Group pride

[MagsJ]

I see someone totally missed the point I made.

I don't ally myself with any group, but they are there for those that do. I am not interested in any group's message or call to arms. Screw all that and another's agenda.

[Magnus Anderson]

So this is all just about reducing the superior to inferiority and the inferior to superiority ad infinitum?

A better thinker than you once suggested that it's better to rise with your class than to rise above it. Given your obsession with an efficient society, its strange that you would advocate for such a divisive, weak hierarchy.

Why don't you consider the possibility that some people are enslaved because that's the only thing they are worth for? That's what we already do with animals. Do you think that every enslaver is a retard who does not attempt to judge the worth of other people realistically?

Classes exist to acknowledge the reality of distinction. We aren't equal. When you abolish classes, anarchy (i.e. division) ensues. Kinda like what we have right now.

[AutSider]

Banning pride groups promoting hate and violence is understandable, so if any group is/or is associated with any groups promoting hate and violence then their denial of any social media platform to preach that hate from is warranted.

Again.. you can't blame the migrants for what the Governments have allowed, but asking for secure borders across Europe is warranted due to recent terrorist happenings.. minus any racial slurs and threats. Those that misplace their anger lack a certain amount of intelligence.

I thought we.. as a planet.. had gotten over the whole 'trying to take over the world' thing and moved on to more high brow achievements? the ruling classes keeping society infighting whilst they continue to accrue trillions a year is still working on the gullible I see.

Groups aren't banned because they promote hate and violence, every group by definition promotes hate and violence because in order for it to be maintained it needs to hate and be violent towards anybody who disagrees with its principles.

The state is such a hate promoting, violent group. "minus any racial slurs and threats" This is an example. Some people love their race and want to preserve it. Others, whether of the same race or not, don't love that race and don't care about its preservation. The former group will support the kind of principles which preserve its group, the latter will not. Each group must use violence to enforce their principles.

Just because your preferred group might be the status quo group (the state) doesn't mean they aren't using violence (police and military) to enforce their will.

[surreptitious57]

What I wonder is if you hate it only when white people are dominant and superior or do you hate all groups which managed to dominate

As an egalitarian I am against all dominance wherever it emanates from as the principle is the same regardless of origin or circumstances

Thats nice and you would make a good ally if only you could focus delivering your signalling de virtue of equality whenever non Whites

demand some special consideration or acknowledgement of their moral superiority

But I get it you dont care about being part of the Black group or any other group so your focus of concern is on signalling to Whites

I am not signalling to anyone I am simply expressing my opinion

[Mr Reasonable]

Groups do not by definition promote hatred and violence. To assert such a definition would be unconventional and indicative of a misunderstanding of what's essential to being a group.

[AutSider]

Groups do not by definition promote hatred and violence. To assert such a definition would be unconventional and indicative of a misunderstanding of what's essential to being a group.

Sure they do. I explained why here in this thread and in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192770

[fuse]

So this is all just about reducing the superior to inferiority and the inferior to superiority ad infinitum?

A better thinker than you once suggested that it's better to rise with your class than to rise above it. Given your obsession with an efficient society, its strange that you would advocate for such a divisive, weak hierarchy.

Why don't you consider the possibility that some people are enslaved because that's the only thing they are worth for? That's what we already do with animals. Do you think that every enslaver is a retard who does not attempt to judge the worth of other people realistically?

Is worth as rigid as that? What something is worth to you, right now - is that the final worth of the thing? I'd say worth is judged in a particular context. Among a billion other contexts, something is bound to have much more worth. The more complex the thing, the more potential for worth.

Classes exist to acknowledge the reality of distinction. We aren't equal. When you abolish classes, anarchy (i.e. division) ensues. Kinda like what we have right now.

If you mean by intrinsic distinction, that's not the reason why social classes exist. They are perceived and enforced for many reasons: economic, ethnic, medical, by gender, by family, religion, ideology, etc. Classes exist as the product of a particular social order. Social class might correlate with certain behavioral characteristics, but does not guarantee those characteristics, nor does one's class guarantee one's potential. This is why people can move between "classes."

What does that mean - the anarchy we have right now?

[iambiguous]

AutSider,

Sure, we can get into "philosophical" or "political" discussions of Group Pride. Intertwining both "genes" and "memes".

But you know me, I am equally as curious to grapple with how your current views about, among other things, "kikes" and "niggers" evolved in sync with the actual life that you lived.

So, as a child being indoctrinated -- and we all were -- to think about these folks, what were the most important existential factors in your life.

Let's start there.

Me?

Well, having been born and bred in the belly of the white working class beast, encountering the word "nigger" was practically an everyday occurrence. I was taught basically to hate black folks and basically I did.

Kikes on the other hand was more problematic. Every once and a while I would hear a reference to "the Jews" but I was never really able to fathom the significance of it.

Now, on the other hand, I don't use epithets like this. And I tend to view those that do as embodying particular political prejudices that one way or another they picked up over the course of having lived through one set of experiences in life rather than another.

On the other hand, prejudice is so deeply engrained in the course of human history, it is hard to believe that "genes" aren't a factor in there somewhere. There certainly seems to be a biological predisposition to create this category we call "Other".

Again, it always comes down to the extent to which a particular set of genes and a particular set of memes become intertwined in the context of one particular life out in one particular world.

And only the objectivists of your ilk seem compelled [psychologically] to reduce it all down to "one of us" or "one of them".

[Mr Reasonable]

Groups do not by definition promote hatred and violence. To assert such a definition would be unconventional and indicative of a misunderstanding of what's essential to being a group.

Sure they do. I explained why here in this thread and in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192770

No, you explained your misunderstanding of what "group" conventionally entails.

[AutSider]

Groups do not by definition promote hatred and violence. To assert such a definition would be unconventional and indicative of a misunderstanding of what's essential to being a group.

Sure they do. I explained why here in this thread and in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192770

No, you explained your misunderstanding of what "group" conventionally entails.

Regardless of what other things you would add to the definition of a group it is most certainly a collection of organisms, and since organisms are inherently violent and thus hateful, so are groups.

What's the big point of contention here?

[captaincrunk]

So this is all just about reducing the superior to inferiority and the inferior to superiority ad infinitum?

A better thinker than you once suggested that it's better to rise with your class than to rise above it. Given your obsession with an efficient society, its strange that you would advocate for such a divisive, weak hierarchy.

Why don't you consider the possibility that some people are enslaved because that's the only thing they are worth for? That's what we already do with animals. Do you think that every enslaver is a retard who does not attempt to judge the worth of other people realistically?

Classes exist to acknowledge the reality of distinction. We aren't equal. When you abolish classes, anarchy (i.e. division) ensues. Kinda like what we have right now.

Classes create distinction, they don't reflect them. Only a retarded would fail to see such.

[captaincrunk]

Sure they do. I explained why here in this thread and in another thread: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 3&t=192770

No, you explained your misunderstanding of what "group" conventionally entails.

Regardless of what other things you would add to the definition of a group it is most certainly a collection of organisms, and since organisms are inherently violent and thus hateful, so are groups.

What's the big point of contention here?

Groups don't have to have organisms in them

[MagsJ]

Groups aren't banned because they promote hate and violence, every group by definition promotes hate and violence because in order for it to be maintained it needs to hate and be violent towards anybody who disagrees with its principles.

So why.. in your opinion.. are certain groups banned and not others, if hate and violence are not the reason?

The state is such a hate promoting, violent group. "minus any racial slurs and threats" This is an example. Some people love their race and want to preserve it. Others, whether of the same race or not, don't love that race and don't care about its preservation. The former group will support the kind of principles which preserve its group, the latter will not. Each group must use violence to enforce their principles.

Are the state not there to keep a/represent the status quo?

Do you think that most are in groups, or prefer the global umbrella of the state? I myself have no idea, but being forced to be part of any group would be against my human rights, but my not being so is probably down to not identifying with any one group.. no-one is denying anyone their national pride or message, but it's the way they go about it which is the deciding factor on how they are received.

Just because your preferred group might be the status quo group (the state) doesn't mean they aren't using violence (police and military) to enforce their will.

...the will of the people/the many.. not of a disparate few, so therefore offering protection from those disparate few.

Simply getting one's message across in a palatable form is pretty much key in making that groups mandate more appealing.

[AutSider]

Groups don't have to have organisms in them

The kinds of groups talked about in this thread do.

[AutSider]

MagsJ

So why.. in your opinion.. are certain groups banned and not others, if hate and violence are not the reason?

I've already offered my explanation in the OP.

...the will of the people/the many.. not of a disparate few, so therefore offering protection from those disparate few.

But what when there is a system of indoctrination in place which teaches a certain group from a young age to adopt political ideals which are self-destructive, aka go against the interests of the group?

Can we truly and fairly say that it is their own will? Especially when a "disparate few" manage to break free from the indoctrination and point out all its flaws (though no doubt the system continues to suppress their message and vilify them).

Does a child which has been indoctrinated from early age to believe in God by every adult authority they know, in an environment where any atheist would be labeled a "mindless hater", "heretic", etc. and opposing views would never be seriously entertained, believe in God of its own will?

[Mr Reasonable]

Regardless of what other things you would add to the definition of a group it is most certainly a collection of organisms, and since organisms are inherently violent and thus hateful, so are groups.

What's the big point of contention here?

That violence is inherent in all organisms, or in all groups of them. It's a pretty big stretch to say that.

[AutSider]

Regardless of what other things you would add to the definition of a group it is most certainly a collection of organisms, and since organisms are inherently violent and thus hateful, so are groups.

What's the big point of contention here?

That violence is inherent in all organisms, or in all groups of them. It's a pretty big stretch to say that.

I explained my reasoning and there weren't any good counter-arguments so no, it's not a big stretch at all.

[Mr Reasonable]

Wait, so you're telling me that your reasons, minus any good counter arguments = your position is correct?

That's what you believe?

[AutSider]

Wait, so you're telling me that your reasons, minus any good counter arguments = your position is correct?

That's what you believe?

You've done nothing but assert inanities and post food pics in all my recent threads in S&G so far. Are you genuinely this stupid or are you just pretending?

My position is correct because it describes reality. I know you've got nothing.

[Magnus Anderson]

Classes create distinction, they don't reflect them. Only a retarded would fail to see such.

The implication is that if you take an untouchable and put it in some higher class, say the warrior class, he's going to cease to be an untouchable and become a warrior.

That means we are all born equal (blank slate) and that our shape is defined entirely by one generation of nurturing.

A dog is not a dog when it is born. It's just nothing. Or maybe you can say "infinite potential". Then you give it some kind of nurturing, and depending on it, it becomes something. Say a dog if it is raised by dogs. Or a human if it is raised by humans.

Everything is possible. You just have to believe in it.

Castes exist to make sure that everyone reaches their potential to the fullest. And different people have different potentials. Without castes, or with poorly established castes, you get stunted development -- wasted potential. That's what we have today.

An interesting fact is that it's more difficult to go up than to go down. An inferior person cannot become superior within any period of time. But a superior person can quickly degenerate into an inferior one.

[Mr Reasonable]

Wait, so you're telling me that your reasons, minus any good counter arguments = your position is correct?

That's what you believe?

You've done nothing but assert inanities and post food pics in all my recent threads in S&G so far. Are you genuinely this stupid or are you just pretending?

My position is correct because it describes reality. I know you've got nothing.

See, insulting me and then declaring yourself to be correct....that doesn't actually warrant a counter argument. You get what I mean?

You're making deductions from unconventional definitions, so its on you to demonstrate that no groups are not violent.

Are you able to understand my 3 previous sentences there? Should I slow down?

[Mr Reasonable]

Like, all cats are dogs, Garfield is a cat, therefore Garfield is a dog.


That's what you're doing. Its a basic mistake.

Have you ever taken a philosophy course, or do you just read on your own?

[Mr Reasonable]

Its like the Pythagorean theorem. High school stuff man.

If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

The "if" up there is super important.

[Mr Reasonable]

And you know that pork chop pic was the best thing going on in that thread. Not trying to down your post or anything, but the pork chop pic was just better. Like maybe your post was a 9 out of 10, but the food just won out that time.

[Mr Reasonable]

Wait, I just reread that thread. I think my actual assessment of the subject matter was best, then the food pics were second best, then your posts were 3rd.

That's why you ran away. Because you couldn't do the argument.

Shame on you autsider. I beat you in that thread while half drunk. I didn't even remember typing most of that, and I still won.

Why didn't you address my actual posts? Easier to just bitch about the pork chops?

That's not how you grow intellectually man.