@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

The story of the underdog defeating the big dog is at least as old as David and the Goliath

Well it is a Jewish story as well, isn't it? At least it is Jewish enough that I am inclined to allow SecureSignals to give the International Jewry credit for it, because I actually prefer underdog stories.

Currently I find that the story of the big kid beating up small kids finds plenty of traction as long as the big kid has the moral* high ground. I am not interested in watching stories where the big kid beats small kids up simply because he can and that is the entire message. If that means that the small kid in movies will always be coded non-Aryan, I'll take that trade. My hair is not particularly blonde, anyway.

*there is no master morality and slave morality, there is just morality. A definition of morality which is indistinguishable from rule by the strong is simply rule by the strong. There cannot be two distinct concepts that are the same concept. From then on, you can have various degrees of explaining why the loser is sometimes more worthy than the winner and in what ways.

Thankfully I have you to enlighten me on how humiliated and indoctrinated I was by watching an "esoterical symbol" win.

Of the recent examples, the tutorial combat track from Expedition 33 never fails to be a banger.

Every time I think you can't make the Jews look even cooler. Now you're telling me they were the ones who spared me from being subjected to endless cultural veneration of the big kid's boot on the small kid's face, forever?

I think it's very simple and understandable. America is openly being a boorish bully and it is obviously a repulsive idea to submit to it. Canada's government is an incompetent boss and while it might well destroy everything good about the country, it requires a lot more epicycles to even start being angry about it, not to mention things like thinking of migrants as invaders and other stuff like that.

Many Canadians will be actually dead of natural causes (or have a doctor take them out before those natural causes do them in) before any postnational doom scenario actually sets in. It is just not as viscerally upsetting as Trump getting his way.

This strikes me as when a reddit atheist meme smugly says "if you believe you're going to heaven and heaven is so much more important than anything on earth, why don't you let me kill you".

It is obviously bad to be killed (even as the more articulate Christian replies with "that would be aiding you in committing the sin of murder", which I believe is post-hoc reasoning and not something that is the first line of mental defense against the idea of being killed), and it is obviously bad to be dominated by a contemptible enemy.

A drag queen singer had been the mainstay of Eastern European pop music in early 2000s. I wouldn't call drag shows so obviously bad if millions of normie buckwheat-eating Slavs somehow missed it.

Bulverism is a logical fallacy where you assume an opponent's argument is false and explain why they hold that view instead of actually proving why the argument is wrong.

Particularly useful for shutting down criticism of "successful" people because there are countless avenues one can measure success by and find the critic wanting.

A lot of your argument's weight hinges on obscuring "what Trump has accomplished" behind vague superlatives like "getting to the top of the top".

For the record, I don't agree that POTUS is such a height of power as you imply, either. As I said, its power is mostly the power of the US, which Trump can't take credit for. Any random tinpot dictator in a shithole country, who rules for life and at whose word countless detractors go to prison or disappear, is more "the top of the top" than Trump. I grant that you don't get there by being an idiot. You also don't get to any of the numerous unelected posts between which the power of the US government is diffused by being an idiot.

Getting to the post of POTUS while LLMs are smarter than you (this is Dase, "LLMs are smarter than X" is not the same as calling X retarded as far as I can tell of him) is not something that requires outstanding intellect. It requires mostly other things, and if you're literally a clinical idiot then it's unlikely you have those things, and most of the time a president is not going to be stupid. But it's not a requirement.

It does seem laughable that a 100 IQ boor with generational wealth could basically be the most important person in the world for over a decade.

Most important in the world is credit to US, not to any particular president. Most important in the country? Many kings had accomplished that without any effort simply by being heirs to a stable hereditary monarchy.

You seem to ascribe some additional moral protection to intelligence that you don't afford other virtues. So when someone is successful, it must have been intelligence? No, there are plenty of other factors, including, yes, sheer dumb being the right-shaped person at the right place in the right time.

I'll continue to call a king naked when he is naked instead of cringing from it in some performative show of humility, "well he's king, so he must have some good reason behind this, or he wouldn't be king!". Your way is just not being able to point out things about anyone famous for any reason because no one here is that famous.

If the people 100 years ago heard of a million women cheering for an infanticidal mother and miming strangling their own toddlers in support, they probably wouldn't believe it either.

I doubt those rich enough to afford raising and nurturing harems-worth of children are numerous enough to make a dent.

Would it be more charitable to grant that he has "animal cunning"?

I do jest, but so far you seem to not know what intellectual virtue, exactly, has led Trump to success, only assuming that there must be something.

In particular one can point out that Dase didn't say Trump has always been a moron, only that his 80+ old self is more stupid than LLMs. Most of Trump's self-achieved success has been before that. A rock with the correct words on it can be elected president in a system where power is sufficiently diffused.

Less charitably, there are many factors that can cause one person to be in a better position to achieve things, compounding to a 1000x advantage (measured how?), and intelligence is just one. It doesn't seem laughable that a 100 IQ boor with generational wealth and business connections in USA had achieved 1000x more than a hypothetical provincial well-read 120 IQ Russian twice his younger.

I do think a significant proportion of those men are virgin-fetishists first and ephebo- or lower -philes only as a conclusion of 1. wants a virgin 2. society allows teen girls to have sex, therefore 3. have to go increasingly lower in age for the prospective wife to be likely to be a virgin.

But I gotta agree that a normie probably doesn't care about the hymen.

Allies are entities that your interests temporarily happen to align with, that's what it means. Hence the various state leaders reinforcing the idea that allies are not permanent.

What is great? I find that you spend a lot of words hedging who gets to judge what great is, but so far I don't recall any specific examples of virtues you envision a great man should have, as well as some guidelines on how those virtues be measured.

I'll try to construct an image of a great man as per dailydogma, based on my total impressions of what you value, and you tell me where I'm wrong. A great man deals in ideas rather than actions; aesthetic rather than practical; refined rather than pedestrian; symbols rather than images; recognized by elites rather than masses; gains success in the spiritual rather than the material; has innate worth rather than gained worth; is rather than does.

"Impressive" is an adjective that implies someone is impressed. If no one is impressed, it's not impressive. If you are the only one who is impressed, it's fairly cheap as impressions go.

I'm in the cohort who are quick to say (or at least think) that Musk is cringe, a salesman, and doesn't deserve the money in any cosmic sense. Unfortunately for those who grasp at the label of greatness, greatness is not about just deserts.

Shouldn't we have an internal concept of great which the masses might or might not miss? If your fundamental property of great man is recognized by the masses, how is he great? Isn't he just the masses?

My fundamental property of a great man is that he is never someone unknown by the masses, not necessarily someone universally venerated. He impacts the masses whether they like it or not. He does not pass by without much consequence by definition.

But how perverted does it become?

Any distorted vision is greater than an unexpressed one.

but what if the great man fails? Is there not chance in the world? Are great men always lucky?

A prince who fails the coup does not become king.

I believe philosophy should be embodied.

Em-bodied, not enworded.

The way I see it, it should be impossible to miss a great man any more than you can miss a great mountain in your way. If his wisdom is too complicated, it will be translated and simplified for the masses. At any rate it will be implemented, because no great man will be content with simply writing shit down and counting on oughts to eventually bring it to fruition. It will not remain simply a book.

Ironically communists love reading things. There's no one who loves lording "being able to read and understand theory" over the rabble more than a self-proclaimed communist. Meanwhile other ideologies, even the libertarians, actually implement theory and see tangible results.

Surely it takes less genius to convince the world you're a genius con artist than actually perform the feats described in the movie, thus necessitating a hierarchy of genius con artists.

Suppose a GCA_0 is a con artist who performed genius cons that did not have to do with convincing people you performed those cons. Then a GCA_n is a genius con artist who convinced the world he's a GCA_n-1, and so on. It probably goes asymptotic at some point where the difficulty of convincing the world of anything in particular approaches a constant value.

Why must those opposed to HBD, anti-welfare, anti-DEI etc. arguments to the point of believing they are pure evil tolerate them, yet as soon as a woman kills her own kids (not even someone else's) a defense of such is taboo? This forum positions itself as a neutral ground.

A vote is just representation of leverage that a citizen has. The actual leverage is mostly the useful work a citizen can provide to society (An average citizen, given that the franchise does not differentiate). Maybe the guns, for the few Americans who can actually muster an organized militia.

Without any of that leverage, how much weight do you think the vote will have?

When you and those who agree with you say things like relieving people of the need to labor, what it sounds like is that people will be "relieved" of one of two ways of getting vital resources from people who control those resources through precedent or force. The other way is more force, and it doesn't look good, not when the enemy has drones and superhuman security AIs.

(There is a third way, claiming resources that no one got to yet, but we'll need mass cheap far space travel to make that viable again).

I do have the idea that at the very least, a mod's personal opinion expression at the moment of acting as a mod should not itself verge on breaking the rules.

You have a particular tendency for snide quips that I notice.

I don't think you have to believe you're on the side of good, just that enough of your enemies are sufficiently unscrupulous that they would always evoke maximally harsh rulesets against you if they won (so don't let them win at any cost).

There is a difference between being fearless and brave: one is a deficiency of fear, the other is persevering despite fear. There is similarly a difference between being retarded and being stubborn.