/lit/ - Literature

It is not bullshit, but he approached the problem as one of the most intelligent and highly educated people in society. What is true for somebody of his unique ability is not at all true for the average man who will gladly shovel dirt for 8 hours if he has a good crew around him and a family and home to go to when the work is done, this is true especially if the wife does not work and is able to maintain a home for him, as well as raise a family.

The genius or uniquely gifted individual can not see this as they are unable to form these relationships with the average man as they are typically far removed from the common bonds that form amongst men.

>>21621037
You got filtered HARD. Surrogate Activities explains 80% of the malfunctioning/maladaptive behavior of leftists. You’re just trying to cope with the fact that Uncle Ted fatally BTFO’d leftism. There has never been a more thorough dismantlement and ideological ass reap as that of which Teddy Boy gave to your fake and gay world view. On a deep level your midwittery knows this to be true, but all you can do is shitpost with impotence and quiet rage

>>21621037
OP has mental retardation (advanced, irreversible)

>>21621106
>that pic
>"im not an incel im a misunderstood genius"

hmmmm...

>>21621129
No, I basically agree with the leftism stuff. But I absolutely don't agree with the idea that science, art and athletics are surrogate activities. Shit like watching porn, tiktoks, and youtube fit the bill though. I don't disagree with the idea that society is overrun with maladaptive surrogate acts, but the things he mentions like Hirohito's marine biology pursuits are absolutely not part of the problem.

>>21621147
>genius"
I'm an average working man anon, one that reads a good amount. I am not unique, gifted or different but for a few different opinions that most are too unwilling to vocalize.

>>21621149
Not everything that isn't raw survival is a surrogate activity. Surrogate activities are only things people do when, for example, they're really bored or coping with meaninglessness. Athletics is something useful for survival and pre-historic societies took part in sports and other liesure activities.

>>21621037
people are really flooding threads about Ted these days.

>>21621194
yeah they memed me into reading it

>>21621037
Who is picrel

>>21621218
Read the filename, you dumbass.

>>21621157
well i hope that's true and you're not just some Thiel-brained shitposter but it's hard to tell these days here on troll.org. i do agree with much of that post but saying all true genuises are extremely alienated is hyperbolic.

>>21621129
>Surrogate Activities explains 80% of the malfunctioning/maladaptive behavior of
everybody.

The only thing he fucked up on about this was to say it was only going on with one political grouping, when it's obviously everybody.

>>21621037
>This whole "surrogate activities" idea is total bullshit.
ah disagree, I wrote about this, shared it here a couple of months, it got zero responses then deleted. good luck though, maybe a subject topic pretending to disagree with it will stay up a bit longer.

The simpler way to put it is that 'most' people are going to a job to get money, not to do the job, or most people are dressing to seem a certian way to others, not that they're really dressing how they want to dress - that kind of thing. Run the idea through that algorithm and you'll get the data into perspective.

>>21621220
???
Nice post retard

>>21621228
That's not your place anymore. Get out.

>>21621159
Mechanising athletics to the point where you're dedicating your life to shaving milliseconds off your lap time or perfecting your serve is a surrogate activity on par with competitive gaming. Ancient societies had sports for ritualistic, physical, and social purposes.

>>21621238
Ritual, physical, and social functions are all necessary and worthwhile pursuits. Ted specifically mentions socialization and love not being surrogate activities.

>>21621243
>Ted specifically mentions socialization and love not being surrogate activities.
if that's not the case then what are you doing here? you should feel as fulfilled by this smiley face :) as when a close friend greets you after a long absence.

one is a surrogate.

>>21621228
I'm a literal National-Socialist, anon. Though you have added nothing to the conversation. I never claimed all genius are isolated. I said that they typically are far removed from the average experience and so can not adequately summarize their situation. They can still form bonds with people but the chances of doing so are far smaller as you they, like everybody, need people that are closer to them in terms of ability. Imagine being the only person who can read amongst your peer group, that may help explain what I imagine it must be like for somebody like Ted.

Your reading comprehension is terrible.

>>21621256
You're either genuinely retarded or trying way too hsrd to be contrarian. Embarrassing.

The Ted stuff should be pretty easy to answer

Do you want to give up electricity, plumbing, lights, etc and go back to living in a hut scratching in the dirt or not? If not then find a way to deal and quit bitching about 'technology.' Technology getting better is one of the only good things to happen over the last few centuries. We could just as easily live in a shithole dystopia without things like internet, video games, and refrigerators.

>>21621274
hahahaha holy fucking shit, if you wanted to prove that actual discussion about a thing was impossible on 4chan, you just did it.


oh great, now here comes the ugos with the tv news narrative
>>21621276
>Do you want to give up electricity, plumbing, light

nice job anon.

>>21621274
btw, when did calling smart people 'retards' and 'autists' become a thing? and how come this site isn't down for hate crimes in this day ad age? i'm so sick of seeing this shit that i'm inclined to contact the authorities and get this thing blocked in europe.

it's literally only serving as a psyop to create mass shooters at this point, there's no discussion taking place. it's a fake.

>>21621269
>criticizes others for their reading comprehension skills
>has the writing ability of a 14 year old
you'll grow out of your edgy phase eventually, zoomer. don't worry. once you grow older you'll stop trying to sound smart to impress others

Whenever people bring up legitimate holes in Ted's work, they always ignore them in favor of bashing low hanging fruit. Curious.

>>21621317
It was rendered easier to read as my first post confused you as you thought I said something I clearly did not.

Shit, it's a troll. Can't believe I fell for a moment to the machinations of this fat bald no-lifer playing characters on his dusty keyboard.
NTA

>>21621233
>when it's obviously everybody
You’re right. But it’s far more important in understanding leftism because this is the dominant culture at the moment. It’s also important in understanding how and why the globalist class uses leftism and promotes “progressivism” in order to weaken by way of divide and conquer. Do you really think George Soros is promoting a functional open boarder planet because he believes this is best for your country? Or do you think he wants a liquified, weakened and compliant labor force to exploit while defending against loosing his power and billions? If you can’t answer this question without hesitation you are most likely a leftist. And isn’t it crazy how over the last 50 years the left (Democrats in the US) has gone from the party of the working class and the anti war party to the party most aligned with Globohomo[genization] and become pro war? The propaganda that made this happen was targeted at unmet human needs that have been replaced with lower quality substitutes and surrogate activities.

>>21621318
how is this not a legitimate flaw in his work? what would you say is a more important error that needs to be focused on?

>>21621408
I was referring to the genius trying to understand world-view of a lesser mind. He can not, anymore than the average man can understand what motivates a one far below him.

>>21621233
If I was to rephrase my OP I'd say that Ted characterizing all activities under industrial society unrelated to survival as surrogate activities is bullshit. Obviously its true that industrial society provides the population with poor substitutes for meaning which drives them crazy slowly due to accumulated dissatisfactions coupled with the inability to achieve power and autonomy, but art, science, and athletics are absolutely NOT under of the surrogate category.
You can say I'm being pedantic because the majority of the population doesn't partake in these activities I would consider meaningful and compatible with the power process, that's fine, but obviously this remains a flaw in Ted's reasoning since the leisure time afforded by technology is what allows these meaningful activities to be pursued.

>>21621318
The "holes" are just misreadings and misunderstandings. For example >>21621276 doesn't understand that the issue isn't tech itself and doesn't go away if you put down your phone. He hasn't even gotten 4 chapters into ISaiF, so he just makes himself look retarded. The OP post is also a misunderstanding, for one because he thinks that Kaczynski wants to eliminate surrogate activities, and for another because he misunderstands the nature of them. He even ends his post on a retarded conclusion.

Fuck every last one of you, I'm going camping.

>>21621323
No, all of us think you write like a tryhard faggot

>>21621317
>everybody who disagrees with me is an edgy zoomer
>everybody but me is a Thiel-brained shitposter on this website
>proceeds to add nothing to the conversation and shitpost
Either you're a decent troll or you're the actual faggot zoomer who hasn't read Ted at all and doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

>>21621481
>The OP post is also a misunderstanding, for one because he thinks that Kaczynski wants to eliminate surrogate activities
No, I disagree with the very characterization of things like science, art and athletics as surrogate activities.

Athletics was irrelevant I learned early but still continued to pursue because why not win and achieve. Don't lose yourselves

>>21621482
No. It's cold out

>>21621490
>all of us
I think it's just you anon. Why so angry? I think it's time little baby anon has a nap, maybe go outside and touch some grass, speak to a real human for once. If that's not your style, then cope, seethe, dilate because you're acting like a hysterical troon.

>>21621509
None of them are necessarily surrogate activities.

>>21621037
There are really only two types of activities: those that make you more powerful, and those that make you weaker.

>>21621481
Please address this >>21621106, I posted this earlier and got no response from a Ted-supporter.

There is much I agree with, that Ted got correct and I agree with, but there is far much more I disagree with and have asked this in multiple Ted threads and have not got a sufficient answer. Also related to this is his concept of freedom, he seems to think he can separate freedom to participate in the power process from permissiveness. I do not think you can do this. Without permissiveness you do not have freedom, you have people conforming to what the authority figure deems is freedom.

>>21621524
I'm going to need you to explain the contradiction. If a man has to dig ditches eight hours a day, he can thoroughly enjoy it and be satisfied. Hunter gatherers may have had to dig ditches from time to time like anyone else, and ditch digging was a profession before industrialization. Work isn't necessarily a surrogate activity; only work that is taken solely because you can't find anything better to do. For example, writing could be a serious activity that you really would like to partake in, or it could be the machinations of an incel that sees no other opportunities.
The OP and his autistic hyperfocus on surrogate activities is actually a bit odd, because Kaczynski doesn't even have a problem with them. He looks down on them, sure, but they're not the problem with industrial society; they're just the only things a person can really do.

>>21621237
just make sure you make my slave uniform red, daddy. it's my favorite color.

>>21621524
>Without permissiveness you do not have freedom, you have people conforming to what the authority figure deems is freedom.
I would agree with this, I believe. I think there are two facets to freedom. There is "true" freedom and then there is "perceived" freedom. True freedom is where you are bound by no laws, no rules, no societal obligations aka following the anarchic model. Perceived freedom is where you are bound to the laws, rules, and obligations of society but you are free to buy a house, start a family, drive a car etc providing that you meet the requirements to actually do so, that being have an income, have a good credit score, have the means to support and provide for the family, have a license and so on and so forth. It's a perception of freedom, where free but with constraint. You cannot have true freedom without those barriers.

I think in Ted's case, the power process is a means of survival. We create goals and strive to attain those goals. Were one to live off the land you'd be constantly setting goals and trying to achieve them i.e build shelter, get food and what not. I think the purpose and end result of this will just differentiate between the "true" and "perceived" freedoms.

>>21621129
The thing is rightoids are just as pathologic. He acknowledged that leftism might not even be the right word. Better should have used décadence like Nietzsche, to alienate you little Nazi-Larpers. Fucking hell, I'm so sick of this false left-right-dichotomy always defining itself in the negative.

>>21621037
>>21621106
>>21621129
>>21621149
>>21621159
>>21621233
>>21621522

Most of you guys are wrong about it. Which I don't blame you since ISaiF is a very chaotic and poorly written work (and thus, I insist that The Anti-Tech Revolution should be his major work, not this)

I am the guy currently writing a Samizdat about Kaczynski and reading this thread brought me to research deeper what TK meant by all of that in Technological Slavery.
The answer is in the Letter to David Skrbina from January 3rd 2005, quote:

>"I’ve never said that surrogate activities “must be abandoned.” Also, the line between surrogate activities and purposeful activities often is not easy to draw. See ISAIF, §§40, 84, 90. And surrogate activities are not peculiar to modern society. What is true is that surrogate activities have come to play an unusual, disproportionate, and exaggerated role in modern society. …In any case, I don’t see that anything would be accomplished by attacking surrogate activities. But I think that the concept of surrogate activity is important for an understanding of the psychology of modern man."

Technological Slavery, p. 304; I also recommend to read his letter in pp. 273-285 where he talks a little about it.

>>21621601
>If a man has to dig ditches eight hours a day, he can thoroughly enjoy it and be satisfied. Hunter gatherers may have had to dig ditches from time to time like anyone else, and ditch digging was a profession before industrialization.
Why would it matter if there is a faster and easier way to dig ditches? Why does industrialization make this a problem?

>Work isn't necessarily a surrogate activity; only work that is taken solely because you can't find anything better to do.
That is related to my point, a man will do any job that can guarantee him a worthwhile return on his time. If he can support a family and a home with it, things do not come to a head like they have since the sixties onward, more or less since women entered the work force en mass. Industrialized society is not the problem in itself, but the commoditization of everything because of the economic system we have over us. We can seperate the two, I think, with the introduction of a Fascist state.

>>21621647
>we can solve everyone being wage slaves by... introducing a system that historically enslaved a shitload of their own people

hey rabbi watcha doin

>>21621640
>I also recommend to read his letter in pp. 273-285 where he talks a little about it.
Addendum. In this part Skrbina seems to want to talk about the concept of Will to Power. Which TK is not interested in or have ignorance about Schopehauer's work. As usual, he goes on rambling about his materialist readings on sociobiology and other shenanigans. (which are one of the reasons I find TK's work very shallow in parts, he sees humans as animals taken from their natural habitat and nothing more)

>>21621638
There is a real objective and universal left-right that has existed throughout all of history.

>>21621681
well spill the beans big guy.

>>21621677
In what way did they enslave a shitload of their own people? They removed the parasitical banker class, largely jews, communists and internationalists, again largely jews, homosexuals and sex-theorists, that's right largely jews, those who would undermine and destroy the nation and its people, would you fucking believe it, it was almost exclusively jews again.

You know what else happened? Average family size for Germans increased, massively, for a normal nuclear family. Mother, father and children, home ownership increased, life expectancy sky-rocketed, physical health went through the roof. These things do not happen when under slavery, or under Communism, or even a full of lessie fair capitalist system. Only through one system can this happen and that was Fascism, National-Socialism.

>>21621681
>universal left-right that has existed throughout all of history
The fuck?

>>21621699
>life expectancy
No, it didn't. That doesn't even make sense considering Germany was fucked for half the war and lost 10% of their male population.

>>21621037
>Man who ships bombs through the mail for no reason is retarded.
Imagine my shock.
>>21621703
Where do you think Caeser fell politically? Or was the first emperor of the most successful empire in history an apolitical centrist? What about Jesus of Nazareth was him hating the Roman empire purely an aesthetic decision?

It's naturalist utilitarian garbage

>>21621731

>>21621698
>>21621703
Sure. I'll get back to this thread in a bit. First, there is a common notion of left-right which is highly inaccurate and and indeed only applicable to the modern political arena, but there is also a more true left-right distinction that one can use to easily identify left-leaning or right-leaning figures and societies.

>>21621753
>but there is also a more true left-right distinction that one can use to easily identify left-leaning or right-leaning figures and societies.

No there is not. Almost all figures prior to the French revolution can be made left or right depending on what aspect one focuses on. The Left/Right political spectrum is utter garbage for any nuanced or serious political conversation because it always boils down to our side good, there side bad.

Democracy was a terrible idea.

>>21621752
Incorrect answer. Caesar was actually left wing compared to the Roman ruling class, he was a reformer but he was also authoritarian. The right wing left wing distinction is retroactively applied of course but it can still be applied. It's not complicated at all. Wanting to democratize a plutocratic economy is left wing, wanting to redistribute wealth is left wing. It's not communist or socialist but it is left wing. People who hate right and left are sub IQ centrists, too cowardly to take a stand. Be a Marxist, be a fascist, be a liberal, be an Anarcho capitalist. But you got choose. It's like being an agnostic, you're just a fucking faggot.

>>21621753
Alright but what are the specific characteristics of this "real objective"?

Kaczynski fags are just schizos. Read Emerson like a real man.

>>21621804
You absolute fucking dribbler, everything you have said there is so utterly fucking retarded. The Right-Left distinction changes every damn election, there is nothing that can be applied to the distinction between the two except for identifying friend from foe.

The modern dichotomy is simply an extension of Schmitt's concept of the political, it allows the State to identify who is friend and foe, only it is now exclusively used in a civil sense. Previously this would undermine the State and cause it to be illegitimate but now we have two rival states competing in the same apparatus. It offers nothing to political discourse but drawing a line between two sides and identifying who belongs to which, it does nothing for policy, for actions or any other means of political discourse.

You absolute fucking retard.

>>21621753
I'm monitoring this thread. I recently got a feel about this. Maybe we should rather aim for some kind of political perennialism. Keeping the "good" things of the past to build a better future. Also the common enemy is capitalism anyways. Reading a lot about futurism lately.

>>21621852
>go down the futurism rabbit hole
>on one hand you have well-meaning optimists and on the other hand you have unironic sadists who just want to hurt people with technology

it is truly an autistic rabbit hole worth delving into but i have read some of awful shit in the process and become blackpilled about many people.

the idolatry among the tedfags is all you need to know that ted is only good as a meme. the tedfag was introduced to ted by memes and only reads ted. this is the same issue with the stirnerfags. theres an essay about egoists that mentions how argumentation wasn't about the content but about what the author /truly/ meant and how it was obvious that these people didn't read other authors.
read ted but please for the love of god read other authors like ellul and feenburg. especially since ellul is probably teds biggest influence.

>>21621698
>>21621703
>>21621777
There is an objective political "left and right" and it has nothing to do with the modern capitalism vs. communism, or Nazis vs. Liberal Democracy.
A simple definition for the objective left and right is that of Hierarchy and Truth. To put it simply, the ABSOLUTE left is that of absolute nihilism, subjectivity, egoism, and hedonism, and the ABSOLUTE right is that of a supernatural yet objective reality grounded by a higher principle, metaphysical truth, or higher power(s). An even more simple definition is simply this: Truth and relativity.
>Hierarchy.
One distinguishing feature of The Right is belief in an absolute power; power that does not radiate ‘from below,’ but which originates from above. This inevitably manifests itself as support for an absolute monarch (not beholden to the people), an objective hierarch that serves his own interests or that of the State (as a power greater than the simple desires of the people), or a form of theocracy (power from a god, God, or metaphysical Truth).
An argument against this might be that leftists have supported autocratic leaders in the past and continue, in some fashion or other, to support them. For example, Stalin was an indisputable leader of "leftism" yet an autocrat nonetheless. This discrepancy is fairly easy to explain; his power was justified not by a higher power (or by himself alone), but by his being a figurehead of the will of the proletariat. This is an emanation of power ‘from below.' His power was simply a representation of the base desires of the people, NOT that of a principle or of someone or something that is an OBJECTIVE HIERARCH.
>Truth
Another distinguishing feature of The Right is objectivity. The idea of reality, Truth, and Telos being OBJECTIVE in nature and not in any way relative to human beings. Leftism is diametrically opposed; there is not "truth" or "reality", there is no "fundamental purpose." A leftist MAY believe that there is an "objective reality," but that this reality is ultimately indeterminable, unknown, uncertain, or even unimportant. In this regard, Protagoras sums up leftism: "Man is the measure of all things."

Now for schizo-time: History is the proverbial Fall from the Garden of Eden. On the Right, Man governed by the most absolute of hierarchy, life at one with natural principles and truth and without "philosophical mist" over his eyes; everything is as it appears, and he lives out his telos with exactitude. On the Left, Man is purposeless, reality is in flux or unreal, truth is subjective, he cannot trust his own eyes. While it is unlikely for any specific movement to be "purely" right- or left-leaning, every political movement throughout history has had more or less of these qualities. The general trend is that of sprint towards the left, with minor "re-adjustments" back towards the Right. The Middle-Ages following the staunchly left-leaning Late Roman Empire is an example of a readjustment towards the Right.

>>21621900
Damn, I used the draft image.

>>21621900
Another example of readjustment towards the objective Right is that of Classical Athens; Socrates and Plato were "rightists" steering the increasingly egalitarian and hedonistic Athenian society towards "The Right."

>>21621269
I recognize your shitty writing from other threads on this board. Are you ESL? Stop posting, creep

>>21621323
>>21621502
Embarrassing samefag

>>21621900
Fair enough, a lot of this aligns with what the ancient chinks were saying hence the yinyang >>21621806

Yin = darkness, subtlety, obfuscation, femininity, the color black, thought (versus action) etc. etc. etc. which seems like what you are calling absolute left. Yang = brightness, truth, revelation, masculinity, action (versus thought) and so on or what you are calling absolute right. I do agree that "perennial politics" could be useful because it seems like pretty much every major human culture has figured this stuff out at some point and if we could just capture the good and discard the bad then shit might stop sucking so hard.

>>21621317
That's just how every /lit/ poster types. I don't see anything tryhard whatsoever in that guy's post, it's just the writing style of someone who is well-read (as all good /lit/ posters are) and has absorbed good textual patterns from his experience with books.
You may leave this place for twitter (or something of the like) at once if the fact that people in here aren't anti-intellectuals who speak in ebonics bothers you.

>>21621925
That's a pretty interesting observation about Yin and Yang. I've only read some of Laozhi so I'm not up to par with Chinese philosophy.

>>21621937
>>21621920
You're not even hiding it. Stop posting. Your awkward writing is glass to my fucking eyes

>>21621943
I'm >>21621937 and that was my first post in this thread.

>>21621900
What was Classical Sparta?

>>21621965
Compared to now, far, far, far right. In the context of Classical Greece, right of Athens and left of the Ionians and Lacedaemonians.

>>21621900
>left bad
>right good

>>21621698
>>21621703
>>21621925
Another important couple of important notes:
The Hierarchicalism of the Right necessarily entails that some things, people, and ideas are "objectively better", or different, and because they are different they have a different "telos." In the case of feminism, men and women have biological differences and that entails that there is some form of hierarchy that arises from their respective differences. Not necessarily that men are BETTER than women, but DIFFERENT, and therefor they have different "purposes." To a leftist, this is meaningless. They might, at most, interpret it to mean that some people might be better suited to some tasks, but that if technology, society, or culture can accommodate these differences satisfactorily then there is no reason to take note. On the Right, the inherent differences between men and women are purposeful, and it is SOCIETY that must be bent to match the telos of man and woman.
This Hierarchicalism also extends to race; yes, racism is "rightist." That doesn't mean that hating other races is rightist, but that acknowledging and taking action on these differences is.

>>21621900
Fixing the image:
>Truth:
Left: Truth and reality are subjective or, if objective, ultimately meaningless.

>Meaning:
Right: everything has telos and must be used according to its telos.

no, he's right. he did not come up with the concept, i think freud was the first one to elaborate on it.

to paraphrase zerzan's commentary on the subject 'u don't hang a painting of a waterfall on your cabin wall, if u live next to a real waterfall'

>>21621037
>effective artistic expressions, successful scientific undertakings, or athletic achievements

are all cope for living a deadening, dull, domesticated life of civilization.

>>21622032
>are all cope for living a deadening, dull, domesticated life of civilization.

what's the non-cope then? posting on /lit/?

>>21622045
bambing fenderal builndins

>>21622045
>what's the non-cope then?

realistically? there is no escape

>>21622048
>>21622060
the yang and the yin lol

>>21621037
I mean, if I had to eke out an exitence in a state of nature I wouldn't be wasting my time on reading books, that's for damn sure
Literature itself exists to fill the empty spaces left in our lives when the things we are adapted to by evolution are no longer being done

>>21622073
that's a gay and pessimistic view of literature. it's better to say that literature enriches our lives because who wants to be a tribal unga bunga retard spending all day hunting wild pigs anyway.

>>21622089
And this is perfectly in line with what Uncle Ted wrote, that all advancements in technology on their face are clearly improving our lives.

my memory is hazy here, but didn't Plato also dislike/disapprove of art because he felt it was a poor substitute for the reality of what it depicted?

>>21621640
>>21621680
interesting. be sure to post more of your ted exegesis, anon.

>>21621680
> As usual, he goes on rambling about his materialist readings on sociobiology and other shenanigans. (which are one of the reasons I find TK's work very shallow in parts, he sees humans as animals taken from their natural habitat and nothing more)
Are you implying there's some kind of religious explanation that should be considered instead?

>>21621228
>Thiel-brained shitposter
The fuck does this even mean you fucking weirdo? Get the fuck out of here faggot.

>>21621900
So what you're saying is - Marx is actually far-right?

can't i hack this dichotomy by undertaking biological preservation activities as surrogate activities? So for example, take up hobbies such as gardening, hunting, crafting, etc? How would my monkey brain be able to distinguish the difference while engaged in the activity itself? does this one weird trick solve the problem.

>>21621309
4chan glows

>>21621398
Open borders are a liberty and all people should mix and be one people, under one national government.

>>21622365
Not religious (although I'm religious, I separate these things), but rather metaphysical implications.
I think using Schopenhauer could be useful to elaborate the concept of power process in a sound way.

>>21622032
>no, he's right. he did not come up with the concept, i think freud was the first one to elaborate on it.
The concept is based on Desmond Morris' 1967 book "The Human Ape", it's a work in sociobiology.

>>21621129
Ted was a tranny academic with low self esteem who put twigs in his bombs because he was a dirty hippie. The leftist shit is 100% projection. People in the USSR actually felt their lives had meaning even if their living standards were second world. Chud today has life handed to him on a fucking plate but talks constantly about killing well adjusted people because they're totally disgusting untermensch and like, society is so mean to me guys ;w;
Just like Ted, who attacked innocents to vent his cuck frustrations (by his own admission) and ultimately accomplished nothing.

>>21622009
Very few leftists are epistemological nihilists rather than moral nihilists. But even meta ethical nihilists can use normative ethics. It just means telos is am expression of individual will.

>>21622738
>Ted was a tranny
I hate this psy-op. Glow harder.

>>21622565
Read about the concept of Power Process again ISaiF 39-42, if I'm not mistaken. You can't understand surrogate activities without understanding the power process.
He says that the distinction of Surrogate Activities to Power Process is that humans in modern society has everything they need with little effort, so they create these new activities so they can emulate a sense of obtaining a difficult goal and obtaining fulfillment.

>>21621037
Ummmm sweaty.... go hunt a bear and then come back and tell us if it felt fulfilling. You are like an antidrug zealot who is a teetotaller. Worse, you are a caged lion. Run free if only for a moment and then come tell us how it felt.

>>21622753
It's true and he was a pathetic beta male coward who didn't have a gf.

>>21621037
He channels the justifiable belief that modern society is fundamentally inhuman into utopian, equally anti-human solipsistic nonsense rather than into any constructive approach to the problems of modernity. Ted is another self-obsessed America egotist.

>>21621037
brief explanation for those who can't understand here

>>21622305
Here, my dog. I've tried to do a brief clarification on what are surrogate activities for our samizdat. It's less than a thousand words long and references TK's corpus.
I would appreciate if you give me a feedback, find any flaws or correct grammatical and opinate if whether the text is comprehensible or not.

>>21622767
I read that section again, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Even if these activities technically are not required for my survival (not part of the "power process"), in practice they are the same. If I am hunting, gathering, gardening, crafting, etc. those activities don't suddenly become artificial if I could instead go to the store to buy my food/tools/shelter whatever. Ted's point is that we are alienated from the power process, why can't I just engage in the power process of my own volition and get fulfillment from it, instead of being forced to, as in a state of nature or whatever? That's my question

>>21623015
>f I am hunting, gathering, gardening, crafting, etc. those activities don't suddenly become artificial if I could instead go to the store to buy my food/tools/shelter whatever.
Yes, they are artificial in a way, and as I pointed here >>21621640 and here >>21622976, the problem are not surrogate activities per se, but living for these activies.

>why can't I just engage in the power process of my own volition and get fulfillment from it, instead of being forced to, as in a state of nature or whatever? That's my question
the section "autonomy" in ISaiF deals with this very question. In fact, your search for autonomy cannot be seen as a surrogate activity since it is a legit goal. One of my many criticism to the manifesto is that TK doesn't expand on autonomy too much, and autonomy has a lot to do with breaking free from the system, stablishing communities etc.
Learning hunting, gathering, gardening, crafting etc. is important to sever your bondage to the system

>>21621276
Ted is against the technological system, not technology as a whole. Why do people keep fucking this up?

He's not AnPrim. He's denounced AnPrim.

>>21623041
addendum: the question to be made is, are you reading guys like Kaczynski because you want to obtain the means break free from the system or are you acting on mere curiosity and satisfaction by having a reaffirnation of your angst?
The latter is power process, therefore you are working for autonomy. The first is just another surrogate activity, not different than the obsession of your football watching neighbor that never misses a game.

>>21623052
Indeed he is not against all technology and he makes a distinction between them based on Mumford Lewis. See ISaiF paragraphs 207-212

However, it's complicated since in a letter to Skrbina, he seemed to imply that hunter-gatherer levels of development are the most desirable.

>>21623041
>Yes, they are artificial in a way,
how? I don't see anything in your post that addresses this. can't you answer questions directly or do you not have a firm grasp on this material and just going to deflect and make vague citations?

>>21623156
They are artificial if you do hunting for game, and not for nourishment. Or gardening for ornamentation and not for harvesting. On and on.
I am not saying that these things are useless. They are actually very good and benefitial for you. It is visible that TK differs kinds of surrogate activities, obviously spending some time in nature is much more psychologically uplifting than spending a time in front of a screen as we are doing right now. Moreover, these may not be surrogate activities if you are practicing in order to sever yourself from the system.

I'll give a dumb example since he is a hack, but when Varg Vikernes is doing his permaculture in rural France, he is not doing it as a surrogate activity, but rather he seeks to obtain independence from the system and grow his own food. Now, we know very well that Vargette is an individual that does his groceries, live out of welfare, selling records and RPG books, but still, he is trying to get somewhere there: to build sustainable living for his children and the generations to come. This, in my view, is certainly a quest for autonomy and therefore part of the power process.
It would be a surrogate activity if he worked 8 hours a day and lived in the city and only had a plot of land where he would play viking in the weekends, but since he is actually pursuing a living out of it, we can safely say it's not surrogacy.

>>21623197
An addendum.
It's okay if you cannot be free from the system in your lifetime. As long as you are doing the work for the generations to come.
Now of course the message is more meaningful for those who had children and lucky enough to have a wife willing to dedicate herself to the next generation rather than just another good-for-nothing female whose goals are buying the new Louis Vuitton purse.
However, for the minority that ever manage to get this, dedicating your life to have your children unbinded by the system is much more noble than anything else and I hope your work won't be in vain.

We will not be free from the system in our generation, but we can pave the way for those to come. And as a phrase allegedly attributed to some native americans: “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

That's the ultimate white pill.

>>21623197
>but since he is actually pursuing a living out of it, we can safely say it's not surrogacy
this distinction doesn't make any sense to me. whether or not something is surrogate or part of the power process is apparently the outcome of the activity - whether or not you are relying on it for your survival. But then working excel spreadsheets all day is part of the power process for many people, since it is what they've trained to do and rely on it for their survival.

It is called power PROCESS for a reason, emphasis on the process itself. If I spend the summer growing tomatoes and then when I sit down to eat some, a trickster switches them out with store bought tomatoes at the last minute, unbeknownst to me, suddenly my activities of the entire summer have become surrogate? Or is it my intention that matters? If this is so, endless varieties of activities disconnected from the power process would have to be included. Many people crypto trade with intention of independence from the system and a quest for autonomy. How can watching number go up on a screen be part of the power process?

>>21623233
>this distinction doesn't make any sense to me
then all can I say is that I'm sorry for you.

>>21623251
because you can't formulate clear arguments about the topic. can you address my questions, or have you never had anything other than a surface level examination of the theory without actually having to defend it.

>>21623052
>Im not a Communist, i just want to dismantle the entire system that is opposed to Communism.

I am not sayinf Ted is a commie, but he is using their arguments. Jusr because he says is not a anprim does not preclude him from being one. He most definately is, just not a twig and berries and banging rocks together kind.

Read picrel, it puts some of Teds ideas and concerns in to a nationalist structure, it also predates him hy about 50 years.

>>21623276
I was planning to read this book and I'll probably read after I finish my first Samizdat.
The problem with Kaczynski, as I commented, he is dubious on what are his post-revolution goals (pre-industrial society such as Medieval agrarianism? Or maybe Bronze Age standards? Or even Hunter-Gatherer?)
As far as I understand, Darré thought of agrarianism which I tend to agree.

Also, what you think of Varg ( >>21623197 ), he idealizes Bronze Age standards after what he defines as an inevitable collapse

>>21621640
>>>21621233 (You)
Well I thought the surrogate activities bit was the only 'real' value in that book, albeit a correct insight of humans in general had been redirected onto a political faction, as if it only applied to them. That was the error he made there anyway.

still, i give credit where it's due

>>21621398
>You’re right. But it’s far more important in understanding leftism because this is the dominant culture at the moment.
Ah..! but: how you can stop a thing or understand a thing as to its causes so that you 'can' stop it, if you feign ignorance to those causes in the first place?

i.e. a follower of ABC, wit politics as his/her surrogate, will think and act the same way as the follower of CBA, with politics as his/her surrogate: when seeking power they do the same tings, when in power they do the same things, when falling fom power they do the same things lol

It's not "politics" )or whatever) then, at all, but rather the action of Surrogacy itself which pollutes anything it comes into contacts with. Remedying Surrogacy, then, is the only viable path to actually stop such persons from doing the bad things that they do in and because of that "surrogate" condition,
-- see Hannah Arendts write up of Adolf Eichmann also

>>21621480
>, but art, science, and athletics are absolutely NOT under of the surrogate category.
>You can say I'm being pedantic
I'd agree with that, not that you're being pedantic I mean, but rather the first thing that you said lol

There is a way to go about a thing; to focus on the task itself, and then there is a poor way to go about the thing; to use the task to fill some void or whatever. You could compare the angry manlet who goes to boxing vs. a professional boxer, for instance, maybe there's some overlap in their initial approaches to the task, but the professional boxer is no longer (if he was personally) venting his personal problems in the ring or seeking status of self-affirmation to others, at the expense of his performance.

It's easier to make the case about social activities and the poseur types, the office politics, things like that.

>>21623314
>>21623276
There was a late school of economics, i mean american revolution era, which explored and instructed in the agricultural basis for any state to have a sound and autonomous economy (and prosperity)... suffice to say it was largely ignored by those who came afterwards.

When exploring capitalism as more a form of chaos or anarchism (see: stalins interview with HG Wells) it's difficult to argue that a state is greatly weakened by the lack of directorate power over the production sectors and inflation chaos caused by stock gambling, etc. e.g. a capitalist is ultimately going to underproduce in order to create scarcity to drive the price for the goods he's bought in order to sell them for an inflated price, at the expense of the general economy and at the greater expense of keeping actual production power very very low.

I make these points once in a while on here,
>maybe Bronze Age standards?

Really 'most' economic backbones were centrally planned since the beginning of time; the palace, villa and manor economy (3000bc to 1800ad) comprises all history, really. The "communism" notion is a bit of a myth as to suggest that it was "brand new", and the "capitalism" notion (conflating currency debasement with actual industry) is flawed as well.

I tend to agree with Stalin on the thing; capitalism or free markets or whatever are just a waste of time and a self-imposed limitation to mankind harnessing the naturally occurring massive resources that we have available to us - all for want of putting a price sticker on something in order to derive a "profit" in heavily debased monetary credit tokens.

Mankind cannot colonize other planets if it has a mentality to under-produce in industry for the sake of bumping up the purchasing price of raw materials... raw materials which are limitless and in abundance in our solar system. The energy market demonstrates this; for reasons of petty profiteering, nuclear power or effective free energy in that manner has been ignored for decades in order to allow those fuel companies to carry on making monetary profits - at the expense of environment, geopolitical instability, poverty, technological advancement, etc.

>>21622676
This is the literal plan in the Talmud lol. I’m sure the jews will take great care of you

>>21623276
>I am not sayinf Ted is a commie, but he is using their arguments.
Well, if you apply all of the errata Ted made in his letters, it's kinda hard not to see him as a commie.
>it's the technology, but you see not all kinds of technology
>it's the lack of autonomy but you see not any specific kind of autonomy
>it's the separation from the power process but, it gets tricky here, not all parts of the power process and not entirely "separation"
It was like he was trying to reinvent exploitation while dancing around the concept.

>>21621309
Go back to where ever the fuck you cam from and never come back, ever.

>>21623919
no way, it's ridiculous that all society is punished with censorship because of this kind of thing >>21623633 ..whilst that person is free to say what they like.

Nazi trolls, probably all leftists anyway, who flooded news sites and comments boxes is the reason we now have censorship everywhere. You guys need to be removed in order for this to end, you're the only justification used by criminals to stifle free speech.

>>21623857
That is an argument for somebody else to put forward, to me it does not matter what he says he is or is not. But to say Ted is bot anprim or anprim adjacent seems quite a far leap.

>>21624229
What should we do when we notice collective patterns in behavior by specific demographics? Is the correct response just to ignore them? To let them continue to inflict their damage? Because when we speak put we are punished, Kanye West has been destroyed for saying about Jews, what Jews say about Whites.

>>21624260
>What should we do when we notice collective patterns in behavior by specific demographics? Is the correct response just to ignore them? To let them continue to inflict their damage?
I went though this phase of deflecting blame for my dumb society onto third parties, nothing makes our parents be stupid but themselves, and deflection is avoiding examining the real causes in these case.

Truth be told, 'your' opinion is encouraged by e status quo... we're not allowed to talk about these subjects so nobody is aware of the actual refutations, since the refutation gets banned and censored as well. Society is in a stasis on these things as a result.

It's actually a taking-up of the false argument that you're doing, like with Jews and Israel: it's not all Jews responsible for it, but ADL says any critique is "anti-semitism against all Jews," and you propagate their narrative for them... whilst finding yourself adopting their racist religious ideology of special chosenness - for yourself.

it's lazy shabbas-goyism. you'll figure it out.

>>21624260
then again you may not figure it out. I'm disturbed that society is being sucked online and exposed to this isolation and conspiracy theory stuff, and the economic damage sending more people over the edge. I'm sure it'll carry on for decades until anonymity is actually removed and these 'arguments' are forced into the public where they can be refuted properly.

>>21624229
>censor yourselves before the technocracy does!

kys

>>21624408
yeah... you're a rebel because when someone said don't jump off a cliff you did it.

>>21624414
whatever cuck if you don't like anonymous image board culture then don't use an anonymous image board. "what about the heckin children? they'll be turned into violent incels!" runs counter to the central philosophy of this website and if you disagree with that philosophy then feel free to walk off a cliff your damn self. nobody cares about your faggot ass attempt at morality.

>>21624434
stop being an ass

>>21624451
ok

>>21624336
>>21624355
That is quite an insideous pair of posts mohel.

>>21624434
>whatever cuck if you don't like anonymous image board culture then don't use an anonymous image board. "what about the heckin children? they'll be turned into violent incels!" runs counter to the central philosophy of this website and if you disagree with that philosophy then feel free to walk off a cliff your damn self. nobody cares about your faggot ass attempt at morality.
>cuck
>le heckin
>faggot ass
>morality
"the central philosophy of this website" lol you mean it was intended to be a place for disaffected neckbeards to groom children into religious racism? that's bullshit. you little trolls just flooded this place until you'd driven away real people. this is probably the last place left where you're allowed to do this, literally anywhere else in life, so it's strange and suspicious to me for that reason alone.

It really seems to me that this.. political bent / troll sociopathy .. of yours is allowed to exist here by someones intention, since 4chan could be shut down as easily as RT was, if it was actually considered as a threat to "the system".

again: consider how you guys were used and impersonated in order to justify massive censorship, in order to nominally deal with spamming and trolling by anonymous "political actors" on messageboards.

It's not morality i'm talking about, it's the reality that because of you lot the entire public is now subject to censorship, and the government is more unaccountable than ever.

>>21624229
>>21624408
>>21624434

They act like its other people shitting up the site, but they contribute absolutely nothing besides the same retarded talking points they've been recycling for 100 years. They have no culture or original thought. They are the fucking npcs. But I'm not advocating for censorship; a better solution is euthanasia.

>>21624653
lol well, as i said, as we know that ADL types make the accusation of "all jews are blamed", when they're not, and as we see "jew hater types" blaming "all jews", then clearly it would be the ADL type using anonymity to pretend to be KKK'ers in the first place, to keep their demon alive.

Racism is integral to the leftist and neo-lib philosophy, for example, it's the sole justification for their authority. So even if racists didn't exist they would have needed to be created otherwise the justification would not exist either.

I mean: anti-semite or racist or sexist is a pejorative made against any kind of critique, it makes no sense that real people would actually 'adopt' those labels when they were false and pejorative propaganda labels in the first place. see what i mean?

>>21624260
No, Kanye West was destroyed for being a nigger

>>21624700
>But I'm not advocating for censorship; a better solution is euthanasia.
We can refute these things (e.g. racism is good) in 30 seconds when we talk to them, we're not allowed to though. I think getting rid of anonymity is a step in the right direction, at least after the first few months most of the long-term troublemakers would be court-ordered not to troll anymore, then the public discourse would return to some level of intelligence.

It's a fucking mess though.

>>21624697
>>21624747
the problem is that you only think in memes and i'm not even a racist chud you cracker ass imbeciles. you are the ones coming here and saying people should be silenced because they insulted the jews. the best solution here would be an engine block going through your forehead at about 47kph in an absolutely devastating car accident, but you know what they say about opinions.

and speaking of 47: checked.

>>21624860
>you are the ones coming here and saying people should be silenced because they insulted the jews.
nah. That wasn't even close to what was said, the problem is that you only think in memes.

The point about politically-orientated types using anonymity to keep their myths of "racists" alive is what was said. I guarantee, also, that the abuse on here wouldn't exist if the perps weren't faceless either.

>>21624860
>claiming to be an arab?
pretty sad, btw, to find an arab shilling for duumb ass fucking cracker chuds to let them keep existing and ruining the west. Fucking semites never change their spots huh ;p

>>21624886
1) I am not "politically-orientated" you meme-brained fuckstick.
2) If you had an ounce of self-awareness you'd realize that unzipping the Xi Jinping Pandora's Box of Fun Surveillance on society is actually a bad thing. But let's just skip the "Why bother with privacy if you have nothing to have?!" spiel and get straight back to me calling you a faggot, faggot.

>>21624909
>1) I am not "politically-orientated" you meme-brained fuckstick.
Yes you are. You're defending hostile political acts.

> unzipping the Xi Jinping Pandora's Box of Fun Surveillance on society i
We've already got this in the West, we have it because it was justified by those people flooding and spamming in the first place; we have censorship everywhere in society apart from here, i.e. the entire society has been punished for what those people ave done, and those people are still not held accountable. We're treated like criminals and 2nd class citizens, with no right to engage in our own government, because of them.

>"Why bother with privacy if you have nothing to hide?!"
I agree with this. Obey the Law, challenge it in court if you have a case. The censorship we've been suffering in extrajudicial and unlawful in the first place, but that's another matter entirely.

really tho,
>XI JIN PING
you don't care for fuck all IRL but whe someone suggests to hold sociopaths on 4chan to account you declare SUDDEN TYRANNY

fucking priorities

>>21624984
>I agree with this. Obey the Law, challenge it in court if you have a case.

tl;dr the government is justified in becoming Big Brother because the chuds are just too dangerous. You really are a little despot and this is the type of thing that historically led to armed conflicts so there's nothing else to really say. It's an absolute non-starter. If you are this much of a bootlicking idiot that you'd sell everyone up the river for a mistaken sense of safety then we are just fundamentally different people and existential opposites.

>>21621149
>science, art and athletics are surrogate activities
They literally are though.

>>21625003
it's bizarre that you think we don't have massive censorship in the west already.

You're just scared of losing your 'freedom' to dismiss rational arguments as being homosexual/autistic/pejorative and having to come up with actual thoughts of your own to make a real case for what you think.

> this is the type of thing that historically led to armed conflicts
lol sure

> you'd sell everyone up the river for a mistaken sense of safety then we are just fundamentally different people and existential opposites.
because I think twitter trolls and fake avatar trolls (who are likely false flags in my opinion, and are used as if they are) should be unmasked and prevented from being used to justify total censorship against everybody?

The idea here is that if criminals aren't put into prison that the entire society becomes a prison as a consequence; the mass censorship we have at the moment is exactly that. You're upset at not being able to say 'nigger' on the internet and haven't given any thought to the broader society which pays for the consequence of your 'free expression' by having had their meaningful free speech taken from them already.

to be honest, taking your sentiment as if it were serious, you have demonstrated that you aren't fit for free speech. When was the last time you or anybody else here actually bothered to write anything more than a one-liner pejorative, or engaged in conversation beyond the depth of telling people you disagree with that they're a homosexual? Fucking face it, if you lose your anonymity, it's your own fault and you'll be sick when you see how much better society becomes without your 'contributions'... and how your 'contributions' were the obstacle to rational discourse all along.

Yes, not only unmasked, but prison for you. Deportation. God if only we still have prison ships to just round you up and kick you out to sea.

>>21625368
>it's bizarre that you think we don't have massive censorship in the west already.

didn't say that retard, we do have censorship because of credulous turds like you

>because I think twitter trolls and fake avatar trolls (who are likely false flags in my opinion, and are used as if they are) should be unmasked and prevented from being used to justify total censorship against everybody?

calm down mr. peterson. i'll ignore the false flag schizo shit and focus on the next bit of trash you are talking:
1) chud bad
2) goberment make bad rule to fight chud
3) therefore we make bad rule... to preempt the chud and protect us from goberment!

it's dumb and you're dumb.

>The idea here is that if criminals aren't put into prison that the entire society becomes a prison

the idea is here is that you are arguing for turning society into a prison because you are a massive fucking loser. you are talking a big game (that won't happen, because when 4chan falls off like all things do it won't be because of your milquetoast antics) about affecting my personal life because YOU are the weak little queer behind a computer screen. i'd have no problem rocking your stupid ass up and down the street for the dumb shit you are saying to me right now IRL, but the difference between us is i'm not a barbarian. i actually believe in the rule of law and muh freedom and not being sodomized by strongmen or corporations but it seems like you have yet to learn that lesson.

>>21625484
Again it's very strange that you don't see that society is already treated 'as' a prison; we have censorship because of your abuse of speech ("it's the jews behind everything!"), and that you think that musing on censoring actual political-sociopaths on 4chan instead of censoring the actual public is "talking a big game".

> affecting my personal life
hahahahaahahahaha

dude, you're a fucking internet troll who cares more about your pyschopathy to call thousands of strangers,
> fucking loser
>weak little queer
> schizo
than anything else. Propagating conspiracy theories and impeding civic discourse on real issues hasn't dawned on you as being slightly negative.. and you haven't seemed to notice the actual attacks against legitimate free speech which you've enabled with your abuse 'of' free speech.

>i'd have no problem rocking your stupid ass up and down the street for the dumb shit you are saying to me right now IRL
ha, me either. But that's a threat of assault, and you're only able to say it because you're abusing speech and hiding behind anonymity. Much like your other hate speech you did just then.

How come IRL you'd be fired from your job, or put into prison even in some countries (especially for your jewish conspiracy), but you're allowed to do as you please here? All society being censor and this one place escaping it? Obviously people like you are useful idiots; if racism, etc., actually disappeared then there would be no excuse for the broader censorship, you enable it to go on.

>the difference between us is i'm not a barbarian
yes, you are.

>i actually believe in the rule of law
no you don't,you've broken several laws already in this thread and you're terrified of being prevented from being a malicious little cunt to thousands of people from behind your computer. way to project, btw.
> because YOU are the weak little queer behind a computer screen
capitalized for effect

> milquetoast antics
holy shit, that's a dated phrase - are you in your 40's? how long have you been doing this?

>didn't say that retard, we do have censorship because of credulous turds like you
hey, people benefit from loss of freedom of speech; when neo-nazi idiots went on their campaign to post massive quantities of hate mail online and flooding news sites with racist spam, that is directly why we 'now' have a thousand idiotic rules and insane moderator policies: i can't speak without threat of having half of what i say deleted because of the climate created by you, as now the public cannot comment on news articles, now the news articles are more and more propagandistic as there's no rational push back as the reader has been completely muted. People like you did this to society. The people who wanted the entire public censored were always looking for an excuse and they used you achieve it, if you were actually dealt with IRL; held accountable under actual law, then your grossness could not have been used against the public.

>>21625764
>holy shit, that's a dated phrase - are you in your 40's? how long have you been doing this?

kek true that was a chris chan moment but to be fair i'm 1.5 bottles in right now. anyway at this point it seems like you are just memeing because picrel plus i refuse to believe anybody is actually like this. are you the (You) collector from the nietzsche b8 thread?

>>21625484
>the false flag schizo shit
you don't think that lefitsts cosplay as neo-nazis online to spam and harass those people that nobody's ever heard of? sure, some people are doing it for fun, but the coordinated campaigning; esp. during the gamergate thing, were obvious false flags,

women like anita sarkeesian making a dozen KKK avatars to target other women or themselves with sexual abuse; to claim that a threat exists and then make the threat seem real by spamming themselves from fake accounts, this kind of thing. In order to eliminate that you have to eliminate anonymity.

You were also used to legitimize crap in America, to pretend you were a russianbot to bolster democrat narratives that any/all critique was fake, because anonymity existed and enabled them to make that claim.

Your excuse, bearing in mind you're a malicious troll who's insulted a dozen times already, about preserving 'free speech' is a joke. If psychopaths have 'free speech' then the entire discourse is reduced to demented levels, the politics of society follows it, bad policies go unopposed because the means to oppose them with rational legitimate free speech has been removed, due to peoples abuse of free speech.

It's not such a complicated thing to understand, surely? You can just be nice, you know, you don't need to do hate speech and abuse every time you say something. If you actually know the laws and conduct yourself soberly you wouldn't be worried at all at what I'm saying.

eh that's all i got, just an after thought to the above.

>>21625857
>If psychopaths have 'free speech' then the entire discourse is reduced to demented levels

the problem here is
>man who called me a silly name on the anime website is a psychopath

name one psychopathic thing that has occured due to any shitposting ITT. the apparent buttrape of your feelings doesn't count.

>>21625842
.. yeah, I'm "memeing", "kek". I'm sure casting pejorative delusions against the prosecution will hold up in court.

> i refuse to believe anybody is actually like this
well, everything I said is true.. and you can't refute it ... your incredulity to having it said to you is probably more like the time it will take your alcohol damaged brain for reality to catch up with you.

At best, 4chan is like promoting mental illness and mass shootings. It's probably just timidity on the part of legislators to shut this place down that's holding it up. I mean, I could write a fairly solid case, citing mass shooters and the culture of abuse and gas-lighting of this place, and mail it out and maybe it'd get picked up and the language would be used to justify the next tyannical step in the great plan of da jewz lol

i think the house of lords, last time I pad attention, were talking about this very thing.

>chris chan
and yes that was terrible, it's inexcusable that the law failed that man due to the lawlessnes and toxicity of the mob. for shame.

ah well, you've given me a good theme to write about anyway lol - we'll see if i feel like publishing it

>>21625947
alright you've outdone any cringe i managed to pull off. say hello to the courts for me. gn autist bro.

>>21625874
aahhh you're personalizing it, you insulted me 'after' i'd given my thoughts, they were unrelated to your abuse lol

>feelings
that's funny.

As I said, here: >>21625764
>i can't speak without threat of having half of what i say deleted because of the climate created by you, as now the public cannot comment on news articles, now the news articles are more and more propagandistic as there's no rational push back as the reader has been completely muted. People like you did this to society. The people who wanted the entire public censored were always looking for an excuse and they used you achieve it, if you were actually dealt with IRL; held accountable under actual law, then your grossness could not have been used against the public.
it's just about that.

The culture of "shit posting" is fucked up on other levels; brainwashing you society into pretending intelligent people who can speak english properly are autistic or homosexuals is just.... weird as fuck.... but the stronger case is the political hate speech, easily.

>name one psychopathic thing that has occured due to any shitposting ITT.
you verbally abused me several times, some of which was unlawful hate speech, and you threatened me with physical assault; IRL that'd be enough to get you sectioned for mental instability, you don't count that as psychopathic ... i suppose .. and that's the problem, you've become habituated to be extremely psychopathic!

I know i know, "it's not real", but that was my earlier point, anon, as more of society i forced to be online - if we're forced to discuss things here - then this obstructionism to rational legitimate speech, by this sort of thing by your type of person, cannot be tolerated out of nostalgia or sentiment for "teh lulz".

I have no emotion on this subject. Just cold logic. I advise you to grow up, enjoy the memories of the old days for what they were, and start to behave like a proper citizen.

>>21625955
>cringe
[horrible clown word]

>>21626002
do UKers really

>>21625955
>gn
yeah.. anyway, you gave some uhhehhmm 'interesting' advocacy against my argument i suppose.

I suppose I got what I wanted out of this.

>>21621037
>artistic expressions, successful scientific undertakings, or athletic achievements
Pic related.
Pretty obvious that you shouldn't take life advice from a virgin.

>>21626093
> successful scientific undertakings
= peacock? what? what a drivel mentality

>>21623422
>There was a late school of economics, i mean american revolution era, which explored and instructed in the agricultural basis for any state to have a sound and autonomous economy (and prosperity)... suffice to say it was largely ignored by those who came afterwards.
well, if we think about democracy in America, it was meant to be landowner based, Jeffersonian America was about the vote of farmers and those who owned lands, the idea of freedom was based over this. America is not about what it used to be.

>When exploring capitalism as more a form of chaos or anarchism (see: stalins interview with HG Wells) it's difficult to argue that a state is greatly weakened by the lack of directorate power over the production sectors and inflation chaos caused by stock gambling, etc. e.g. a capitalist is ultimately going to underproduce in order to create scarcity to drive the price for the goods he's bought in order to sell them for an inflated price, at the expense of the general economy and at the greater expense of keeping actual production power very very low.
I agree and disagree. My anti-tech view is that the system will make you need to purchase goods that you don't need in order to maintain itself, so the system organically create needs that humans otherwise wouldn't have. TK talks about cars and how using any kind of car or public transportation become a necessity in order to keep the system alive, and in some countries, the railway system was even abandoned after the widespread popularization of cars. Capitalism is indeed the worst system to administer anything.

>Mankind cannot colonize other planets
this, but no if. we can't, simply as

>>21621037
I'm not going to say it is bullshit but it is irrelevant to me. Really the entirety of the 'industrial society causes psychological distress' argument is unimportant to me. Any human/group interaction causes distress. The question is if what we get out of it is worth it or not.
The really important argument he puts forward, to me, is that human beings do not and cannot exercise control over their society and its future. Only Darwinian historical forces acting in modulation with population, resources and technique are really at play here and the humans trapped within can only make (maybe) trivial nudges this way or that. Further, the developments I foresee as being necessary for this society to continue 'upwards and forwards' will be quite grim indeed for the merely human.

>>21621037
they had some documentary on this guy on netflix. guy was a subhuman he trashed some family's weekend cabin for no reason. garbage

>>21627476
trust the netflix, goy.

>>21627455
>it was meant to be landowner based
it still is landowner based - in all function of law, but they created a fake citizen who exists only paper and is called a corporation, and gave him equal rights as a landowner. Really though, a citizen landowner and a corporation have the rights and responsibilities under law, but the corporation is... very strange and anomalous in precedent, it occupies the land at the expense of the citizenry.

>TK talks about cars and how using any kind of car or public transportation become a necessity in order to keep the system alive, and in some countries, the railway system was even abandoned after the widespread popularization of cars.
this is a better example of anarchism; (and i preface this by saying that I genuinely like Henry Ford) Henry Fords car was introduced into the common market, this had consequences; now we need fuel for the car, now we have pollution because of the car, and these two things grew and grew as more people began to buy the car, ultimately ending up with the geopolitical and environmental consequences that we've been in since the first US/Iraq gulf war; creating Saudi Arabia as a regional power, etc. This wasn't "planned" but it was a consequence of anarchism in the markets; a single thing entering the market of which no oversight organization (i.e. government) existed to foresee and work to reduce, or avert entirely, the long-term negative effects of an invention. (facebook/twitter/amazon is our modern day example of this)

HG Wells talks about this in his little fiction "the shape of things to come (1933)" which i'd highly recommend.

>>21627476
he did worse than that you fucking moron

>>21627455
>after the widespread popularization of cars. Capitalism is indeed the worst system
also,
Ford existed within that system. If that system had been better attuned the Henry Ford may instead, not driven by the need for profits, have created a massive railway system in colab. with Tesla which operated without fuel.

The system or the culture plays a large part in what the people inside of it do, that's my errr 'after thought' lol

Blood & Soil ammends all of this. In a national structure, the only way to ensure health is by thinking that your people embody supremacy, so all acts are from the mindset of will this improve or damage my people and land.

This is what is missing from TK's world view. There needs to he a structure placed over people to stop the minority of people who would abuse any set of circumstances.

A Blood & Soil government ammends all of this. In a national structure, the only way to ensure health is by thinking that your people embody supremacy, so all acts will begin from the mindset of will this improve or damage my people and land.

This is what is missing from TK's world view. There needs to he a structure placed over people to stop the minority of people who would abuse any set of circumstances.

>>21627904
>by thinking that your people embody supremacy
there is an obvious flaw in that, in that some people already do think this and we can see the awful consequence of societies comprised of people who absolutely terrible; or just plain old stupid, who believe themselves to be the Chosen Race of their primitive little religion.

The only way to ensure health is by recognizing that Men and Women are creatures of the Earth, and that any knowledge they may possess will be hard fought and that their commandments ought only extend to their own self-development as a conscious and lifelong effort to exit the primitive petty minded notions of lesser peoples and to embrace and accord oneself to Truth.

>>21621235
ted 'unabomber' kaczynski

>>21627904
In a letter to Skrbina, TK said that all the great achievements of humanity such as museums, libraries, archeological sites, preserved patrimony etc. All of it would disappear and we should not care in the end.
Well, I care. That's why I have problems with TK.
Agrarianism and Pastoralism is the answer, but in any case, an anti-tech revolution is necessary, with the difference that if we are to make a national anti-tech, all the cultural patrimony could be preserved.

>>21621037
Ted is projecting. Obviously his terrorism and his philosophizing is also "surrogate activities", he's trying to find meaning where there is none. There is no point to life other than recreating it, the delusional cope is the idea that his society would be any less retarded than current society.

>>21627954
>>21627967
I don't get what his problem was with the Uno card game, I was also always confused what it was about Tolkeins Two Towers that Bin Laden took such issue with.

>>21628019
ed.
>Bin Laden
I'm talking about Oswald Spoonerson, if any low gothic readers are confused by my use of the arabic version of his name.

>>21626002
>you verbally abused me several times, some of which was unlawful hate speech
>unlawful hate speech
You poor soul. I hope your country grants you civil rights someday. Still, you're kind of a pussy as you're engaging with this person on an anonymous image board, it's not like he's "abusing" you out of the blue.
>if we're forced to discuss things here - then this obstructionism to rational legitimate speech, by this sort of thing by your type of person, cannot be tolerated out of nostalgia or sentiment for "teh lulz".
You're being sneaky here, you would take away free speech (anonymous or not) for "rational legitimate speech", which is just some arbitrary qualifier you can assign to preferred speech over non-preferred speech.
Of course YOU wouldn't and cannot take away free speech, but the powers that be, whether they align with you politically or NOT, would have the power to enforce "legitimate speech".
You're also not forced to be on 4chan. If you MUST or are FORCIBLY MADE TO be on the internet go on a social media network that's not anonymous.
To quote 1995's McIntyre v. Ohio
>Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

TL;DR You are a niggerfaggot

>>21621233
He never said surrogate activities were a leftist problem. He only spoke of leftist social crusades to vent the need for power suffocated by oversocialization. But ALL modern activities like careers, hobbies, etc. fall under surrogate activities, not just social crusades.

And it is well known and documented that Nazis were comprised of the same people as modern leftists. They even acknowledged it themselves. People that were susceptible to Nazi propaganda, were just as susceptible to Communism. It was joked in UK whenever a student was sent for exhange into Weimar Germany, that they came back either a Commie or a Nazi. Voting patterns corroborate this, because those that voted for Communists went for Nazis after Communists lost popularity.

>>21628171
>"rational legitimate speech", which is just some arbitrary qualifier
if you think that an internet troll dismissing inquiry into a thing with a pejorative is equal to an Archimedes explaining the operations of military engineering, then you are profoundly stupid.

This "sentiment" is obviously simply how legitimate actual coherent speech is drowned out by a sea of idiots. You do not have free speech any other reason than that you were once presumed to be capable of logical thought and sound judgment; all you accomplish with a string of pejoratives and clumsy narrative biases is to impede legitimate conversation by shouting down those you encounter who possess good reason.

So, yes, if our society has already decided to censor everybody because of people like you, then we should also censor you, in order that the true culprit of 'hate speech' is actually discovered and removed, so that majority of society is free again to speak without being censored as if we were as bad and stupid as you are.

as i said,
>The idea here is that if criminals aren't put into prison that the entire society becomes a prison as a consequence; the mass censorship we have at the moment is exactly that. You're upset at not being able to say 'nigger' on the internet and haven't given any thought to the broader society which pays for the consequence of your 'free expression' by having had their meaningful free speech taken from them already.

once again, it's a proof of your demented solipsism that you don't care about legitimate free speech already being lost, and are offended instead that you personally might one day be prevented from interrupting a conversation to shout "nigger faggot pussy".

In truth, if people like you were prevented from doing this then the culture would rapidly progress as we would easily be able to talk through, solve and resolve the issues of the world. I don't know how you can't understand yourself and your actions as the single active obstacle to civil discourse.

It's quite funny, this. This "antisocial behavior" is very important to you; it comprises your culture and forms the entire content of your interactions with other people, that is straight up psychopathy and you just don't know any better to recognize it lol

>>21628171
also,
for some clarification: if sociopathic 'troll' abuse was prohibited it wouldn't make any difference to me, I wouldn't think that was an assault on free speech lol because I can make a case and explain myself and don't need to pretend "the otherside" is (some made-up thing) and try to verbally or emotionally abuse them to "make my case". Whereas you do, primarily because your opinions and ideas are trash and you're not able to engage in logic about anything, so you resent logic and attack it.

Here, you're equating public defecation or fly-tipping or petty vandalism, essentially, as being the most intrinsic and important part of your life and the cornerstone of your 'free speech'.

It's intensely educational as to the overall character of .. your type, how you arrive at your actions, etc.

>>"rational legitimate speech", which is just some arbitrary qualifier
rofl x2 at this

> You are a niggerfaggot
vs.
idk random quote of someone using their free speech legitimately,
>this is a better example of anarchism; (and i preface this by saying that I genuinely like Henry Ford) Henry Fords car was introduced into the common market, this had consequences; now we need fuel for the car, now we have pollution because of the car, and these two things grew and grew as more people began to buy the car, ultimately ending up with the geopolitical and environmental consequences that we've been in since the first US/Iraq gulf war; creating Saudi Arabia as a regional power, etc. This wasn't "planned" but it was a consequence of anarchism in the markets; a single thing entering the market of which no oversight organization (i.e. government) existed to foresee and work to reduce, or avert entirely, the long-term negative effects of an invention.

the difference between one and other is "just some arbitrary qualifier" lol

>>21628171
>hate speech
>You poor soul. I hope your country grants you civil rights
it's also worth pointing out that American Racism, entirely localized to America, is the excuse already for censorship of the global internet.

When I was a child I wasn't being lectured about 'racism', and it didn't even occur to me, and then when finding myself online I found I was being accused of being guilty of these things that 'you' so joyfully propagate and keep alive, e.g.
>niggerfaggot

I should be equal to you? Are you kidding? Rather: the world should be treated as if it were intellectually retarded and secretly a racist/sociopath, because 'you' are intellectually retarded and secretly a racist/sociopath? Fuck that.

>>21628345
Part 1
Despite all your grandstanding for rational discourse you're still a tyrant.
>if you think that an internet troll dismissing inquiry into a thing with a pejorative is equal to an Archimedes explaining the operations of military engineering, then you are profoundly stupid.
Obviously it's not equal but you're setting up extreme opposites. Not all of us are Archimedes but I'm not going to call for the silence for those who aren't.
>So, yes, if our society has already decided to censor everybody because of people like you, then we should also censor you, in order that the true culprit of 'hate speech' is actually discovered and removed
You keep appealing to this idealized, rational majority being censored by the government because of those you find deplorable. You blame it on the deplorables instead of the one enforcing censorship. Furthermore I don't know what hellscape you live in where you have censored speech, but sort that shit out. Hint: stop focusing your attention on the whackos and instead focus on who has the boot on your face.
>demented solipsism
I'm not selfish, I want free speech for everyone, and I'm not going to bully the outsider/minority because a bigger bully/majority is threatening me if I don't.
>offended instead that you personally might one day be prevented from interrupting a conversation to shout "nigger faggot pussy"
If you're on the internet just stop engaging with it! Or report it if you're spammed! You are NOT being interrupted. We are conversing on an open, anonymous forum. I come here expecting some retard might try to write an inflammatory post, so I just don't fucking engage with it.
If this is happening to you irl move away from the commotion or call the authorities. But quit trying to equate that these are the same thing.

>>21628345
>>21628497
Part 2
>if people like you were prevented from doing this then the culture would rapidly progress as we would easily be able to talk through, solve and resolve the issues of the world.
I don't know who you think I am but this just proves to me that you're hyper focused on some scapegoat keeping you down. And all your imagine utopia would do is stagnate.
>This "antisocial behavior" is very important to you; it comprises your culture and forms the entire content of your interactions with other people, that is straight up psychopathy and you just don't know any better to recognize it lol
It's not important to me, it's just comes with the territory. If I'm on an open, anonymous forum it's going to attract the cranks and the quacks but it's one of the few places I can have a frank discussion against the "enlightened majority". Also in your earlier post you were saying someone ought to be sanctioned! What, so they can be forcefully medicated so their behavior abides by what YOU find to be conducive to reason? Learn some fucking humility. And you keep throwing around imprisonment, and psychopathy and other pejoratives and government enforced sentences to silence dissent. You're just power hungry, you don't give a shit about "rational speech"
Again, I see you for what you are, a tyrant.

TL;DR You are a niggerfaggot

The guy was pretty nuts honestly, could have just lived like a redneck, didn't have to blow up people. Had an Ivy League background though and a chip on his shoulder, heard he was in some government program but that sounds like a conspiracy.

>>21625764
>How come IRL you'd be fired from your job, or put into prison even in some countries (especially for your jewish conspiracy), but you're allowed to do as you please here?

Why should all social interactions everywhere be judged to the same standard? For example, getting drunk at the pub is perfectly acceptable, whilst getting drunk at work is grounds for termination. Another example is that you can't, or rather you shouldn't, talk to your friends the same way you talk to your boss. This doesn't mean that the way you talk to your boss is righteous and the way you talk to your friends (I'm not implying that you have any, I'm just using this as a general example) is unrighteous; it's simply a different social sphere.

Same principle applies in other facets of life. Anonymity is an important facet of our larger social lives, because it allows you to discuss things that you normally wouldn't discuss, not because those things are necessarily unrighteous or illegal, but because they simply don't jive with the other social spheres available to an individual.

This is all a moot point anyways, because none of us are actually anonymous on here. The authorities can track us down if they care to do so.

>>21628497
>>21628501
>Obviously it's not equal but you're setting up extreme opposites.
no, quite literally I'm talking about actual 'speech' and argument vs. nonsensical abuse intended to shout-down actual 'speech' for being incapable of making an argument.

>You blame it on the deplorables instead of the one enforcing censorship.
I blame those who have used (extrajudicial) 'censorship' in a sloppy way; we don't need to put all society into chains and shock collars in order to deal with the few psychopaths running around who need to be chained and collared. But my case was that the reason we already don't have free speech is because (what you describe) has already happened.We are censored already because of that type of person, I say simply to deal with that person directly instead of making all society suffer for it.

>Furthermore I don't know what hellscape you live in where you have censored speech,
lol fucking hell you see what i mean? You don't know or care or are even impacted by the real loss of free speech that presently exists.
i.e. all criminalized, all citizens cut off from representation, under pretense that citizens are all dangerous whackos.

>If you're on the internet just stop engaging with it! Or report it if you're spammed! You are NOT being interrupted.
Don't try to personalize this. I'm talking about the tens of thousands of daily examples, here alone, of sociopaths looking for people to attack with emotional and verbal abuse.... how, in this context anyway, this is the single greatest action which is drowning out legitimate rational speech and furthering idiotic political narratives, and archaic conspiracy shit, which is all over this place.

>>if people like you
>I don't know who you think I am
for fucks sake, i.e. people who would defend this or think it was 'fine'

>it's one of the few places I can have a frank discussion against the "enlightened majority".
lol yeah that's what I would've said too before really thinking about this, that is why I'm here..

..but pay attention to what you say and what other people say to you and to others, it's all politically-orientated pavlovian triggers, and if you say a keyword you'll be gas-lit attacked with no argument occurring at all. Nothing else takes place.

>Also in your earlier post you were saying
eh again, you're personalizing it, a guy threatens to assault someone and says some hate speech; he does this instead of making an argument, and didn't seem to put two and two together that he was doing anything illegal or that his behavior would be called psychopathic.

>government enforced sentences to silence dissent.
>You're just power hungry, you don't give a shit about "rational speech"
>Again, I see you for what you are, a tyrant.
>TL;DR You are a niggerfaggot
That's cute.

Cliche storybook narrative, refusal comprehend the case made to you, verbal abuse.

>>21628514
>Anonymity is an important facet of our larger social lives,
fucking nora son

> none of us are actually anonymous on here. The authorities can track us down if they care to do so.
exactly.

That kind of destroys your entire argument about being a rebel if the gubment can and would hunt you down if they thought your socipathic abuse and ultimate-narrative jewish conspiracy theories were actually a threat to or described in any way anything going on, as I pointed out in the beginning: your type is a useful idiot. Your type, i.e. your advocacy and position here, is pure Alex Jones or David Icke; denialism toward reality.

>Why should all social interactions everywhere be judged to the same standard?
Who the hell said that? Oce again I'm dealing with people who are stuck in the habit of projecting these dated fantasy narratives over other people.. i've said several times what I'm actually arguing for, see: >>21628345
>if you think that an internet troll dismissing inquiry into a thing with a pejorative is equal to an Archimedes explaining the operations of military engineering, then you are profoundly stupid.
>This "sentiment" is obviously simply how legitimate actual coherent speech is drowned out by a sea of idiots. You do not have free speech any other reason than that you were once presumed to be capable of logical thought and sound judgment; all you accomplish with a string of pejoratives and clumsy narrative biases is to impede legitimate conversation by shouting down those you encounter who possess good reason.

>>21628679
or
>I'm talking about actual 'speech' and argument vs. nonsensical abuse intended to shout-down actual 'speech' for being incapable of making an argument.

>>21628514
>Anonymity is an important facet of our larger social lives,
fucking nora son

> none of us are actually anonymous on here. The authorities can track us down if they care to do so.
exactly.

That kind of destroys your entire argument about being a rebel if the gubment can and would hunt you down if they thought your socipathic abuse and ultimate-narrative jewish conspiracy theories were actually a threat to or described in any way anything going on, as I pointed out in the beginning: your type is a useful idiot. Your type, i.e. your advocacy and position here, is pure Alex Jones or David Icke; denialism toward reality.

>Why should all social interactions everywhere be judged to the same standard?
Who the hell said that? Oce again I'm dealing with people who are stuck in the habit of projecting these dated fantasy narratives over other people.. i've said several times what I'm actually arguing for, ..
>I'm talking about actual 'speech' and argument vs. nonsensical abuse intended to shout-down actual 'speech' for being incapable of making an argument.

>>21628512
How was he crazy?

>>21628644
>no, quite literally I'm talking about actual 'speech' and argument vs. nonsensical abuse intended to shout-down actual 'speech' for being incapable of making an argument.
It comes with the territory of this platform. But make sure not to equate dissent with "non-sensical abuse, etc", which you are doing.
>I say simply to deal with that person directly instead of making all society suffer for it.
And I say I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. See below.
>lol fucking hell you see what i mean? You don't know or care or are even impacted by the real loss of free speech that presently exists.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but I'm targeting anyone who enforces censorship, whether it's you or the government. You're wanting to censor the "psychopaths" puts further power into the state's hands and it's not going to stop at the psychopaths, which you use way too broadly btw. I'm not selling my soul to censor anyone.
>for fucks sake, i.e. people who would defend this or think it was 'fine'
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you need to be more deliberate with your speech if you're an exemplar of rationality
>..but pay attention to what you say and what other people say to you and to others, it's all politically-orientated pavlovian triggers, and if you say a keyword you'll be gas-lit attacked with no argument occurring at all. Nothing else takes place.
Take a break from /pol/, take a break from Twitter or wherever else discourse devolves into this. All I can say is keep cool and your head on straight. Most people are subject to pavlovian triggers.
>a guy threatens to assault someone and says some hate speech
Imprison that guy! Stop trying to bring out The Minority Report.
>That's cute.

>Cliche storybook narrative, refusal comprehend the case made to you, verbal abuse.
You failed the litmus test. Stop giving a shit if someone "abuses" you on an internet forum. You were even calling me (or the "universal me") stupid earlier. Be more deliberate, refine your opinions, don't make a deal with the devil.

>>21621037
Have you ever experienced social media?

>>21629187
>But make sure not to equate dissent with "non-sensical abuse, etc",
but I'm not doing that here at all, that's the difference I've explained to you: if I responded to this and said you were a homosexual or started making posts about how you were a Korean Spy (or some other narrative) it would obviously not be a legitimate response to the argument/case.

>Stop giving a shit if someone "abuses" you
holy shit buddy, how many times can I say this..? I'm not coming from a personal complaint about anything, I'm highlighting that 'this culture' (or 'that type') is the single impediment to rational argument... and.. fucking hell, I've repeated myself about five times now, and you're still coming back with this cliched tryanny shit,

>You're wanting to censor the "psychopaths" puts further power into the state's hands and it's not going to stop at the psychopaths,
>I'm not selling my soul to censor anyone.
You/They have already been responsible for massive censorship in the real world, by your actions. Again, the prison example.

All society is punished and censored under the pretext of needing to have censorship to 2moderate" 'you', this is extrajudicial and ineffective; isn't it simply easier to have actual judicial rulings on these matters and put the offenders into prison / ban their communications access, than to have to maintain massive censorship against the entire public all the time over the fear of 'those people'? ...or, as I think in most cases, for those people being used in the first place to justify the current censorship which hinders press accountability and which just ensures that every single place operates their own little tyranny via the "moderator" and extrajudicial policies, which are tools of abuse in and of themselves.

Would you agree more with this idea if I suggested that those things should be int he hands of actual lawful accountable judicial processes? e.g. if you were "banned" from youtube you would be able to argue your case in the legitimate law court to see whether or not you did anything illegal. That would end most of the abuses of the little tyrants that you're talking about, and end the censorship culture entirely.

I agree that abuse of the censorship is as bad the troll culture and is a part of it; it takes nothing for a political troll or petty sociopath to figure out that they can troll better by worming their way into a moderator position, see: discord, even that entire thing is a consequence of extrajudicial attempts to deal with personal or politically motivated sociopaths.

>>you
i mean the hypothetical 'you', it should go without saying

also,
>You're wanting to censor the "psychopaths" puts further power into the state's hands and it's not going to stop at the psychopaths,
obvious slippery slope fallacy: "if we make murder illegal it's not going to stop there, soon attempted murder will be illegal"

>>21629187
>Be more deliberate
It is a complicated topic, and a new one with real precedent; the idea that unknown citizens within a state are being 'faked' and used by political actors to create false outlandish public opinions both to drown out the real citizens and that those actors can justify censorship, is only something that's been possible in the last twenty or so years, directly due to anonymity of the internet... or for indirectly due to more and more civic discourse taking place on the internet and becoming susceptible to being influenced in this manner..... manufacturing a false sense of popularity or unpopularity for a thing, the fragmented nature of the 'abuse' or the meme culture, requiring no argument or proofs for a thing, just makes this even easier to be hijacked or manipulated; the trigger word - e.g. disagree with XYZ? call XYZ a leftist lol it's technically speaking an appeal to the imagined audience, attempts to influence others by creating a fake impression of peer and consensus to silence one thing or put on a pedestal another thing.

Although the idea of fake citizens being made-up to form astroturf negative or positive opposition isn't itself new, but it's multiplied massively due to the internet and the anonymity of it which enables the fake citizens to be mass produced; the "bots" I mean.

I'm not really advocating anything to be honest with you, I'm just curious what the thoughts are about this on "the last bastion of non-censorship (technically)". You've made a good argument though, all considered.

whoops,
>with real precedent
*without real precedent

it's late here.

damn its too bad this thread got fucked up by two retards arguing

ignoring that, what's the over/under on Ted being treated like a true scholar? His work is probably a lot less developed than other writers, but it feels like the worldview and concepts he discusses are deep enough and hold enough relevance that there could, if things go a certain way, be a Journal of Kaczynski studies one day. Simply cos of the potential for exegesis

>>21629589
>retards
we're bumping the thread

> what's the over/under on Ted being treated like a true scholar? His work is probably a lot less developed than other writers, but it feels like the worldview and concepts he discusses are deep enough and hold enough relevance
also,
I could answer this, but since you think intelligent discussion is retarded there would be no point. I don't think you'd be able to understand anything that was said.

Not sure why you're uncomfortable with the baseline opinion on the matter given to you by the television? Ted hated all technology and wanted to go back to eating walnuts in a loincloth. Why are you not satisfied with the answer that was already packaged for you?

>>21629615

>self labeling as "intelligent discussion"

thanks for being gay about it, enjoy your nuked thread

>>21629664
i'll try again,
Not sure why you're uncomfortable with the baseline opinion on the matter given to you by the television? Ted hated all technology and wanted to go back to eating walnuts in a loincloth. Why are you not satisfied with the answer that was already packaged for you?

>>21629664
>enjoy your nuked thread
i don't care that much about the thread, this was my thought about it, >>21621233 notice the no responses to the follow up. You could say I'm waiting.

The biggest issue with the idea of surrogate activities is that it doesn’t really matter. Surrogate activities in industrial society are as natural as pre-industrial society.

>>21629753
disagree, I think figuring out that bad actors and bad actions may be being caused by people exploiting their organization in business/politics (seeking power, abusing their office, etc.) to assuage their own personal psychological disorders is a big step.

Again, consider Adolf Eichmann.

Surrogate actions only matter to those with the mental faculties to understand them and pursue them. The average man does not care about surrogate actions. The only matter to those with the intelligence to realize their rare abilities are being wasted, the higher up the bell curve one goes the more sensitive one becomes to the negative affects of these. I doubt it even shows until one surpasses the first standard deviation above the average.

>>21630161
So supposing you're right, and I assume you are an industrialism-apologist, what should those who are 'smart enough' to become disillusioned with surrogate activities do? Commit suicide? They sure as hell won't be able to escape them as society grows increasingly abstract.

>>21630170
We gather them all up, in a big stadium and just throw rocks at them until they stop using terms like industrialism-apologist.

>>21629530
>I agree that abuse of the censorship is as bad the troll culture
its obviously much worse, and you say that after alluding to rampant botting and falseflagging. you are pretty close to getting it but still far away not sure what you need to experience to actually wake up beyond this insufferable grandstanding. it seems you are content just listening to yourself talk - im sure youve been told this irl before.

>>21630185
lmao

>>21622714
will check that out. thanks. his book bodywatching had sexy pics in it when i was 10 years old, it was wonderful

>>21621522
Messi?

>>21630161
>The average man does not care about surrogate actions

bullshit. it is precisely average people who derive the most pleasure and meaning out of surrogate activities. its not the cream of the crop that's building action figure collections and filling up football stadiums

>>21630187
It is a simple point ultimately, again with the prison example, and that the tyranny cliches that you use to reject 'any' kind of order over these things is just out-dated and silly.

>grandstanding
yeah, people living in those cliches sometimes don't understand how to tell when someone is making a case if their words hit those old triggers.

>>21630187
>you are pretty close to getting it but still far away not sure what you need to experience
I think that's what you're not really understanding, I've been subject to censorship and a thought-policed society all of my life - why, is because the persons actually guitly of those things are not held in check or remedied nor has law been applied to them; the situation, then, is that "all citizens" already 'are' presumed to be guilty and the petty tyanny you describe is what exists as a consequence. The hate speech / troll / politically orientated persons are the excuse for the cultural and extrajudiical censorship that already exists. As I said with the prison example, if a society refuses to put the criminals into prison then the entire society must be collared and chained in order to "get at" those few criminals, which is absurd.

It's my view that the very bad actual political actors have exploited this 'gap' in comprehension to drown out actual legitimate lawful reasoned public discourse against (bad policy, etc.) by outright inventing (fake) or making use of (useful idiot) the "anon troll" to prolong this situation where total censorship and 'thought-crime' is the norm, enacted extrajudicially; corporate policy, etc. and this stands in the way of all discussion and any attempts to resolve 'any' of the things going on in a society.

e.g. currently any criticism of anything is tarred as being deranged conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theorists run around giving that impression that any criticism is deranged. Hence public discourse is impeded, flatlined and this ensure that problems will go unsolved and that last-minute stupid policies will be enforced against the public because reolution and proper discussion has not beeable to occur, due to persons who are either stupid or fake.

Your conflation of "petty abuse" with "legitimate speech" is absurd in the first place, and you're evidently verbally recalling those cliched narratives about how 'any' form of order is "tyranny" but this is patently false (complaining about their around you trying to deal with a situation is what you're supposed to do in order to stop yourself from organizing resistance effectively under law); there is extreme tyranny already and the simple measures to remove the justification for the extreme tyranny is obviously the only real resolution.

>>living in the past
These things wouldn't really have mattered at all if it wasn't that were all forced to be online and conduct civil discourse here; if civil discourse is being artificially influenced by rabbles of "anons" (i.e. bots) then we're forced to take this seriously as it becomes akin to, or far worse, than voter fraud; and far worse, just in this context alone, as it ensures a falsely contrived political narrative and false support for candidates for office, and false responses to world events, i.e. the fake influence is shaping discourse and elections long before any vote occurs.

whoops, i meant
>(complaining about their around
(complaining about those people around you trying to deal with a situation is what you're supposed to do in order to stop yourself from organizing resistance effectively under law)

>>21630187
> it seems you are content just listening to yourself talk
moreover,

Your arguement against lawul judicial courts on this matter is the arguement that would be made by facebook/twitter/youtube/discord-type-moderators who wish to rpeserve their own monopoly over censorship; granting them total control over influencing the public in the manner described,
>> if civil discourse is being artificially influenced by rabbles of "anons" (i.e. bots) then we're forced to take this seriously as it becomes akin to, or far worse, than voter fraud; and far worse, just in this context alone, as it ensures a falsely contrived political narrative and false support for candidates for office, and false responses to world events, i.e. the fake influence is shaping discourse and elections long before any vote occurs.
so your argument or position on this is what the tyrant would already be making.

My argument is to strip those many tyrants of their means of control and to establish fair judicial process (right to trial,etc.) which would end virtually all censorship.

You objected to this because you/they demand the right to shout down other people and make no argument; to engage in anonymous verbal and emotional abuse, which you call 'free speech'.

I think that if you (hypothetical you) were actually prevented from doing that, facing actual penalty, then you would restrain yourself from verbal abuse here as much as you would restrain yourself in the real world; you would learn to engage in actual legitimate speech - to think logically, to make cases, to think in terms of proofs, etc., the culture would change for the better as if to ... find a town hall where a gang of persons are trashing the place and screaming and assaulting the citizens, to remove them, and allow the citizens to debate the issues that they came to debate.

It's difficult to see how anyone could oppose this; only that the opposition would be likely fraudulent in the place. You are anonymous afterall, and you objectively are arguing for unlawful continuity of unelected undemocratic corporate entities to interfere and strangle public debate.

>>21630722
It is not the average working class man who is doing this and you know it. It is the tech worker of above-average intelligence, further supporying my statement. They are gifted enough to reach higher in society but never developed the tools or skillset needed to achieve it, henxe they turn to supplicating actions and consumption. The poor, the rough and the laboring masses don't suffer nearly as much in this regard as they tend to have families. Hence why a nationalistic structure is needed to find these individuals and ensure they develope to their fullest potential, this is part of why TK ended up the way he did. He was incredibly gifted but was robbed of his potential by the experiments he was subjected to. It is this realization of unobtained potential, which can overlap some with the Power Process, as the cause of much of the syndrome people suffer from.

>>21630645
In the introduction of The Human Zoo, Morris claims that "going back" is not what he means although he acknowledges that humans are not supposed to live like this.
I think this is what differs Kaczynski from other people who had noticed the Techno-Urban problem. He believes we will go back, whether we want it or not.

>>21629589
This is what I'm doing with my samizdat proposals. The goal is to not having people reading my Samizdats, but also having others discussing TK's work, writing other Samizdat and finally creating a subversive philosophy based on it.

>>21631451
>It is not the average
oh gimme a break, what about sports, gambling, clothing and tv?

I get your point though, certianly the erhh "disabled persons who can do nothing but perform a single task" are more primed for this... but the difference is negligible. Also, many parents view their own children as a surrogate activity; to make this child this and that, against the childs will.

More accurately would be that the unconscious unresolved traumas and hang-ups are what spur a persons actions.. at least whenever they're highly destructive. It's displacement and externalization, vicariousness; projection of narrative of self/egoism (sluggish schizophrenia) ... these can all be understood as surrogates for that 'trauma' better than surrogates for other things.

>>21621037
But hunter-gatherers made art, too. There's no survival benefit to painting a buffalo, but they still did it.

>>21621149
You clearly haven't spent much time around higher iq people. Academia is literally filled with people filling various voids throughout their life by learning/working and obviously after living through schooling for 15-20 years you end up a scientist/artist/generally a dedicated practicioner of whatever. Doesn't mean one would still do it as much if daddy loved them enough otherwise or girls fucked them when needed.

>>21631727
Again, he already stated he is not against what he named Surrogate Activities. His criticism is that modern man relies solely on it

See: >>21621640

>>21621149
>society is overrun with maladaptive surrogate acts, but the things he mentions like Hirohito's marine biology pursuits are absolutely not part of the problem.
that's more a positive thing really

I wonder if Teddy had a nigative view of psychology? His thoughts on the subject only made sense to me as being BRILLIANT when put into context with psych, here: >>21631698

>>21631771
>he already stated he is not against what he named Surrogate Activities
hence, he's a broken clock.

>>21629530
Part 1/3
I'm the anon you've been responding to.
>Obvious slippery slope fallacy.
To tie it back to this being a Kaczynski thread, I have to admit I've been influenced by Kaczynski, especially his notion that you can't expect even a rational political party, or government, or policy, etc to stay rational forever. Time and opportunistic executors of the policy are going to take over, and what was well and just in your hands is now corrupted in their hands.
I would like to think this isn't a pure slippery slope fallacy (which is one of the least convincing "fallacies", at least for myself, but I digress).
Beyond just the disintegration of a policy, a policy that is wholly rational is not going to consider every facet, caveat, and loophole to its execution, ESPECIALLY if the policy is a "positive" one, which I see your policy being. You want people to be free TO converse without the prisoners dilemma, you want people to be free TO converse by limiting other actors. You want to be free to converse within the constraints parliament policy, or whatever.
What I appreciate about "negative freedom" policies, like the US Constitution, is that it doesn't prescribe how one ought to be free, it just takes away power from those who would constrain your freedom.
Of course nothing lasts forever, Kaczynski and everyone else knows that, but I see a state with negative freedoms as being the longest lasting in preserving freedoms, and while I know the tides are turning, I want to preserve a legacy of negative freedoms not just myself but for our future citizens. In a society that's pseudo-liberal, all of this positive policy is going to be the death of us, or worse.
That is why I'm especially wary of your positive policy.

>>21629530
>>21633405
Part 2/3
>Would you agree more with this idea if I suggested that those things should be int he hands of actual lawful accountable judicial processes?
I like where you're going with that, and I've considered something like that myself (in considering communications platforms as public utilities) though I have no idea how it could be implemented fairly and effectively, and I would still want an anonymous board (going back to my McIntyre v. Ohio statement I quoted). One reason this would be so hard to implement is again the style of internet discourse, there is so much junk data to sort through beyond the illegal stuff.
Another thing I consider is putting this judicial, moderation power into the hands of the gov would just drive radical, "psychopathic", and pavlovian discourse even further underground. To go back to your policy, it's not going to get all of your bad eggs in one fell swoop. You now have to contend with this new criminal element that will find ways to communicate through private and non-indexed networks. I see your psychopath situation getting worse.
To give an actual example, remember 8ch*n? It was even more underground than 4chan, and made 4chan content look like children's programming. In a pragmatic way a place that is anonymous yet popular enough like 4chan is a good release valve, even a pol/ster has enough people calling them out on their retardation, at least in comparison to more underground networks.
Maybe, maybe the lawful, accountable judicial process thing could work, like say with open source systems and transparency in its proceedings, like there's almost no if any judicial oversight and its only moderated by citizenry, but I know there's plenty of negatives I'm not considering and I'm already considering a few.

I like where you're coming from with your policy, you want communication and speech that is not censored due to the actions of the worst of society, but it feels like a short term solution to other, bigger problems (big gov and shitposters).
Despite all that I've said I think you're on to something. Maybe it's good to keep posting to 4chan, people are going to attack you and call you out on your shit. It can refine your opinions, and maybe take you in a new direction, if I may be so bold in saying that.
You already said that in so many words here >>21629582 but I guess I just want to reinforce it, because that's what I try and do too

>>21629530
>>21633405
>>21633428
Part 3/3
With that out of the way I want to end on something more personal (I really want to avoid any condescension, and I'm fine with feedback from you, if you so care). Assuming this is you >>21625764 that I've been talking with the whole time.
I've worked in mental health for years. Psychopathy, sociopathy, other terms you've been throwing around, you apply them too broadly. I know you're talking about a general trend of internet discourse, or even that the internet is making people that way, but reign that shit in, especially if you're NOT being hyperbolic. If you were being hyperbolic, have at it, but don't let those terms become a narrative to classify people shitposting on the internet. You'll start seeing psychopaths everywhere.
I assume you're from the UK, or EU? When you say shit like
>no you don't,you've broken several laws already in this thread
and especially
>hate speech you did just then
you sound faggy, or rather effeminate and powerless, like you're the kind of person who wants even more centralized power because your (willfully) powerless and things don't go your way. Especially in response to this guy >>21625484, which is very mild in terms of shitposting, if you even want to call it that. Also, hate speech laws serve only to stifle and censor dialogue and create untouchable classes, it's another reason I don't like your "positive freedoms" policies.

Having said all THAT
>>21629582
As you say we're in a brave new world. Despite my lauding for negative freedoms it's going to be really hard to maintain them in this new environment. I do agree something has to be done.

>>21633405
>>21633428
>>21633449
>faggy
Well when I was a teenager we called fags the people who would make sophistical excuses as to we shouldn't do something that obviously made sense, because it served their interest to dissuade us from doing that thing, and it was half-evident to us. It is Brave New World lol; up is down, black is white, eh.

>It can refine your opinions, and maybe take you in a new direction,
That's where I was at before I decided it wasn't worth it. I mean, yes obviously, you can use a place like this to improve your language and logic; or any constant practice, etc. etc., but that's an optimistic and selfish kind of thing, when compared to (the reality of widespread public discourse being impeded),

>moderation power into the hands of the gov would just drive radical, "psychopathic", and pavlovian discourse even further underground.
This wouldn't matter in the least, I think. The problem (as described) is when actual public discourse is subsumed by anonymous dubious unknown parties, who aren't obviously interested in discussion of a thing but of silencing/drowning other people and preventing discussion from occurring - creating stagnancy w/ people locked into some really easily-debunked idea or opinion that they refuse to examine.

You're quite right that the APD type,losing their ability to control and coerce 50 persons on discord would then try to gain the same power elsewhere.... the difference is that they wouldn't be able to qualify to get in government office to do it. An at least we can control and have oversight 'over' the few goernment censors 'if' they're actually elected persons, whereas we have no control or oversight over the unknown million micro tyrannies.

>the US Constitution, is that it doesn't prescribe how one ought to be free, it just takes away power from those who would constrain your freedom.
This ought be true. Technically speaking a 3rd party corporation has no right whatsoever to censor public discourse at all, but obviously the laws aren't enforced. I think this is purposeful because bad actors couldn't censor and manipulate public opinion as effectively if it were done outright; which is what I was saying about the "useful idiot troll/anons" / "bots" who are put to work to harass/abuse/drown-out under the cover of anonymity.

>broken laws
i was proving a point :)

>psychopathy
it's a little off topic to get into.. but ultimately, I see no reason to excuse sociopathic/schizophrenic (actual DSM versions, not pejorative usage) habits just because they're taking place in text form. There's no difference in the mind of a person who is like that wherever they are. Only that there's more of a schizophrenic disconnect online because of how easy it is to make-up (or actually believe) delusions within confirmation narratives and insist those delusions are real,
>e.g. disagree with XYZ? call XYZ a leftist

>utilities
This is the only real solution.

>>21633405
>>21633428
>>21633449
ed.
>>It can refine your opinions, and maybe take you in a new direction,
>That's where I was at before I decided it wasn't worth it. I mean, yes obviously, you can use a place like this to improve your language and logic; or any constant practice, etc. etc., but that's an optimistic and selfish kind of thing, when compared to (the reality of widespread public discourse being impeded),
I was far too brief here,
It's "not worth it" vs. the overall cost in the broader political culture, but it's also "not worth it" on the personal level. I think of it like practice and improving my writing and logic, sure, but I'm making the best of a bad situation. The negative influence of being exposed to so much bad character can't help but have some depressive effect; for people elsewhere or here who genuinely derive their opinions or sense of "normal" from the meme/shitpost then the damage to their devleopment is going to be quite serious.

Consider how autism is nowadays, here anyway, a pejorative for a person who can speak english in more than a short fragmentary burst.

Staying on-topic though, with that, I mean that no 'tyranny' is doing those things, e.g. trying to convince people that stupid is smart and smart is stupid, it's not an "authority" "imposing" those terrible self-limiting ideas onto people... it's other people, with no oversight or fear of punishment or sense of community, just doing harm as they please for (reasons we understand as mental illness or sociopathy)... the desire to cause others pain or control or coerce others to gain a sense of small power.


Personally I think we have a lot of lessons to learn from everything we can observe going on these days, the case has never been more easily demonstrated why humans can't be trusted at all. And I don't necessarily agree with or like the way that case could be made.

>Well when I was a teenager we called fags the people who would make sophistical excuses as to we shouldn't do something that obviously made sense, because it served their interest to dissuade us from doing that thing, and it was half-evident to us.
You UK types sound like a bunch of fags ;)
>I was far too brief here,
It's "not worth it" vs. the overall cost in the broader political culture, but it's also "not worth it" on the personal level
In all seriousness though, why are you still on here?
>I mean that no 'tyranny' is doing those things, e.g. trying to convince people that stupid is smart and smart is stupid, it's not an "authority" "imposing" those terrible self-limiting ideas onto people...
The tyranny is rather doing a [whatever the state mandates] is smart, and [whatever is against the state] is dumb. It will still impose its self limiting ideas onto you. It's even worse when the tyranny is doing it for "your own good". But having said that...
>the case has never been more easily demonstrated why humans can't be trusted at all.
I feel I'm in a similar boat though, what do you do when you're caught between a tyrannical government and a tyrannical mob?
Still, I know you see the commons as a problem now because of the bad actors who stiltify everyone else's discourse, I just see the bad actors in government as worse (or will be worse, especially when let off the leash) and having the potential to be more stiltifying than a mob due to its overarching influence.
But going back to Kaczynski, maybe imposing more restrictions on the populace will tax the system further, and get people more riled up, giving the anarcho-primitivists their chance to blow it all to kingdom come.

>>21621808
Where do I start with Emerson? Meant to start today

>>21631727
>There's no survival benefit to painting a buffalo
They did it for religious/cult reasons to which there is a lot of survival benefit. Difficult for moderns to comprehend, but it wasn't just "having fun." Certain pigments used in the paintings were advanced tech back then.

>>21627547
>This wasn't "planned" but it was a consequence of anarchism in the markets; a single thing entering the market of which no oversight organization (i.e. government) existed
What would government have done to prevent the natural consequences of the introduction of Ford's car? I think Ted is right (as I understand him), the goal isn't a government that foresees and averts oil wars, its rejecting technology and destroying the industrial system that allows for it.
>>21627572
You've got a point about the social-economic system that Ford lived in motivating him to seek profits instead of "social good" like a free railway system. However, I believe that this railway would still lead to industrial problems - you have to take the railway to work. You have to be a railway bureaucrat (one of millions) to ensure it works properly. A globalist machine is necessary for the maintenance of the railway net.
This is an exaggeration, but I can't be assed to write alt history oil wars.
>>21627965
>TK said that all the great achievements of humanity such as museums, libraries, archeological sites, preserved patrimony etc. All of it would disappear
Do you remember where he says this? It sounds familiar, and I'd like to have a quote on account of this is what I'm doing my studies on at uni.

>>21621037
He also raped dogs to death with a knife and a gun...
Kaczynsky had a high IQ and good verbal skills, so that he could basically repackage the work of John Zerzan, Eric Hoffer and Jacques Ellul well enough that his plagiarism isn’t evident. Read those guys to see where Dog-boy got his ideas.

>>21622753
He was a failed tranny, he applied but was deemed too unstable (then) to be approved for surgery. But today? It'd be a different story. Anyway he is getting PLENTY of BBC where he is now, so I guess he's happy. He finally gets to be a "woman" lol.

>>21634294
I don't get animal torture from his writings or his murders, doesn't fit his MO, just rumors after the fact.
>>21634306
What compelled you to write that?

There are degrees of supplementation —exempli gratia: if you a soldier, or a warrior, something like calisthenics may merely serve as supplementation to the purposes of both, or either, of the former —which, within their respective ambits, imply proactivity in themselves—; if you are a "N E E T", or a mediocrat, or a simpleton, and are otherwise healthy & ablebodied, and elevate the activities of what amounts to home exercises as the peak of what you should be doing with your body, your lifestyle redounds in surrogacy, rather than abounding in hierarchical supplementation.

There is gradation of supplementation —exempli gratia: if you a soldier, or a warrior, something like calisthenics may merely serve as supplementation to the purposes of both, or either, of the former —which, within their respective ambits, imply proactivity in themselves—; if you are a "N E E T", or a mediocrat, or a simpleton, and are otherwise healthy & ablebodied, and elevate the activities of what amounts to home exercises as the peak of what you should be doing with your body, your lifestyle redounds in surrogacy, rather than abounding in hierarchical supplementation.

>>21634616
>[...] if you [are] a soldier [...]

>>21634294
>He also raped dogs to death with a knife and a gun...
Do you have any source to back this up?

>>21621037
>artistic expressions, successful scientific undertakings, or athletic achievements
Your perspective is disingenuous .These are cherrypicked examples that stretch the definition of surrogate activity.
Unquestionable examples of surrogate activities:
playing video games
Socializing on social media
Online dating
Posting on an online forum
Complaining online about politics
Being online
Consuming media in general
Exercising in a gym (as opposed to being out in nature exerting your body naturally)
"Team building" exercises at certain jobs (rather than having a real community to which one belongs)
Rooting for your favorite sports team and being upset when they lose

>>21633899
>what do you do when you're caught between a tyrannical government and a tyrannical mob?
>The tyranny is rather doing a [whatever the state mandates] is smart, and [whatever is against the state] is dumb.
Well, stop using the word tyranny as a broad brush then; instead examine the causes of peoples actions. I find 'petty personal tyranny (power seeking in small social ways, careerism, etc.)' to be the vast majority of harm that goes on nowadays, vs. the almost non-existent (by comparison) state tyranny. It is the same 'type' of person though, yes.

>In all seriousness though,
It sounds like the same reasoning as you gave lol technically speaking... absolutely technically speaking .... 'this place' is not censored and so if I want a good idea of the impression of the public on something, who aren't going to be entirely fake, then this is the "Public Forum". If censorship exist anywhere, curated opinion / fake people etc., then that thing cannot be trusted to be a legitimate representation of 'the public' - even if it's wrong or falsified in some way it's still 'more' of a legitimate impression of the opinion of the average citizen alive today than would be a twitter or certainly a reddit.

> having the potential to be more stiltifying than a mob due to its overarching influence.
Well, that's because we/people have been primed to consider government as if it wasn't "for us" in the first place. Government, at least, is accountable (only if the citizenry recognize their lawful rights and responsibilities as citizens) and the public can discuss and decide to change things about it, but they cannot change anything about a corporation or a million micro tyrannies. Government has oversight, in other words, and out of government vs. corporations only the governments have the ability to be changed.

Still, this would be obvious to us already if we hadn't confused our all-important legitimate civil discourse; and our responsibility to take it seriously, with the act of shouting "niggerfaggot" or banging pots and pans outside a town hall instead of going inside and arguing our case.

>>21634242
>What would government have done to prevent the natural consequences of the introduction of Ford's car?
Better question would beto ask the same of Amazon; if government oversight existed on those things (again, see: HG Wells 1933) then the consequence of Amazon would have been foreseen (loss of high street retail revenues in tax, loss of jobs, loss of production, Amazon becoming a monopoly at the expense of a million companies; job loss there, etc.) and ways to mitigate those harms would have been brought in, which... well I could guess for a few ways to have done it. That was the point of "capitalism" being basically anarchism in that there existed no foresight to predict and spot obvious harmful outcomes.

> I think Ted is right (as I understand him), the goal isn't a government that foresees and averts oil wars, its rejecting technology and destroying the industrial system that allows for it.
I think his point was more 'moderation' than destruction, but I wouldn't have agreed with him about a lot of things. As dumb and cliched as the counter-argument is of "so u wanna go back to sticks and stones", it's kind of accurate. It's not technology itself but the reliance or laziness as well as unforeseen consequences 'of' any technology which is the problem. I used Amazon as an example because it's easy to make the case in economic terms of loss of revenues, but Twitter/Facebook were far worse in their consequences.

>However, I believe that this railway would still lead to industrial problems - you have to take the railway to work. You have to be a railway bureaucrat (one of millions) to ensure it works properly. A globalist machine is necessary for the maintenance of the railway net.
Ah but is 'the machine' itself bad? Machina are tools we/people can either use or abuse, but our 'good use' requires foresight in order to predict what the 'ab+use' is going to be. Massive pollution from cars and a massively increased dependency on foreign oil; to the point of the two things dominating civil discourse and affairs to the point of wars occurring, was not what Ford had in mind, and not what anyone I suppose did, but it was a foreseeable consequence of the mass insertion of a certain piece of technology into the market without any powerful organization existing to say "if we do this, then this will be the consequence 50 yrs later," although people could have easily predicted these consequences there is a laziness people in assuming that "those problems will be solved by some other it of technology".

Maybe.... idk.... citizens should have never had cars marketed to them and the only combustion engines should have been planes or military tanks, or something like that. It's interesting though that in Fords time, taking Tesla into account, we could have had mag-rail public transport introduced in the 1930's, and when Roosevelt went to building America he wouldn't have built motorways but built a massive mag-rail public transport system instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNGP3EXniMA

>>21635219
No he doesn't. It"s random slander for (((no reason)))

>>21635610
I appreciate the long form response.
>there existed no foresight to predict and spot obvious harmful outcomes.
I would argue that these outcomes are only obvious in retrospect. A body of “experts” might have been able to predict them, but I’m skeptical of how we would go about assembling these experts and giving them the power of law. I’m skeptical of the ability of government in any case - at least the one we have here in the States is riddled with flaws.
>so u wanna go back to sticks and stones
It’s the cliché counter argument for a reason. It’s tough to deny all the health benefits and conveniences of modern technology. However, I wouldn’t advocate for “going back” to any time in the past, which is impossible. Instead, we’ll have to decide which technologies to keep and which can be sustained without limiting autonomy, and create a society that doesn’t have a 1:1 with history.
>Ah but is 'the machine' itself bad?
I would argue yes. If I’m remembering Ted’s work correctly, he believes that the system, made up of individual humans forced to conform to the system’s needs, must limit autonomy in order to function.
Fast, low-impact travel is great, but in order for it to exist it imposes on us rules that ultimately make life less fulfilling.

>>21629822
But in Ted’s view there is no bad action. Identifying bad actors and rooting them out would necessarily be a surrogate activity as well.

>>21631737
Much of the void filling in academia comes from the fact that professors by law are required to publish research and have been for centuries now.

>>21635549
Part 1
>'this place' is not censored and so if I want a good idea of the impression of the public on something, who aren't going to be entirely fake, then this is the "Public Forum". If censorship exist anywhere, curated opinion / fake people etc., then that thing cannot be trusted to be a legitimate representation of 'the public' - even if it's wrong or falsified in some way it's still 'more' of a legitimate impression of the opinion of the average citizen alive today than would be a twitter or certainly a reddit.
Another reason I'm against the "censor" of needing to register or expose anonymity. A place like 4chan is certainly a grey area in that it can be a source for uncensored opinion, yet also the place for a proliferation of bad actors (bots, pavlovls, conspiracists, etc). I appreciate its "raw" data over, which has its own benefits and drawbacks, over kowtowing to state opinion or common (in)decency. If there were ways to only target the absolute worst of the bad actors, which you want, I would be interested to hear about it, but I do not want to give up anonymity.
Of course a more "legitimate" public forum has its place, but yeah a place like Reddit or Twitter has more strict moderators and a certain public, historical persona that dissuades legitimate representation of the public.
I'm probably missing something but I feel like you're almost admitting anonymity leads to more "legitimate" opinion, in that it's straight from the horses mouth. I don't see a public utility forum having this same type of honest legitimacy.

>>21635549
>>21636276
Part 2
>Well, that's because we/people have been primed to consider government as if it wasn't "for us" in the first place. Government, at least, is accountable (only if the citizenry recognize their lawful rights and responsibilities as citizens) and the public can discuss and decide to change things about it, but they cannot change anything about a corporation or a million micro tyrannies. Government has oversight, in other words, and out of government vs. corporations only the governments have the ability to be changed.
As you say I have been using tyranny too broadly, so I will try to be more specific.
Right now I see an unholy alliance between government and corporations. In the East like in China you might have something enforced by the gov like a social credit score, but in the West I think we're heading in that direction, but through a "pink tyranny", or a tyranny that's not a 1984 hard enforcement, but a tyranny that's enforced through behavioral conditioning from corporations and "positive freedom" policies enforced by the government. And that's not even considering academia's role in proliferating more and more corporate and state power as long as it aligns with their agenda. I appreciate your "legitimizing" power of government because in theory its accountable, but giving it more power while no one is playing nice seems like a bad idea, and again feels like a short term solution that will later become a bigger problem.
Despite all the bad of 4chan, I still think it's a greater ally against the corporate+government threat, warts and all.

>>21635549
>>21636286
Part 3
(sorry for all of the parts, I wish 4chan had a larger character limit)
>Still, this would be obvious to us already if we hadn't confused our all-important legitimate civil discourse; and our responsibility to take it seriously, with the act of shouting "niggerfaggot" or banging pots and pans outside a town hall instead of going inside and arguing our case
I personally like to sharpen my arguments and thoughts using 4chan, and I've at least had better experiences with it, I feel less "blackpilled" about the shitposters and pavlovs, who with great effort and several replies I've had decent experiences with. The reason I want to sharpen myself is for when I bring my opinions to the public forum, and my opinions will need to wear a mask to make it more presentable, but that's just the nature of anonymity and non-anonymity. I appreciate both.
I know I can do something different or better but "niggerfaggot" is a bullshit test. I appreciate in anonymous discourse that I can say something shocking and inflammatory, especially if I found the person I'm responding to being inflammatory and/or they have a chip on their shoulder. It gets their attention, and illustrates that I find their "decency" to be a false or one-sided or stultifying, whether they realize it or not. And I can later drop the veil. It is the LEAST of our concerns regarding anonymous communication. (my concerns with anonymity have more to do with foreign intercession and bots.)
But anyways, yeah. I don't like how the internet in general is keeping everyone locked in their gated micro tyrannies, but I don't want to lose sight of the other tyrannies and powers. For that reason I will not just stay on the internet, but will and do interact as a responsible and involved citizen within the public, even if most other people are not doing that now. This might be naive, and I know it will take a more comprehensive approach, but through example and discourse in its various forms I hope to pull people out of their internet stupor.
I want a bottom-up approach for change, not a top-down.
On my final note I'm not sure what your sense of humor is like, but you might get a chuckle out of this:
https://youtu.be/cks4xE5m12g

>>21635805
>I would argue that these outcomes are only obvious in retrospect.
That's the argument made, also in hindsight, that "we could never have predicted it would happen!" ... granted some of these things are less obvious at the time (online book store trashing the retail economy), but some of the things are more obvious (incremental increase of fuel use and fuel pollution as more cars are sold and put onto the road).

Still, if it was someones job to examine cause and effect from a scenario and deduce the most liekly harms, then those things could be avoided; e.g. twitter-like or amazon-like business models could have been limited to regional areas and a monopoly would have been prevented in advance, or the motorcar could have been delayed by limiting fuel consumption to public transport alone and this would've forced a cleaner fuel for the motorcar, etc.

Government is always playing catch-up 'after' the damage has been allowed to happen, the way things are now, and then the measures are delayed and they come up with some heavy-handed last minute measure.

>the machine
no i mean like.. is a spoon or a gun 'itself' bad? obviously not.

>>21635549
>>21636296
Part 4 (addendum)
A quick note on my naivety, again, I know something has to be done and I know it needs to be more comprehensive then me being a shinning exemplar of public virtue.
Going back to Kaczynski, I think we're heading towards a cataclysm because of the internet in part, but I don't want to set precedents for government sanctioned mandates and control over our discourse. I would rather have the "natural shock" of the cataclysm have us realize collectively that we need to be more responsible citizenry. I also worry if we do government mandated control that we might never hit the cataclysm, and the "pink tyranny" might keep everyone further complacent, leading us to a hellish, lobotomized future.
Of course as I hinted to earlier maybe government censor and control would lead us to this cataclysm faster, but I'm wary of accelerationism in general, and that the cataclysm you accelerated to might not turn out how you expected.

>>21636276
>>21636286
>>21636296
>I'm probably missing something but I feel like you're almost admitting anonymity leads to more "legitimate" opinion, in that it's straight from the horses mouth. I don't see a public utility forum having this same type of honest legitimacy.
>A place like 4chan is certainly a grey area in that it can be a source for uncensored opinion, yet also the place for a proliferation of bad actors (bots, pavlovls, conspiracists, etc).
Well, if it was... as I think it is.. that the problem stems from an abuse of anonymity leading to extrajudicial censorship (i.e. what we have now) then it would go that you could have no censorship (i.e. just apply the laws) only if you had no anonymity, if the anonymity is what led to the censorship that we have.

>Of course a more "legitimate" public forum has its place,
People, I don't think, would be so eager to come out with dumb and stupid opinions or switch to abuse either if it wasn't for the anonymity.... but this would only have to apply to the "public forum" where civil discourse goes on, instead of having to use facebook/twitter/reddit as if it 'were' a public forum... obviously laws ought still be applied to those places but they would matter much less if a legitimate forum, with proper process, was established. Although, with that said, it'd probably just be easier to take over or regionalize twitter/facebook/youtube than to make a new thing. There's a good case for regional authority; county level, when their whole revenue model of advertising is considered (country revenues would be boosted if they were getting youtubes hare of the ad revenue) as well as the administration of it all actually at the county level, by people who are known and elected.

>I appreciate in anonymous discourse that I can say something shocking and inflammatory, especially
It doesn't go anywhere though, that's the stagnancy. It's kind of funny that as we've seen how the internet as gone, with no real debate or meaning behind things, it's resulted in the echo chambers and now a culture where you can almost tell everything about a person by what manner of verbal abuse or projection their first response is to a subject.... that is to say that people aren't talking to convince or make arguments, that rather they're soapboxing to influence the imagined audience by declaring him or her to be this or that, and doing it all the time until others think that him or her is this or that, and that's where the "civil discourse" begins and ends... to no real consequence (problem solving, advancement) whatsoever... which just translates to stagnancy and problems getting worse.

>>21621129
>>21621037
this n check em
no verification required

>>21636477
>I would rather have the "natural shock" of the cataclysm have us realize collectively that we need to be more responsible citizenry.
It hasn't happened though, part of the echo chamber / micro tyranny setups is that they're alternate realities, almost, where a sense of normalcy is given to stagnancy and perpetuated. After Covid I'm pretty sure that a meteor could strike the earth and wipe out half the population and you'd still find people returning to their discord chatrooms as if nothing had happened to warrant a change in their behavior (in their ways of interacting with each other), and with that "bad way" of interaction being reinforced and perpetuated.

To the tell the truth I haven't seen any change in the behavior of people on the internet since the late 90's; only that as the internet went further into society that more and more people began to become like that in the real world; solipsism, nihilism, fantasy over reality, etc.

>>21621037
are you the same one who has been posting mean things about Ted on other boards? there was one the other day focusing on his perversions. why are you set on convincing everyone he was crazy and wrong?

>>21636414
I agree that some kind of oversight would be better than what we have now, but I'm wary of giving a technocratic think tank the power of law. This is more of a specific example, but I also think that 'cleaner' cars aren't necessarily the goal. The goal is to be able to walk, if you want.
>is a spoon or a gun 'itself' bad?
I apologize, I meant "machine" as a metaphor for a system that reduces people to "cogs in a machine." Technology itself I would argue isn't bad itself, but requires a system that is bad to exist. I forget whether Kaczynski himself puts this forward, but I find the argument that "technology" is anything that requires the technological system compelling.
A spoon isn't "technology" if I can make it myself. An iPhone is always harmful because I can't mine, process, code, etc. all the parts required to make it, so I must submit to the freedom-limiting system to use one.

>>21636583
>that the problem stems from an abuse of anonymity leading to extrajudicial censorship (i.e. what we have now) then it would go that you could have no censorship (i.e. just apply the laws) only if you had no anonymity, if the anonymity is what led to the censorship that we have.
I know you've said it in so many ways but I found this time to be especially succinct and well said.
>After Covid I'm pretty sure that a meteor could strike the earth and wipe out half the population
Covid was the PERFECT disease to get people even more cooped up in their fantasy worlds/stagnation/etc. It's minor enough that you don't have the death tolls of a bubonic plague or the very visible and nasty symptoms of say Ebola, yet it is major enough to enforce a soft lockdown of the state and enterprise (that doesn't affect large corps). I see why people see a Machiavellian conspiracy in Covid because it's the perfect, "pink" storm to strengthen government and corporate control.
>To the tell the truth I haven't seen any change in the behavior of people on the internet since the late 90's; only that as the internet went further into society that more and more people began to become like that in the real world; solipsism, nihilism, fantasy over reality, etc.
Despite my support of negative freedoms I think this is a problem of the internet and technological advancement in general. I even see your county-based official discourse solution as a temporary bandaid for a bigger problem, it's just treating a symptom and not the disease. I think to internet licensure and it's still treating a symptom with its own host of problems. I think to a certain "elite" who can only utilize the internet but that's just treating a symptom and creating another looming problem.
All of this is why I was looking into a Kaczynski thread in the first place.
Still, you've given me much to think about.