roles just look at your grandparents they were probably together 40+ years mine 653 years. Succes trying to do that today.

 

[BITG]

.
Progressivism today hinges on creating a "more just," "better," and "more equal" society in ways that are utterly repulsive to us, primarily due to how illogical it is when applied to the real world and how it attempts to redefine reality. It also does not help that most of us probably come from conservative, moderate, or religious upbringings and we are, from those experiences, naturally inclined to be repulsed to the "progressivism" and "corporatism" of our society.

High IQ. Would you say that if society took the logical approach to make life better for as many people as possible, and to make society work at all, we would need to go back to heavily enforced monogamy, which would lead to taking away women’s rights, correct?

The reason that this wouldn’t ever happen is because people are trying to go about making society work in an illogical manner, from an emotional standpoint, where women HAVE to be equal in as many ways as possible, which just can’t work for a society to prosper for more than a few hundred years at best, simply because when given rights, women slowly revert back to their natural mate selection, which society can’t work with.

 

[Deleted member 23712]

@SuperMario64DS made a thread saying most people follow slave morality and that we're stupid for hating women and elite men because naturally they're better than us. And it made me think on whether society as a concept can even work. What do you think?

No shit

 

[SuperMario64DS]

High IQ. Would you say that if society took the logical approach to make life better for as many people as possible, and to make society work at all, we would need to go back to heavily enforced monogamy, which would lead to taking away women’s rights, correct?

The reason that this wouldn’t ever happen is because people are trying to go about making society work in an illogical manner, from an emotional standpoint, where women HAVE to be equal in as many ways as possible, which just can’t work for a society to prosper for more than a few hundred years at best, simply because when given rights, women slowly revert back to their natural mate selection, which society can’t work with.

Yes, I do, but I question the grounds of how we critique "better and worse" which most on this website do so, it mainly being that "men are dogs who hump everything" or "women are whores" or "they are all going to burn in hell" or "look at how greedy they are."

I'm more inclined - I haven't decided with 100% confidence yet, hence why I posted this - to think that we have it backwards; that the reason why "traditional values" worked was because they enabled a social structure that, while imperfect, was way, way more in line with our human nature. It allowed the strong to be strong and the weak to be weak, it does not try to inhibit the strong (ultimately failing, but still largely way more successful) anywhere near to the same degree that feminism, antifa, and social justice does.

If we were incel back then, we would know immediately what our destiny is and be blackpilled immediately; we would face the truth and as quickly as possible make that last final PUA / self-improvement effort before we were resigned to our fate; not be trapped in the lies of "be friendly, have a nice personality, girls love kind guys, girls love funny guys, be pure, be chaste, be a 'good person'", only realizing it 10-20 years after puberty begins.

Christianity and Islam, while still ultimately rooted in "slave morality," are not nearly as "slave moral" as the abomination that is Social Justice. Moreover, these religions developed over centuries of independent cultural change which makes me think our unbridled nature impacted these religions for the better, past their pure, 2nd-Temple "Judeo-Christian" form.

In Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, we have Saints who were soldiers, who burned heretics, who were lovers, who were poets, who were martyrs and faced pain like a man. Social justice "martyrs" don't even have these same biological "goods"

 

[Deleted member 24160]

No shit

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[BITG]

Yes, I do, but I question the grounds of how we critique "better and worse" which most on this website do so, it mainly being that "men are dogs who hump everything" or "women are whores" or "they are all going to burn in hell" or "look at how greedy they are."

I'm more inclined - I haven't decided with 100% confidence yet, hence why I posted this - to think that we have it backwards; that the reason why "traditional values" worked was because they enabled a social structure that, while imperfect, was way, way more in line with our human nature. It allowed the strong to be strong and the weak to be weak, it did not try to inhibit the strong anywhere near to the same degree that feminism, antifa, and social justice does.

If we were incel back then, we would know immediately what our destiny is and be blackpilled immediately; we would face the truth and as quickly as possible make that last final PUA / self-improvement effort before we were resigned to our fate; not be trapped in the lies of "be friendly, have a nice personality, girls love kind guys, girls love funny guys, be pure, be chaste, be a 'good person'", only realizing it 10-20 years after puberty begins.

Christianity and Islam, while still ultimately rooted in "slave morality," are not nearly as "slave moral" as the abomination that is Social Justice. Moreover, these religions developed over centuries of independent cultural change which makes me think our unbridled nature impacted these religions for the better, past their pure, 2nd-Temple "Judeo-Christian" form.

In Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, we have Saints who were soldiers, who burned heretics, who were lovers, who were poets, who were martyrs and faced pain like a man. Social justice "martyrs" don't even have these same biological "goods"

Length of the Milky Way IQ. What do you mean by traditional values didn’t inhibit the string like feminism and social justice does? Elaborate a little for me please.

 

[RedIce]

Yes, i do think the concept of society has failed in the sense that we are adapting to a fake reality we perceive to be human nature. For thousands of years we've maintained a strict hierarchal system with defined gender roles and morals, and it worked just fine, but now nothing will be enough, no matter what society does people will still ask for more change, and when they run out of serious issues they'll discuss how many genders there are, or what's the proper pronoun to address someone. It's ridiculous how low we've fallen as a society.

 

[SuperMario64DS]

Length of the Milky Way IQ. What do you mean by traditional values didn’t inhibit the string like feminism and social justice does? Elaborate a little for me please.

Let's take Catholicism for example. Most famous one.

Sure, Catholicism condemns sex, greed, murder, and violence as "mortal sins" and if you do any one of these things, you will burn for eternity.

But look at how Catholicism was "in practice"; from the legend of Saint George slaying the dragon, we had romantic chivalric poetry of the male knight who slays the dragon and wins over the princess.

We had the lives of the Saints who, more often than not, follow this exact pattern of "in youth I slept around / drunk around / murdered people, but NOW that I'm older, I'm spiritually mature now and want to find something greater." Saint Mary of Egypt, the whore prostitute who went into the desert; Saint Moses the Black, the plunderous member of the gang of thieves who became a monk; Saint Francis of Assisi, a drunkard and romancer who realized the error of his ways; Saint Martin, a soldier who murdered people who helped the poor.


There weren't a lot of "incel" Saints who didn't go through this "relatable" process. I found when studying the lives of the Saints a lot of them inherently unrelatable for this reason.

We had Crusades, young men who fought for the Holy Land in the name of God! We put to death degeneracy! The Papacy, good lord the Papacy! One of the most powerful institutions in the history of the world, that could dethrone entire kingdoms by one thrust of an "anathema sit" and order wars on infidelic nations.



Although some of this is found in Judaism, a lot of this developed independently from Judaism. And the "Judaism" we have today is a horrible abomination from the "Judaism" of the past, that even condemns the God of the Old Testament as a violent warmonger, with most Jews being atheistic but holding to slave-morality in its pure essence. That being fat is the same as being in shape, that being weak is the same as being strong, that being deformed is the same as being handsome. War is evil, violence is evil, power is evil.

And this is actually futile, and what it does is inhibit men and women of their "will to power" except for those who are strong enough to see past the lies early on.


You get none of this in the falsehood of contemporary leftist buzzpoints. Instead we are told it's natural to be a virgin, that you can get women if you want by your own self-improvement - just have a nice personality bro!, that all war is evil, that all greed is evil, that all violence is evil, that power is evil, that all men are equal and that all lifestyles are equal.
The "Saints" of social justice - Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, Bernie Sanders - are not venerated for being human beings, but because of ideology and ideology alone, an ideology that ignores the reality of who these people are, as people, but professes "slave-morality."