Take the redpill

>take the redpill
>SJW
>Chad
>Stacy
>normie
>Nazi
>bigot
>cultural marxism
>cuck
>degeneracy


What do you call this kind of thinking where complexity is reduced to all-encompassing ideological figures?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TfVdkhvQX6g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Stupidity

Trolling.

I think the only word there that interests me is degeneracy, because I think it is a very real thing and yet I don't why I am repulsed by it. The left has conditioned me to believe that degeneracy does not exist at all, but does that ring true when every society has some form of aversion to degenerate acts?

Ideology.

Most ideologies function exactly in this way, from Christianity to Marxism.

I hope you don't mind my response is in the form of an all encompassing ideological figure:

Fallacious.

>What do you call this kind of thinking where complexity is reduced to all-encompassing ideological figures?
You shouldn't ask here. I would say your answer lies in linguistics, sociology, anthropology and psychology and a combination of those.

>What do you call this kind of thinking where complexity is reduced to all-encompassing ideological figures?

Ideology

FACILE

Ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial

SPECIOUS

Superficially plausible, but actually wrong. Misleading in appearance.

GLIB

(of words or a speaker) fluent but insincere and shallow.

No one asked for a fucking thesaurus search pseud

Adherence to dogmatic ideologies allows for the individual to rely on the thinking of others, rather than doing its own.

>take the redpill
It's surprising how many people that say this on Veeky Forums and have never actually watched The Matrix or even know that it is where the phrase originates. Orwell's Death of Language at work.

>rather than doing its own.

Ideology at its purest

Complexity is a subjective concept

Was Frasier a racist show?

youtube.com/watch?v=TfVdkhvQX6g

Yes, that's my point. Then it plays out as being a football team supporter, you just need to cheer on in everything they do and boo the opposing team.

Spooks

But the point is you can't simply think on your own, the very fact we have to think through language means we're always subject to the framing of others and our ideological history

this show is so comfy

Simple ideas that capture something meaningful but are also polarising are extremely potent memetically. On the internet this only accelerates.

Here's a reddit tier video that explains it reasonably well.

>implying you aren't doing the same thing with this post

Yes, but relying on a sole ideology, without good reason is ridiculous. You can't do all the thinking, and don't need to, that's why human knowledge continues to expand, right? It builds over itself. But you are in charge of judging the thinking of others and deciding what makes most sense to you. Adhering to an ideology, a lot of times leads to people not judging by themselves anymore and simply adopting and defending anything the ideology (or worst, its senior members) proposes.

>you can't simply think on your own
yes you can. you're majorly spooked.

What do you want to qualify as degeneracy?

if he starts thinking on his on own because you tell him to think on his own, then his thinking is based off of you.

I like the bit where he imitates his black woman producer and says "massa"

I love it when people unironically use the term cultural marxism without realizing, that they are using goebbels' rhetoric.

You're proposing that all ideologies are compromising, but you can use compromised ideologies to see that your ideology is compromised to get to a point where you are not compromised in your thinking.

Its a nonsense circular argument, its like saying you should be able to see better if you wear two pairs of broken glasses.

no thats stupid. just because some(most) people are perpetually used to doing what somebody tells them to do doesn't mean they are doing anything based on what someone told them to.
they are doing it completely on their own even though they might be too dumb to figure that out.

You don't use compromised ideologies to see yours is compromised. You simply reject any dogma and judge what different ideologies propose.

Desperate denial-fueled search for some sense in a world which rejected you before you even realized it

>that they are using goebbels' rhetoric.
oohhhh noooooo! he wubba nahtzee!

/pol/ack here. I think buzzwords like 'cultural marxism' or 'cuck' do have some value. Fear and disgust are amongst the most primal human emotions and with good reason, they are animal emotions meant to warn us of inmediate threats to our existence. Political correctness teaches us to look the other way, to tolerate faggot parades, race mixing, transgenderism, burkas, 'diversity'. But the 'redpill' exposes these as threats, kinda like the glasses in 'They Live'. Even if the Frankfurt School didn't come up with it, even if there's no Jewish conspiracy, 'cultural marxism' does describe something that's actually happening. The destruction of the West. And I believe the West is good. We should save the West

How do you determine what is dogma? How do you judge what different ideologies propose? Judge in what sense?

When you criticize fascism you're going to criticize it from a perspective, the perspective of a Liberal Humanist, a Marxist, an Unorthodox Fascist so on.
There are no pure critiques

SPOOKS

Huntington believes it is the process in which America and subsections of Europe are leaving western culture and forming a new one, a process that is neither good nor bad from a neutral point, just interesting.

"Multiculturalism" is just an infant global-culture with no precedents except MAYBE panhellenic culture in the 2nd and 1st centuries.

pol users are exclusively rejects with nothing going on in their life so they need to attach their anger somewhere.
they'd get angrier at the blackie who gives them a funny look on the street than the whitey who fucked their girlfriend. it's hilarious when they use the word cuck because you know they're so obsessed with masculinity and race that without the redpill they'd probably be jerking off to black-on-white cuck porn.

Dogmas are claims without a base on evidence. To reject dogmatic knowledge, you ask for evidence or basis for every claim presented to you.
Your own judgement of said evidence is more or less biased and you're doomed to fail in some things; but it's better than simply accepting everything presented to you by an ideology.
We should be eclectic.

I literally don't know a man between the ages of 18 and 40 who hasn't watched The Matrix. Women are generally much more dismissive of it.

I think ZOG punished the wachowskies with trannification because they revealed too many redpill truths in their movies

>Projecting this hard
Jesus user, calm down.

Judge in the sense of determining what makes most sense to you, according to the evidence and arguments presented. Of course, your own intelligence is bound to fail, but that's a biological constraint.

Oh great so we have a positivist here.

So what happens when you ask a /pol/tard to show evidence for his claim that blacks and jews should be gassed and he provides a mountain of citations and graphs?
Do you go through each one to come to a definitive conclusion that blacks are equal to whites?

If you're not a /pol/tard yourself I know the anwer is no, you reject the claim essentially a priori based on your other ideological backgrounds

You're right.

The terms they should be using are moral/cultural relativism and Gramscianism.

>gets triggered and projects his rage
lol pol.

How do you acquire said perspective in the first place, then? Is it simply by claiming "I'm a marxist now"? Or should it be by judging Marxism and seeing if it makes sense to you?
Besides, it's possible that some claims of Marxism make sense to you; but rarely will you agree with everything an ideology or philosophy proposes, so, why call yourself a marxist? Why must we use labels that restrain our thinking? It's possible to have lean to the left in some issues and to the right on others (talking of politics). To adopt one ideology for everything is usually the result of laziness.

>lol

the people who said "ideology" are correct

ideology is about making everything in the world conform with your pre-existing paradigm

to many people the world is huge, scary, and complex and they feel like they need to hold on to their identity tightly or else they will get swept away

you have to laugh through others too?
lol.

>Humans are special, magical creatures, full of complex cosmic dreams and bottomless depth of ideas and creativity. Humans aren't just dumb apes who learned to control nature since their ape brain grew a bit larger by an evolutionary mistake. I'm unique, please love me!
What do you call this kind of thinking?

There's an inconmesurable gap between some ideologies that goes beyond simple disagreement about facts. Fascists, far leftists and liberals have contradictory ideas about what humans are around which they base their whole worldview. I don't like fascism precisely because it embodies finitude, it's suicidal animality disguised as tribal mysticism.

> Why must we use labels that restrain our thinking?

Why not?
There is no inherent reason to believe the points at which we diverge from an ideology hold any more merit than where we do not. If it is a good ideology perhaps it is better you review that position of divergence and correct it back in line. Who knows

This I absolutely agree with which is why the positivist position of "Just fact check bro" is laughable.

Mythologizing

I do not reject any claims a priori. But you pay more attention to some claims based on the evidence you already have. I wouldn't pay much attention to a Flat Earth society member, because I have first hand evidence that the Earth is round, for instance.
I also have good reasons to assume that there are no "races" that hold councils and pass referendums to decide what to do as a whole "race". The difference between "races" are of an statistical nature, and therefore not reason enough to do any discrimination.
Nonetheless, if the evidence you said existed and was good evidence, meaning peer reviewed and from veritable sources, then I would consider what it means; but I wouldn't take immediately the "should gas them" stance, since that's deriving an ought from an is.

>Fear and disgust are amongst the most primal human emotions and with good reason, they are animal emotions meant to warn us of inmediate threats to our existence.

animal emotions? so you're saying that you can't conquer fear or disgust? like, come on. im sure there were things that you were scared of as a child that you are no longer scared of. knowledge and courage can overcome fear sometimes, don't you think?

>Political correctness teaches us to look the other way
ok but maybe there is something other than, one one hand, political correctness, and on the other, hateful oppression. i don't mean this in a feel-good "we are all one" way, just that there have to be other alternatives to try.

>The destruction of the West. And I believe the West is good. We should save the West
the West is good for the West but it has been pretty bad for a lot of other people. why not try to figure out a way that there can be something that is good for the people who like the West as well as the people who are fighting the West? getting defensive and militant just makes the other side more defensive, and more militant.

So you're saying if the evidence was convincing enough you'd be in favour of ethnic cleansing

Said gap is the result of poor knowledge of the human mind. No facts available.

it's called not being stupid although a bit overexcited.

lol

Why do you presuppose this, what knowledge do we require?

Before I was friendless, prospectless, lonely, resigned to a life deprived of romantic love, and self-loathing.
Then I took the redpill and realized that the only reason that that's the case is because of a conspiracy against me and IN REALITY I am inherently superior to 99% of people because of my race, my sex, and my beliefs.

I now realize that I am very special and inherently valuable. Why would that be a bad thing? I have become proud of being a redpilled man.

Yes. Evidence that proved without a doubt that ethnic cleansing would prevent humanity to perish, for instance. Or other very extreme cases.
But, said evidence is very improbable to exist. Evidence to what, exactly? One can only imagine so in very fantastic hypothetic cases, as my example.

Oh I see, so you have no moral objection to mass murder in of itself? Once the end justifies the means

>thinks in terms of "complexity"
>hasn't realized everything is monads
>his brain is too small to derive governing general principles

reddit

Knowledge of how the human mind works and how it varies among individuals. Maybe said knowledge is impossible to acquire. For instance, both communism and capitalism rely in some assumptions about the human mind. In simple terms communism requires minds that accept the impossibility of raising above others in a lot of different terms, and capitalism requires minds generous enough to help people incapable of prospering completely on their own (by various reasons) by own volition. We don't have enough knowledge of the human mind to make any of those assumptions; therefore they fail.

What's wrong with that?

If the murder of one million people prevents the murder of a hundred million people, I rather take the first one. Sadly, but surely.
Although, extremely solid evidence that the first one would prevent the second would be required; that's rarely the case.

Veeky Forums is generally adverse to National Socialism, they haven't taken the redpill yet, white brother. Stay here and join the battle against cultural marxism to ensure that white genocide doesn't come to fruition

Deus fucking Vult

those people are neonazis

this is a compliment to them

>In simple terms communism requires minds that accept the impossibility of raising above others in a lot of different terms, and capitalism requires minds generous enough to help people incapable of prospering completely on their own (by various reasons) by own volition. We don't have enough knowledge of the human mind to make any of those assumptions; therefore they fail.

And this is coming from someone who claimed its possible to escape ideology.

Have a nice day friend, I hope you'll be someone worth talking to in the future

>tfw this board used to be 99% smug leftist and it's now 80% right wing and 20% butthurt leftist

When I say communism and capitalism, I'm referring to the textbook versions, if you will. Then you have different branches and interpretations, that try to solve the problems presented to the original propositions. But to present said solutions, you need to be able to criticize the original ideology and judge it. Of course it's possible to escape specific ideologies. Usually by ignoring the labels and taking ideas by their own value.

Hail Victory!

>tfw Veeky Forums used to be 90% traditional aestheticists and Catholics and it's now 80% reddit and 20% ironic /pol/iticians

We're not ironic. We're here to save the white race

>deus vult

Get that jewish bullshit out of here.

It's vanity and empty hedonism that repulse you, you dip.

Sure

Okay, I hate /pol/ as much as the next guy, but the Young Turks are fucking shit.

Why bother examining it? We see enough /pol/ everyday here, giving them attention just legitimizes their existence here. It's so fucking boring seeing them around everywhere. Every thread, the same fucking arguements.

Do these /pol/ fucks realize that we hate them not necessarily because of their politics, but because they're fucking buzz kills?

Which is why I included them to trigger idiots

I love it when people unironically use the term fascist without realizing, that they are using Stalin's rhetoric.

Green text

I love it when retards try to say something clever

It's part of divide and conquer control tactic

armchair sociology

>national """"""""""socialism"""""""""""

b-but the free market

makes you think

I'm interested in this as well.

Not that user (obviously), but I'll see if i can think of a few. Mass rates of obesity, mental illness, incredibly poor education, health, and nutrition among people the working class. McDonlds and Walmart. Just all these people who can't seem to function in society, and I'm not placing blame on these individuals, just observing.

I might have the definition of defeneracy totally wrong here, just trying to start a discussion.

We're genociding/cucking ourselves, dude. We're the number one fans of genocide, as a race.

thinking

it was a stupid unfunny show

Functional illiteracy, for example.

Veeky Forums of all places should know so many people don't read anymore.

I'm seriously considering getting off the internet completely and stop talking to people in order to prevent those endless stupid retardations to get into my mind. It's unbearable. I don't fucking care about white nationalists vs crazy stupid sjws and muslim fanatics and trump and left or right and redpill and all those memes everywhere and everyone being so fucking stupid just stop this crap and enjoy a good book without fighting all day and killing people you fuckers leave me alone

...you might want to man. Take a couple months off, this website is demonstrably bad for your mental health.

If you have some friends go spend time w them.

You see this reductionist thinking on Veeky Forums all the time. Meme arrows are almost always used to satirically reduce some idea or concept to some sort of strawman user can beat down.

It's a lazy way to think and argue, but it's effective for the most part because it's infectious and therefore memetic. You don't only see it on Veeky Forums, the MSM has been doing it much longer. Truth is you can unpack each one of those terms and you will find a lot to think about. You can't just dismiss these reductive terms without unpacking the whole thing which takes a lot of time an effort. So naturally instead of discussing ideas we exchange codified insults. For example, anyone who uses the term "Chad" or "Stacy" gets called a "sexist", which can result in being called a "cuck", who is then informed of their "misogyny", and so on.

>armchair sociology
I think you mean ITT: armchair sociology.
Anyway, language can be used to distinquish ingroup vs outgroup members.

Well most people who post on /pol/ or /r9k/ are under the age of 18 so that explains it