Modern slavery question

[Husseinisdoingfine]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Because only a psychologically damaged mind would sell itself for sex.

Does this apply to young women [teens and early twenties] who do OnlyFans?

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually he is more developed than the prostitute, but obviously he could be more developed.

The West has much development ahead.

"More developed" does not mean one is always good. People jump to that conclusion. Development levels are all relative to one another and the highest levels are actualized by nearly no one.

The West themselves say they are superior due to higher development. They call the places they colonized savage and that it's better off after their genocide because they developed roads 

They say their values are better and therefore need to be spread at all cost

It's an excuse to go to war

Somehow it goes from this to "we are a good force". And anytime they are not good they will blame some outside force or just gaslight 

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The West IS more developed and that is not due merely to exploiting the non-West.

In what ways did the West develop on their own?...if we don't count all theft from stealing entire continents, enslaving people, stealing wealth for centuries from Africa, Asia, South America, and whatever economic manipulation still goes on today

Didn't the British steal tens of trillions from India alone. That is all wealth taken away from one place and given to another and that is just one of many many chess moves 

I know the West will have a crazy invention every now and then but just because one man Steve Jobs or two men the Wright brothers are born in the west by random doesn't mean the West develops on their own 

[zazen]

- Development can happen unevenly: material development can outpace moral, or ethical development.

- Development isn’t just about power or material gain, but our use of it - to not exploit others.

- Not everyone wields power the same way when in the same position to do so.

- It’s possible for the rich man to not only exploit an existing weakness, but to actively create and perpetuate it. It’s possible the rich man didn’t just find the prostitute - but created her.

-  Epstein had developed far more power than the vulnerable individuals he exploited, yet his actions reveal profound moral and psychological underdevelopment. Running a sex trafficking empire isn’t a sign of development but of being developed in a twisted form of domination.

- If the prostitute is “damaged” for selling their body out of necessity, then how much more damaged is a man who weaponizes his wealth and power to exploit others at scale the way Epstein did? Or the crème de la crème elite of men who partook in such exploitation?

- Going macro: the West engages with its own people through a feudalistic exploitative dynamic - from the past, all the way till today’s oligarchic techno feudalism. It engaged with other nations  colonially in the past and imperially today. It still hasn’t developed towards another mode of being or ethos in dealing with other nations.

Watch this masterclass take on Jordan Peterson which goes over this notion of development:

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by zazen

[aste]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Because only a psychologically damaged mind would sell itself for sex.

And what about the buyer, is he/she psychologycally healthy? Is the opressor healthier (more developed) than the opressed?

 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually he is more developed than the prostitute, but obviously he could be more developed.

The West has much development ahead.

"More developed" does not mean one is always good. People jump to that conclusion. Development levels are all relative to one another and the highest levels are actualized by nearly no one.

 

I disagree, to my mind more developed means more loving and that's why I don't see a man using his material power to sexually enslave a vulnerable human being as "superior". Moreover, when you watch interviews of prostitutes and alike in channels like soft white underbelly is quite surprising how much these people had suffered in life and keep being victimized by opressors like their pimps and mainly their customers, they don't have the power to fight back, they are enslaved psychologycally and materially and you can't talk about development when a human being doesn't have a choice or the capacity to chose (a healthy context to thrive?, curiously more often that not you will find lofty motives behind their prostitution and I doubt you can find loving motives behind a prostitute customer buying bodies to poorly satisfy their sexual cravings and unhealthy psyche. I still dont understand how the opressor is the more developed one.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Is the white man more developed just because he is powerful  enough to do things like this or is he the real barbarian in this civilization/barbaric dichotomy fueled by the modern narrative and economic system?

[The Crocodile]

53 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

 

blah blah blah

[Twentyfirst]

11 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

blah blah blah

You think hunting people for sport is something to scoff at? 

So we should never call out the crimes and let western society just run amok? 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Something Funny said:

What makes a prostitute objectively less developed?

Marry a prostitute and find out

Quote

Also, what's the connection between being psychologically damaged and selling yourself for sex?

How is it different from selling yourself by being a cashier or a lawyer?

Contemplate the difference.

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

Because they are the best in the world at war, theft, deception. Not something to be proud of. Something to be ashamed of

Development of war just comes with the package of development as a whole.

The more developed a society will be, the more powerful their weapons will be.

Note that less developed nations are not rejecting weapons, they all desperately want bigger weapons, they just aren't capable of making them, or can't afford them. But if they could afford them they would buy them. So your lower nations are not some hippie, noble, spiritual, pacifists. They are warlords and warmongers, just less developed ones.

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Does this apply to young women [teens and early twenties] who do OnlyFans?

Not as much, but still, girls doing OnlyFans are not sharpest tools in the box since it is not good for them in the big picture. Making easy money from sexual exploits is not a good career choice in the end.

1 hour ago, aste said:

And what about the buyer, is he/she psychologycally healthy? Is the opressor healthier (more developed) than the opressed?

The buyer is healthier usually. Because buying prostitution is a lot healthier for a person than prostituting oneself. It is asymmetrical.

Would you rather be a prostitute or the buyer?

Being a prostitute is psychologically damaging. Paying for a prostitute is much less so because you're doing it for your own pleasure at your own convenience. It's the difference between buying a hotdog vs being butchered to make the hotdog.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Twentyfirst]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Development of war just comes with the package of development as a whole.

The more developed a society will be, the more powerful their weapons will be.

You will note that less development nations are not rejecting weapons, they all desperately want bigger weapons, they just aren't capable of making them, or can't afford them. But if they could afford them they would buy them. So your lower nations are not some hippie, noble, spiritual, pacifists. They are warlords and warmongers, just less developed ones.

How do we know if they will use those weapons in the same way? Maybe they just want it for defense against those who use weapons as a way to develop their society. Rather than developing through peaceful means 

The two biggest arsenals of atomic weapons are USA and Russia and USA used two and Russia used zero 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

How do we know if they will use those weapons in the same way? Maybe they just want it for defense against those who use weapons as a way to develop their society. Rather than developing through peaceful means 

There is no fundamental difference between how power works across any society or culture. Power rules in exactly the same way regardless of race, culture, or ethnicity. Tyrants exists across all nations, all cultures, all races, all eras. Because the mechanics of power transcend all those superficial human differences. A tyrant in the East wants the same thing as a tyrant in the West.

The only difference is that there are less tyrants in the West because the West has mostly outgrown them.

10 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

The two biggest arsenals of atomic weapons are USA and Russia and USA used two and Russia used zero 

This is meaningless. Putin is threatening to use nukes right now if he doesn't get his way annexing Ukraine.

There is nothing you guys will say, no argument you can come up with, that will change the reality that the West is more developed than the rest. This is the case no matter how much you dislike it.

[Twentyfirst]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no fundamental difference between how power works across any society or culture. Power rules in exactly the same way regardless of race, culture, or ethnicity. Tyrants exists across all nations, all cultures, all races, all eras. Because the mechanics of power transcend all those superficial human differences. A tyrant in the East wants the same thing as a tyrant in the West.

The only difference is that there are less tyrants in the West because the West has mostly outgrown them.

If you read Western history vs Eastern the Western always sounds more fucked up

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is meaningless. Putin is threatening to use nukes right now if he doesn't get his way annexing Ukraine.

More people in the world today hate Americans more than Russians because more have felt the boot of America 

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is nothing you guys will say, no argument you can come up with, that will change the reality that the West is more developed than the rest. This is the case no matter how much you dislike it.

Why does the West still use toilet paper vs bidets 

[zazen]

50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no fundamental difference between how power works across any society or culture. Power rules in exactly the same way regardless of race, culture, or ethnicity. Tyrants exists across all nations, all cultures, all races, all eras. Because the mechanics of power transcend all those superficial human differences. A tyrant in the East wants the same thing as a tyrant in the West.

The only difference is that there are less tyrants in the West because the West has mostly outgrown them.

There’s a difference between being a dominant player vs being a dominating player. China has largely developed towards its dominant position on the world stage differently to how the West did - which was dominating its way there.

The West don’t just want to be at the table, they want to be  at the head of it. They can’t share power with others, they want power over others as a given - this is the reality of today that they are struggling to adjust to - a multipolar reality where Game B dynamics take precedence over the Game A operating system they’ve been running on for such a long time and where other players are left no choice but to resort to Game A tactics out of necessity, rather than a reflexive preference.

As I said above:

- Development isn’t just about power or material gain, but our use of it - to not exploit others.

- Not everyone wields power the same way when in the same position to do so.

Thinking all nations or people will wield power the same way and to the same exploitative extent as to systematise its tyrannical nature, making it less visible than a single and very visible authoritarian figure, is projection.

The laws of power can exists across time and place just like the law of gravity. But some people drop freedom bombs in the Muddle East using gravity whilst others fly.

Edited 3 hours ago by zazen

[aste]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is nothing you guys will say, no argument you can come up with, that will change the reality that the West is more developed than the rest. This is the case no matter how much you dislike it.

 

 

You are right the "blah blah blah" and the hot dog analogy are unbeatable.

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, zazen said:

There’s a difference between being a dominant player vs being a dominating player. China has largely developed towards its dominant position on the world stage differently to how the West did - which was dominate its way there.

Of course it's different because 3rd world nations are now developing using a different pathway, using 1st world technology, and in a different era, where 1st world development and values already exist. That is very different from developing the 1st world from scratch.

These China examples are not in your favor because China is very bad to its own people. Maybe China is not starting colonial wars, but it has enslaved its own people in insane levels of brainwashing to compensate. Undoing that whole system of propagnda and collective manipulation will take a lot of work.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

Yes, that's true.

One thing to contemplate is that opposites tend to grow out of one another. The beautiful flower grows out of the dirtiest soil.

In this case, "more developed nations" have a greater level of safety and resources which lends itself to a more developed and liberal minded populace that values things like peace, unity, and equality with a focus on human rights. And that's because scarcity isn't quite as big of an issue (though it still exists in varying degrees for the lower 20% of income earners... and it's getting worse)

But the greater levels of safety and resources have come from the oppression and exploitation of other nations.

And those other nations tend to be "less developed" because they have struggled for generations from more powerful nations imperializing them and stealing resources, waging war, using the populace for cheap labor, etc.

And people in the countries are often held back from reaching their full potential because of the strong-hold that other nations have over them. And a lot of their time is eaten up by just trying to survive.

So, the most powerful (that have the most wide-reaching expressions of barbarism) imperialist countries tend to be the best and most prosperous ones to live in... and there's a greater chances of self-actualizing and developing up the spiral.

So... in the current state of things... the more barbaric a country is in terms of its foreign policy, the more opportunities for personal development its populace tend to have.

That said, it's not like other nations wouldn't be just as barbarous with foreign policy. They just don't have as much power and resources compared to the US or other imperial nations.

Note: I recommend checking out the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to understand more about why human societies have developed asymmetrically.

It talks about how geographical factors that have led to the inequalities... like access to metal to make superior weapons and sea craft, the presence of more easily domesticated animals (and the development of immunity to germs that came with that practice), regular growing seasons in wider continents versus longer continents, etc.

Edited 3 hours ago by Emerald

[Buck Edwards]

Why doesn't the debate stop at —

Yes, West corps do outsource the dirty work to the 3rd world, but that's only possible because the 3rd world is behind in development and doesn't have things like labor protections and environemntal protections which only exist at higher levels of development. So the West is exploiting the situation, for sure. 

 

[PurpleTree]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, the most powerful (and barbarous) imperialist countries tend to be the best and most prosperous ones to live in...

Like Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Singapore, Finland for example?

Edited 3 hours ago by PurpleTree

[Leo Gura]

Tiny countries can be great to live in as long as they are not being preyed upon by larger empires.

So it depends on the geopolitical climate.

If Putin really wanted an empire, Norway and Finland would not be great places to live.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

Like Norway, Ireland and Denmark for example?

Norway was once an imperialist nation a couple hundred years ago... so yes. It's just developed past that point now. It's why it's one of the most highly developed nations on the planet now.

Denmark is similar only it stopped being imperialist in the 1950s. So, it's also grown past that stage of development, though more recently in human history.

Ireland was an imperialized country... not an imperial nation.

So, it would not be a good example of a more developed country if you go back several decades. They were oppressed and colonized by the English and all of the food produced in Ireland was taken by the English except potatoes. That's why so many Irish people died during the potato blight.

There wasn't actually a famine. They just weren't permitted to keep their food.

And there was a lot of civil unrest in Ireland for the longest time for this reason.

And any development that's happened in Ireland is solely because the boot was taken off of their necks, and they were partially absorbed by the British empire which has certain developmental benefits.

Also, it used to be the case in America that Irish people weren't even considered "white" because of their poor/oppressed status.

[Twentyfirst]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course it's different because 3rd world nations are now developing using a different pathway, using 1st world technology, and in a different era, where 1st world development and values already exist. That is very different from developing the 1st world from scratch.

These China examples are not in your favor because China is very bad to its own people. Maybe China is not starting colonial wars, but it has enslaved its own people in insane levels of brainwashing to compensate. Undoing that whole system of propagnda and collective manipulation will take a lot of work.

But you make it seem like the West created values such as human rights or freedom. As if ancient societies just didn't know human rights existed. But the West are the biggest violators of these rights