Arguing with a mortal is foolish at best. Do they even know what words mean? Can they do anything except what their lord or master tells them to do? You can't learn anything from them because they don't know anything, they can't learn anything from you because they're nonverbal, and even if they did learn something they would be unable to act on it.
Some mortals might rise above, but then they're leftists. They do understand words, but they don't like them. They use fake words, because [fuck you dad]. The leftist evaluates arguments entirely based on what actions it justifies. Who cares if the argument is true, or even makes sense? They may understand some words, but words like [consistency] and [hypocrisy] are beyond them. Why go to all the effort to figure them out? It only restricts what actions they can justify.
Did you notice how farcical this is? Nobody cares about the justifications, yet they mass-produce justifications anyway. If this isn't a colossal waste of time and effort, it's extremely well hidden. The only thing worse is trying to argue a leftist out of the fake justifications they don't care about or even care to understand.
If you truly dunk on a leftist, utterly laying waste to their argument, their poolitical calculus doesn't change. They pick a new fake justification then do what they were going to do anyway.
Before you argue with a poolitician, you first have to demand they prove they care about arguments. And you don't have to do that either, because if they cared about logic or the Truth they wouldn't be a poolitician or anywhere near poolitics.
It's worse than a waste of time. When a leftoid spams their justification, they're telling you what they plan to do. If you wish to oppose them, you know where you need to stand and what tools you'll need while you're standing there.
Argument is not one of the tools. Rhetoric only works when an authority deliberately grants favours to approved kinds of rhetoric. Nothing more than an orthodoxy shit test.
Rightoids can't defeat leftoids only and solely because they don't want to. Normie sadomasochism. As with the leftoids, the justifications come second. Losing was the point, and if you make it difficult for them to lose, that only means they'll try harder and justify more cleverly until they lose as intended.
Taxation is treason. Normies have declared war on you (and on each other). Declare war on them, or be a cuck. The peace is already suspended, the only question is whether you deliberately enslave yourself or not.
[[[High-trust]]] is a joke. You're supposed to laugh. The light side is prey. They exist to be scammed and exploited. Being eaten is what they're for.
Thoughts on loyalty&morals. Loyalty is when someone doesn't maximize own profit in their relation with someone they are loyal to, morality is universally refusing gains from cheating+from cooperating with known cheaters at own expense. This means that both might be valuable, to the object of loyalty or other people. But can either be a viable evolutionary strategy, in the sense that people genetically predisposed to it would not carry a fitness disadvantage ? The steelman of morality seems to be that loyalty&morality decreases security costs of mutually beneficial agreements : the profit-maximizers will take advantage of someone whose security is weak, the loyal will not, but will rather fulfill what was agreed upon regardless, thus making them a better employee, such that if you know your employee is loyal, you might avoid dismissing him in favor of a new one when you otherwise would. This is particularly important in some situations, such as when hiring guards for a bank with gold coffers in past ages or a director of a remote branch of your company nowadays to avoid principal-agent problems. But if there is a very effective incentive structure, loyalty&morals ceases to be useful or indeed measureable. Yet somebody needs to create the incentives. If there is a large company, people's work is not directly causally connected to pay, but only through supervision, and the CEO might have difficulty creating the right incentives if everyone besides him is purely interested in rational pursuit of money and 0% loyal, because the incentive creators (managers) and those who asses the efficiency of incentives and supervision within the hr are likely to collude against the CEO to make their jobs easier, without even needing a formal conspiracy, it is just easier to have mutual cover-up relations between managers and hr than for them to keep each other honest. And this problem doesn't look like it can be defeated with money, because The CEO doesn't know enough of whether incentives system is well maintained and hr reports accurate due to being a single person. So it seems like having some people who go beyond incentives promoted could be beneficial precisely to tighten the incentive system, which should theoretically result in periodic worsening and improvement of the incentive system caused by the ability to detect morals being inversely proportional to how well the incentives work. Given that some people do have moral behavior, it either has to be in an natural selection eqilibrium, or karma sends such souls to earth.
ReplyDeleteParagraph breaks are good for you.
DeleteDidn't I write about loyalty recently? Perhaps on twitter? Healthy loyalty is a long-term vs. short-term thing.
Also, wisdom is not signing contracts where you get tied to sinking ships. Have re-negotiation clauses.
The disloyal abandon you the instant your stock dips. The loyal realize it can go back up and the relationship itself has some value. Consider a disloyal woman, with children, abandoning her husband and trying to catch a replacement.
Trust is expensive, but investing in trust once lets you lower maintenance costs on security every time. If all my neighbours are trustworthy (and the neighbourhood is fenced) I don't have to lock my door.
Modern corporations try to get trust for free. More accurately the board members deliberately try to trick them into getting trust for free so they can parasitize the company without resistance. They fall for it, therefore, they deserve it. Technically the [[victims]] are doing it to themselves and it can't be considered a crime. Anyone honest needs to, uh, socially distance, however. 12 feet minimum.
Merchants in general take loyalty as a submissiveness thing. Recalling that dominance vs. submission is defective, not cooperative. Merchants try to force their lessers to be [loyal customers]. Traps, lock-in, that sort of thing. Except if a more dominant merchant arises they'll switch instantly, according to the same logic that made the lessers accept their lesserness in the first place.
Perhaps corporations weren't great places to look for a counterbalancing darwinian fitness advantage for people with tendencies to be loyal . If it is the merchants who can not do loyalty, than maybe it is warriors who carry the loyalty genes. After all army motivated purely by monetary incentives seem like a recipe for a military unit where everyone tries to take less Risks than average since the Privates are all paid the same, and you can not execute the whole below-unit-average-bravery half of the unit, so the warrior's superiors have much greater incentives than a CEO needing a manager or even late medieval bankers needing guards to recruit while looking for people who are loyal above what rational cost-benefit analysis prescribes, and If the army pays enough and officers are good enough at spotting recruits who merely pretend to be loyal, that might result in loyalty genes not disappearing!
Delete"periodic worsening and Improvement" I guess most Institutions only live long enough to improve and worsen like once. "Some people do have moral behaviour" I have Experienced people being kind to me at a (small) cost for no good reason where I couldn't really repay, such asa teaches letting me do what ever in class and takę the tests as many Times as needed, or lecturers answering questions right until next classes, I do not believe the same people likely to have been cheats or liars. Does this make sense? Does the above 6:06 comment make sense to you? Please Do criticize if not, I would be happy to receive criticism.
ReplyDeleteI have also seen this and it's due to delusion.
DeleteYou can tell you're well above average due to being able to comment in a literate way on my blog. Others know this as well, and sometimes respond to it by being obsequious. You presented as top class and didn't disillusion them (the way I often do). They forgot you're not part of their hierarchy.
I asserted my dominance against an english teacher once and it resulted in multiple 100% marks.
E.g. she would call on me in class and I wouldn't respond at all because I was too sleepy to care or produce words. She took it as dismissing her utterly, and merely let me get away with it.
"healthy loyalty is a long term vs short term thing" does that mean loyalty proper(own profit not maximized ) being in the darwinian sense strictly harmful?
ReplyDeleteWhat I pondered was whether there are cases where one should want to hire or promote the strict sense loyal, such as security guarding Wealth greater than all the guards future wages, or companies finding it difficult to check employee performance, for example because it is the specific employees who are assessing others performance, and could those explain why does strict sense loyalty still exist in spite of its costs. Although if merchants indeed do not really have loyalty but are just submissive, that would be another explanation
Disloyalty is strictly harmful in a Darwinian sense.
DeleteExcessive loyalty is harmful. Don't agree to go down with the ship. That's not even loyalty for real. Loyalty is a two-way street and a virtuous dying leader releases all his subordinates from their oaths, for their sake. The issue is not being able to count on that virtue - why give him the opportunity to fail? It's unnecessary. Don't agree to go down with the ship in the first place.
If teachers indeed only were nice to me because I appeared upper class to them, that would be hilarious, since I do not feel this way nor are my parents rich. "You do not need to do homework or anything sir" "I am fifteen though? thx! ". But I know that my ancestry is entirely peasant, even though one great-grandfather did manage a landed estate for an absentee-landlord german noble, he was not noble, and likely just a rich peasant.
ReplyDeleteIt's not impossible for peasants to be born to nobles, nor nobles born to peasants. Especially in europe all peasants have aristocrat genes, it's merely down to reassembling them in the correct order by chance. If you lose all the genetic dissonance, congratulations on your ascension.
DeleteI guess I might have too limited experience being just a university student to reliably tell if people are genuinely loyal or kind, and thus whether there is something for my theory to explain.
ReplyDeleteI do remember that so far as teachers and lecturers being kind, there was a biology teacher in my middle school who just let people in general instead of just me do whatever as long as the tests were passed and no too loud noises emitted, but this was just one case
Less kindness and more apathy and laziness. Occasionally cowardice. "I want to run a tight ship but I hate confrontation." Admittedly I wouldn't torture that kind of teacher to death. I pity them too much - they get to die quickly.
DeleteThank you for answering! It seems like I tend to naively believe in people kindness, such as the above cases? It does make sense that if most people are not much kind (and indeed the whole species has some awfully vicious habits) , than The remainder might not be genuinely kind, but rather some kind of fake-nice I guess? I just did not think about how people might want to fake kindness to me, did not think I am that important or powerful enough. But why not! Others might see it differently! Blackpill is for him who wishes to learn!
ReplyDeleteThe real black pill is thinking mortals are kind.
Delete"You want to be nice and the result is this? Is this seriously the best you can do?"
Modern !!americans!! kick their kids out of the house at 18, but 400 years ago englishmen were kicking their kids out of the house at 7. They called it 'fostering' as if this virulent self-hatred was somehow good for them.
Rampant buggery at the later boarding schools, and parents didn't, you know, pull their kids out of the boarding schools.
To think they're trying to be mean and succeeding is the white pill.
"The real black pill is thinking that mortals are kind" Come to think about it Yes, somebody creating the Schooling Experience with kind intentions is worse news than same but with hostile ones, as well as more repulsive. For instance my parents cared about grades, attendance and homework, enough to spend a substantial amount of time and Effort supervising, even demanding minimum time studying regard less if there is homework or not, and I do not think they Thought "I want to cause extreme distress because I like it", but rather did what felt correct to them and reasoned backwards to make it be "For my good" and likely believed it. And it is worse than if they did not care, as well as a terrifying example of ones consciously believed intent not aligning with outcomes of ones Actions at all, such as to make me overcontrol my reactions futilely and erratically for a while. If everybody is like that, I say you are correct about humanity being like Lovecraftian horror, exept I am not gone mad.
ReplyDeleteThe Lovecraftian curse is sanity, rather than insanity.
DeleteThat's a joke. Despite everything I abhor delusion. [[Protective]] delusion especially. The heavens agree with me. Every time one believes a false thing one takes a karmic hit.
"I'm going to vote today." Ping ping. If it was worth the madness they take another hit until it isn't.