rage.gif
smile.gif
frown.gif
raspberry.gif
bleh.gif
horror.gif
shock.gif
happy.gif
fangs.gif
big-c.gifc: glad.gif
concussed.gif
confounded.gif confounded.gif
jolly.gif
kawaii.gif
loss.gif
cringe.gif
flat-smile.gif
eyebrows.gif
disappoint.gif
fear.gif
nausea.gif:X nausea.gif
harley-shock.gif8| great-scott.gif
wut.gif
flirty.gif:-( monocle.gif
and snail stalin
well yes there was a war on, and then inertia and also presumably insufficient distance from the founding
come to think of it i should be surprised that it managed to disappear in one or two generations, that seems fast for civilizational sanity to kick in and remove the incompatible bits
come to think of it i should be surprised that it managed to disappear in one or two generations, that seems fast for civilizational sanity to kick in and remove the incompatible bits
halcyon
posts: 26
, Vagrant message
, Vagrant message
everybody's inconsistent. the question is, in what ways are you inconsistent, and does it make sense to be inconsistent in those ways? since christians were at their christian best while being persecuted by pagan empires, this seems to be less about ideology than personal idiosyncrasies. there are obviously marxists who don't want to lose their lives, like when brecht was caught. maybe these people are bad marxists, but most christians may be worse christians, by their own admission, than the missionaries you find all over the world, who share a lot in common with nietzschean "supermen" in being prepared to lay down their lives to pave the way for superman. i'm having difficulty believing that such christians are scarce in their homelands. (a list of christian outliers comparable to maoist jeff might be unhelpful at this point.)
yes, marxists may be statistically correlated with "people who want to die", because marxists believe more strongly than christians do these days. so, kill people with strong enough beliefs to endanger their lives for a cause (only don't)? either way, if most communists want to be killed to be saved in the same way many christians need to be annoyed to be saved, why not annoy christians too if it might help more of them find salvation? annoy christians (only don't)! i'm not sure where slave morality might fit into this, (if that's what pthagnar had been talking about) because it's usually thought that slaves are attached to life in unseemly ways. iirc, master morality is consequentialism, and slave morality is intention based, right? who is the master and who is the slave?
(moldbug, for instance, has clearly advocated slave morality. his whole idea is to build a city of god whose residents will be blessed with pure intentions, which will somehow magically be their salvation. (the pure intentions part is not even my interpretation. that's literally what he says.) his ideas do have some consequentialist or at least consequentialist-aspiring underpinnings, but ethical systems with no consequentialist dimension whatever are few and far between. moldbug realized that actual libertarian policies are not conducive to the maintenance of an earthly manifestation of the vision of a perfect society that he'd had as a libertarian, so now his thoughts represent a radicalized offshoot of the libertarian tradition that calls for increased government intervention to make sure everyone toes the line. how is this not slave morality?)
yes, marxists may be statistically correlated with "people who want to die", because marxists believe more strongly than christians do these days. so, kill people with strong enough beliefs to endanger their lives for a cause (only don't)? either way, if most communists want to be killed to be saved in the same way many christians need to be annoyed to be saved, why not annoy christians too if it might help more of them find salvation? annoy christians (only don't)! i'm not sure where slave morality might fit into this, (if that's what pthagnar had been talking about) because it's usually thought that slaves are attached to life in unseemly ways. iirc, master morality is consequentialism, and slave morality is intention based, right? who is the master and who is the slave?
(moldbug, for instance, has clearly advocated slave morality. his whole idea is to build a city of god whose residents will be blessed with pure intentions, which will somehow magically be their salvation. (the pure intentions part is not even my interpretation. that's literally what he says.) his ideas do have some consequentialist or at least consequentialist-aspiring underpinnings, but ethical systems with no consequentialist dimension whatever are few and far between. moldbug realized that actual libertarian policies are not conducive to the maintenance of an earthly manifestation of the vision of a perfect society that he'd had as a libertarian, so now his thoughts represent a radicalized offshoot of the libertarian tradition that calls for increased government intervention to make sure everyone toes the line. how is this not slave morality?)
i can't find the "pure intentions" quote. as for "good intentions", his opinion of them is very different — and he's not concerned with intentions as much as the systems that produce them and the effects they produce. if i understood deleuze i think this is the place where i would start spewing french jargon, but i do not.
so:
sounds pretty consequentialist to me — and moldbug, coming from within the liberal tradition, says the way to avoid malice with good intentions is to make sure the incentive structures are such that the expected intentions produce good consequences. (as opposed to educating an aristocracy for virtue or whatever other solutions may be advocated.)
what i was getting at with marxists is that the personality precedes the ideology.
as for nietzsche, that doesn't sound like what i remember but i'll have to reread
so:
It is good in intention and malicious in effect.
This combination is very common, because it effectively allows evil conspiracies to form without anyone realizing that they're evil.
The key is that it's adaptive. It's not that it succeeds despite the bad results of its good intentions. It succeeds because of the bad results of its good intentions.
sounds pretty consequentialist to me — and moldbug, coming from within the liberal tradition, says the way to avoid malice with good intentions is to make sure the incentive structures are such that the expected intentions produce good consequences. (as opposed to educating an aristocracy for virtue or whatever other solutions may be advocated.)
what i was getting at with marxists is that the personality precedes the ideology.
as for nietzsche, that doesn't sound like what i remember but i'll have to reread
now ur not even asking questions anymore, mr. bobblehead
except the inconsistency thing. politically, i am in favour of, and mostly in this order, a) things which benefit me, or b) at least do not scare me, or c) if they do scare me, at least have a payoff to benefit me in the end, or then finally d) scare bad people a lot. I think some people put d) a lot higher.
most political values are phantoms, that exist either on high intellectual levels, or in low blood-and-soil levels. when i agree with liberals, it is mostly on the blood-and-soil level [did u know im english?] which say you should basically try to be fair, open and honest to the people you meet. this is not really enough for politics, though, so it leaves a lot of airy whooshing space for intellectuals to put words in. liberalism is p. bad when it's rarefied because you end up having to be open and honest to people who you will never meet, probably for good reason, or who are not even people; and 'we're all in this together' becomes ALL MEN ARE EQUAL AND BROTHERS etc. etc. etc. intellectual stuff also promotes c) and d), which is p suspicious imho.
this is not a recipe for consistency. given a) how scary and b) how full of promise politics and politicians are, especially revolutionary politicians, this is a recipe for dextro-maoist anarcho-fascism aka 'seeing the bright side of everyone
'
except the inconsistency thing. politically, i am in favour of, and mostly in this order, a) things which benefit me, or b) at least do not scare me, or c) if they do scare me, at least have a payoff to benefit me in the end, or then finally d) scare bad people a lot. I think some people put d) a lot higher.
most political values are phantoms, that exist either on high intellectual levels, or in low blood-and-soil levels. when i agree with liberals, it is mostly on the blood-and-soil level [did u know im english?] which say you should basically try to be fair, open and honest to the people you meet. this is not really enough for politics, though, so it leaves a lot of airy whooshing space for intellectuals to put words in. liberalism is p. bad when it's rarefied because you end up having to be open and honest to people who you will never meet, probably for good reason, or who are not even people; and 'we're all in this together' becomes ALL MEN ARE EQUAL AND BROTHERS etc. etc. etc. intellectual stuff also promotes c) and d), which is p suspicious imho.
this is not a recipe for consistency. given a) how scary and b) how full of promise politics and politicians are, especially revolutionary politicians, this is a recipe for dextro-maoist anarcho-fascism aka 'seeing the bright side of everyone
'
"dextro-maoist anarcho-fascism" is not "both" so much as it is "that's a dumb question, fuck you" 
"
