@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

I do not believe the sort of people you exalt is an improvement. Certainly I do not wish to see them anywhere near power, especially power over me or any number of my kids.

I want to see leaders who have paid and continue to pay for leadership in sweat and/or blood. Even the most venal and corrupt of leaders today do pay, although some of them pay insufficiently and that makes them complacent and fattened on power.

There is also the thing where you deny that you see yourself among the elite of the new world order, but the plausibility of that denial strains my credulity. You display exactly the same mindset that you believe should be empowered and you're frankly displaying the worst of that mindset. When I imagine the world you're portraying I imagine a world where potential men like you have been given power by a thought experiment god (since you're unfit to seize it). It's a deeply contradictory world.

There is plenty of discontent in Russia about how the war is going, included among the opinion makers. It does not rise to unrest because unrest is outlawed and the law is enforced.

(The discontent among the opinion makers is, admittedly, primarily of the "we should be having this war but the leadership are thieves, morons and cowards" kind rather than "we shouldn't be having this war" kind because expressing discontent of the latter kind as a public person is extra no bueno.)

I do not believe Putin has memories of Operation Barbarossa, he wasn't there. Invocations of WW2 sentiments just sound extremely fake and contrived to me.

That's closer to what hubris means, unlike your initial attempt to apply it to what I said.

I think the word you're looking for is "selfishness".

Hubris would better describe someone who seeks the fruits of power with profound ignorance of how power is claimed and held.

You asked why I responded to you in an emotional way and I answered.

Regarding your view on the world, I won't be sacrificing myself to perpetuate those smarter and more beautiful than me, and that goes double for those whose genius and beauty is only evident to themselves.

Equality is not the same as fairness. I believe those who labor to better the world should be compensated. The potential men who could maybe better the world, but only if they feel like it and also if everyone stops getting in the way, should not be compensated for potential.

I disagree with yours.

One could say that I observe a stable moral-aesthetic superposition between "the world should be fair!" and "the world is unfair, act like it". "The world should be unfair in my favor" is not a part of the superposition.

I don't think I'd make the cut, in no small reason because I'm far from making the cut in the current elite structure.

The emotional reaction you're noticing is in response to the fact that you seem to think you'd make the cut. The_Nybbler has put it better than I could, you don't have the qualities that form the core of any aristocratic class.

My oughts about higher education institutions are different than my oughts about the base structure of society. If you looked for my opinion on something that's even lower stakes, such as competitive gaming, you'd find that it doesn't align with my views on an ideal society either.

It seems so to you because you believe that you're obviously correct and perhaps that you're a natural ally to me, so it must only be "false consciousness" clouding my mind.

One's welcome to not accept it, and I wish him luck in getting more than what he's given. I just don't care for made-up justifications for why he "deserves" more than mere dregs of an upper middle class salary.

I don't want to be in the club with you, not particularly, no. You haven't proven you're a valuable ally who can bring about any justice, beauty, genius or action you want a coalition for, you haven't proven you're fun company, and rest assured you haven't proven you're a threat I should prefer to be with rather than against.

If I ever consider taking over the world you won't be the kind of person I turn to.

I thought you couldn't make soccer more of a joke.

Not only am I obviously aware of that, it doesn't help your argument.

We don't know that they are more tasty, because species segregation has banned any investigation into this question. You have that privilege. Now imagine if you had to fight tooth and nail not having the privilege, and if there were no species segregation police force you didn't invent, organize, or sufficiently fund that was willing to enforce your species privilege. Your existence would be much more precarious in such a world.

We have some reports of the taste. And we do know from evidence that it is not enticing enough to even fund a decently-sized black market. Criminals widely trade in weapons, drugs, sex, slaves, children, sex slaves, child slaves and sex with children, yet human meat remains an afterthought for the very few depraved.

Even if I lived next to a cannibal barbarian tribe without any protection, my existence would not be substantially more precarious than living next to a non-cannibal barbarian tribe.

This whole exchange, you have struggled with distinguishing descriptive and normative statements, redefining my normative statements as different descriptive statements and then claiming that those descriptions are not true. For example, I say I want an aristocracy. You then define an aristocrat as any person that gets some social authority, and remark that you don't think I have any. Then you say I'm not an aristocrat.

There is no objective definition of aristocracy or aristocrats. When I deny you being an aristocrat because you do not rule, this is me being charitable, conceding the implication that if you were higher on the totem pole, I would not question your status as an aristocrat.

Less charitably:

  • You are not to my knowledge a descendant of any hereditary privileged ruling class
  • neither appointed as such
  • neither evidently possessing any virtues commonly associated with aristocrats at a high level, other than intellect (taking your claims of high IQ at face value)

For all I can see your self-designation of an aristocrat is mostly according to a definition you have custom-made to fit yourself but not the people who you are bitter about losing status to.

This is indeed not a productive discussion. There have been other posters who combined high opinion of their own virtues with low tangible evidence of such. This is not a good combination. You want someone to care about your high IQ without asking for what you have accomplished with it, join MENSA. I heard it's a dull community precisely because it attracts the people who have the measure of intelligence but not the virtue of it, but perhaps you'll find it different.

That does not appear to cohere with your designs for the world at all. As far as I understand, you want the world to coordinate on bringing certain kinds of people (the "smart" ones), regardless of heritage or proof of work (because proving your smarts through work is cheating and real proof is the IQ test), to the forefront.

This will not happen if there are only sets of families because every family will be looking out for itself. Any uniting principle that goes above familial ties and nepotism will, by definition, be society.

This only coheres if you include yourself into the set of bad people who have come up with society to justify their evil behavior (such as declaring that they should be prioritized).

At this point I think it's probably closest to:

  • war started because Russia thought they could blitz it
  • after not, in fact, blitzing it, backing down is very politically unpopular among the slice of the population that expects something for all the sacrifice
  • economical interests of some factions contribute to the incompetency and boondoggling around, such as pushing for retarded measures in the IT sphere

The only ones interested in nuclear escalation in this picture are the armchair warriors (mostly ignorant/uncaring about consequences and just wanting to feel good about the Russian bear going apeshit, not unlike some who think USA should just glass Middle East until goals are achieved) and the rank and file soldiers (who'd rather Ukraine get nuked than have to lay down their lives for it any further). Consequentially they are getting very angry at Putin who pursues the image of "denazificator" (as opposed to "stone them into the bomb age") and the other power centers who pursue money handouts for building nationalized social media apps and the like.

I've never heard of Stanislav Krapivnik. Posturing that Russia should nuke "the ones behind Ukraine" is a common pastime of some of the pro-Russian media people and is not serious IMO.

The aristocrats aren't doing anything to me. Literally, socialism is a bigger problem than billionaires by a magnitude of 10,000 times at least. Socialism takes all my money. I don't like the billionaires because they are not aristocrats, they are mostly lucky peasants or class traitors and that's that but they're basically not worth worrying about.

I am not talking about the billionaires. The billionaires are the equivalent of the rich who the aristocrats of old borrowed money from.

"I've paid you a small fortune."
"And that gives you power over me?"

Do you feel in charge? If you're the top 10%, why do you not feel in charge? What are you doing about it?

Stop criticizing how I spend my leisure time, it's rude and disrupts how I want to spend my leisure time. Do you never do anything for fun? The idea I have to spend all my time competing against Chinese rice peasants and white proletariat is what I'm against. Aristocrats philosophize. Maybe be happier that you're here also partaking in aristocratic leisure?

I'm criticizing your leisure time because you're the one here who's unhappy about not being handed things like convenient and enriching competition. I work for 1/3 of the money someone in my IQ cohort could and apply 1/10 the effort. I feel quite alright with the ratio of money to effort I'm getting, and spend the rest of my time engaging in laborer leisure. Meanwhile, you're larping at "aristocratic leisure" while very evidently not being an aristocrat. (You could tell if you were because you'd feel in charge.)

The reason you don't need to spend half your life demonstrating why you shouldn't be a farm animal is species segregation.

The reason I don't have to demonstrate that is that farm animals are much better at dragging plows and being tasty than me (and tractors beat them at the former, too). If you lived in the era where draft animals were scarce you'd have to prove why you'd be more useful in the office doing shape rotating/wordcelry than dragging a plow. We don't have species segregation, we just made animal labor cheaper than ours.

I didn't say without competition. I said without meaningless competition.

I didn't say without competition either. I said without competition with anyone you don't like. Naturally everyone is incentivized to eliminate as much competition as possible, branding it "meaningless" and "below them" and shit. That isn't how it works. Competition only becomes truly meaningless when you're strong enough to make your lessers compete against it instead. Like the actual aristocrats of the world are currently doing to you. You're the bear barrier. You'll remain one until you become the kind of person who's better at wrangling people than bears.

If you're truly too smart for your current position in the world then complaining on wordcel forums is both undignified and useless. You should be out there lobbying, colluding and scheming.

Whatever you call "let the high IQs work without taxes or competition with anyone they don't like", it's not "aristocracy" in any established meaning of the word. Aristocracy is not when you "get" to do things. Aristocracy is when you do things, while other people less versed in politics "get" to do what you allow them and no more.

Bemoaning that the world isn't fair because you only get to keep 100k/year instead of 200k/year is a useless and undignified activity.

Smart people are keeping the profits for themselves. Ergo, you're not smart enough to be an aristocrat if you're here complaining about taxes and nepotism.

Aristocracy is when high-agency people break rules, scheme and kill to fulfill their desire of getting things simply for existing instead of working hard. Those who complain about not being given things instead of doing the above are not aristocrats, they are failsons.

Then there is nothing to discuss, is there? The founding fathers did not secure a future (some future) for their descendants by posturing about it on the internet.

There are now those who do not respect blood claims on principle, and not dried blood in any other case.

Magical Britain is a small community. I don't find it unlikely that four years between finishing Hogwarts and dying (one year after Harry was born) wouldn't be enough to get their faces known. They literally were in The Resistance.

James' parents died of a magical illness and Lily's were killed by Death Eaters, but I think that was WoG and not mentioned in books.