Author Topic: Communist aka Democrat censorship?  (Read 4295 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2019, 08:15:18 PM »
Prejudice much?  Of course.  We are all prejudiced.  But some prejudices are better than others, right Comrade?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Shiranu

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2019, 08:58:00 PM »
Quote
This really does break down the very fault within the human psyche itself...


Those rules and standards the "weak willed" follow are precisely the reason humanity has thrived. Yes, it can be a bad thing; just like too much individualism is a bad thing. I would argue that someone who places them self as more important than the collective is just as weak-willed as the person who cant think for themselves.



Offline Munch

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2019, 09:03:43 PM »

Those rules and standards the "weak willed" follow are precisely the reason humanity has thrived. Yes, it can be a bad thing; just like too much individualism is a bad thing. I would argue that someone who places them self as more important than the collective is just as weak-willed as the person who cant think for themselves.

so your saying it is a collective because of the inherent nature of people. Plus you need an example to uphold why individualism can be considered weak willed compared to collectivism. its true collective ideals can create great things, just looking at things like ancient architecture serves as examples, but you need an example why the individual is weak willed, since you would assume thinking for ones self is more a trail in any facet of humanity through time.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 09:06:04 PM by Munch »
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Offline Shiranu

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2019, 09:27:49 PM »
Quote
so your saying it is a collective because of the inherent nature of people.

Yes, as well as pragmatically... people that work together in an organized and coherent manner are happier and more productive.

Quote
Plus you need an example to uphold why individualism can be considered weak willed compared to collectivism.

I think the most glaring example of this is the entire consumer culture; the entire premise of it is, "me, me, me and fuck anyone who gets in the way!". It is individualism cranked up to 11, and it is a major reason the Earth is where it is today; both environmentally but also socially. Particularly when you get to the top of the food chain, who C.E.O.s who are intrusted to run massive businesses or politicians to run entire governments, and they put the individual before the collective to massive harm.

Quote
just looking at things like ancient architecture serves as examples...

I would say you chose the absolutely weakest example though. Look at all the great philosophies of mankind from history... Daoism, Buddhism, Stoicism, even 'individualistic' philosophies like Hedonism promoted that one's own desires should not come at the cost of causing pain... they all, while stressing the improvement of the individual, are focused on helping the collective and not the individual. Some of them, like Buddhism, are explictly about escaping the concept of the individual.

I would also argue that the empire building of history is built squarely on individualism; you do not subjugate and exploit others for the "good of society", you do it for the good of yourself. Empires were (and are) built on powerful men who put themselves above all others (and compete to hold that power) while convincing the commoners it's for the good of "the Empire". So they show the flaws of both sides; it's individualism taken way too far and using collectivism to justify it. But the root evil remains the individualism. I would say the same could be said for the church throughout it's history... the truly evil acts were done by individuals, Popes, Cardinals, Priests, etc. who exploited the collective to further themselves.

Quote
but you need an example why the individual is weak willed...

Everyone can better themselves without harming others. However when one places the individual before the collective, they will begin to harm others to further their own agendas.

They have the choice to take the "harder" path, the one that causes less harm but might take longer or never make them excessively wealthy or powerful. Thus, they are weak willed.

Online Hydra009

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2019, 09:58:26 PM »
I would also argue that the empire building of history is built squarely on individualism; you do not subjugate and exploit others for the "good of society", you do it for the good of yourself. Empires were (and are) built on powerful men who put themselves above all others (and compete to hold that power) while convincing the commoners it's for the good of "the Empire".
They absolutely were.  Many of those famous monuments heralded individual greatness - "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

And these kings not only competed with their contemporaries, but also previous rulers to see who could have the biggest palace, the largest empire, the most gold, etc.  A lot of people paid the price in many ways to make that happen - with their lives, with their taxes, with their labor, etc.  Just think what wonders could have been wrought if all that jockeying had fallen by the wayside and everyone had simply agreed to pursuing common welfare.  Alas, people aren't like that.  At least not without a considerable cultural shift.

Quote
I would say the same could be said for the church throughout it's history... the truly evil acts were done by individuals, Popes, Cardinals, Priests, etc. who exploited the collective to further themselves.
At their root, all evil deeds are done by individuals.  Though I'd argue that the system itself (leadership based on belief and tradition at the expense of all else and the nature of faith in general) was equally a part of the churches' violence and intolerance.

Quote
Everyone can better themselves without harming others.
Is this so?  There's a certain amount of exploitation/harm in the simple act of buying a pair of shoes or filling up the gas tank.  Theoretically, it's possible to never harm others.  But in reality...

Quote
However when one places the individual before the collective, they will begin to harm others to further their own agendas.
I have a little thought experiment about that.

Let's say the morning local news draws a name out of a hat from their community and declares that punching this person in the throat will earn you $100 and publicly shows their full name and face.  This offer is available for today only.

The details about this are left to the viewers' imagination.  Can it be a light tap or hard strike?  Is there a limit to how many times you can earn money a day?  Imo, it doesn't really matter because the end result would always be the same - that person would be approached by a few people at first with reasonable demands (a light tap to help pay for some poor sap's daughter's chemotherapy, who could say no?) then eventually dogpiled to death by a desperate and increasingly violent crowd of people.  In fact, I very much doubt more than 10% of the populace would forgo this opportunity entirely.

Think of it like the Milligram experiment, only with greed instead of authority as the key motivator, which imo makes it more damning.  There's a weak case to be made for innocence when an authority demands blood and you fear to disobey.  There's not much case for innocence when you stop what you're doing and actively hunt down another human being for your own benefit.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 10:03:37 PM by Hydra009 »

Offline Munch

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2019, 10:12:48 PM »
Yes, as well as pragmatically... people that work together in an organized and coherent manner are happier and more productive.

except for the ones who aren't.

Quote
I think the most glaring example of this is the entire consumer culture; the entire premise of it is, "me, me, me and fuck anyone who gets in the way!". It is individualism cranked up to 11, and it is a major reason the Earth is where it is today; both environmentally but also socially. Particularly when you get to the top of the food chain, who C.E.O.s who are intrusted to run massive businesses or politicians to run entire governments, and they put the individual before the collective to massive harm.

The first part has a point yes, consumerism based on the individuals needs is a causal factor in so much of the waste produced now, yes. However you can just as much argue the collective in industry is as much to blame, people working low pay jobs, another drone in a massive industry, another cog in the wheel, all as much contributing to things like CO2, everyone joining the same rat race driving cars each day, that collective is as much damaging.
And sorry but lets be honest regardless of personal feeling of how someone like a CEO treats his staff or some political figure at the top, they are by no means weak willed, they simply don't give a shit.

Quote
I would say you chose the absolutely weakest example though. Look at all the great philosophies of mankind from history... Daoism, Buddhism, Stoicism, even 'individualistic' philosophies like Hedonism promoted that one's own desires should not come at the cost of causing pain... they all, while stressing the improvement of the individual, are focused on helping the collective and not the individual. Some of them, like Buddhism, are explictly about escaping the concept of the individual.

And they do that by spreading a collective ideal for how to live.

not all collectivism is bad, but its still displaying those traits mentioned before about the human psyche needing group think, which is at the end of the day people needing to be lead and told how to think instead of thinking for themselves.

Quote
I would also argue that the empire building of history is built squarely on individualism; you do not subjugate and exploit others for the "good of society", you do it for the good of yourself. Empires were (and are) built on powerful men who put themselves above all others (and compete to hold that power) while convincing the commoners it's for the good of "the Empire". So they show the flaws of both sides; it's individualism taken way too far and using collectivism to justify it. But the root evil remains the individualism. I would say the same could be said for the church throughout it's history... the truly evil acts were done by individuals, Popes, Cardinals, Priests, etc. who exploited the collective to further themselves.

And yet, in a godwin example, hitler himself didn't personally kill all the people under his governance, it was his ideals spread to his soldiers and followers who followed his words as a collective that did the majority of the mass killings. The individual might be the root of evil acts, but if one idea can spread to many and they follow it without question, then that lack of individuality caused far more harm on a larger scale then just what one individual can alone.

Quote
Everyone can better themselves without harming others. However when one places the individual before the collective, they will begin to harm others to further their own agendas.

which again, the reason why they place an individual above their own is because its in human nature to be lead. War might start by individual actions, but wars can't occur without a collective following them.

Quote
They have the choice to take the "harder" path, the one that causes less harm but might take longer or never make them excessively wealthy or powerful. Thus, they are weak willed.

sorry, but no, your confusing moral choices for willpower. If a person has the willpower to command others for whatever that might be, then it doesn't matter if its for a morality good reason or a bad reason, its still a display of someones will commanding others into doing what they want. And that is still a display strength. Its only a weakness if they lose control of the collective they command, and don't know how to get it back.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 10:14:25 PM by Munch »
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Offline Shiranu

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2019, 10:14:51 PM »
Quote
Is this so?  There's a certain amount of exploitation/harm in the simple act of buying a pair of shoes or filling up the gas tank.  Theoretically, it's possible to never harm others.  But in reality...

That's true.

I guess I should say that that people can try to keep exploitation to a minimum and do it only out of practical necessity... as well as being conscious of the situations and looking for alternatives when they are available... as opposed to intentionally, and more importantly directly, causing harm with the intent of it bringing you prosperity.

Offline Shiranu

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2019, 10:37:12 PM »
Quote
except for the ones who aren't.

Right. Outliers.

Just because someone breaks the norm does not mean the norm should break.

Quote
However you can just as much argue the collective in industry is as much to blame, people working low pay jobs, another drone in a massive industry, another cog in the wheel, all as much contributing to things like CO2, everyone joining the same rat race driving cars each day, that collective is as much damaging.

But the rat race is explicitly a form of individualism. People do not join the rat race to help the collective, they join it to help themselves.

Quote
And sorry but lets be honest regardless of personal feeling of how someone like a CEO treats his staff or some political figure at the top, they are by no means weak willed, they simply don't give a shit.

You contradict yourself; not giving a shit is the epitome of being weak willed.

Quote
...but its still displaying those traits mentioned before about the human psyche needing group think, which is at the end of the day people needing to be lead and told how to think instead of thinking for themselves.

Which, again, there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with. Obviously people should spend some thought on everything, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no need to try and re-invent the wheel, re-write the rules, just to prove how smart and independent you are. There are social codes and rules that exist because they work... and that should be enough. There is nothing wrong with questioning why they work, but it is silly and pointless to question them just because they exist or work.

Quote
And yet, in a godwin example, hitler himself didn't personally kill all the people under his governance, it was his ideals spread to his soldiers and followers who followed his words as a collective that did the majority of the mass killings. The individual might be the root of evil acts, but if one idea can spread to many and they follow it without question, then that lack of individuality caused far more harm on a larger scale then just what one individual can alone.

Hitler's ideals didn't come from a vacuum, nor did people's hate of Jews.

Individuals hated Jews; they hated them because they had more wealth or social power, because they belonged to a different collective (a form of individualism that believes one collective is better than another), because they believed they were the cause of the problem.

That's not to say collectivism didn't have a role to play, but to say individualism wasn't a big part of the violence of WW2 is ridiculous as well. It was Hitler's desire for power and people's distrust of Jews (based, primarily, on envy) that was the underlying root of the Holocaust. It was exploited through a collective (which certainly the collective has to be held responsible for), but at the end of the day it was evil individuals who lead the charge.

Quote
which again, the reason why they place an individual above their own is because its in human nature to be lead. War might start by individual actions, but wars can't occur without a collective following them.


What power do you have, if your PM told you right now that you were to be shipped over to Iraq and fight on the front lines, to say no?
 
Rarely does the collective "choose" to go to war; that's why events like Pearl Harbour and 9/11 are so monumental. As for the warrior caste, that is their job. Some will justify it for patriotism, for defending their county... but most will straight up tell you it's what they signed up to do and so they will do it.


The majority of wars throughout history were fought by mercenaries (killing for individualism) and peasant armies that were told they could either fight for their king or die... and the lords I think it is almost completely inarguable to think that they didn't go to war for their own personal gain.  I wouldn't call that "collectivism", that is individualism exerting its will over the collective.


Quote
Sorry, but no, your confusing moral choices for willpower....  its still a display of someones will commanding others into doing what they want. And that is still a display strength.

Strength over others comes from one's wealth, one's prestige... not one's will. And people who come by the wealth and prestige to control others almost always do so through taking the easy way, the way that hurts others, rather than through the hard work and integrity to gain those things by one's own merits.

That is not willpower, and it's telling that you mistake it as such.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 10:40:12 PM by Shiranu »
ACAB

Offline Baruch

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2019, 11:55:10 PM »
so your saying it is a collective because of the inherent nature of people. Plus you need an example to uphold why individualism can be considered weak willed compared to collectivism. its true collective ideals can create great things, just looking at things like ancient architecture serves as examples, but you need an example why the individual is weak willed, since you would assume thinking for ones self is more a trail in any facet of humanity through time.

Example of collective action ... building a giant stone pyramid for a pharaoh's ego.  Jewish collectivism good, Egyptian collectivism bad.

There are two forms of collective action.  Free and compelled.  And either can be paid or not paid.  I like free paid collective action.  Some may prefer compelled unpaid (prison labor).

Shiranu .. yes power and wealth are important in commanding people.  Have you ever done it or seen it done?  Also prestige and rank.  But no "will" to it?  Just because I can do something, doesn't mean I have the will to do it (say hit my spouse).  If you say there is no will, then you can rob a bank and say "the devil made me do it"

Here is a different opinion on willpower ... Triumph of the Will

« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 12:50:23 AM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Shiranu

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2019, 08:31:22 PM »
Quote
Also prestige and rank.  But no "will" to it?  Just because I can do something, doesn't mean I have the will to do it (say hit my spouse).

And if you would hit your spouse, I would say you have no minimal (I assumed people would understand I didn't mean absolute zero will but rather like saying "no integrity"... obviously integrity does still exist, it's just minimal.) will; that is how basic brutes behave. Willpower is the ability to be more than that.

Willpower is about controlling one's self, not others... and those type of people control other's through outside factors (threats, power, brutism) rather than their own will (integrity, intelligence, compassion). Just because society mistakes that as will does not make it so.


And I am not claiming that there is no will at all... I am saying that there is something far worse; the lack of effort to cultivate one's will.

Hitting your spouse is at best a gut reaction that requires no mental process. At worst it's a contemplated action to create fear. That means you lack the will power to take the harder path of having her respect you through what you have achieved. 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 09:55:34 PM by Shiranu »
ACAB

Offline Baruch

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #55 on: June 21, 2019, 01:58:03 AM »
Yes, the will to obey and the will to command.  But pure individualists have neither.  They are anarchists.

If you were a general, and you received an order to fire up a nuke, do you have the will to obey?  Do you have to will to command down the chain to the man who has to push that button?  The problem with will is that it is independent of conscience.  In war, and dictatorship, evil collective actions are made to occur.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Sal1981

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #56 on: June 21, 2019, 11:10:14 AM »
It's easy to spot propaganda. Propaganda is stuff that is designed to elicit an emotional response, and to stamp out calm, collected objective analysis.

If something in the news made you angry, sad, or fearful, then you really should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #57 on: June 21, 2019, 01:50:42 PM »
It's easy to spot propaganda. Propaganda is stuff that is designed to elicit an emotional response, and to stamp out calm, collected objective analysis.

If something in the news made you angry, sad, or fearful, then you really should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts.

Why SJWs are losers.  Except at Oprah hugging sessions.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Shiranu

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2019, 07:18:36 PM »
Quote
If something in the news made you angry, sad, or fearful, then you really should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts.

You should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts regardless of how it makes you feel.
ACAB

Offline Cavebear

Re: Communist aka Democrat censorship?
« Reply #59 on: August 27, 2019, 04:16:52 AM »
An interview between Sargon and BPS



Intresting stuff.

One thing I find most interesting is when talking about the western culture as it stands now, how here in the west while we have abandoned organised religion as a main governance (unlike islam), that doesn't mean the very nature of what it is that creates that need for that ideology has gone. Social and political ideology have replaced that religious one now, the heavy handed political and social messages we have now comes from humanities own need for that system in place.

This really does break down the very fault within the human psyche itself, doesn't matter if we think we've progressed beyond one system of ideologues, if we're to weak willed anyway, we just get dragged into another set of rules and standards someone else creates to follow, just like religion before it.

This is why I no longer vote, seeing this kind of way of thinking now being the mainstream on either end of the political spectrum or one extreme to another. As an atheist I gave up wanting to follow any ideologue, so dunno why I should follow any social driven group think either.

If you don't vote, don't complain about the election results...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!