thing is the system hates LSWM because they’re not that LS
If you made a joke about Stalin you would be killed. That’s *L*S. You’re literally DEAD. Status cannot go Lower.
If you counter signal our regime’s PR (don’t tell me even climate *as it is presented* isn’t PR, regardless whether it’s true or not – I believe it is largely true) then people are allowed to make fun of you with a slight institutional advantage/bias. Not that *L*S frankly. Not like an NKVD bullet.
And sometimes individual LSWM can win these rhetorical battles and even cause major damage to the regime’s program. Look at Nigel Farage in GB for example. He brought about Brexit almost single-handedly because the regime’s PR organs repeatedly attacked him and yet he come out looking higher status.
Rare, but possible. Regime hatred of the LSWM, is driven in part by real fear.
Again, if you made a joke about Stalin you got a bullet in the skull. Survival not possible. No real fear.
>Rare, but possible. Regime hatred of the LSWM, is driven in part by real fear.
Oh I agree.
The system has incentives to produce the sort of people who will be inclined to support the system. In practice this means LSWMs tend to be crowded out.
Yeah same. I read it 15 years ago and it influenced me quite a bit. That’s the best evidence you’re an autistic low status white male by the way: You read something written by a dude in jail and you actually find yourself genuinely considering his arguments.
Everyone else just bases their worldview on what seems to be socially dominant and what their peers seem to believe.
But at this point the manifesto is basically just an exhausted meme.
Yes, the majority of the population believes in what you can measure.
I know low status white males are extremely eager to come up with some alternative explanation, so they throw whatever shit they can find at the wall and hope some of it will stick, but most people are not quite as retarded as you guys.
It’s also socially dominant that the Earth is round, that trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, that gravity causes things to fall to the ground andsoforth.
You’re free to come up with your own theory, but for whatever reason you don’t feel the need.
Why is it incumbent upon me to provide an explanation or theory? What should I be explaining?
Earth’s climate changes. The dominant social paradigm is that this change is bad and that humans are responsible for the badness.
No theory. Just observation.
>Everyone else just bases their worldview on what seems to be socially dominant and what their peers seem to believe.
>Yes, the majority of the population believes in what you can measure.
These are contradictions, unless you also mean that the majority of the population is autistic.
The question there was “Is governmental [violent authoritarianism] 1. needed and 2. acceptable to counter anthropogenic climate change?”
The questions of whether the Earth is round, or the existence of gravity do not permit governments to extract wealth from people at anything like the same scale.
Whether any of these things is true or not is completely beside the point.
>These are contradictions, unless you also mean that the majority of the population is autistic.
No, they’re not contradictory. People believe in things, based on what they see other people believe.
But trace those beliefs back to their source and you tend to find an autist who measured it.
Gravity? You believe in it because everyone believes in it. But go back far enough and you find an autist named Newton.
Evolution? You believe in it because everyone believes in it. But go back far enough and you find an autist named Darwin.
Heliocentrism? You believe in it because everyone believes in it. But go back far enough and you find an autist named Copernicus.
Similarly, almost everyone now looks back at the lockdowns with disgust and shame. But only the autists looked at the lockdowns with disgust and shame, when they actually happened.
Ideas disseminate from the most autistic, down towards the normies.
>The question there was “Is governmental [violent authoritarianism] 1. needed and 2. acceptable to counter anthropogenic climate change?”
Muh violent authoritarianism.
So tired of this argument.
You want to see violent authoritarianism? Try not paying your rent for a month. Heck, try camping in the street. “Well my landlord owns the house, he built it.” Ok try just camping in your garden. Did your landlord build the soil? No, he bought the land, from someone else. How did that person get it? Someone somewhere up the line claimed it as his own, seized it from the commons.
You want to see violent authoritarianism? Try looking at how pigs are shoved into gas chambers, or how cattle have their babies taken away from them.
Or heck, if you want to see violent authoritarianism, try to leave your country plagued by droughts where you had the misfortune of being born, for a different country where people can still afford food.
Perhaps you fully endorse that violent authoritarianism. I for one harbor no illusions, I don’t think my continent can cope with the vast waves of climate refugees we will soon have. Trying to absorb all the refugees will just result in civil war. But I’m not going to pretend that the way we go about keeping them out of Europe is something other than violent authoritarianism.
You people define “violent authoritarianism” in whatever way suits LSWMs. It’s violent authoritarianism when LSWMs can’t afford their SUV and their grassfed beef. It’s not violent authoritarianism when a bunch of sub-Saharan Africans are shipped back to the desert of Libya where they’re left to starve, or when a cow is murdered. Because they have different rights than you. And for your rights to be infringed upon is violent authoritarianism. And for them not to enjoy the rights that you enjoy, is just “how things are supposed to be”. But from their perspective, it is also violent authoritarianism.
Quote: “Yes, the majority of the population believes in what you can measure.”
Come on. You know enough about science that “Measuring” and “Interpreting” are both evergreens on the scientific battlefields.
It’s a bit lame, if you doing as if a number on a display would be absolute truth. And this is what you do. A number says nothing. There must always be a theory to interprete that number (the thing with Thesis and Anti-Thesis).
haha, this is a good shitpost. it made me stop and think about why i’m the totally the cubicle lady.
i think the problem is that st. greta (or, at least, her priests) isn’t advocating a return to authentic pre-industrial lifestyles, but rather a BugSlurry-and-PodLife existence where you own nothing and will be happy.
yeah, i get it, peasants didn’t own anything either and their diets probably weren’t amazing. but at least they lived in real communities and ate real food, not this ersatz videoconferenced world powered by hyper-processed oat milk that’s “good for the environment.”
Congrats. Being able to think puts you in the top 1% intellectual elite of my commentariat.
>i think the problem is that st. greta (or, at least, her priests) isn’t advocating a return to authentic pre-industrial lifestyles, but rather a BugSlurry-and-PodLife existence where you own nothing and will be happy.
I think Greta did what she could, to incite some sort of revolt from the general public.
But most people are a blight on existence, so nothing really happened.
Funfact: Ted Kaczynski has explicitly distanced himself from the “ecofascists”, insisting that they’re useless due to their racism.
He has never explicitly distanced himself from my favorite autistic femcel.
Sorry LSWMs.
‘autistic femcel’
Perfect. I’m gonna need to liberate that phrase on behalf of LSWMs everywhere.
thing is the system hates LSWM because they’re not that LS
If you made a joke about Stalin you would be killed. That’s *L*S. You’re literally DEAD. Status cannot go Lower.
If you counter signal our regime’s PR (don’t tell me even climate *as it is presented* isn’t PR, regardless whether it’s true or not – I believe it is largely true) then people are allowed to make fun of you with a slight institutional advantage/bias. Not that *L*S frankly. Not like an NKVD bullet.
And sometimes individual LSWM can win these rhetorical battles and even cause major damage to the regime’s program. Look at Nigel Farage in GB for example. He brought about Brexit almost single-handedly because the regime’s PR organs repeatedly attacked him and yet he come out looking higher status.
Rare, but possible. Regime hatred of the LSWM, is driven in part by real fear.
Again, if you made a joke about Stalin you got a bullet in the skull. Survival not possible. No real fear.
>Rare, but possible. Regime hatred of the LSWM, is driven in part by real fear.
Oh I agree.
The system has incentives to produce the sort of people who will be inclined to support the system. In practice this means LSWMs tend to be crowded out.
When I read the UNA-Bombers manifesto roughly 20 years ago, I was impressed. But from the view point of today, it’s lame. Like “1984” is now lame.
Yeah same. I read it 15 years ago and it influenced me quite a bit. That’s the best evidence you’re an autistic low status white male by the way: You read something written by a dude in jail and you actually find yourself genuinely considering his arguments.
Everyone else just bases their worldview on what seems to be socially dominant and what their peers seem to believe.
But at this point the manifesto is basically just an exhausted meme.
I read that only Alphas and Autists are able to challenge narratives.
Doesn’t this make me to an Alpha, too?
“ Everyone else just bases their worldview on what seems to be socially dominant and what their peers seem to believe.”
And the autistic LSWM scares them because he doesn’t just go along. Sometimes he asks uncomfortable questions.
What is socially dominant now?
1. Man-made climate change is happening and is an immediate existential threat requiring authoritarian intervention.
2. Climate has always been in flux. Humans are expected to adapt and mitigate via market, technology, and enlightened self interest.
Note I am NOT asking which is correct.
>What is socially dominant now?
>1. Man-made climate change is happening
Aaaannnd we’re back to square one.
Yes, the majority of the population believes in what you can measure.
I know low status white males are extremely eager to come up with some alternative explanation, so they throw whatever shit they can find at the wall and hope some of it will stick, but most people are not quite as retarded as you guys.
It’s also socially dominant that the Earth is round, that trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, that gravity causes things to fall to the ground andsoforth.
You’re free to come up with your own theory, but for whatever reason you don’t feel the need.
Why is it incumbent upon me to provide an explanation or theory? What should I be explaining?
Earth’s climate changes. The dominant social paradigm is that this change is bad and that humans are responsible for the badness.
No theory. Just observation.
>Everyone else just bases their worldview on what seems to be socially dominant and what their peers seem to believe.
>Yes, the majority of the population believes in what you can measure.
These are contradictions, unless you also mean that the majority of the population is autistic.
The question there was “Is governmental [violent authoritarianism] 1. needed and 2. acceptable to counter anthropogenic climate change?”
The questions of whether the Earth is round, or the existence of gravity do not permit governments to extract wealth from people at anything like the same scale.
Whether any of these things is true or not is completely beside the point.
>These are contradictions, unless you also mean that the majority of the population is autistic.
No, they’re not contradictory. People believe in things, based on what they see other people believe.
But trace those beliefs back to their source and you tend to find an autist who measured it.
Gravity? You believe in it because everyone believes in it. But go back far enough and you find an autist named Newton.
Evolution? You believe in it because everyone believes in it. But go back far enough and you find an autist named Darwin.
Heliocentrism? You believe in it because everyone believes in it. But go back far enough and you find an autist named Copernicus.
Similarly, almost everyone now looks back at the lockdowns with disgust and shame. But only the autists looked at the lockdowns with disgust and shame, when they actually happened.
Ideas disseminate from the most autistic, down towards the normies.
>The question there was “Is governmental [violent authoritarianism] 1. needed and 2. acceptable to counter anthropogenic climate change?”
Muh violent authoritarianism.
So tired of this argument.
You want to see violent authoritarianism? Try not paying your rent for a month. Heck, try camping in the street. “Well my landlord owns the house, he built it.” Ok try just camping in your garden. Did your landlord build the soil? No, he bought the land, from someone else. How did that person get it? Someone somewhere up the line claimed it as his own, seized it from the commons.
You want to see violent authoritarianism? Try looking at how pigs are shoved into gas chambers, or how cattle have their babies taken away from them.
Or heck, if you want to see violent authoritarianism, try to leave your country plagued by droughts where you had the misfortune of being born, for a different country where people can still afford food.
Perhaps you fully endorse that violent authoritarianism. I for one harbor no illusions, I don’t think my continent can cope with the vast waves of climate refugees we will soon have. Trying to absorb all the refugees will just result in civil war. But I’m not going to pretend that the way we go about keeping them out of Europe is something other than violent authoritarianism.
You people define “violent authoritarianism” in whatever way suits LSWMs. It’s violent authoritarianism when LSWMs can’t afford their SUV and their grassfed beef. It’s not violent authoritarianism when a bunch of sub-Saharan Africans are shipped back to the desert of Libya where they’re left to starve, or when a cow is murdered. Because they have different rights than you. And for your rights to be infringed upon is violent authoritarianism. And for them not to enjoy the rights that you enjoy, is just “how things are supposed to be”. But from their perspective, it is also violent authoritarianism.
Quote: “Yes, the majority of the population believes in what you can measure.”
Come on. You know enough about science that “Measuring” and “Interpreting” are both evergreens on the scientific battlefields.
It’s a bit lame, if you doing as if a number on a display would be absolute truth. And this is what you do. A number says nothing. There must always be a theory to interprete that number (the thing with Thesis and Anti-Thesis).
haha, this is a good shitpost. it made me stop and think about why i’m the totally the cubicle lady.
i think the problem is that st. greta (or, at least, her priests) isn’t advocating a return to authentic pre-industrial lifestyles, but rather a BugSlurry-and-PodLife existence where you own nothing and will be happy.
yeah, i get it, peasants didn’t own anything either and their diets probably weren’t amazing. but at least they lived in real communities and ate real food, not this ersatz videoconferenced world powered by hyper-processed oat milk that’s “good for the environment.”
>it made me stop and think
Congrats. Being able to think puts you in the top 1% intellectual elite of my commentariat.
>i think the problem is that st. greta (or, at least, her priests) isn’t advocating a return to authentic pre-industrial lifestyles, but rather a BugSlurry-and-PodLife existence where you own nothing and will be happy.
I think Greta did what she could, to incite some sort of revolt from the general public.
But most people are a blight on existence, so nothing really happened.