1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
argumate

Anonymous asked:

I think the most glaringly naive and myopic part of ancaps ideal worldview is the fact they think collusion amongst organizations wouldn't take place to the point where states would emerge. Hell, there are modern corporations right now that are more powerful than many smaller nation states and if it was just a matter of sheer resources and manpower they'd absolutely get their own military companies like coca cola have even conspired with paramilitary organizations

argumate answered:

I think any serious anti-state ideology acknowledges that it requires constant vigilance to prevent the emergence of another state, which requires viewing any sufficiently large organisation with extreme suspicion, as well as the constant propagation of memes warning against the perils of statehood (statedom?)

This fucks up freedom of association to an absurd degree, but you can get out of it by being okay with a state being established “without coercion”, eg. you’re born into a world where you have to explicitly sign the social contract or starve, unlike our current world where you implicitly sign the social contract or starve.

mitigatedchaos

この地は帝王の地です。

Ｔｈｉｓ　ｌａｎｄ　ｉｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｌａｎｄ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　Ｅｍｐｅｒｏｒ．

日本語 politics shtpost
remedialaction
mitigatedchaos

Yet it clearly does, and given you already recognized the premise of “I think, therefor I am,” you clearly recognize there is a unity here. You seem to want to have unity when it matters to recognize self and attempt to derive value, and then reject it now. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is an entity, a self, or there is not.

Actually, both can be true simultaneously, in the sense of both self and subself existing and being relevant at once.

Like, causal bundling again - people talk about nations being “just lines on a map”, but they’re actually a very complex wave-like phenomena involving institutions, land, resources, people, culture, and so on that form a clear causal bundle and natural category.

So one can, actually, coherently both talk about a nation doing something and the factions and individuals within a nation doing something.

The self can exist in a way that derives value without totally ignoring that it is composed of subcomponents that aren’t wholly unified.  Much like the self can exist despite the influence of drugs on the mind, but without ignoring the influence of those drugs.

The primary reason to say that we cannot recognize the influence of the subcomponents on a moral level is a desire for applying infinite moral liability.  Thus, effectively, pretending that there is no tension between the internal components and therefore, for example, when a person says they “want” to be of a healthy weight, but then eat too much junk food anyway and find it distressing, that this is their “true, revealed preference” that applies to their whole self, even if they hate it.

There is, of course, the practical matter of lack of access to sub-delineations - or at least, there is now at the current technology level.  But that’s a practical matter, and often modern courts of law will change sentences according to psychological state.

As for the ability of nations to think, that depends on how one defines the term.  I don’t think they feel.  Not yet.  The concept of what is to states as Transhumanism is to humans is not yet more than a grain of sand.

Source: mitigatedchaos
argumate

Anonymous asked:

...I see the division of Batman predates the comic book character... well played, Australia... well played...

argumate answered:

Melbourne was in fact founded by Batman, which explains the art deco buildings and the dark brooding winter.

mitigatedchaos

This is a common misconception.  Batman is, in fact, a heavy-handed metaphor for Melbourne itself.  Even the original authors confirmed this in a leaked document released on 4chan.

shtpost not actually true
remedialaction
mitigatedchaos

The point of my objecting to your granulation is not that you can’t subdivide parts, but that those subdivided parts remain part of a whole. The claim about natural boundaries within people is irrelevant here in the subject of moral responsibility because the very concept hinges upon distinguishing that which is inside and that which is outside. Those inner boundaries all share one aspect, and that is the very fact that they are, even in your argument, inner, and therefor distinct from outer boundaries. 

Inner/outer is being used for convenience, not revealing something.  

I like this metaphor as well, as it accurately fits the concept of every person a nation unto themselves. :P

It’s not such a bad metaphor, since it exposes the problem with your way of thinking.

People treat subnational units as relevant in international politics quite frequently, which is part of why, while destroying much of the German army during WWII, the result following the war did not involve putting all the Germans to death.  The national responsibility for the war was actually split up according what the individual people and factions within the country did.  In fact, they didn’t even execute the entire German army itself.

Attempting to subjugate a country and knock out its entire army is typically done not because the nation as a whole is sufficiently unified in order to justify total moral liability to all of its subcomponents, but because trying to individually negotiate with all the soldiers and so on while the state apparatus is in the control of a dictator is extremely difficult and unlikely to succeed.

While people may recognize that, say, Texas does not get to speak independently on the international stage, they recognize that it still has an influence on the government which is different from that of, say, Ohio.  This is actually a big part of the large, televised anti-Trump protests, establishing non-total-liability to outside observers.

I could also discuss the nation as a whole as having an inner and outer, and claim that morality exists at the level of the nation and not at the level of the individual.  What makes that boundary more special to the point that we can’t care about the subcomponents?

Source: mitigatedchaos
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

@argumate gotta admit I seen a lot of “down with Islamophobia” posters from local socialists and very few “down with religion” posters

Yeah, there’s this problem where if you say stuff like that, people mostly use it as a reason to take that religious group that has all that money or oil or is just inconvenient and just kill them all.

mitigatedchaos

Yeah, well there’s also this problem where different cultures are actually different on more than just what kind of food they eat, and if you heavily push “anyone who heavily questions this foreign religion or culture is an evil racist bigot and should be fired”, you end up covering up massive child sexual abuse scandals.

I find it very frustrating that a religion that is actually worse than Christianity in many ways, and is oppressive in itself, and is so far difficult to secularize people out of and water down, with elevated rates of fundamentalism among second-generation immigrants, is getting this free pass from the people who were supposed to be all anti-oppressive and logical.

collapsedsquid
mitigatedchaos

@collapsedsquid

What fucking Breitbart shit are you reading?  Is it the fucking leftists who are supporting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

No dude, they’re just supporting mass Islamic migration and denouncing all criticisms of Islamic as racist and “Islamophobic”.

Also the Liberals, but I’ve seen actual Socialists talking about the needs for diversity and tolerance of Islam and whatnot.  

Source: yellowtheatricalsilk
thathopeyetlives
thathopeyetlives

I have a vague like (well below the level of actual political preference) for a monarchy.

And, well, I really, really, really don’t like British Monarchy Apologism. It’s simultaneously obscene and cowardly.

thathopeyetlives

If we see a restoration it will, and will have to be, different. Above all things the historical aristocratic contempt for all things useful and practical and especially for labor must pass away.

rendakuenthusiast

I’m not sure it’s possible to have a monarchy without some level of aristocratic contempt for useful and practical things. What would a non-aristocratic monarchy look like? 

thathopeyetlives

I didn’t necessarily say “a non-aristocratic monarchy”.

What I was specifically thinking of is, like, people who form entire cultures around considering Working For A Living to be basically illegitimate, and who then don’t have the saving grace to live in austere and ascetic poverty when their rent fails them.

mitigatedchaos

In my ideal nation, the royal family would have the role of safeguarding the nation’s culture (and a few other things) rather than being a tourist attraction or having full political power better reserved for the civilian government.

Their membership would be drawn from national heroes, waning over several generations and requiring new heroes to marry in for the line to remain royal.  So, great artists, great scientists, great warriors, those who have made amazing sacrifices - people who just knowing they’re from your country and embody its ideals, make your heart swell with pride.

This keeps the genetic lines fresh, rewards those who benefit society, helps keep the nation united, and so on.  In many countries the monarchy is reduced to a national mascot and cultural institution - so if we’re going to do that, let’s do it right.

policy the black forest country the iron hand the golden crown
slartibartfastibast
cailleachan

guys but like…not every vocal atheist is an m.r.a dudebro with a goatee and a fedora and a hard-on for richard dawkins. plenty of people have a legitimate reason for mistrusting and criticising religion and religious practices (i.e. abuse survivors, lgbt people, people from former or current colonies, many women all over the world) and atheism might actually be important to some people as a space for resistance.  which is not to say i advocate black and white thinking and i think all criticism of religion should be sensitive and placed within careful consideration of context (i.e. people not using “atheism” as an excuse to be islamophobic, anti-semitic etc.) but religions are social institutions that still exert a lot of power and we should let oppressed people have safe spaces in which to criticise them

isaacsapphire

I’m still trying to understand how the Left started hating atheists, associating Atheism with being anti women’s rights, and consider religious people as a morally superior group?

Like, what the fuck? What happened to the god-hating liberals my (abusive) Christian parents despised?

drethelin

The complement of Divide and Conquer: Unite and Conquer. Make alliances of convenience to gain power. Leftists aligned with Islam because they’re both opponents (especially in America) of neoliberal globalism, as well as Conservativism. Islam has money and power behind it, Atheism has none. Islam also fits into the antiracist agenda, especially in the west where Muslims are a minority that’s also correlated very much with ethnicity. Racism is a tough rap to beat and it means people who want to spread Islam and Islamic power are naturally aligned with the left, who want to hurt the same people and take their power too.

Before Islam was a noticeable group in Western politics, atheism was fine/good. But if you want to ally with an increasingly powerful Islam, you HAVE to shit on atheists. Because atheists are willing to actually attack Islam, whereas feminism and LGBT issues can, via doublethink, sidestep it, they get thrown under the bus. 

mitigatedchaos

They’re very much playing with fire.

Source: yellowtheatricalsilk
Top Photos