Do you consider yourself to be sorted out?

Somewhat more than I have been, far less than I'd like to be

How come academic philosophy was always more obfuscating than the independents? This still applies with the philosophers born at the turn of the century: smoke-screeners like Land and Peterson, compared to the clarity and honest immorality of an Alex Kierkegaard:

>The problem with porn is not that it exists but that it's not taken seriously enough; that it's so ugly. All you see is ugly models, bad directors, low budgets. But two alpha individuals going at it is an amazing sight, but also one guaranteed to arouse ressentiment to the point of making the spectacle too painful to look at for the majority of viewers. Such a treatment would at any rate raise everyone's copulation standards, which after all is what art is supposed to do. That's why I think that Hollywood should get into the porn business. Remember the latest 300's sex scene? His penis should be going in her vagina, right there, on the silver screen, to really glorify sex, to make people feel bad for sleeping with those beneath them. (Of course if any of this happened, and if women's standards were raised in this way, we'd never hear the end of it from the PUAs. But maybe that would be a hint for us to put an end to them, if you get my meaning, or at least to the uglier among them, which is to say the vast majority of them?)

>"Freedom this", "freedom that" and then they wonder about universal pornography and the proliferation of all perversions. "Society is decaying" — it isn't really, but what decadence there is in it is, for the most part, all your fault. And even that is giving you too much credit; you are not the cause of decadence but merely its expression. The cause of it, and indeed the cause of everything, is us.

>>that quote
That's an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea, pissed off, undersexed, ugly women start tumblr blogs and get into assorted women's courses at colleges and kill society slowly. Pissed off, undersexed, ugly men destroy societies if they aren't given outlets for sexual release.

>ugly people (degenerates) kill society
Let's try to view the purported "decline" from a slightly different perspective, so that maybe even retards like yourself can finally understand that there's really obviously no such thing. Imagine you were living in the nineteenth century, and someone came along and asked you whether you wouldn't mind tolerating a few "fag pride" parades and some Islamic retards on TV screaming and lopping off dumb tourists' heads and screaming about "religious revolutions", or any other "decadent" propaganda in exchange for moon landings, relativity and quantum theory, nuclear fission and genome sequencing, as well as countless other mind-bogglingly incredible achievements in all fields of human endeavor. QED, there's no decline, and the only ones who are declining here are those who insist there is.

The fact that this question is even raised proves that the vast majority of so-called civilized individuals are nothing of the kind. I mean, you are seriously asking me whether a culture that's about to figure out how to print human organs is declining? What the fuck do all the minor symptoms of decline you are rabidly pointing out to us mean compared to such utterly astonishing and previously even unimaginable accomplishments? Not to mention the arrival of the very end of philosophy itself, which is to say of thought!, the Overman, which is an immeasurably harder and more valuable achievement! (since it was thought which created the theories with the help of which the machines that print human organs were designed in the first place, and so on).

— In summa, the only one who is declining here are those who are saying that we are declining, which is a classic case of psychological projection.

I like modern technology as much as the next person, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the decline in marriage rates are a good thing, or creating an even larger group of pissed off and horny men is somehow a good idea. Nietzsche's ideas about the overman are dumb intellectual masturbation and his ideal of a perfect society would like all perfect societies simply not work in practice.

>muh I cannot distinguish between society and technology and must interpret decline of one as decline of both
>societal decline cannot occur simultaneously with technological advancement

> asked you whether you wouldn't mind tolerating a few "fag pride" parades and some Islamic retards on TV screaming and lopping off dumb tourists' heads and screaming about "religious revolutions", or any other "decadent" propaganda in exchange for moon landings, relativity and quantum theory, nuclear fission and genome sequencing, as well as countless other mind-bogglingly incredible achievements in all fields of human endeavor
>implying these have to be hand-in-hand

>muh conservatives love projection meme

lol

>I like modern technology
Philosophy, relativity and quantum theory... aren't 'technology' in the sense you mean.

>I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the decline in marriage rates are a good thing
The successive decline of religion, nationalism the sanctity of blood ties, and marriage have created the Individual — unknown to lower or earlier phases of culture — who is, like all advances, something of a double-edged sword, which many use to advance and improve their lives, but which others flail about and cut themselves with. So on the one hand the individual no longer feels a responsibility towards his gods, nation, tribe or family to reproduce, because these are outdated, marginalized institutions — and JUSTLY marginalized (since their era has passed precisely because the culture has advanced beyond them) — that no longer hold any authority over anyone but a minority of backwards losers, but on the other hand, the philosophy that is destined to replace them — that of the Overman and the Eternal Recurrence — has not yet had sufficient time to take hold and lend reproduction a new meaning — a stronger and more glorious meaning than it has ever had! — and as a consequence the meaning of reproduction in the general culture is currently lacking to such a degree that — for the first time in history — a growing number of degenerates are even campaigning for its destruction (anti-natalism). As a result of all this the majority of the population seems to have turned over completely to hedonism, and the last thing on their minds is to undertake the laborious task of propagating themselves — WHICH IS OF COURSE A GOOD THING, because in this way the hedonists are removing their failed genes and gene configurations from our gene pool, and cleansing it of their wretched, repulsive stink.

>or creating an even larger group of pissed off and horny men
The apex of this is the PUA, a moron who can't go five minutes without thinking of girls. They claim the most important things in a man's life are money and sex. Precisely what women feel! After a decade of intensive study and experimentation, they finally managed — to become women. And just as women are utterly insignificant in the context of human history, so will the PUAs be.

>Nietzsche's ideas about the overman are dumb intellectual masturbation
You mean, compared to your refutation of them?

>his ideal of a perfect society
I see you’ve been a dilligent reader!: plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

It's the queen of sciences, it even explains why YOU would make such a post.

>>Philosophy, relativity and quantum theory... aren't 'technology' in the sense you mean.
True, but you don't get modern conveniences without the self-same sort of thinking that leads to those things.
>>the rest of your post
Your ideas are absurdly utopian, just like Nietzsche's and just like your favorite philosopher said ideas will not create anything other then misery. There is not nor will there ever be some sort of "overman" society without plebs, nor will you ever be able to live without "degenerate" people messing up your perfect vision. Get the fuck over yourself, you stuck up prick.

Insignificant in what sense? Nobody will care about them hundreds of years from now, true enough. But again, pissed off and sexually frustrated males are the breeding ground for revolution and civil unrest.

Lol pseudos actually believe this!

I know, right? Mathematics is what really defines shitposting. Why do you think dubs are so important?

>True, but you don't get modern conveniences without the self-same sort of thinking that leads to those things.
That's nonsense, since abstract theories in maths, physics, philosophy often have nothing to do with technology or everyday comforts. The practical conveniences of technology are an implementation of some of these, true, but then EVERYTHING pragmatic is in some sense derived from a theory/philosophy, even if it's unconscious.. and not just conveniences. Inventors can be a completely different category from theorists. And surely businessmen are even further removed.

>Your ideas are absurdly utopian
Hardly since I'm the one defending A REALISED PRESENT, whereas you are objecting to it on the grounds of AN IMAGINED (PESSIMISTIC) FUTURE.

>There is not nor will there ever be some sort of "overman" society without plebs
STOP PRETENDING TO HAVE READ NIETZSCHE, YOU HAVE EMBARRASSED YOURSELF IN EVERY COMMENT IN REGARDS TO HIM; BETTER TO IGNORE HIM AND REPLY TO THE REST OF MY POSTS (for example, he has to obvious political philosophy, let alone an 'ideal' one; and if he did have one, if for sure would be a society that includes plebs SINCE ORDER OF RANK IS ONE OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS, YOU PSEUD).

>nor will you ever be able to live without "degenerate" people messing up your perfect vision
There is no messing up, as I keep telling you. Only degenerates like yourself think that, because they are themselves too weak to appreciate the overall growth of our society, and instead focus on the things that bother them, like their experiences of women and sex (I mean fuck, I had to re-read your posts just to be sure there was really nothing other than this, I really thought you were better than that).

>Nobody will care about them hundreds of years from now, true enough
So basically they are no threat to civilisation, only degenerates are focused myopically on the day to day ebbs and flows of health and decline.

>pissed off and sexually frustrated males are the breeding ground for revolution and civil unrest
Nope because as I just said, they are impotent (that's why they're sexually-frustrated, kek).

Sexual inequality is a good thing. There was far more equality on this planet before humans arrived. (Sub)humans think they invented it, but compared to us ants are practically equal. And the further back you go down the evolutionary tree, the more equality you find. Think amoebas, or even further back, hydrogen atoms. It is precisely the increase in inequality between the highest and lowest examples of a species that determines how high it stands in the tree of life, not the other way around, as (mostly) the liberals are trying to convince us. The desire for equality is regressive, and every step towards it is a step back, towards monkeys, ants and amoebas. The majority of the population can fantasize about equality while, right in front of their eyes, the inequality chasm grows ever more gigantic. Not only are we not getting more equal then, but inequality is increasing every day, and the increasingly absurd theories that subhumans concoct to counter this inequality are part of its increase too, since they contribute to making a class of weak and stupid people ever weaker and stupider! Hence the impotence.

And note that this goes also for every other reactionary (resentful) group ever: from SJWs to MRAs. It's part of the greatness of Western civilization that it can tolerate the existence of so many millions of losers, while still forging full steam ahead with its goal without skipping a single beat. The degenerates call this steamroller effect of our culture — the marginalization of all groups not contributing to our culture's goal, and their reduction to clown- and freak-show status by our media — "hedonism", "materialism", "globalization", "inequality", or any number of other nasty names; while between us it is known as simply "power".

That's just a statement.
You pretending it was an "argument" so that you could call it "fallacious" is itself an underhanded rhetorical trick (combined with your kneejerk buzzword labeling).

Once again the gateway police shoot their mouths off without thinking and make themselves look incompetent.

Define sorted out. If you mean having a straightforward path where you have specific goals and not fucking around along the way, no. I like to have anonymous gay sex and I have no clue what I will do with my degree yet, so I don't think that fits the criteria.

If you mean that I am confident in myself and my abilities and I sorted out my personal identity issues, yes, I know exactly who I am and what I want my place to be.

What the fuck are you talking about, he's a professor at UofT and was a regular on some Canadian talk show; I (and others in my family) knew about him before the controversy and always thought he had the most grounded, insightful arguments. You don't have to like or agree with him, but he isn't a >literal who

>I sorted out my personal identity issues
How did you manage to do that? Homosexuals have serious psychological problems because there are so few of them. They are a minority, and this makes it hard for them to adjust to and live in a world which is dominated by people who are very different from them. The result is that they spend their entire lives wrestling with their identities, trying to reconcile their values with those of the people who are on top. Black people spend their entire lives concerning themselves with their blackness, cripples with their disabilities, ethnic minorities with their marginalized cultures, and so on and so forth. This makes it both annoying for us to interact with them, and it also makes it very difficult for them to succeed in a world dominated by people who are happy and secure with their identities, and who are therefore far better able to focus on goals external to them — which is how the world is shaped. It is this shaping that leads to the domination of a sexual orientation, a race, or an ethnicity, and it is this domination which CREATES the minorities which then proceed to spend all their energy neurotically spinning about their identities, which merely serves to further marginalize them, and so on to infinity.

The behavior of minorities is a negative feedback loop from which only an event comparable in effect to a miracle can save them. And that serves them right, for ALLOWING themselves to BECOME a minority in the first place. Nothing can be done about it now. The sexual war was won a billion years ago, the racial and ethnic ones half a millennium, and all that's left for the defeated to do now, in the aftermath of those complete and devastating for them victories of the opposing camp, as is indeed being done, is to patch up their wounds and count the victims.

How can you criticize academic philosophers as just "smoke and mirrors" when your post not only ignores his argument, but claims that the "retard" has to look at it from a different perspective: you are forcing him to play your game by changing the argument entirely. And you couldn't even come up with a solid point topic change. I'm not sure he's the retard here...

Gay isn't the primary identify I identify myself with, and I would much more strongly associate myself with my religion. While Jews are also a minority, I feel very integrated into society despite practicing my religion to a meaningful extent.

Probably because I grew up in the upper class and around other people in the upper class I never faced any real discrimination. While I often have socially uncomfortable moments, I never had to deal with threats of gay bashing or being kicked out of the house or anything close to that level. I don't spend time focussing on my "gayness" because I am pretty comfortable with myself and the way I act in general.

I may be a minority, but I am certainly not visible and I manage to be pretty integrated in society.

>You mean, compared to your refutation of them?

You're not addressing his point with this answer. Literally fallacious arguing.

>your post not only ignores his argument,
False. His argument was that the losers of sexual inequality will 'kill' society due to their resentment. My response was to point out that by definition these losers will not successfully achieve anything, and that his own loserish perspective forces him to consider laughably unimportant 'problems' a threat to our civilisation, which leads us on to...
>but claims that the "retard" has to look at it from a different perspective
Precisely. Reality is an infinity of perspectives, and his perspective limits him from seeing any real dangers to what he claims to defend (and like I already implied, his myopic perspective suggests that he is close-to or among those sexually-frustrated since that's the only fucking thing he's bothered to bring up, rather than someone concerned with civilisation).

Also strange that you suddenly post as 'he' stops posting.

>Gay isn't the primary identify I identify myself with, and I would much more strongly associate myself with my religion. While Jews are also a minority
Well that multiplies things moreso, since you are also a religious minority.

>I feel very integrated into society despite practicing my religion to a meaningful extent.
More like you feel integrated for NOT PRACTISING your religion to a meaningful extent, homosexuality is contrary to Judaism.

>Probably because I grew up in the upper class
This however, probably does help you.

Fallaciousfag, read this guy Similarly, my point is that he has no point. I have no argument since he has none. I was suggesting that randomly labelling a philosopher whose work has exerted a profound influence on Western philosophy and modern intellectual history as dumb masturbation, is hypocrisy. You dense retard. The frustrations you lament are destroying your brain

>Similarly, my point is that he has no point. I have no argument since he has none. I was suggesting that randomly labelling a philosopher whose work has exerted a profound influence on Western philosophy and modern intellectual history as dumb masturbation, is hypocrisy. You dense retard. The frustrations you lament are destroying your brain

So why not disregard his inane point entirely instead of being as much of a faggot as him?

>More like you feel integrated for NOT PRACTISING your religion to a meaningful extent, homosexuality is contrary to Judaism.
There is a lot more to Judaism than laws regarding sex. I recognize that it is sinful, but I also practice many other parts of Judaism including praying multiple times a week, remembering the Shabbat to some extent, fasting on fast days, studying Torah, keeping Kosher in my house, celebrating holidays, and going to synagogue.

Why not stop being the biggest one, and keep entirely out of replies that have nothing to do with you?

Fair enough. What do you think of Spinoza's heresies?

I've noticed in rhetorical debate, ignoring points is the same as allowing them to stand unchallenged.

>False. His argument was that the losers of sexual inequality will 'kill' society due to their resentment. My response was to point out that by definition these losers will not successfully achieve anything, and that his own loserish perspective forces him to consider laughably unimportant 'problems' a threat to our civilisation

I think it's fair to say that having a large body of losers in the world is a problem that will drag down the rest of society, if The government has to spend boatloads of money on these people then it's certainly not helping society to thrive.

Also, you didn't point that out in the post I responded to lol.

Making my dick happy is plenty good.

I'm a Canadian, and being a regular on a Canadian talk show is not a claim to fame.

>I think it's fair to say that having a large body of losers in the world is a problem that will drag down the rest of society
I already explained that it's not. Does a pyramid suffer from having too wide a base?

>if The government has to spend boatloads of money on these people then it's certainly not helping society to thrive
Again, competitively nothing compared to the amount of money people at the top are receiving. Fuck, just look at the history of wealth concentration over the last century.

Stop repeating your fixation. At least don't claim it to be one of the utmost problems of humanity, rather than a fixation.

I agree, but he is at least somewhat established.

It is a problem, friend. And wealth distribution is a different problem entirely, why are you bringing that up? We are discussing people who don't help society because they are angry losers.

Alright, I'm done here, good luck listening to yourself talk and have fun imagining you will never suffer any negative consequences for ever increasing social inequity.

Yes.

>Does a pyramid suffer from having too wide a base?
If the pyramid is built upon foundations populated by the masses of losers, then obviously the pyramid suffers and will collapse.

>Again, competitively nothing compared to the amount of money people at the top are receiving.
It is virtual money. They will die and have neither money nor spirit. They are doomed. I find it difficult to pity them. They reap what lies they sow.

No, the preacher-rapist traumatized me. I could get over it but the preacher is still assaulting children: and the church allows it by moving him to a new place or a new country.