site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3562 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 23, 2022

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

  1. Charity is inherent to masculinity, magnanimity, abundance. It's the "King" archetype in the King Warrior Magician Lover grouping; I'll acknowledge that our society offers precious few examples of men who fulfill that role so it may be difficult to comprehend today. But every Indo-European pagan culture from the Sagas to Homer to the Vedas enjoined the great Kings and Lords to be generous to their people; every Abrahamic prophet from Mosaic Law to Christ and his Apostles and Saints to the Quran and Hadiths enjoined a true man to be generous to those less fortunate. To say that Charity is communism or effeminate, that sharing with others less fortunate is bad...that's just fucking lost, dude. Masculine excellence that is limited to striving is taking the warrior and the magician and losing the king and the lover. Which might be why the world is so lost, we have no fathers and no husbands because men don't exercise those archetypes, those virtues. Which is what made the video so refreshing!

  2. would you sing the same praises if it was 3 lanky programmers and not NFL players singing for charity?

100% if it were 3 lanky programmers who were top .01% in the universe at their craft, nationally renowned, and wealthy. Hell, I'd probably have the exact same feeling if a similarly joyful, bro-ful video of Sergei Brin, Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Elon Musk making a drunken Christmas Album for charity came out. That would be a similar, probably even more powerful, demonstration of the Christian spirit of giving and the masculine spirit of magnanimity and brotherhood and not taking yourself so seriously! Charity calendars are practically a tradition among young professionals these days, and widely celebrated.

Charity is inherent to masculinity, magnanimity, abundance. It's the "King" archetype in the King Warrior Magician Lover groupin

Call it what you like, but personally I think there's a slight difference in tone there; I would call that Magnanimity, or gift giving for functional purposes (to create bonds of allegiance and affection, to increase the capability of an underling, or to ostentatiously show off wealth and power to third parties). Charity I would describe as gift giving out of pure empathy.

Maybe I'm being too tetchy about it, IDK.

I mean we can definitely play patty-cake with it for a million years about what is empathy, does altruism exist, was there a purpose to this action or that action, and where the historic sacred responsibilities to strangers fit in. And I'm sympathetic to the argument that there's a meme of stripping masculinity out of masculinity. But I disagree with the idea that charity is feminine, that just does not track for me by tradition, by experience, or by logic.

It's the "King" archetype in the King Warrior Magician Lover grouping

See also, the seasonal carol "Good King Wenceslas."

To say that Charity is communism or effeminate, that sharing with others less fortunate is bad...that's just fucking lost, dude.

I agree. I hate to invoke political, ideological memes in this context, but libertarians are prone to pointing out the difference between men with guns telling you what to do in the name of helping the less fortunate, and going out and doing it yourself because it's the right thing to do. In spite of being atheist, I'll also invoke my former religion, and leave a quotation that I was thinking about last night while I struggled through my yearly requirement of midnight mass:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

-- Matthew 6:1-4, ESV

I feel like the world could use more of this sort of morality, of quietly doing what is right, knowing that that is good enough, and other people don't need to know all of the gory details. Exemplified by people like Nicholas Winton and Dale Schroeder, who toiled and risked for the sake of others without ever seeking a shred of credit.

Charity is not antithetical to masculinity but it is only ever contingent, and contains within it a contradiction. A king might give alms, but his crown cannot be shared. We might wish for nicer, more generous, and more magnanimous kings - but we cannot all be king, no matter how gracious superior men might be to inferior ones.

Which might be why the world is so lost, we have no fathers and no husbands because men don't exercise those archetypes, those virtues.

What would be the point? The virtues of charity and magnanimity are predicated on being part of a superior elite to begin with. There's no value in being humble when you have nothing to be humble about, in being charitable when you have nothing to give, in being a generous and open-minded lover when nobody wants your love. For the average person who isn't a top .01% physical specimen or a millionaire, meekness and humility aren't assets, they're massive handicaps.

Yes, not every man can achieve the highest ideal of masculinity, just as he cannot achieve being the ideal of the student or the athlete or the tycoon or the Don Juan. That doesn't mean they can't learn from great exemplars.

But most every man is king to some in some way, and it's important that he treat his kingdom well. That's the philosophy of the great chain of being, whether it's a king and his nation or a peasant and his dogs, relationships of mutual loyalty and benefit follow the same schema.

To say that Charity is communism or effeminate, that sharing with others less fortunate is bad...that's just fucking lost, dude.

Didn't say it's bad. Just that it's not one of the principal components of Archetypal Masculinity.

My argument was more along the lines of if you extracted out the features that define both masculinity and femininity, you would have a set of different features. Some of those features would overlap (Charity might be one of them). But the strongest signals let's say the top 5 strongest signals would be different. That's the entire reason why two different words are used to refer to two different things.

Charity is sharing. It's making sure everyone has enough, that no one is left behind. It's a top 5 feminine feature, not a top 5 masculine one. Maybe a top 20 masculine one.

Which is why I said its a bit on the nose to claim that what is inherently a feminine archetype (not action) being Masculine excellence.

100% if it were 3 lanky programmers who were top .01% in the universe at their craft, nationally renowned, and wealthy.

That's the (dare I say) feminine fixation on aesthetics.

Focussing more on the people than the act.

I'll think about The King Archetype.

Which gender does "stretching archetypes" belong to?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats