Le if i give the history of something, it discredits it

should have never entertained /new/ or /pol/

shut up discussion cuck

true, fortunately there are still places hidden from faggots like you that foster some interesting discussions

Yeah wait a minute this is stupid

I like contra. Nice to see someone out there with more than just rhetoric, and credentials to back it up too. She's too ready to sweep neechee under the rug though.

>some of our past fears turned out to not be justified
>therefore all of your current reactionary fears aren't justified
Galaxy brain reasoning right here. Why go through the trouble of addressing modern concerns when you can just make shallow analogies to irrelevant historical concerns?

>Nice to see someone out there with more than just rhetoric
Anything that doesn't invoke empirical data is just rhetoric

>rationalist positivists

>rationalist
>positivist

comet suicide tripnorm

you need to go back to /mu/

I won't tell you again.

Make me bitch

How are the "modern" concerns any different? It boils down to the same shit of sheltered people with nothing better to do being afraid of the unknown. Given how they are a small part of the population, there isn't even a reason to care too much about current reactionaries. Most will grown out of it, others are on deaths door.

When in comes to politics and ideas, neoliberalism and muh "live to work" mentality are much bigger and much more current concerns.

>DUDE NEUTRAL MILK HOTEL LMAO
Libtards will defend this music

Are you serious? Different concerns in different contexts require different explanations. It's ridiculous that something this obvious needs to be asserted.

>sheltered people
Reactionary types are typically people who haven't been protected by wealth and status. It's the critical theory types who spend the first third of their lives in school who are sheltered.

>Nice to see someone out there with more than just rhetoric, and credentials to back it up too.

DUDE, IF I EXPLAIN VIA WIKIPEDIA HOW A PARTICULAR IDEA STARTED THEN I WILL SIMPLY ALLOW YOUR LIBERAL BIAS TO DISMISS THAT IDEA ON THE BASIS OF ITS HISTORY, LMAO

>Different concerns in different contexts require different explanations.
The concern is always "society is changing, it's not how things used to be, I don't understand it, I don't like it" when it comes to reactionaries.

>Reactionary types are typically people who haven't been protected by wealth and status.
Outside of the whole "living in the first world" thing. Just because they are less privileged than some trustfund baby going to college doesn't mean their lives aren't ridiculously easy and mostly trouble free outside of couple self made problems. Take the usual white trash bitching of "there are no jobs in muh town" which can be solved as simple as moving couple miles or learning new skills. Something Pedro and Ahmed did despite a much longer and harder way.

>The concern is always "society is changing
And guess what, they're were often right. Conservatives during the French Revolution were right. "Reactionaries" during the October Revolution were right. Romans decrying their decadent culture were right. People who thought that the dissemination of information after Gutenberg would lead to war and chaos were right. A status quo position don't lend itself to receiving credit because when they're right and get their way, nothing changes.

>Take the usual white trash bitching of "there are no jobs in muh town" which can be solved as simple as moving couple miles or learning new skills.
Nice job having no empathy for people whose entire lives have been uprooted by a turbulent economy. You sound like a real piece of shit.

By the way, the most reactionary people you will ever meet will have come from the third world. Try to reconcile the fact that most Mexicans are conservative catholics with your conception of reactionaries as being white hillbillies.

>i'm just a guy who likes wearing women's clothes
>jk i'm genderqueer
>jk i'm actually a woman
What did (s)he mean by this?

>What did (s)he mean by this?

It means that Transgenderism is simply an aesthetic disposition and nothing more.

Did you know strawmanning as a tactic began as a way to discredit abolitionists in the 1850s? Pro-slavery politicians built strawmen of their opponents arguments in favor of equality to make them seem worse than they really were. That's right. Bet you're not so eager to set up straw men now, huh?

yeah i was pretty disapointed with her recent video. Usually they're quite reasonable but this was just 'lol saying degeneracy is facism' and 'wow just wow u think greece and rome were destroyed by androgyny? just wow'. It was all style and no substance
>did contra get tits?
she's taking oestrogen now

holy shit she is beautiful

does this temptress have a name?

>

They were right about seeing that a changing society means they will lose their gifted power, which doesn't take a genius to predict. They were wrong that the changes were negative for society overall.

>Nice job having no empathy for people whose entire lives have been uprooted by a turbulent economy.
How did you get to that? Understanding their issues and how to fix these means lack of empathy? Coddling them with lies about jobs coming back and directing their anger at people who got much harder lives is the piece of shit move. If there would be more honesty, these people could focus on improving their situation, which is entirely in their own hands. Can't fix a problem if you don't know where it is and have some shithead misdirecting your focus toward le brown people.

>most Mexicans are conservative catholics
That's given for people from shitty countries where education isn't thrown around at you nor your first concern when life is actually hard. They don't play a relevant part in the political process, so their views are pretty personal. How many Mexicans you see protesting against faggots or trannies compared to bored whites, even if we calculate in the obvious differences in population size. Even when it comes to Muslims, the most reactionary ones are the ones who lived longer in the country than fresh arrivals and a huge amounts of the sharia supporting brainlets tend to be born in European countries.

>your conception of reactionaries as being white hillbillies.
But user, that was your conception when talking about the less privileged ones. It's these and their wealthy masters who actually popularise reactionary ideas. Not third worlders who rarely even believe in politics being able to make a difference and hence rarely bother.

Wasn't the video where she said it just 6 months old or so? That stuff is sure working fast.

>fact that most Mexicans are conservative catholics
Because of the sphere of play defined by the colonial structure put in place by the conquering iberians. If you want power you play the game. The game itself is meaningless and can take any form.

On the Genealogy of Morals is breddy gud my guy. I agree with , though — Contra talks too much shit about Freddy N., which is ironic since in the very same essay she's borrowing his most famous technique. That being said, she's smart, witty, and interesting. I'd like to chat with her sometime.

A video essay is an essay.
Essays are literature.
A video essay is literature.

It seems she misinterprets Neetzeschs ideas by reading the most negative interpretation in to them and focusing on that just as kids who like him usually do, which is pretty weird given her Philosophy background.

How much makeup is caked on that thing?

Only a newfag would think Veeky Forums was ever non cancerous

To be fair, I think she's criticizing popular readings of the NEETmaster for the most part.

The only thing she says about F. himself is that his critique of Christian morality is a Rorschach test for ideology, and there's a reading of it for every political leaning. There's an implicit criticism in there, but the same thing could be said of most philosophy, when you get down to it.
>right- and left- hegelians
>right- and left- hobbesians
>right- and left- libertarians
>right- and left- existentialists
>right- and left- theologians
And so on.

>i don't understand it
But we do understand it, nothing could be simpler to assimilate to known facts. That you would even say this exhibits a tendency to rely on cliches and cheap hollywood tier platitudes.

>They were wrong that the changes were negative for society overall.
Chaos, dislocation, and millions dead. Sure, nothing negative for society as a whole in that. Doesn't matter if I don't have any food and my wife was raped by a standing army, as long as the rich got their heads chopped off. Real scholarly analysis on your part.

My point is that the conservative/progressive dichotomy goes beyond the particular issues of our time. It's a Hegelian balancing act that requires both sides because both sides are often right. This Whig myth that history is a battle between the status quo and the nobel progressives who stuck their heads out and payed the price is a ridiculous concept to anyone with an even cursory knowledge of history.

Progress is material, not social.

>How did you get to that? Understanding their issues and how to fix these means lack of empathy?
When conservatives employ this sort of "tough love" rhetoric when it comes to black crime, or hispanic underachievement, are you similarly okay with the emotional detachment of their proposed solutions? When Ben Shapiro tells people that they're poor because they made shitty decisions in life, do you not find that to be crass and heartless? Learning a marketable skill in your 40s isn't as simple as your 20 year old mind thinks it is.

>They don't play a relevant part in the political process, so their views are pretty personal.
Homophobic attacks on the regular by Hispanic gangs. But who cares, at least they aren't protesting transgender bathrooms.

>It's these and their wealthy masters who actually popularise reactionary ideas.
Yeah dude, the rich elite really, honest to goodness care about transgender bathrooms. Progressive social movements have been thoroughly co-opted by neoliberals. We live in a left wing cultural hegemony.

>reactionary ideas come from the wealthy
Is that why the wealthy love immigration and shit their pants at the prospect of a president who wants to enforce the law?

How is that relevant? Conservatism as a concept can be applied to any social structure. My point is that you're deriding one group of conservatives by comparing them unfavorably to another group of conservatives, and then pointing to the conservatism of the first group as the cause of your ire.

The mexicans are the conquering iberians you clown. They're not even 1/3 native on average

No, the criollos kicked the sovereignty of the peninsulares but kept all the cultural baggage of having to suck up to them under colonial rule. And the fact that they still hold power is testament to the heirarchy and rules of power.

>Doesn't matter if I don't have any food and my wife was raped by a standing army, as long as the rich got their heads chopped off.
Alternatively it'd be the same, without any steps made forward and lesser richfags getting their heads chopped of. It's not like Europe was peaceful and stable before. Glorious Revolution is an outliner, almost any other caused massive short term suffering but also opened the way for massive improvement. It's beyond ironic to use your right of free expression to criticise the event the lead to it being possible.

>This Whig myth that history is a battle between the status quo and the nobel progressives who stuck their heads out and payed the price is a ridiculous concept
Never said it's THAT simple and progress being material is mostly right too.

>are you similarly okay with the emotional detachment of their proposed solutions
The huge difference is that I am not talking towards a group but about them. A politician or anyone else whose goal is to convince his/her audience of the idea, would be pretty stupid to be overly direct and skip the empathising part. Someone like Shapiro is just an entertainer, so saying shit like that makes sense for him to, getting a reaction and all.

Since I am just on the observing side here, going in to deep would make no sense. Obviously learning skills is harder when you're older and were taught your entire life that doing X will be enough, and obviously moving and leaving everything behind isn't that easy, etc, etc but that's all not really part of the discussion, is it?

>Homophobic attacks on the regular by Hispanic gangs.
As does rape and tons of other crime. Almost like these people act like criminals. Your usual reactionary Juan might bitch about his daughter dating a negro but he's a lot less likely to run around with tiki torches telling them to go back to Africa.

>Progressive social movements have been thoroughly co-opted by neoliberals.
That's just capitalism being capitalism. It's adoptive enough to sell you KKK hoods and #BLM shirts in the same store. The movements weren't started by neoliberal elites, they just support them for good publicity and the benefits coming with it. Reactionary ideas tend to be passed top down.

You mean the same president who employed illegals and run a scam university? That guy is supposed to care about the law?

hegelian dialectic has been eternally falsified

>Alternatively it'd be the same, without any steps made forward and lesser richfags getting their heads chopped of.
That's patently untrue. The French revolution lead to a military dictatorship. There's a direct correlation between that particular violent revolution, and the violence that proceeded it (especially when seen in comparison to the relative peace that preceded that). Same can be said about the October revolution. Unless you seriously believe that millions dead are worth currant-day Russia, you can't possibly argue that that unnecessary revolution was a step towards greater potential future freedom.

>The huge difference is that I am not talking towards a group but about them.
That distinction wouldn't be made if you were a conservative saying that the poor deserve to be poor for not trying hard enough. People in the media who hold your view get the leeway to express it because white people are perceived to be advantaged as a group, therefore attacking them as a group is deemed to be okay.

>Your usual reactionary Juan might bitch about his daughter dating a negro but he's a lot less likely to run around with tiki torches telling them to go back to Africa.
No, he'll just shoot up his mom's house

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2007/latino-gang-members-southern-california-are-terrorizing-and-killing-blacks

>The movements weren't started by neoliberal elites, they just support them for good publicity and the benefits coming with it.
If all of your ethnic, religious, and national forms of identity have been taken from you by people who deride these identities for being reactionary, it's signifianctly easier to sell you and your atomized self unnecessary shit. The cultural desert created by critical theory plays right into the hand of the neoliberal elite, which is why they love it so much.

>Reactionary ideas tend to be passed top down.
No. Reactionary ideas (and leftist populist ideas too) are pandered to by the top, and used as a means of garnering support. The ideas precede the pandering, and often bubble up from the bottom of a culture.

>No, the criollos kicked the sovereignty of the peninsulares but kept all the cultural baggage of having to suck up to them under colonial rule. And the fact that they still hold power is testament to the heirarchy and rules of power.
The average mexican is a spaniard with some native admixture

Average Mexican in the US is fucking Indian

>You mean the same president who employed illegals and run a scam university? That guy is supposed to care about the law?
It's not really relevant what he cares about. What's relevant is that your point about the establishment is nonsense.
If you have any more buzzfeed talking points, save them for when they're relevant

*current-day Russia

>about his daughter dating a negro but he's a lot less likely to run around with tiki torches telling them to go back to Africa.
>he hates them but at least he doesn't hold a torch sometimes
lol

Not enough

ContraPoints makes me extremely sad.

I followed them when they were Nykytyne2, and were still capable of having an original thought instead of parroting postmodern marxist ideology.

They were someone I was so fond of, and then they too were a casualty of the spirit of political stratification that's destroying the minds of young people.

That singular they confused the fuck out of me. Made up pronouns would probably be more useful

>current-day Russia
Is a result of them giving up on most of the revolutionary values and stepping back massively. When you compare the shithole Zarist Russia was compared to the Soviet union, or China pre and post Mao, the people sure as fuck got massive benefits for their sacrifices. Playing alternative history is silly but how good is the chance, any other revolutions would happen across Europe as fast if the Frogs didn't do shit? Code Napoleone alone was ... sorry, a revolutionary idea, massively improving life for millions, just few years after la terreur.

>No, he'll just shoot up his mom's house
That's going back to organised criminals. A group who tends to commit crime, whether they are brown or green.

>it's signifianctly easier to sell you and your atomized self unnecessary shit
Diversity is better for the economy overall but how does it actual benefit individual companies, that are forced to create ranges of different products instead of a one size fits them all stuff? Part of why Apple is doing so much better than the others, is because their product range is very limited. (This applies even more to luxury car brands) When you offer tons of different products for different people (let's take Samsung Electronics as a simple example), the initial investment and risk are much higher. Or when going back to socialists, look how easy it was to create standardised clothing, instead of creating something new for every special snowflake.

A society of stronk white males and their sub housewives is much simpler to please than individuals whose identities are much more complex, fluid and diverse. The most critical benefit for neoliberalism is how reactionaries make it look positive compared to their own dreams.

>muh establishment
Donald gets along fine with most people there, he might not be political establishment but he was always a wealthy elite and always showed his biggest support to other wealthy elites. You're pretty naive if you think he's any closer to regular people than the usual corporate shill like Hillary.

Being a racist idiot in private is a lot less harmful for society than being on racist rallies or spamming shit outside of quarantine zones.

Does a pretty job of highlighting how ridiculous the left and alt right can be

>Even when it comes to Muslims, the most reactionary ones are the ones who lived longer in the country than fresh arrivals and a huge amounts of the sharia supporting brainlets tend to be born in European countries.

This statement doesn't exactly make me want to let more muslims in.

The vicissitudes of Tsarist Russia don't compare to the utter horror of being sent to be a slave in a Siberian GULAG for no reason in particular. Communist Russia was objectively worse than what preceded it in every respect except material. And even then, the capitalist West was better able to satisfy the material needs of its population than either Mao's China or Stalin's Russia were.

>Code Napoleone alone was ... sorry, a revolutionary idea, massively improving life for millions, just few years after la terreur.
The constant vacillation between monarchy and empire. The horror the French wreaked on the world, and the horror the peasant population had wreaked on them. I don't see how the Edmund Burke types can be perceived as being anything other than prescient.

>Diversity is better for the economy overall but how does it actual benefit individual companies, that are forced to create ranges of different products instead of a one size fits them all stuff?
Holy shit you don't understand the basics of economics. In a competitive capitalistic system a diversity of demands prevents monopolies. Multiculturalism allows companies who can't compete with the bigger brands to seek out (and sometimes even create) new markets for themselves. So if your competitor makes a shit-ton of money selling to middle America, you can create a market selling to the coasts without eating away at the profits of tour competitor. Diversity creates product demand. You seem to be confusing free market enterprise with corporatism.

>why Apple is doing so much better than the others, is because their product range is very limited.
But this isn't true. Apple is successful because it has its own operating system that if you want to use you have only one brand option. From a pure product standpoint, they have about as many as most of their competitors, if not more. How many Lenovo computers are currently for sale compared to Apple? The numbers aren't too different.

>A society of stronk white males and their sub housewives is much simpler to please than individuals whose identities are much more complex, fluid and diverse.
If the demands are simple that means that the only people who succeed are the few who get there first. Given that the vast majority of companies don't, the number of them who'd be willing to explore new markets greatly outnumber the number of them who support the status quo.

Also, nuclear families aren't as gunho about buying the newest shit compared to young people and minorities. It was always the white kid in class who didn't have the newest Jordans.

Also i'm really tired and i'm going to bed. If this thread is still up in the morning i'll respond to your reply to this. Not dodging you.

>Also, nuclear families aren't as gunho about buying the newest shit compared to young people and minorities. It was always the white kid in class who didn't have the newest Jordans.

My grandparents' generation barely spent at all. My grandmother will actually wash and re-use ziploc bags, even though she's quite well off.

Well, consider why people who actually lived here longer are more susceptible to outdated values. Compare them to whites who are found of reactionary stuff.

>the utter horror of being sent to be a slave in a Siberian GULAG for no reason in particular.
The majority were slaves before the October revolution, while relatively few people ever got to see a gulag, especially after the war ended. Besides, it's not like peasants weren't abused for the fun and glory.

>Communist Russia was objectively worse than what preceded it in every respect except material.
Ah well, that's only not starving, getting health care, education, housing and multitudes of options of picking a job that fits to you.
Also let's not forget that the West had at least a century of head-start. Pre-revolution China and Russia were absolute shitholes. Besides, China had to deal with a much larger population.

>The horror the French wreaked on the world
Didn't start with the revolution, and progressive countries tend to have a much better human rights record, inside and outside their borders.

>In a competitive capitalistic system a diversity of demands prevents monopolies.
Which is bad for the established players. Things are that good for the market aren't good for every company.

>So if your competitor makes a shit-ton of money selling to middle America, you can create a market selling to the coasts without eating away at the profits of tour competitor.
>If the demands are simple that means that the only people who succeed are the few who get there first.
Which sucks for the competitor, who could've previously reach a much larger market with fewer products. Multiculturalism is has no benefits for current big players on the economical side. (If we discount the benefit of diverse workforce) And it's not like anyone talks about some small company when they support it.

>nuclear families aren't as gunho about buying the newest shit compared to young people and minorities
But user, that's where the women - shopping meme started. What else is a bored to death Jane supposed to do after tending to kids, cooking, cleaning the house and praying to Jesus? Then Jake buys a new car, watch and suit, before they are going to make it rain after retirement.

>It was always the white kid in class who didn't have the newest Jordans.
While wearing much more expensive shoes that just look boring and having their parents drive them to school in a car that costs more than Jamal's single mother earns in a year.

Also
>Americans 55 and older accounted for 41.6% of consumer spending, up from 41.2% late last year and 33.5% in early 2007
Can't be assed to look for the study, so just linking the article: usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/17/economy-still-all-who-else-boomers/476908001/

They created a huge booming economy with their spending and overdid it so much, you and your kids will pay for it.
blog.dol.gov/2016/11/03/spending-habits-by-generation