Basman

This reminds me of Kierkegaard, who famously broke off his engagement with his then fiance for unclear reasons but people speculate that he couldn't marry his fiance without compromising his philosophical work and therefor choose philosophy. I've also heard that he could only afford to support himself with his fathers inheritance and he would have to get a "real job" if he went and got married, which would undermine his philosophy work even more. So it was a "killing your darlings" situation.

There is no such thing as unconditional love when it comes to a relationship because of your individual needs and desires. You didn't feel loved by your ex because she wasn't reciprocating in a way that you wanted. relationships, and by extension love, should be compatible in terms of wants and needs. In your case, your partner should be someone that loves to receive gifts and which in turn gives you the praise that you desire. I think the description "love is an economy" perfectly encapsulates how human relationships work and just how conditional they are by nature. Being in a relationship is basically a trade deal. I give you X, you give me Y.

If the solution is creating a cult then I don't see self-sufficient communities being a viable alternative for most people. Besides, that kind of system makes you even more vulnerable for abuse as you become completely dependent on the commune. What recourse do you have if for example a high-ranking and well respected member rapes you? None. The only viable kind of commune that I can see working is a very soft one which acts more like just a communal living space, still enmeshed with society. People have day jobs, etc. but pool their resources.

Would you seek power if you didn't have to worry about rent? I'd wager most aren't interested. It takes a certain kind of narcissism and ambition to want power.

The issue has always been a lack of opportunity for the common person to live a comfortable and good life. If afforded a high standard of living, do you care about being an elite or not ? I'd wager that most people are content being average socioeconomically as long as they enjoy a good enough standard of living, Scandinavian countries being top ranking in global happiness for instance. Nobody cares about wealth inequality granted that they live comfortably and society runs well.

So basically a soft-anarchism where you are still subject to the reigning sovereign power but act self-sufficient from wider society. Basically a commune at this point. I see its niche value but scarcity will be a challenge and relative isolation can engender abuse and make it harder to treat problems that would be easily handled by social services, like police, ambulances or the fire department. Large communes like Christiania tend to declind and get overrun by criminals and drug addicts long-term as they lack the structure necessary to maintain stability. Building and maintaining a society is very difficult.

🍾😎

Brainless entertainment. Like that rat in that Skinner experiment that presses the pedal for free heroin but less severe and more cringey.

The problem with anarchists is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to oust their sovereign power in favor of a voluntarist community but with none of the ugly violence, gang wars and scarcity that'll come from a deregulated society. Chaos and the freedom to commit rape and murder with no recourse are features of anarchy, not flaws. However, if unregulated violence, which will inevitably happen in the absence of a adjudicating police force and resource scarcity, is a flaw to you, then anarchy isn't for you. And it isn't for the vast majority of people save a couple of demons that would revel in the chaos.

Truth social is just Twitter for people who got banned off Twitter.

I find your English subpar but your advice is great. It doesn't always connect but when it does I find it rings true.

Imagine being the world's richest man yet so very insecure.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/15/hamas-approves-proposal-for-gaza-truce-captive-exchange-with-israel

Some people just want to believe. No amount of convincing will change their mind.

You could argue that "devilizing"/demonizing doesn't preclude the possibility of that perspective of being potentially true or valid. Demonizing is simply portraying something as threatening and wicked.

Demonization is essentially a form of close-mindedness. How can you understand a perspective if your not even willing to consider it valid? Edit: Actually, I don't think demonization is inherently close-mindedness. Its simply to portray something as terrible. You could demonize something from above, like for example the holocaust. Demoinzation from above would be careful to not overdo demonization such that you start distorting what it is your demonizing. Demonization from below doesn't hold any obligation to understanding what it is demonizing.

How is this not a bad faith interpretation? How do you know he's insecure? I think there are some valid criticisms of the left here, though @aurum is probably correct in that these are not strictly fallacies of the left. I find it more valuable to criticize the left for its shortcomings than the right because its less obvious, more psychological.

This is exactly what is being criticized here. Those where all examples to highlight how leftist tend to insert their bias in how they read things and argue in bad faith. At no point does he state that he believes in everything Elon Musk says but simply because of the association you assume he is some kind of pent-up right-winger with an axe to grind. Like he's typing this shit out with a smirk on his face like he's going to slam dunk the left and deport the transexuals.

Its not really a fallacy technically but thought terminating cliches are extremely common when question leftist group-think. Any word that ends with "-ist" or "-phobe" gets used to effectively shut down a conversation. Certain topics like talking about trans, immigration, women's/men's rights, essentially become taboo because people don't want to be framed as a bigot basically. I think this has slowly started to regress since Trump won the last election and I have experienced at least anecdotally that people are talking more about "taboo" topics more openly. There is generally too much focus on how an argument sounds rather than the actual content of an argument. The former is much easier to identify which is why I think leftist group-think (and group-think in general) trends towards being irrational and logically incongruent. Group-think is the opposite of nuance and critical thought. It has to be stupid and simple.

Just reacting to the title of this thread, this seems like just a grab for attention as Tate is falling out relevancy. Like with how Kanye was running for president. Its meant to be shocking. I doubt he is serious about politics.

Do you think wild animals deserve to be eaten alive by predators? Or do you think we have a duty to intervene in nature to save the poor animals? These aren't things that aren't done for fun. Its part of survival. I can see the argument but the problem is that I just don't see veganism being tenable on a societal scale for multiple reasons. And there are probably things that make up your life that you don't pay attention that are arguably unethically sourced, like your phone or your clothes. You don't question how your vegetables where made either with pesticides or your countries geopolitics. Right now your tax money is going to bombing people abroad. But farm animals is the one thing you are ideological about? There's a degree of entitlement to wanting everyone to adopt your views on a thing that isn't inherently immoral. Animal husbandry isn't needless cruelty for the sake of it.

You only need to tag me once or is this like an excited kid calling out for someone twice in a row? No you are right, sapiens is probably a better term.

Two adult siblings, a sister and a brother, go on a cabin trip to spend a weekend together and after a couple drinks and long conversations end up having sex. The sister assures she's on the pill but the brother chooses to use a condom anyway to be safe. The next morning they choose not to do this again or tell anyone but they feel closer than they did before. Is this immoral?