4 ms·

While I think you make some fair points, did you really need to be so adversarial and self-righteous? I wonder to what extent such a delivery neuters productive

While I think you make some fair points, did you really need to be so adversarial and self-righteous? I wonder to what extent such a delivery neuters productive discussion.

r0pchainer 7y ago
Ah, you inadvertently hit the crux of the issue with your question. You see, diplomacy is a tool for maintaining the peaceful status quo. It is a tool for conflict resolution with little variability in the outcome. Countries build nuclear weapons so they may level the playing field, in order for diplomacy to be an effective tool. Otherwise, you will be stepped on. The sophisticated, well-spoken man is he who already has an advantage. You must obtain an advantage, or at least almost equal standing, in order for diplomacy to be effective. The fact that we see the problem but do nothing to fix it is because of extreme diplomacy. I want to see men passionately pursuing what is best for their happiness and growth. I want to see my country, its families, and society prosper. What is happening today is the exact opposite, despite our "high standard of living" watching NetFlix, ordering Amazon Prime, eating McDonald's, and swiping right on all the girls on Tinder. This is not a problem of reason, this is a problem of passion, of primal connection to one's manhood. The more we disconnect from our nature and manhood, the less true control we have over our own lives, the farther we stray from holding society together, the more we shrink and become hopeless. I want to incite passion in the most cerebral people I know of. Right fucking here.
- lovich 7y ago
  Brah. Most jobs are hot garbage right now and video games at least give you tangible goals and rewards. You don't have to be some Uber man to be happy in life, and even if you are super masculine you still will choose the path that feels best. If for whatever reason you're stuck in a place where you have to put in years of effort for a small chance that you might have a better life vs taking a non ideal but still acceptable life right now, why would you take the risk?
  - r0pchainer 7y ago
    You're partly right. I work for myself, I fucking love my work, I'm a proper hacker, actually own investment property, two sports cars, and have a pretty nice house paid off for a single guy at 29, but I can't find a decent woman to start a family with. I tried, before I got to where I am, I got out of a 6 year relationship with a girl who was a software engineer. We were perfect together, honestly. But at the end of the day, she chose pursuing her career in one state, and at the time I pursued my career in a different state in the US, because I wouldn't marry her. Do you think a guy like me was going to follow her around? No. Do you think she's going to find a guy doing better than me now? Slim pickings. She's going to settle for someone willing to follow her around. She texts me hinting at getting back together. Ok buddy. Yes, if I put my income on Match.com and professionally taken pictures, I get dozens of matches a day, but let's be real, they're not here for my pretty brown eyes. In what fucking world is it difficult for a successful man to find a decent, loyal woman to marry? I want kids, I want to have a son, but I know that the society as it is will cause a lot of turbulence to my marriage and how I raise my kids, even MORE SO than when I was a popper! Money just makes more problems these days! So what, I have to stop being a man and kill the very nature of myself of being motivated and determined just to keep a family together? GTFO. Anyway, this phenomenon is true even in countries that were previously highly conservative. Thanks to technology, we've enabled our primal biology to roam incredibly free regardless of where you are. So now guys like me have a super easy time at getting laid, and actually having a functional family feels damn near impossible. Why do I take the risk? Because what's the alternative? I have friends like that. They are super depressed, playing video games all day, shitty jobs they hate, some even living with their parents. Personally, I'd rather have my problems than be depressed, because at least I feel energetic and strong in my current state, doing things I like. I just can't start a family, which absolutely sucks.
    - croissants 7y ago
      This is interesting, because from my perspective you seem unhappy, angry, and thoroughly invested in seeing the cause as [a decaying culture in thrall to liberal values] rather than [your own fixation on winning and insistence that “decent” women are very rare]. Is it hard to imagine why those qualities might deter thoughtful and kind people? I guess you might chalk this up as cerebral milquetoast pablum, but seriously, the aggression in your replies makes it hard for me to believe that you’re actually happy, and aren’t just distracting yourself from the things you’re angry about by accumulating generic attendants of happiness (property, cars, women!).
- alexpetralia 7y ago
  Again, while I agree with some of your thinking, I'd also invite you to consider that your passion blinds you from seeing any perspective besides your own. It's not that your ideas are wrong - nor that they're right - it's that you're so unequivocally certain they're right. This level of self-righteousness, which you seem not only to possess but also flaunt, is - as you mention - an excellent antidote to "extreme diplomacy." You don't need to listen to others - after all, it's too diplomatic. You can build an empire all by yourself, the greatest expression of the overman's will to power. But, it is an empire of one. As it happens, we don't live in societies of one. As it happens, there seems to be diplomacy and agreement everywhere. What does that suggest about a long-run optimal strategy for civilizations? Should we really be plunging into internecine war just because "extreme diplomacy" represents a slave morality once again repressing the "passion" of the great man, the overman? No, it likely suggests that unfettered self-righteousness is perhaps short-run optimal, long-run suboptimal. Refusing to listen to others - to be diplomatic - works when you can do everything yourself. And the moment you end up needing something from others, it turns out they've shut you out of the long-term, iterated game. They don't want to play with you anymore. Why? Because you can't empathize, you can't listen, you can't yield. I understand why being diplomatic is threatening. After all, it limits one's self-expression! It challenges the triumph of the individual! The overman! But unless you want to occupy a society of one, that's simply what building a group, a community, or a society requires: diplomacy, politics, persuasion and agreement.

While I think you make some fair points, did you really need to be so adversarial and self-righteous? I wonder to what extent such a delivery neuters productive discussion.

r0pchainer 7y ago

Ah, you inadvertently hit the crux of the issue with your question. You see, diplomacy is a tool for maintaining the peaceful status quo. It is a tool for conflict resolution with little variability in the outcome. Countries build nuclear weapons so they may level the playing field, in order for diplomacy to be an effective tool. Otherwise, you will be stepped on. The sophisticated, well-spoken man is he who already has an advantage. You must obtain an advantage, or at least almost equal standing, in order for diplomacy to be effective. The fact that we see the problem but do nothing to fix it is because of extreme diplomacy. I want to see men passionately pursuing what is best for their happiness and growth. I want to see my country, its families, and society prosper. What is happening today is the exact opposite, despite our "high standard of living" watching NetFlix, ordering Amazon Prime, eating McDonald's, and swiping right on all the girls on Tinder. This is not a problem of reason, this is a problem of passion, of primal connection to one's manhood. The more we disconnect from our nature and manhood, the less true control we have over our own lives, the farther we stray from holding society together, the more we shrink and become hopeless. I want to incite passion in the most cerebral people I know of. Right fucking here.

lovich 7y ago
Brah. Most jobs are hot garbage right now and video games at least give you tangible goals and rewards. You don't have to be some Uber man to be happy in life, and even if you are super masculine you still will choose the path that feels best. If for whatever reason you're stuck in a place where you have to put in years of effort for a small chance that you might have a better life vs taking a non ideal but still acceptable life right now, why would you take the risk?
- r0pchainer 7y ago
  You're partly right. I work for myself, I fucking love my work, I'm a proper hacker, actually own investment property, two sports cars, and have a pretty nice house paid off for a single guy at 29, but I can't find a decent woman to start a family with. I tried, before I got to where I am, I got out of a 6 year relationship with a girl who was a software engineer. We were perfect together, honestly. But at the end of the day, she chose pursuing her career in one state, and at the time I pursued my career in a different state in the US, because I wouldn't marry her. Do you think a guy like me was going to follow her around? No. Do you think she's going to find a guy doing better than me now? Slim pickings. She's going to settle for someone willing to follow her around. She texts me hinting at getting back together. Ok buddy. Yes, if I put my income on Match.com and professionally taken pictures, I get dozens of matches a day, but let's be real, they're not here for my pretty brown eyes. In what fucking world is it difficult for a successful man to find a decent, loyal woman to marry? I want kids, I want to have a son, but I know that the society as it is will cause a lot of turbulence to my marriage and how I raise my kids, even MORE SO than when I was a popper! Money just makes more problems these days! So what, I have to stop being a man and kill the very nature of myself of being motivated and determined just to keep a family together? GTFO. Anyway, this phenomenon is true even in countries that were previously highly conservative. Thanks to technology, we've enabled our primal biology to roam incredibly free regardless of where you are. So now guys like me have a super easy time at getting laid, and actually having a functional family feels damn near impossible. Why do I take the risk? Because what's the alternative? I have friends like that. They are super depressed, playing video games all day, shitty jobs they hate, some even living with their parents. Personally, I'd rather have my problems than be depressed, because at least I feel energetic and strong in my current state, doing things I like. I just can't start a family, which absolutely sucks.
  - croissants 7y ago
    This is interesting, because from my perspective you seem unhappy, angry, and thoroughly invested in seeing the cause as [a decaying culture in thrall to liberal values] rather than [your own fixation on winning and insistence that “decent” women are very rare]. Is it hard to imagine why those qualities might deter thoughtful and kind people? I guess you might chalk this up as cerebral milquetoast pablum, but seriously, the aggression in your replies makes it hard for me to believe that you’re actually happy, and aren’t just distracting yourself from the things you’re angry about by accumulating generic attendants of happiness (property, cars, women!).
alexpetralia 7y ago
Again, while I agree with some of your thinking, I'd also invite you to consider that your passion blinds you from seeing any perspective besides your own. It's not that your ideas are wrong - nor that they're right - it's that you're so unequivocally certain they're right. This level of self-righteousness, which you seem not only to possess but also flaunt, is - as you mention - an excellent antidote to "extreme diplomacy." You don't need to listen to others - after all, it's too diplomatic. You can build an empire all by yourself, the greatest expression of the overman's will to power. But, it is an empire of one. As it happens, we don't live in societies of one. As it happens, there seems to be diplomacy and agreement everywhere. What does that suggest about a long-run optimal strategy for civilizations? Should we really be plunging into internecine war just because "extreme diplomacy" represents a slave morality once again repressing the "passion" of the great man, the overman? No, it likely suggests that unfettered self-righteousness is perhaps short-run optimal, long-run suboptimal. Refusing to listen to others - to be diplomatic - works when you can do everything yourself. And the moment you end up needing something from others, it turns out they've shut you out of the long-term, iterated game. They don't want to play with you anymore. Why? Because you can't empathize, you can't listen, you can't yield. I understand why being diplomatic is threatening. After all, it limits one's self-expression! It challenges the triumph of the individual! The overman! But unless you want to occupy a society of one, that's simply what building a group, a community, or a society requires: diplomacy, politics, persuasion and agreement.