Avatar
Kevin's Bacon
3dda45008a0391d7933e1ae7cc3b844bfd91c92ddefd0f55ce6afd025776f2db
Natural Law Anarchist 🏴 | Bitcoin Noderunner and Miner 🧡 | Aristotelian | Student of Nature | Highly Sensitive Person | High IQ Retard | Austrian Economist | Autodidact | Polymath | Selfish Prick | Excellent Source of Protein and Triglycerides Intellectual honesty is key. Consent is king. Chaos is self-regulating. Authority of any man over another is necessarily a fiction.

Yeah, totally. Discovering what is real, and what is actually meant by someone. That's kind of the best way to approach everything. I think some feminists do try to understand and take the right approach. I think that the name is confusing because we often get in our heads that benefiting one group or person must come at the expense of another, and that is true when it is done by force, but not true when it is done by voluntary action.

It is ok to be pro-white or pro-woman or to specifically seek to help out blacks, just as long as you don't privilege them with government favor or any other use of force to do it.

For example, the black American family has been systematically decimated by the incentives of the state. A movement to advance black people by voluntary exchange, mutual cooperation, self-reliance, and gun ownership, say something called a "Black Libertarian Movement," (God, please let that become a thing!) can easily be seen to be a good thing. A Marxist statist group aimed at using the state to force companies to prefer black workers and black narratives, on the other hand, is inherently racist because it uses force to treat blacks and all others differently. Such an evil organization might masquerade as something benign and call itself "Black Lives Matter."

Replying to Avatar Jeff Swann

If all definitions are treated as subjective & abitrary then communication & cooperation completely break down. That is also one of the goals of corrupt politicians & other power hungry people, to shift what some hear when others are trying to communicate with them. This is why they always make up "dog whistles" & attempt to innoculate people against understanding or listening to certain ideas.

I also didn't say anything about what I was attracted to. I tend to prefer women who have some interests that are not traditionally feminine. But I think it's hard to argue that there is anything natural or healthy or sane or feminie about people promoting & celebrating the killing of their own offspring. Even if you think abortion should be allowed, celebrating it is absolutely horrible. There is nothing happy or positive about being in a situation where the "better" choice is to kill your unborn child.

The concept of "the mother" is the natural feminine archetype. That doesn't mean every woman has to want kids, but I do think there are people who want to manipulate women (and young people in general) into acting in ways that are very counter to their nature in order to corrupt & manipulate them. If you are out of touch with your own nature then you are much easier to lead around. "Sexual fluidity" & the idea that there are infinite genders is the new & more potent form of 2+2=5. When you can convince people to deny basic aspects of reality you can get them to do basically anything.

Actually subjective definitions are not antithetical to proper communication. Anarchy of language works. It is when people use force to manipulate language, when people deceive, that communication breaks down.

It is like the subjective theory of value, which when understood and respected, leads to regular prices and economic prosperity and equality. When it is misunderstood and when power to control other people's definitions of value is fought over, dysfunction ensues. Same with the fight for authority over language.

That's fucked up. Censorship like that not only ruins comedy; it ends up eliminating people's understanding or any clue of how things were like in the past or the reality of other people's situations.

As long as there is a diversity of different things to appeal to different users with varying levels of understanding, it's good. Perhaps they need more variety?

The is-ought divide cannot be breached except with an assertion, an assumption, of moral value judgement, or of objective observation of an existing moral value judgement. Economics studies people's value judgements and is the closest thing to "objective morality" that we have. Nothing is objectively good except in that it objectively is valued by some entity or marketplace as good. But you can use that to derive common solutions to common problems of morality thag people have. Libertarianism with sound money satiates the vast majority of moral values of people greater than any other system.

Duuuuude!! What's the relay called? That's awesome! Freedom, baby!

(I might have stumbled all the way out the window just a bit) #zapathon