Replies (37)
What is "red pill" referring to here? You always have very intriguing notes, but here I feel like I'm missing too many puzzle pieces, so I'd definitely reply with something stupid (or more stupid than usual).
lol
"Red Pill" was a cool term a while ago, but then it got co-opted by some pretty ugly people. Men who want a return to patriarchy. The Andrew Tate types. So I will get dudes that will just come up to me and start lecturing me about how I need to go back home and make more babies. Or dear old friends that suddenly think that I'm going to obey them... it's really weird to have someone you've know for years suddenly start barking orders at you. Sad stuff.
It's so weird to see my "anarchist" and "libertarian" friends become wannabe tyrants. Makes you wonder if they ever really had those values or if they were just mad that they weren't the ones in power and were waiting for their turn.
Human nature. We’re not so different from apes.
is this linked to particular podcast / media content?
“Oh you’re that kind of think boi? “ - exit 💀
the libertarian view of property rights seems so noble until you dive into what some of them consider property...
And in which direction would you like humanity to go?
Not one specifically that I'm aware of. This is a social contagion that's been ripping through my friends group for the past few years.
You feel like you’re being generalized so you…generalize?
damn, easily influenced it would appear 🤷🏽♂️
For the better of course, but humanity perpetually seeks progress, yet our essential nature remains tethered to primal instincts. We pride ourselves on cultural refinement and distance from barbarism, particularly in the modern West, but beneath the surface, we are fundamentally unchanged. The patterns of exploitation and violence that once defined ancient civilizations persist, albeit in disguised forms. Slavery still exists, rebranded and veiled within systemic frameworks, and the notion of human sacrifice lingers, cloaked in subtler, socially accepted guises. Civilization evolves outwardly, yet the core of human behavior remains strikingly consistent, echoing a timeless truth about the human condition.
"...hardening of the moral arteries is as damaging to the consensual morality of society as the "anything goes" anarchy against which it protests. It is a distortion of moral forces, a coarsening into self-righteousness. The erosion of morality, the belief that ethical choices are purely a matter of of private preference leads to hedonism that is reckless of consequence"
You do not have to obey a man who is slave to his own instincts.
The presupposition for the submission of the woman to the husband is that the husband will be a man of God, not a weakling narcissistic modern man of the world.
Dating and marriage are strongly built when the life to God and sainthood is the its very own fundament.
Right this is the argument that I'm supposed to submit, just to a decent guy.
Never going to happen. Submission is death to your soul. It's not a thing that any decent human would wish for their loved ones.
All human progress depends upon the authority of the competent (and those who far exceed the competent). There are surely many different systems that could achieve that end, but none of them are egalitarian, and all of them involve minimizing the authority of the incompetent.
Power Corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely
In what way do they want to be tyrants?
I lost a number of anarchist friends a decade ago when they got sucked into the Stephan Molyneaux cult of white nationalism.
Thanks for the article; it contains much truth. I read Sir Arthur Keith years ago, and his great contribution was to show that human evolution is not so much evolution of individuals, but of human groups (tribes, nations, races), which necessarily implies cooperation. I don't see this as contradicting what I said about competence, though. We cannot be led -- in any field -- by average Walmart shoppers, nor will we be. Any pretense that we are (such as "democacy") is just a cover for evil and knavery behind the scenes.
Maybe this is a wrong understanding of God as some higher power above us. What if God dwelves in us, man or woman alike.
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist by upbringing, don't do Church but not a materialist either.
Just means they aren’t actually libertarian. Libertarian is an idea, the people corrupting it are just your regular humans. Same goes with any political, religious, etc. leanings, no?
We all should be leading ourselves.
when fighting monsters. be aware you dont become a monster yourself.
God inhabits in us in the sense He will bestow His grace upon us when we delve into abnegation.
Not that we, as we are, already fully reached out to Him.
That sense is misleading, because it makes one think that conversion is not needed or asked from us.
So you have missed what submission means, although I have worded that the best as I could muster.
A man to be a virtuous leader looks at the cross and understands the greatest love of all, to guide him to be the family's leader. His wife will know that and both will be devoted to sainthood.
You will always miss that if you are: a) looking for a man lacking those virtues, b) aiming to be self-sufficient and proud of yourself at every turn.
At this point im getting lost in the words. Of course I strive to be the best of me, and do not think that i am Him. Who is Him anyway? External power?
Ya, and you can't see women as leaders.
hmmm
isn't this just the "no true scotsman" fallacy?
Ah jump to the fallacy bullshit logic arguments instead of just responding to my actual point. Very nice.
i mean, i understand your frustration, but isn't that essentially your point?
that the libertarian ideology is pure and the people who "corrupt" are not (or should not be) true representatives of it. and that this happens in other collectives (religion, politics, etc.).
“when education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor”
We should all have the option to lead ourselves***
Not everyone will or should. It would be bad for many individuals and for societal progress on the whole.
😢
Well, your values are apparently very different from mine.
If someone is not leading their own life, a tragedy has occurred.
I guess so 🤷♂️ I bet in a way that's less distinct than it seems. Still fun to think about though.
I just believe having freewill necessarily means you also have the optionality to delegate whatever responsibility you want to another consenting human - a.k.a a "leader".
Paradoxically, asserting that doing so means that the follower no longer has freewill is, in fact, a denial of their freewill.
I can follow if I want. I can lead if I want.
