Musings on Cosmetics >> Politics

When we all drown, shall we be sitting in the pink chairs, or the blue?
Truly, let us contemplate the important questions of our time.

The joke being that the cosmetic debates are exactly as shallow as they appear, but there is no alternative. Everything allegedly less shallow is pure futility. 

I keep thinking about how the stereotypical woman wants to talk about fashion and face-paint and celebrity gossip, and how this is transcendentally superior to talking about the "deep" topics, especially given how the stereotypical man in fact talks of them, and especially politics. 

Yes, let us contemplate cute cat pictures. They are unquestionably more profound than anything on e.g. Unz.com. There is no overlap, and the cat pictures go on top. You could in fact go buy a cat if you wanted, whereas you're quite unwilling to do anything effective with respect to politics. Journalism is inherently irresponsible and talking about politics is inherently not minding your own business.*

The way feminine Fascism is plain better than masculine Fascism can be seen again in the way women scold vs. the way men scold. Male political discussions are exactly like scolding, but more destructive. The female scold is deluded, whereas it very much behooves the men to know better, or to learn from their mistakes. If you're not a weak-minded pussy you can simply ignore the annoying woman. Men will genuinely get into fistfights over meaningless politics. Or fire each other, to be topical. Attempting to ruin each other's lives over a culture war they're both guaranteed to lose.

This is the moment where one of my critics could make themselves useful, if this wasn't Pontus. N.B. it is likely that Rome was itself too Pontic, or it wouldn't have fallen. It is likely that Athens herself was, with the exception of Socrates and Aristotle, also Pontus. As a result, doubtless I will have to play the critic's role myself. Newton, also, found that company other than his own was superfluous. Do note this is explicitly a falsifiable statement. Also don't forget the opening line of this paragraph before the 30th's post.

Basically Moldbug would be satisfied with aesthetic intellectualism; a certain style of sophistication, regardless of whether any actual production gets done. Wants to attend the Vienna cafes - and I'm certainly sympathetic to this desire - but not interested in whether the cafe attendees ever actually change their behaviour as a result of allegedly changing their ideas.
When you change what you profess but don't change how you behave, it reveals you were, all along, merely discussing styles of plumage. Like the women swapping lipstick, except less honest. And with more fistfights. 

Not that I'm against fistfights per se, but intellectuals generally can't throw a punch, which is a reflection of the fact the fight is dishonourable. It looks bad because it is bad. We can imagine two men challenging each other to a duel of the fist, with explicit stakes for winning and losing. "You shall never again claim to believe X or to have done Y." "I will assert leadership of this mannerbund." The point being they can negotiate their own stakes, as long as they are real.

When intellectuals fight, there are no stakes except that bruises hurt. The fact they can't throw a punch is also a reflection of the fact it's a childish squabble; they are intuitively mimicking their intended eight-year-old roughhousing. During political debates, both sides claim their rep "won" and likewise on Twitter. It's meaningless. 

Even if you cornered them into wagering for stakes, they would pervert the process. I've personally tried it. It is meaningless on purpose.

Politics and religions are the canon impolite topics. Lately it is clear they are in fact the same topic. Religions are political and politics is religious. The problem is that religion claims to be apolitical; it is a way of smuggling a culture war topic in without having to declare it. The problem is that politics claims to be atheist; it is a way of smuggling heresy examination into a conversation without having to declare it. 

The topic is inherently a dishonest dominance play. It is inherently impolite for two reasons. Perhaps surprisingly, an impolite thing was properly considered impolite.

*(And teaching, more properly called pedagogy, is inherently the [insane godless communism] kind of parasocial.)