Q4BP: What do you think of this quote?

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]eliechallita1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm confident it will. Let me first domain my definitions - it, being "cooperation" AKA socialism, versus "competition" AKA capitalism. I actually possibly feel that there is a healthy amount of cooperation AND competition in capitalism, both of which are necessary to make it work. I feel that socialism has an unhealthy amount of cooperation and nowhere near enough competition, which does make it directly weaker.

Capitalist societies subject their institutions to a constant selection process like evolution, where the best and most relevant institutions, allocating resources in a way that the broad majority of society agrees with, are rewarded with survival and prosperity.

Socialist societies (ironically) subject their institutions to an immutable hierarchy, and generally oppose any and all change. It is to be the party's line, forever. Dissent is intolerableand meet with crushing force, and as such, there's no way for socialist societies to determine what dissent might've been justified, and a better idea.

We saw this with the culmination of the Cold War.

[–]eliechallita1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's the theme park version of socialism though...

No, it's not. It's the actual version of socialism, once it leaves the paper and gets put into practice. You might have a point if it was JUST the U.S.S.R, but it wasn't. It was also China, which ultimately ditched socialism and became the fastest growing economy in the history of human societies. It is presently Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. It has been tried again and again and again, and again and again and again it descends into totalitarianism, poverty, and destitution.

How many more chances do the socialists get to not fuck up their own system?

Personally I'm a moderate on the subject:and as such, conservatives

I am, pragmatically. If welfare state neoliberalism is the best I can do to stem the tide of socialism, I'll take it.

For example, I want all non-essential goods and services to be capitalist in nature, but I think that we have a moral duty to provide a robust safety net in the form of healthcare and education.

I don't agree with national healthcare, but I could support it in exchange for a reduction in government authority elsewhere.

Like, preferably, education. I'm actually convinced that every self-respecting conservative should be fighting public education, and for private and charter schools as hard as possible. Public education is not non-partisan, and the return on investment declines every year. We are getting less for more on public education, so I think a trade for healthcare and education is eminently fair.

I want a free debate of ideas, but not to the point where we give legal cover to outright destructive ideas that will one day destroy the very institutions that they used to infiltrate society.

If this is a thinly-veiled argument against extending free speech to hate speech, then I'm sorry, we disagree. The only extremists that I'm worried about having an outsized voice in American politics are on the Left, the fear about Nazis and white nationalists is 100% manufactured bullshit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That's the theme park version of socialism though, and the USSR was basically an oligarchy masquerading as a socialist nation.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

If something is so hard to construct, doesn't it suggest that it is unnatural and doesn't last?

Personally I'm a moderate on the subject: I support capitalism as long as it isn't allowed to fuck with basic necessities. For example, I want all non-essential goods and services to be capitalist in nature, but I think that we have a moral duty to provide a robust safety net in the form of healthcare and education.

I don't disagree, but only from a social stability standpoint. However, when you imbue personal morality into public policy, you end up with potential blind spots that suppress dispassionate rational analysis.

I want a free debate of ideas, but not to the point where we give legal cover to outright destructive ideas that will one day destroy the very institutions that they used to infiltrate society.

That sounds like thought policing. What you consider "destructive" is your opinion. No one died and made you God to impose your ideas of what is acceptable debate on others. If you don't like an idea, debate it, fight it and convince people that it is wrong. Suppressing debates are what little Hitlers and despots do.

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

if something is so hard to construct, doesn't it suggest that it is unnatural and doesn't last?

Not really: Social democracies seem to be doing just fine, and I think that they are the better compromise between a purely communist and a purely capitalist system.

Dispassionate rational analysis should take precedence, but it cannot function on its own. Otherwise we'll end up with a society that sees fit to forcibly sterilize or euthanize the members it deems unproductive.

Indeed, nobody has, and I wouldn't trust myself to hold sole access to that power either. But I think that some ideas, while legal to hold, don't need to be given too much social consideration. To take recent examples: Feel free to believe that other ethnicities are inferior to you despite all evidence to the contrary, but I don't see the need to give you any more of a media and national platform than flat earthers. (not you specifically, I meant that in the general sense).

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

if something is so hard to construct, doesn't it suggest that it is unnatural and doesn't last?

Not really: Social democracies seem to be doing just fine, and I think that they are the better compromise between a purely communist and a purely capitalist system.

If they are doing so well, why is each one of them with the exception of Canada and Australia suffering from a serious problem with their public finances? Aging, increasingly broke societies with a broken or close to non existent family structure may be your utopia. It ain't mine.

Dispassionate rational analysis should take precedence, but it cannot function on its own. Otherwise we'll end up with a society that sees fit to forcibly sterilize or euthanize the members it deems unproductive.

Can you explain the jump from dispassionate analysis to forced euthanasia? Or is your argument so shaky that it needs eugenics?

Interestingly, you ignore personal morality.

Indeed, nobody has, and I wouldn't trust myself to hold sole access to that power either. But I think that some ideas, while legal to hold, don't need to be given too much social consideration.

Your opinion, which you are free to act upon. You just don't have the right to make that call for others.

To take recent examples: Feel free to believe that other ethnicities are inferior to you despite all evidence to the contrary, but I don't see the need to give you any more of a media and national platform than flat earthers. (not you specifically, I meant that in the general sense).

Another jump to racism this time. Your mental processes are curious.

I guess that is what happens when you question a leftist ideologue too closely.

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sweden's economy is actually doing really well (https://www.thelocal.se/20170728/swedens-economic-growth-is-crazy-strong-analysts) and Norway and Denmark are tracking right along with most other countries. Germany and Canada, which are much closer to social democracies than the US, are doing pretty well too.

Personal morality only affects decision on a personal scale, I'm afraid, and I think that a society functions better when it doesn't rely on individuals to act at their best. And I genuinely don't trust large parts of the population to treat others well. We have a long history of being bastards.

I tend to exaggerate when making arguments, it's a personal mode of communication that I haven't been able to shake off yet. Chalk it up to being brought up Arab.

I'll try to make my points in a more subdued way: I don't believe that public policy should be reduced to simply sums and figures unless absolutely necessary. I understand that emergency situations might require harsher decision-making, but I believe that we need to take human elements into account as well:

From a purely economic perspective, it might make sense to withhold support from people who are too old and infirm to contribute to society, or to limit governmental support to localities based on their tax contributions. For example, the US could theoretically eliminate Medicaid and social security, and the federal government could withhold all of the funds it extends to Mississippi since the latter pays less in federal taxes than it receives. Hell, the latter might even make my life better since I'm in California. However, I think that we would be a worse nation for it because one of the bases of civilization, in my opinion, is that we take care of the more vulnerable or less fortunate among us.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sweden's economy is actually doing really well (https://www.thelocal.se/20170728/swedens-economic-growth-is-crazy-strong-analysts) and Norway and Denmark are tracking right along with most other countries. Germany and Canada, which are much closer to social democracies than the US, are doing pretty well too.

I did explicitly leave out Canada. They benefit from a very close economic relationship with the US.

Norway doesn't count because of their oil wealth.

As to the rest, do you have data about their projections about the tax gap in those aging societies?

Personal morality only affects decision on a personal scale, I'm afraid, and I think that a society functions better when it doesn't rely on individuals to act at their best. And I genuinely don't trust large parts of the population to treat others well. We have a long history of being bastards.

Correct. Also you cannot legislate good behavior into existence. Bastards will be bastards. Only one force has reliably kept a partial leash on the inner animal in all of us - family and religion.

I tend to exaggerate when making arguments, it's a personal mode of communication that I haven't been able to shake off yet. Chalk it up to being brought up Arab.

I'll try to make my points in a more subdued way: I don't believe that public policy should be reduced to simply sums and figures unless absolutely necessary. I understand that emergency situations might require harsher decision-making, but I believe that we need to take human elements into account as well:

None of which change economic realities. Socialism works fine when it comes to healthcare and education, which are both necessary for sustained economic growth. However, something has to pay for that. That is where taxation comes in. It is a balancing exercise provided you can design the structure in a way that doesn't punish individual enterprise and creativity. Or destroy the building block of society - family. Paradoxically, socialism goes off the rails when you get to social engineering, which is very different from having a basic safety net. When you start forcing people to change their non-economic behavior because you believe you can run their lives better than they can, setting aside the ethical problem involved.

This is part of why introducing personal morality in social policy is dangerous.

From a purely economic perspective, it might make sense to withhold support from people who are too old and infirm to contribute to society, or to limit

Actually, it makes no sense to do that economically as that will encourage a higher savings rate among the working age population, depriving the productive economy of capital.

governmental support to localities based on their tax contributions. For example, the US could theoretically eliminate Medicaid and social security,

See above. It would be an incredibly retrograde decision economically speaking.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

From a lot of psychological theories, yes. Parents are at war with their children in some way. This goes all the way from the Oedipus/Electra complex through the dominance of the male in the clan -- when a male son gets older, there is a natural tension between his individualism and the values of the family, the values that the father instilled.

I think it's fair to say that Red Pill is very clear: yes, you are at war with your lovers. Generally. It doesn't mean that you cannot co-operate or be altruistic, but that sexuality is premised around dominance and submission. Physical dominance is the most common variety, but I don't think it would be out of the question to include emotional dominance, particularly from the women's perspective.

What you get from winning the war is the refuge that you claim to be arguing for, ironically. The refuge comes from the competition, it doesn't innately exist. There is no such thing as safety, we create it and it is temporary when it exists. It exists temporarily in a vacuum where power dynamics are established, and when that dynamic changes, the refuge vanishes.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, my father is a libertarian who has never really imposed dominant structures onto me of any kind. Truthfully, I was allowed free rein from a very early age and chose practically everything in my life. Far cry from the typical helicopter parenting which should, according to your theory, produce a generation of males who seek submission from their spouses. And yet, this is the most submissive generation of males arguably on record.

Superstructure, yes, but some hierarchical structures exist outside of social imposition. Age and physical prowess are natural structural advantages which are essentially automatically entered into a dominance-submission axiom.

Rebellion can be any number of things, and I would argue that most rebellion, especially in my case, has come from the imposition of base structural thought and super structural ideology from the state, creating a rebellion from ideological imposition by a societal authority -- not necessarily from familial domination.

This rebellion exists regardless of the mode of dominance, patriarchy, matriarchy, whatever -- because state actors always involve institutions and normative guidelines to curb behavior.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well no exactly, Zizek (borrowing strongly from a Gramsci-Adorono hybrid) would say that such a choice is only the illusion of choice. We currently believe ourselves to be living in a post-industrial landscape where we can choose what we want with our dollar, yet he'd say we live in the most ideologically-permeated age.

Because your father never pulled in 'the rein,' nor denied choice, you (supposedly) live in anxiety of what you believe is the code of conduct expected of you. Instead of the authoritarian father who yells at you to let you know you did something wrong, instead now the father says 'do what you want' and you live in anxiety of what it is that he wants from you.

I dunno what it means for you to say 'the most submissive generation of males arguably on record' since that seems like a useless distinction. Generations of males went into war and died for someone else's political causes. Surely that's the most submissive act imaginable.

Superstructure, yes, but some hierarchical structures exist outside of social imposition. Age and physical prowess are natural structural advantages which are essentially automatically entered into a dominance-submission axiom.

That sounds like a nice tautology but I dunno if it's true. Guns don't care how old or physically strong you are.

Rebellion can be any number of things, and I would argue that most rebellion, especially in my case, has come from the imposition of base structural thought and super structural ideology from the state, creating a rebellion from ideological imposition by a societal authority -- not necessarily from familial domination.

To paraphrase Thomas Pynchon, 'if BDSM was instituted at the family level, the state structure would melt away.'

This rebellion exists regardless of the mode of dominance, patriarchy, matriarchy, whatever -- because state actors always involve institutions and normative guidelines to curb behavior.

If you mean rebellion exists no matter what the 'mode' of dominance because of institutions and their normative guidelines, then again it sounds like a nice tautology but I dunno if it's true. People in tribes also rebel, it's just that the consequence if you don't get away from it is being stoned to death by the other members of the tribe - specifically at least in the case of a woman rebelling sexually from a Pashtuni tribe.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

Sure, you can view everything as being about conflict but I could just as easily flip the script and say that it's about love. I could detail all the sacrifices that parents make and the unbreakable bonds -- I get what you're saying, but I guess in the end we choose the lense that we want to view the world through.

yes, you are at war with your lovers.

Feel free to frame it like this but I can't see it being particularly conducive to happiness or a healthy relationship.

that sexuality is premised around dominance and submission.

For me fun and intimacy tend to come before dominance and submission, but I get it - people are different.

What you get from winning the war is the refuge that you claim to be arguing for, ironically.

Doesn't sound like much of a refuge to me given that the war is ongoing.

All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.

In poker both players can play a hand perfectly and one will them will win and the other will lose - nothing hostile about that. There'll be times where you both get your stack in the middle and there's no one to blame. Viewing the other player or the game as "hostile" doesn't make any sense.

I don't know, maybe this is true in other games but it lacks nuance to me.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

I'm only going to respond to the last one because the rest would just be reiterating what we've already outlined as to how RP and BP differ exactly.

I think it comes down to definition of hostility. The definition of hostility, for me, is pretty close to somebody taking my money, even if it were a game entered by mutual arrangement. Say you and I are entering a poker table -- when we get there, the immediate goal for both parties is to win money. In fact, it's not just to win money, it's to win your money. As soon as the cards are drawn, it becomes a matter of I vs. Other. Games are inherently competitive. Competition is inherently hostile.

If it wasn't hostile or competitive, we would just play and agree to split the pot no matter what the outcome is. But that doesn't happen, because games involve divisiveness by definition.

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]HigHog 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're playing against humans, your status is on the line.

That statement is so out of touch with reality. If I lose a friendly game, I don't make a touchdown at the family bbq flag football game my status doesn't change. My friends and family don't devalue me.

your skill is on the line.

I don't think you understand what "on the line" means. My skill, as an intangible concept, can't be "on the line", it can't be taken from me if I lose, it's not at risk.

Game that isn't competitive is a game without losers and game without losers is not something anyone wants to play, or its not a game.

First of all, is it a game or not?

Second, you put too much import on "loser" and "winner". I've definitely lost sports matches where the strongest emotion I could muster was "aw shucks", I've played games where I've been genuinely excited to lose because the match was so close, so evenly matched, so fun. I enjoy the sports and games I play for the sports and games themselves, the competition is less important.

I don't compete professionally. My "status" isn't on the line, my paycheck isn't on the line, the opinions of my friends and family aren't on the line. I lose nothing by losing. I gain nothing by winning.

[–]wubooAlpha Blue Pill4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The definition of hostility, for me, is pretty close to somebody taking my money, even if it were a game entered by mutual arrangement.

This seems silly to me.

Lets say you went all in with pocket aces and I called with 7-2 offsuit. You're going to win this one about 86% of the time, but lets say that I won. The cards fell in my favor, but you got your money in as a big favorite... I just don't understand what about that would be "hostile" to you. By calling with 7-2 I just put you in a really, really good position to double your money. It just so happened that you didn't that time but you'd probably be happy if that happened whenever you got pocket aces.

The goal should be to make the types of decisions that lead to making money; that's really all you can do.

EDIT: I'm talking about a cash game here, tournaments are a little different.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I understand where you're coming from. It's a good point. But I'm going to workshop and rephrase a response to someone else that I just typed out -- and I'm sure that they're going to have a good response coming as well.

Outright hostility is different from competition, but hostility is inherent in competition because it involves an antagonistic mindset. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Conflating hostility with outright anger or a temperament change seems to be part of the problem of the conflicting definitions here, when hostility in gamesmanship is generally, for me, antagonism derived from an I vs. Other rule-system. For example, in the case of a hunter, rarely do they ever feel outright hostility towards an animal they're hunting, but they have separated it into a system where the hunter seeks to win and the prey will generally lose.

Applied to your case, certainly, I would be disappointed if I have high chances of injuring and "beating the prey" but I misstep or the prey happens to get lucky because a twig snaps and it bolts -- but my antagonism isn't rooted in outright hostility or anger towards you, particularly, but you as a concept of opposition, which is another definition of antagonism.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What about puzzles? Are those inherently hostile?

Take composed chess problems for example. Chess is a competitive game, but in composed problems the composer creates a challenge and the solver solves them. The people I know who create and solve chess puzzles care about very different things (elegance, beauty, subtly, humor, pattern).

Or what about those impossible jigsaw puzzles? Stave Puzzles comes to mind, they supposedly have puzzles that go together various ways that seem correct until the very last piece doesn't fit.

Or that famous NYT crossword puzzle that had two solutions and the correct one depended on the outcome of the presidential election? Is there a winner and loser?

Yes, there's a competition between the puzzlemaker and the solver, but are there winners and losers? It seems like both win and benefit from the challenge.

[–]the_calibre_cat3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, you can view everything as being about conflict but I could just as easily flip the script and say that it's about love.

What love is there to the fact that, in 500 million years, there won't be enough carbon dioxide on this planet for plants to grow? Or that in two billion years, the sun will become so bright that the Earth will lose all of its water? Or that in many billions of years, there will be no fusible matter left in the universe, stars will die, and it will become a dark, lifeless place?

There is a time limit, and there is a gas tank of resources, and no gas stations. There's room to create live in there, and that's what's truly humbling about this existence, but it doesn't just exist - it is incumbent on us to create it, to find that meaning, and then to protect it for the short duration of our natural lives while still complying with the competitive nature of the universe.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pope_LuciousSeparating the wheat from the hoes1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]HigHog 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HigHog 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]steaminhotcovfefePurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darla100 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]darla100 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]darla100 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]darla100 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DashneDK2King of LBFM2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

War" is a human construct. The universe doesn't give a shit, it just exists and changes through time by the laws of nature. To say that some "win" and some "lose" in the context of inanimate matter is completely pointless - a dark hole absorbing matter doesn't destroy it, it just changes its form into being super dense. Unless your definition of war is "any two or more forces interacting", there is no such thing as war outside of sentient beings. Even with living creatures, I would argue that "war" as in competition/ fighting against some force is only one aspect of life on earth and a very specific interpretation. Life, as far as we know, was created by chance and good luck - no rna particles were actively fighting to exist, they were created by chaos and some disintegrated again by chaos. Today many species have adapted to live with nature and in many cases even with eachother in symbiosis - we are at cooperating with our environment and helped by sheer luck at least as much as we are "at war" with it.

If anything, the laws of our universe are chaos - the only constant is change, brought by the forces of our universe interacting with energy and matter.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's the difference between a lion killing a zebra and a human being killing another? In both cases, a bunch of molecules destroys information of another bunch of molecules, due to some chemical process happening.

To me, there is really no difference if zebras and lions are also sentient and feel pain similarly to humans. And yeah in the grand scheme of things, it's just a bunch of information changing. I only see a difference between a sentient being vs. a non sentient entity from the perspective of that being - the atom doesn't have a brain that can feel pain, it's not self aware so it doesn't care. The zebra probably cares if it gets eaten and the human cares if they die. The universe as a whole probably doesn't care about any of them because it isn't sentient either (at least as far as we know)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]midnightvulpine[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]midnightvulpine[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Crap ... Didn't notice the Q4BP flair... reposted under automod...

I agree with parts of the statement, but disagree with others... Because the author has ruled out the possibility of non-zero sum solutions.

So...

This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games.

Yes to this....

All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.

...But no to this.

In many of our universes games, both (or multiple) participants can be winners. The game is non-zero sum.

If I give up my desire to have bastard children, and commit to one woman.... and she gives up her desire to mate with other men to secure better genes, whilst securing provisioning from me.... then we BOTH win.

She gets what she wants (but not all of what she wants) and I get what I want (but not all of what I want).

It's like a game where we both give up $10 each, and receive $100 each in return.

So, I do believe in nature red in tooth and claw and I also believe that humans are, by their evolutionary nature, in constant competition with each other. In fact, the fiercest compeition we have is other humans of the same or opposite sex.

I just also believe there are non-zero sum solutions to those competitions that ensure everyone involved is a winner in the resolution.

The world is rife with these non-zero sum solutions. Shit. Capitalism exists largely because it is an effective mechanism at arbitration between competing interests, where it supplies non-zero sum solutions to almost everyones desires.

I give up $10 bucks because the goods are worth more than $10 to me, you take the $10 and give up the goods because the $10 is worth more than the goods to you. We both win. We both come out ahead by the exchange...... I get goods worth more than the $10 to me, you get more $'s than the goods were worth to you.

A successful society guides people to, and provides mechanisms for, even (in some cases) enforces behaviour that leads to non zero sum solutions.

In the case of human mating strategies marriage is the perfect example of a non-zero sum solution for all parties. As are a lot of the rest of our evolved solutions.

So....Competition, yes..... But that this automatically means someone must lose for someone else to win, no. Thats just not the case.

Human Society exists in large part both because of, and to help enforce, all those non-zero sum solutions where everyone gains. To create a giant prisoners dilemma game where we ALL reap the benefits of constant co-operation because defection is heavily punished.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He also said this:

Did I ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole to talk? His whole abdomen would move up and down you dig farting out the words. It was unlike anything I ever heard. This ass talk had sort of a gut frequency. It hit you right down there like you gotta go. You know when the old colon gives you the elbow and it feels sorta cold inside, and you know all you have to do is turn loose? Well this talking hit you right down there, a bubbly, thick stagnant sound, a sound you could smell. This man worked for a carnival you dig, and to start with it was like a novelty ventriliquist act. Real funny, too, at first. He had a number he called “The Better ‘Ole” that was a scream, I tell you. I forget most of it but it was clever. Like, “Oh I say, are you still down there, old thing?” “Nah I had to go relieve myself.” After a while the ass start talking on its own. He would go in without anything prepared and his ass would ad-lib and toss the gags back at him every time. Then it developed sort of teeth-like little raspy in-curving hooks and started eating. He thought this was cute at first and built an act around it, but the asshole would eat its way through his pants and start talking on the street, shouting out it wanted equal rights. It would get drunk, too, and have crying jags nobody loved it and it wanted to be kissed same as any other mouth. Finally it talked all the time day and night, you could hear him for blocks screaming at it to shut up, and beating it with his fist, and sticking candles up it, but nothing did any good and the asshole said to him: “It’s you who will shut up in the end. Not me. Because we don't need you around here any more. I can talk and eat and shit.” After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpole’s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous — (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) — except for the eyes you dig. That's one thing the asshole couldn’t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldn’t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crab’s eyes on the end of a stalk.

He was a fun guy.

[–]theother-side 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtownigga2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FalseBuddhaSomething borrowed, something Blue1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtow_11 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mybravenewworldRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoldPilot(⌐■_■)0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree, the point wasn't to argue that this was Red Pill, necessarily, though. The point was to go through and extract some idea of what Blue Pillers value. This was the perfect quote to do so.

Through the replies, I found that Blue Pillers tend to value safety, subjective happiness and self-perception. They also tend to be altruistic to a fault.

To add to both points, here's a decidedly BP quote: “I bear my burden proudly for all to see, to conquer prejudice and ignorance and hate with knowledge and sincerity and love. Whenever you are threatened by a hostile presence, you emit a thick cloud of love like an octopus squirts out ink...”

Last point was just that you can take quotes from anybody and make them fit your viewpoint. But that wasn't the point of this post and it was stated in the OP.

EDIT: By the way, he also killed his wife in a drunken game of William Tell that history has not looked kindly back on -- most accounts tend to state that he was growing tired of how his wife was constantly making fun of him in front of his friends and that she was growing tired of him and he used William Tell as an excuse to kill his wife. That's not a very Blue Pill thing. Once again, there is no answer here. He once admitted on an audio tape that he purposely murdered his wife, although the meaning of this was relatively debatable.

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MacheakoGo Baltimore Ravens!0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think that this saying might well be true, but that it grossly oversimplifies the situation.

We know that cooperation can yield better results than direct competition. In a situation with 3 people, 2 people working together can usually end up with a better outcome than if each of them was opposing 2 others at all times.

So the universe itself might be an uncaring, competitive place, but that only improves the case for people banding together and pooling their effort to wrestle a better situation out of it. That's the entire basis of civilization, otherwise we'd all still be skin-clad savages just looking for the first chance to bash another's head in to steal what little food they've managed to hoard.

So you start with individual winners and individual losers, and society graduates into winning groups and losing groups, but I really hope that one day we get to the point where pretty much everyone is well-provided for and competition doesn't result in deadly or harmful consequences.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't oversimplify the situation whatsoever. Conflict is competition, either by virtue of co-operative group mechanisms or an individual vs. individual model. Co-operative groups are in conflict with nature or another group, individuals are in conflict with other individuals. Within the group, there are individuals in conflict with each other. Outside the individual, there are forces or groups in conflict with each other.

A co-operative group forms because the individual is unable to provide the same benefits as would be given to him by a larger group. Groups may form to accomplish tasks or to resolve conflicts with other groups, but conflict is at the base of every interaction. Within the winning groups and losing groups are winning and losing individuals, unless you're providing for an equality-driven society wherein wealth and power are theoretically distributed equally, which could be argued is essentially impossible. Even if that were not the case, the winning and losing groups are in conflict with another group or another force.

If everyone was well-provided for and competition didn't result in deadly or harmful consequences, then the competition wouldn't cease to exist -- the consequences would just be minimized to whatever extent possible. This is the extent of social responsibility and the responsibility of greater society. However, competition cannot outright cease to exist because conflict and interaction go hand-in-hand, whether that be interaction of individuals, interaction of groups, or interaction of forces.

The Blue Pill model, in my eyes, seems to be the one oversimplifying things -- by stating that non-consequential activities lack any conflict, when the conflict is ultimately a constant -- the effect of the conflict is simply reduced.

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The Blue Pill model, in my eyes, seems to be the one oversimplifying things -- by stating that non-consequential activities lack any conflict, when the conflict is ultimately a constant -- the effect of the conflict is simply reduced.

Actually you got it the other way around: One of the core tenets of liberalism, which TPB seems to follow closely, is that conflict isn't a bad thing as long as its effect can't be too negative.

I know that conflict will always exist in some shape or form. I'm just saying that cooperation, especially good and productive cooperation, generally yields better results with lower risks than individual competition, and that these benefits tend to scale.

So even if the universe's default state is competition, cooperation can still be the better option.

I mean, the universe is also a cold and inhospitable place overall, and mother nature's an utter bitch in many ways, but we've managed to prosper specifically because we can work well enough together, regardless of internal competition, that our combined efforts have outweighed the benefits of individual competition.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

You think I don't like Burroughs? He's one of my favorite authors. Simply discussing this has no weight on how much empathy I have for losers.

But it's undeniable that Burroughs was a "winner" although he might have lived his life like a "loser." I admire the shit out of him for everything he's done, I admire him as a person, not just as a writer.

But he was also an avid libertarian from a relatively rich family (he called the "Burroughs millions" a myth perpetuated by Allen Ginsberg, but he did have a sizable inheritance that allowed his life to occur the way it did) and his empathy for the losers has nothing to do with whether he believed there was a losers-winners dichotomy.

EDIT: To further drive this point home, he wanted badly to serve in World War II but wound up literally refusing to serve because they wouldn't appoint him as a senior officer when he had zero military experience...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber3030 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Q4BP: What do you think of this quote?
Author	theother-side
Upvotes	7
Comments	195
Date	August 18, 2017 3:20 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6uf838/q4bp_what_do_you_think_of_this_quote/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/q4bp-what-do-you-think-of-this-quote.266417 https://theredarchive.com/post/266417

Comments