Social Justice Warriors Thread

[GloryofGreece]

Culturally and citizenship wise what are you loyal to?
What should a people hold sacred?
Rituals are useless to you not everyone.
She was also a nationalist , right? ...yes the author was.

1. Danish culture, the Danish society and democracy (and less so, the Danish state). Also our monarchy, which is a little bit of both state, society and a living historical link to the beginning of the state a little over a millenia ago.

2. There is no universal answer to that. My culture generally don't hold things all that "sacred". We respect, we have traditions, things we care for, but pomp and circumstance, elaborate rituals with trumpets and fanfares at strategic places...? You either ARE something or someone or you're NOT. You take something serious by engaging with it, or with them, not by putting it up on a pedestal. That's (traditionally) been how we see things here.

Holding things sacred is also not the same as placing value on rituals and pomp and circumstance. A truth does not become more of a truth by association with some great, big solemn ritual. Conversely, nor does it become less of a truth by association by not having any ritual attached at all. It is the truth and can stand on its own.

3. Nope, and "everyone" doesn't matter. If God doesn't strike people down every timesomeone swears, oh so solemny, with their hand on the Bible to tell the truth, but instead tell a lie? Then that ritual is objectively useless relative to its purpose. Punish liars, punish people who forsake, abandon and betray their duties, absolutely... but unless you can come up with a device that accurately indicates wether or not someone is actively lying during an ritualistic oath involving trumpets, tear-invoking dramatic violin music... spend the time doing something useful, instead.

If you're honest, if you're serious about say military service or speaking the truth in court, you don't need a ritual to validate that. You just do it. Wouldn't you much rather have it be assumed, be expected, that you, when you join the military or speak in court (or whatever), can and will do your duty?

4. "He" (if we're talking Bellamy), but you're right, I misremembered him. Just looked him up on wikipedia now. Considering he apparantly started something called the "Society of Christian Socialists", it's fair to say that he at least considered himself a Socialist, and while that's not neccesarily an indicator that someone's a Socialist, given his views on capitalism it's probably an accurate fit. Not sure of what importance you place on him being both a Socialist, Nationalist and Christian? You think one of them "cancel" the other out?

If your so inclined take this and get back with the results. Should be fascinating.
https://www.moralfoundations.org/

[Hastur]

To really understand the way our species does this, and how it scaled up to civilization, you might do well to go back to the paleolithic.

Homo sapiens are a patrilocal species. Human society forms around gangs of men with females migrating between gangs. This is why mitochondrial DNA traveled much faster than y-chromosomes.

The gang of men secured a piece of territory, built structures in which to live, hunted, and waged war against invading males.

Women exchanged their fertility for security from the gang. They ruled over the camp and the children. Inner circle power is how the camp is run. Outer circle power is how the gang is run.

Scaling that up: the gang becomes a kingdom and the kingdom becomes an empire. Civilizational government is a more abstract and complex form of a gang. Women still control the family for the most part. They usually control most of the finances that are set aside for the maintenance of the family. They dominate social customs and control how men are to behave in the "camp".

Patriarchy just refers to how the men tended to run the gang, how it operated, and how they divided responsibilities and honor (ideally, based primarily upon merit). Because men ran the gang based on competition and merit, conflict was unavoidable. Men naturally fall into their dominance hierarchy because of this. It works really well for us.

Martriarchy just refers to how women tended to run the camp. They tend to want to maximize security for themselves and their offspring. They seek to assign men to their reproduction in order to be responsible for providing resources in order to raise them. They seek to maximize social harmony and reduce conflict.

Masculine men generally hate having to operate in a matriarchal framework, which is why they are checking right the fuck out of the corporate AIDS we see today. Feminine women generally hate having to deal with conflict and dominance hierarchies, which is why they demand special treatment and the constraint of men.

Something has to give. Either women go back to just inner circle power or they learn to deal with dominance hierarchies and being held accountable for their poor performance.

You've been listening to Alexander Bard I hear. Have you picked up any of his books yet?

[Martin Hash]

I think I've already explained that the difference in men and women comes down to testosterone. Whatever "evolutionary pressures" you think may be causing today's political battles, you better work them into testosterone. I can.

[Martin Hash]

People make moment-to-moment decisions due to base motivations: lust, envy, hate, greed, sloth, fear, sympathy.
Status generates dopamine. Higher status means more mating opportunities. That's why status is the primary motivator that's not a base motive.
Control generates status which is why control is the second most powerful human motivator that's not a base motive.
Both status and control are longterm decision-makers.

Dopamine is the evolutionarily mechanism that selected for status-seeking.

p.s. Dopamine is also the evolutionary mechanism of altruism.
p.p.s. This is my shit. I didn't get it from any podcasts or textbooks written by dead people. I created it from my 360-degree wisdom arc.

[BjornP]

If your so inclined take this and get back with the results. Should be fascinating.
https://www.moralfoundations.org/

I really like what I'm reading about their research in your link, but as I click my way to the actual test...

Apologies, but YourMorals.org is not available for use by people in the European Union until we figure out how to comply with GDPR guidelines

[clubgop]

If your so inclined take this and get back with the results. Should be fascinating.
https://www.moralfoundations.org/

I really like what I'm reading about their research in your link, but as I click my way to the actual test...

Apologies, but YourMorals.org is not available for use by people in the European Union until we figure out how to comply with GDPR guidelines

Nelson laugh here

[Speaker to Animals]

That is hilarious.

[Martin Hash]

That is hilarious.

This is a glaring example of what’s wrong with the concept of morals.

At no point do they ever connect physiological processes to their mental masturbation.

[Martin Hash]

These guys use liberty as one of their “platforms.” Of course, they define it like my definition of “Marxist Liberty,” but if you hadn’t heard my podcast, you could be fooled by the Oral Illusion.

[TheReal_ND]

If your so inclined take this and get back with the results. Should be fascinating.
https://www.moralfoundations.org/

I really like what I'm reading about their research in your link, but as I click my way to the actual test...

Apologies, but YourMorals.org is not available for use by people in the European Union until we figure out how to comply with GDPR guidelines

HAHAHAHAHA THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF YUROPOORS BAHAHAHAHAHAAH

REST IN PISS HAHAHAHAHAHA