US Republican Alt-Right

[Clarke]

.

[Metamorph]

How to get people away from the alt-right Nazis:

-Don't support the mainstream liberals/Democrats' consumerist decadence agenda.
-Have at least marginally better taste in music than Taylor Swift and 24karatGoldn.
-If you are religious/spiritual, talk to people in your religious or spiritual community who are being pulled to the alt-right by sacreligious rhetoric from the mainstream left.
-Spread awareness that people beside fascists dislike daytime talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
-Support rural people's rights to live in rural areas and farm, and don't screw over coalminers or construction workers.
-Don't use identity politics buzzwords that many people think of as being racially and sexually essentialist.
-Express an earnest disapproval of the use of drugs and of activities like masturbation and reckless promiscuity.
-Talk about real science, not "trust the experts," but really voice an earnest commitment to truth with cited accessible sources in a world of poststructuralist relativism.

If you don't want people joining the alt-right, don't be one of those "Vote for Biden! He's got the bongs and the dongs!" people. As long as this appears to be the Democrats' actual agenda, even many Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren hard leftists will likely vote for Republicans because the Democrats are basically right-leaning, so if people can't have the economics they want they will likely support someone who they think has a less offensive social platform plus is better at appealing to the idea of economics, even if that person is going to Heil Hilter Tactical in their free time but that's not public information, because people just don't want to believe things are that grim.

[Poptart]

What can be viewed as "societal corruption". The increase in casual sex and "degeneracy", and the decrease in what looks to be wholesome relationships.
-New information that caused there to be a distrust in authoritative sources. This usually took the form of a large body of facts that would make people question their knowledge of society. This took the form of conspiracy theories that questioned what people knew of the government or bodies of facts that questioned societal principles (such as anti-racism).
-Charisma. Trump was very charismatic, and so were some of his allies.
-General societal dissatisfaction. In 2016, the US had clear economic problems.

I think you’re totally right. Also if you look back on the years leading up to 2016, you have a sequence of destabilizing events that left a lot of people bitter and/or traumatized and looking for an alternative to the “establishment”:

• 9/11 - the government can’t keep you safe. Or worse, the government is killing its own people (if you believe the conspiracy theories). Rise in Islamophobia.
• Invasion of Iraq on false pretenses.
• Incompetent government response to Hurricane Katrina
• Lousy economic conditions- subprime mortgage crisis caused massive housing bubble which burst in 2008, collapse of financial markets, recession, long period of high unemployment/underemployment, high income inequality
• Edward Snowden leaks
• idk probably more that I’m forgetting

Meanwhile Obama becomes president. Racism still exists, and I don’t think it was a coincidence that the rise of the alt right occurred when our first black president was in office. Cultural norms were rapidly changing during this time. Jokes that were okay 20 years ago are no longer socially acceptable. Gay people are getting married. The rise of mainstream feminism (think Beyoncé performing in front of the word “FEMINIST” lol), “wokeness” (sorry I can’t think of a better word rn), ideas like systematic racism becoming mainstream. I think the alt right was a backlash against these changes.


You can see some early stirrings of the alt-right in the Tea Party movement and Gamergate. It’s true that neither movement was explicitly about alt-right ideals like white male supremacy, but I was there and paying attention, and I definitely saw undercurrents of racism and sexism in both of those movements. I remember seeing the Tea Partiers gather every Sunday at the park to hold up photoshopped pictures of Obama with a Hilter mustache. I was also lurking on Reddit during 2014-15 and witnessed the gamergate -> r/The_donald pipeline firsthand.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The increase in casual sex and "degeneracy", and the decrease in what looks to be wholesome relationships.

This doesn't make any sense. People are having less sex than ever according to studies and research. It's mostly a Republicunt scare tactic- as well as the Demoncrats advocating a very sexual lifestyle that realistically u need a lot of financial support + std testing and personal cleanliness/medications to achieve, that isn't feasible for the average person. Ime, Republicunts will falsely accuse you of sexual behavior you're not apart of as a manipulative ploy to look more righteous and "clean". Or they will vote against gay rights while tapping their foot in bathrooms for twinks to fuck them. LOL.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Oscar Wilde used to say something about how wealthy people were better mannered and well-behaved. Trump is obviously different in that respect. The fact that he's more of a bull in a china shop and 'tells it like it is' is more appealing for the common person, and comes off as a refreshing difference. But this of course is how they are so easily manipulated by him as well. Just because a person has a similar personality to you doesn't mean they are on your side.

Demoncrats rarely give a direct answer to things, or it's done in an annoying George Orwellian doublespeak way that tends to piss people off.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

If you don't want people to be alt-right hateful trolls then I think the biggest thing more than anything would be to help coalminers in a more realistic way. Instead of just calling them racist pricks from your timelessly decorated home and ignoring them. I mean, ******y Cunton didn't even go to many places in the rust belt and talk to the people during her campaign- it was such an epic fail.

People usually hate/misunderstand/fear what they don't interact with the most. Everybody thinks gay men are like Jeffrey Dahmer until their own son says 'I'm gay' - and they realize he wasn't really like Jeffrey Dahmer most likely even though both are gay.

Not that the coal miners and ******y would ever hold hands together and sing songs around the camp fire while Oprah turns into a dragon and encircles them - but it obviously made the hatred and venom between the groups all the more hateful and venomous.

btw, you can't get through to everybody either I don't think. Some would still obviously insist on being a redneck bully and blaming gays and women for everything even though they know it's wrong- because some people are frankly just assholes. If you empowered or educated them too much, they would still be that way and be able to cause even more damage so I'm not really for that either.

[Metamorph]

I was going to make a joke about twink-loving Republicans' anti-gay political attitude making sense because the average person wouldn't want to bring their bedroom to the political sphere, but I realized that I've actually heard that as a Republican rationale.

That's interesting that people are having less sex than ever. I've always got this impression that people are more liberal with sex. I've heard of women fucking like 50 men within their 20's or something. I guess it makes sense if sex was pretty prominent in the 80's.

From what I've heard, it's not necessarily the numbers that matter, it's society's attitude towards the acts. I think it's somehow related to the potential for sexual acts to happen because of society's carefree attitude.

I don't think that's true though. I think people are having less sex because they're grossed out by other people saying stupid things about sex all the time. If you ever get horny when you don't want to be, just watch this and be turned off!



Additionally, increasing financial insecurity due to the consolidation of oligopolies probably also reduces the amount of sex people have. Namely, they're afraid of any sex they can manage to have being like that.

[Grendel]

Conservatives finally joining late to the game of using the internet while liberals were already there for a while. It's mostly attitudes that've been around for awhile but unseen in this sphere until recently. Add to that: Normie society uncertain how to adapt to the changing world the internet created, thus shitting their pants over it and leaning harder socially conservative than anything we'd seen in decades.


Imo, "only fear fear itself" really does apply in this case. Half of this seems to be people inadvertently hastening an end of the world that was never guaranteed, because they believe it is.

[Poptart]

There were Alt Right members who didn't seem to fit the classic Republican demographic. I think that some of them might've been involved in Gamergate. I think that the people who participated in Gamergate weren't Alt Right at the time, just simply dissatisfied with feminist movements against their cherished lifestyle activities. A potential rationale for this is that when society alienates a body of people who can't adapt to it, and then threatens to take away the only thing that gives them pleasure in life, they have a tendency to fight back against society. It seems like during or before this process, they become apathetic to societal morals, especially if those morals don't make rational sense.

If I had to guess what cognitive functions were involved, I would guess it has to do with a lack of Fe or Te.

To say that gamergaters were “simply dissatisfied” is a huge understatement

[Metamorph]

I think that they perceived a threat, and acted accordingly. I haven't followed the Gamergate event to know exactly what the demographic was that was responsible for it and what their motives usually are, but I've seen similar demographics. Those similar demographics tend to be trolls that dox and harass unethical people for fun.

Edit: I should clarify that they dox and harass people that are unethical according to their ethical system, not others'.

I guess in this case, a good question to ask is, why do men go to war? I think that pretty often, it's not out of hatred, but out of a desire to do something against another person. This desire is basically unleashed when they have a good enough ethical rationale.

A threat to what? Not their lives! Götzendämmerung.

In our society men usually go to war for money.

[Metamorph]

It was a threat to their lifestyle.

It's true that soldiers usually go to war for money. But I think in cases where we don't pay them, it's either out of hatred or out of ethics. In both cases, they sort of lose a barrier that stops them from doing "bad" acts because they have a justification. This is why you get Russians raping German women in WW2 and the US military doing questionable acts to their POW's in I think the Iraq war.

People seem to be drawn towards zealousness, given the right rationales. If you can give them an ethical rationale as to why something should be done, their desire for power over others or the kinship feeling that comes with working with other people against an enemy should take over. Ethics are basically an enabler/disabler of base human instinct. I think that evolution has showed that we have adapted to be a violent species.

I might have this view because I value Se.

And what's their lifestyle? Imaginary nonsense.

I don't think this is Se. I don't think Se even needs a rationale. Soldiers don't have much power. Soldiering is one of the least Se things you can do. Things like the WW2 Russian rapes probably occurred because those men have been bossed around, humiliated, taken away from everything and everyone they know, and now they only thing they have left to do is try to make someone feel as powerless as they do. Raping is common in war, but I don't think people go to war just to rape when they can rape without having to give up essentially all their control. Raping is also a strategy in war: kill the men and impregnate the women to destroy the population and try to replace it with your own if there are any kids from that union. But people still don't go to war just to rape, since raping not in war is a lot easier and safer.

[Poptart]

Speaking of gamergate, I just remembered that mw2 is out today

[pregnantman]

Banning Europeans from entering the US was obviously the wrong choice even though people shouldn't travel by airplane during a pandemic. It's wrong because Trump is racist.

I agree with this analysis and endorse this message

[Poptart]

I think that they perceived a threat, and acted accordingly. I haven't followed the Gamergate event to know exactly what the demographic was that was responsible for it and what their motives usually are, but I've seen similar demographics. Those similar demographics tend to be trolls that dox and harass unethical people for fun.

Edit: I should clarify that they dox and harass people that are unethical according to their ethical system, not others'.

I guess in this case, a good question to ask is, why do men go to war? I think that pretty often, it's not out of hatred, but out of a desire to do something against another person. This desire is basically unleashed when they have a good enough ethical rationale.

David Depape, the man who broke into Nancy Pelosi’s house this morning and beat Paul Pelosi with a hammer (sending him to the hospital with a fractured skull), had a blog (www.frenlyfrens.com). Here is a screenshot of one of his posts:


https://www.frenlyfrens.com/blog/categories/gamer-gate

[pregnantman]

I take back my endorsement

Conservatives finally joining late to the game of using the internet while liberals were already there for a while. It's mostly attitudes that've been around for awhile but unseen in this sphere until recently. Add to that: Normie society uncertain how to adapt to the changing world the internet created, thus shitting their pants over it and leaning harder socially conservative than anything we'd seen in decades.


Imo, "only fear fear itself" really does apply in this case. Half of this seems to be people inadvertently hastening an end of the world that was never guaranteed, because they believe it is.

Get this white nationalist shit outta here

[DogOfDanger]

Pretty much every political group is or has been manipulated, this has been true throughout the whole history of politics. It's the nature of the bellcurve... groups will always be easily swayed by propaganda directed at their basic animal instincts - fears, appetites, malcontent, etc.. currently there's a very strong contrast between what the mainstream & alt movements believe, but the mainstream is still totally ignorant and misled about many things - for example, America was funding a proxy war in Syria & the mainstream supported this because they were told to, despite knowing very little about why we were doing it. Experience has taught me to be very leary of associating with any particular political group. Every time I did... they went on to do something stupid.
As an individual your task is really to see past all these fears & temptations & focus on what you need to do in your life. Always try to think through your opinions thoroughly, based on the information you have available & your own common sense... if you find yourself conceding to support a political party despite disagreeing with them on some issues, or worse not actually understanding the issues, for what you believe the "greater good" is... you've compromised your own viewpoint and you're just acting as a willing tool. You have no ability to effect change on a broad scale with your 1 small vote in a non-swing state, but what might effect change for the better is people, as a whole, not compromising the truth to play politics.

For the rise of alt-rightness I think the internet dominating the culture has been a major factor. The current generation of younger voters grew up online, they've been immersed in in that culture for 30 years. There are benefits of greater access to information - voters are much more informed nowdays than they used to be. But there's also low quality information that gets distributed in mass...
There's an equivalent movement on the left, they just haven't gained the presidency yet, Bernie was a precursor of this movement... the mainstream democrat party is probably going to undergo some radical changes in the coming years.
Also, the alt-right has been a reaction formation to the left dominating the culture, it's basically the repressed urges of the collective unconscious welling up.

[DogOfDanger]

This is where I think that different people, maybe even different Socionics types or different Quadras have different views. I'm willing to compromise my views for what I think is the lesser evil, even if it simply means adding one more vote to a pool of millions. But I do understand that it theoretically reinforces the two party system. In the case of a person like me, the way to get someone like me to vote otherwise is to make a 3rd party candidate very charismatic and popular at the right time. I've speculated that right now is prime time for a less anti-abortion Republican group to create a third party.

I think that my views are probably related to Te.

I'm questioning whether it is infact for the greater good that parties can play these partisan games while knowing that people will still support them, people compromising their truth for this theoretical "greater good"... in practice this has just meant partisan gridlock, wall-to-wall propaganda, a sociopathic culture where lies dominate the public discourse, mass delusions driving policy, etc..
Mass delusion is incredibly dangerous... listen to some phone calls of Russian soldiers talking about the war in Ukraine. They believe they're ridding Ukraine of Nazis.
If parties knew they couldn't get peoples votes if they played these games, if there was some incentive for them not to... things might be different. But people just roll over & compromise.
Are people really compromising for the greater good...? Is that genuinely their concern? I think people are infact much more concerned with the social implications of their political positions, and what this means for them. Along with how the positions assuage their appetites, fears, etc.
The whole game is just a giant load of bullshit, and unwinnable ... and political activists are some of the worst people in society. I know they take on this pretense of "my aim is to help society", I don't buy it.

[Poptart]

if you find yourself conceding to support a political party despite disagreeing with them on some issues, or worse not actually understanding the issues, for what you believe the "greater good" is... you've compromised your own viewpoint and you're just acting as a willing tool. You have no ability to effect change on a broad scale with your 1 small vote in a non-swing state, but what might effect change for the better is people, as a whole, not compromising the truth to play politics.
in mass...

There has never been a political party or candidate that I’ve agreed with on everything. I’d be worried if there was. I don’t expect to be in perfect agreement with anyone and have no problem voting for a candidate who doesn’t share my views on everything. I don’t even see it as a “lesser than two evils” scenario.

[DogOfDanger]

There has never been a political party or candidate that I’ve agreed with on everything. I’d be worried if there was. I don’t expect to be in perfect agreement with anyone and have no problem voting for a candidate who doesn’t share my views on everything. I don’t even see it as a “lesser than two evils” scenario.

Well it is a lesser of two evils scenario, this is politics we're talking about... pretty much 80% of it is just a bunch of lies, propaganda, power games, scapegoating, vote buying, bullshit, etc.

[Poptart]

Well it is a lesser of two evils scenario, this is politics we're talking about... pretty much 80% of it is just a bunch of lies, propaganda, power games, bullshit, etc.

Sure, there are evil politicians, but not everyone who disagrees with me is evil. Idk what your elections are like, but in my state, there are about a dozen races on the ballot, ranging from super local city council races to county, state, and national level races. There are district wide elections for schools. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t assume that all of these people are evil

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Reading another left vs right debate about politics somewhere else on the Internets. It's basically devolving into 'You're a pedophile.' 'No u'

Pretending to care about children vs the other side wanting to hurt children seems to be the main talking points of getting Karens to the polls. Well, the wrong-wingers want people to have rape babies and incest babies but do nothing about gun control so those same rape and incest babies ((as well as all the other children)) can get killed off in a mass shooting event shortly after they were born.

Yes both sides suck, but from my perspective Cuntservatives want people to be born to torture and bully and abuse them and not really care about them when they are here, so they suck more. "Life itself" isn't automatically moral or good - and it seems quite idiotic to assume so. In the campiest RPG way Life = Good and Not Life = Bad but the real world is too complicated for that. In many boss fights ur better keeping a few ppl dead and DPSing the boss to victory rather than trying to Revive everybody like a republican anyway - especially when your only motive for reviving them is so you can condescendingly tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while u go ur own way narcissistically. And then hatefully rant about how gays shouldn't be around kids but it's always gay people that have to help raise children once str8 morality fails and str8 ppl aren't the beacons of morality that they promised to be , and are instead just trailer trash sadistic fucks.

The same wrong-wingers would vote against social programs that would help struggling mothers as well anyway, but they would pounce like judgemental harpies if the mother was caught being an unfit mother cuz u forced her to have a kid she wasn't ready for.

I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control or anything, or somebody like Busy Phillips being like 'Eww I don't feel like having this baby right now cuz my Oprah-kin spiritual guide told me my bun in the oven likes mac and cheese with jalapenos in it and I hate that and I can't have a baby with those preferences so I'm just going to abort it for my own narcissism" - but the Republicunts shoot themselves in the foot when they say they want ppl to carry their rape and incest babies to term because LIFE. Then they will just mock and bully and degrade and blame the victim when the life does get here, anyway.

And all that gets compared to some silly fantasy story where Rei from Star Wars unrealistically beats people up because she's a womyn. Yeah that's annoying too and also deserves to be mocked somewhat - but it's also not as evil, and ur a dork or evil yourself if you think it is.

Being dangerously naive isn't as bad as being dangerously sadistic, cruel or heartless (and also naive themselves on top of it). Republicunts are constantly advocating for us to just create and make without proper caring for it. Just make this business , just get this job, just breed this baby! Just make this law that only helps asshole rich str8 ppl and does nothing for everybody else!!! Who cares if it's a good idea or not- it's just MORE. And they really are so heartless and thoughtless and so crudely insensitive that they cannot see/pretend not to see the amorality of their own actions.

They say right-wingers have morals but no compassion and they say lefties have compassion but no morals. Well, "right" wingers/Returdligens are proving to me every single day that they really have neither. I can say both sides suck, but to say both sides suck equally just feels both untrue and also cowardly. I get why people believe that though- everybody is fed up with everything and that might seem like the logical case but meh. Republicunts.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

@Shazaam

right wingers want to dominate. this, and general misoginy with women being more neotenous, its not hard to come to the correct conclusion about them

[pregnantman]

Banning Europeans from entering the US was obviously the wrong choice even though people shouldn't travel by airplane during a pandemic. It's wrong because Trump is racist.

1+1=3

[pregnantman]

1+1=2 ... but only under certain conditions that deems favorable to me!!!

[Metamorph]

From a certain perspective, everything is meaningless nonsense in this world. The entire universe will die a cold death eventually, and I think that it's pretty likely that there's no afterlife. The only purpose in this world is the enjoyment of life, and the creation of a world that can create a better enjoyment for others.

I will agree to disagree with basically everything you said.

Soldiering not only manipulates objects and people in the environment, but it also affects those people physically. If you shoot someone, you have gained a sort of will or mastery over them. By shooting them, you have achieved a higher position on a sort of heirarchy of strong.

Friedrich Nietzsche would refer to your definition of Se as ressentiment.

[DogOfDanger]

Sure, there are evil politicians, but not everyone who disagrees with me is evil. Idk what your elections are like, but in my state, there are about a dozen races on the ballot, ranging from super local city council races to county, state, and national level races. There are district wide elections for schools. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t assume that all of these people are evil

People who give in and lie for their own advancement are doing something bad. "Good people" compromising their truth and going with the "best option available", for what they see (wrongfully) as "the greater good", is very common. Really it is the norm in politics. I'm willing to bet pretty much everyone in this thread has done that on one issue or another. When you see people listing off the same empty talking points that we've all heard a thousand times, this is usually what they're doing... In politics, even at low levels, there's alot of pressure to go along with certain positions. Why do you think almost all republicans were opposed to vaccination? Many republicans actually didn't agree with the neurotic hysteria about vaccination, it's not like it was fact based... but they went along with it because this was the dominant narrative. Standing up to it would mean facing a giant outcry & being ejected from that parties politics by a minority segment of very active radicals... Senators and house representatives don't get funding for election, or reelection, if they stray too far from the party lines. Mayors may have a bit more freedom, but alot less power, and their career won't be going very far unless they fall in line... and of course there's the need to cater certain messaging to key voter demographics...
Same thing has happened with the democrats & the transgender narratives, polls show there is not very widespread support for the democrats on this issue, about 80% of people don't support giving puberty blockers to young people for example... the party is appeasing a certain set of radicals, an important voting demographic, and they know this issue is a strong motivator for them. They do this knowing the rest of their base won't make an issue out of it, and will just comply "for the greater good" despite privately disagreeing...
Usually when you're dealing with mass delusions this is what's happened, and it's very common.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

After life is real, even hell. Eternal punishment might at first seem like too harsh but they already had chance after chance of redeeming themselves and just chose to be evil at all times. Most evil ppl only pretend to be good or to change in order to manipulate ppl into letting their guard down so they can get away with something even more sinister down the road anyway. If u see somebody gleefully and willfully abusing the innocent then u'd probably want to torture them too- there's no redeeming quality in that. It is pure evil and cannot be saved only punished.

The security in Hell sucks though. If my Te polr ass can escape from Hell then a lot of people can as well. But really I just probably wasn't that evil to begin with and I was sent to minimum security Hell instead of maximum security Hell for an offense in my previous life. Sometimes though even really super evil souls escape Hell though obviously so I wish God wasn't so lenient and forgiving at times but God is loving and caring so there's that.

But I mean there are so many things other than bliss in heaven and torment in Hell- most ppl probably get stuck in the Illuminati dimensions created by Oprah in the after life as they don't know quite where they want to go. Nirvana is something where your ego is gone completely and you become one with everything else but after the rush of that is over, ur ego naturally finds a meat suit again. Many theolgians theorize the ppl you hate and loathe are the people you become in the after life if u can't forgive and/or love them the way God would. Gays become str8 man coal miners, str8 man coal miners in the next life pop out of their mama saying 'Hey gurl' etc.

[Metamorph]

I think that the universe dying a cold death eventually is at least a common or valid scientific theory. Everything that we could possibly build is probably doomed unless humanity can leave this universe, or reverse what I'm guessing is entropy and the expanding of the universe.

A common theory, but not one that seems to hold much water. I also don't care about what humanity as a whole does one bit, though. I'm the one responsible for the "Walmartians" quote. If most people suffer how does that affect me? The idea that most people suffering is even a bad thing is contingent on this grand idea that most people are innocent, which I find completely impossible.

I guess I saw a sort of heirarchy of strength, and it seemed to be sensing. And I've generally observed that a person who can overcome another in a sensing way seems more powerful to some degree.

How is the soldier more powerful than the commander who sends him to his grave?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Picking on type stereotypes for a second (I know not all SLEs or EIIs are like this before you get a rope) -

A SLE can overpower others easily, but also does this stupidly only for their own gain or sexual satisfaction and gets thrown in prison. The EII can get beaten up easily by toddlers, but is loved by humanity as a whole for "being nice and kind" and gets invited to speak at TED talks.

If you think the former is more powerful just because he was more physically powerful- I think that is quite idiotic. Of course a truly strong person would do both but those are usually make-believe Mary Sues and people are usually one or the other. But it is part of the reason why writers often make their main protagonist some ESI or SEE.

[Metamorph]

I've heard that there's multiple layers to Hell. Somewhere near the top is a layer for pagans and otherwise good-hearted nonbelievers. Somewhere near the bottom is some kind of freezing area for the truly bad.

I personally don't believe in religion because I don't see evidence for it. My Te at work, I guess. I've thought a few times that if there was a hell, I'd probably get used to it due to my low Si. But it depends on the hell.

I've wondered about the specifics of something like Hell. If Satan owns hell but he manipulates people into it, maybe that means that it provides some kind of pain-based energy source. For what purpose, I guess I don't know.

Which religion is the one you don't see evidence for? Of course the one you listed, Dante's.

Plenty of visions of Hell are rather unlike Dante's. Dante has Satan poking people with a stick, but try going to the Greek Hades or the Norse Helheim for example, and you just find morose shades that are sad precisely because all they have are the material conditions of an ordinary life. No glory, no power, nothing new, just sitting at home eating food and being bored. And this is exactly why those shades are tormented.

[Metamorph]

I guess it's more of a hypothesis. Theories usually have alot of scientific support. But, considering that entropy seems to exist and that the universe seems to be expanding, it seems likely that heat loss into the environment would spread across practically infinity. And that would make the universe very, very cold.

Entropy only exists in a closed system, while the Universe appears to be very much an open system. You are missing some of the Te here.

My view on humanity is that every human being has a level of value. The average person usually has enough default goodness from my viewpoint to view killing them as a bad thing. The worst I tend to view about the average person is that they have bad traits.

I just happen to be Accommodating in SLOAN.

Regarding most people, it just doesn't matter if they live or die imo. Killing them generally isn't a good thing, but that's because it just doesn't affect you at all if they live or die, while if you kill them that leads to you being a psycho murderer. Most people would probably really like if you wanted to kill them though, because hatred brings a certain level of dignity to it compared to pure contempt, and most people don't want to live anyway, they're just scared of killing themselves because they think they'd go to Hell. That's why there are so many fake martyrdumb stories like the one FreelancePoliceman posted about.

That would be a Te or maybe a Ti based heirarchy. In the Se heirarchy, soldiers are top dog. In the Te heirarchy, commanders are the actual top dog.

These heirarchies exist in different spheres. I'm sure there's a Fe heirarchy somewhere in the social sphere. Fe heirarchies don't usually carry into the military sphere, and Te heirarchies don't necessarily always carry into the ground level battlefield.

Ultimately, what determines who's top dog depends on a variety of circumstances, from personal skill in multiple cognitive functions (allowing them to be good at multiple heirarchies) to environmental circumstance (this determines the heirarchies that are necessary to win for survival).

I think there is one hierarchy, one: the hierarchy of whoever has the most power. The source of that power doesn't matter, only who lives and dies and wields power over who matters.

Try to imagine a world without order, law, or social integrity. What sociotypes would be more likely to survive?

...The ones who are surviving now, considering that just sounds like the world that actually exists to me.

[Metamorph]

That seems more like Ti. But that's a good point, as far as I know. Of course unless the Universe was in a closed system that was just very large.

We have data and observations showing that there are things outside the known Universe. None of this is theoretical or hypothetical at all.

I think that I have a completely different view on morality. I only care that I'm labeled a psycho murderer because that would make my life miserable pragmatically. However, I feel sympathy for people and don't want them to die, even if it's not my fault.

Why should you feel sympathy for people who don't matter to you? You don't want to be a psycho murderer because you care about strangers for some silly reason, not because of the consequences. It's possible to get away with murder, see: all the people who get away with murder. Why would the consequences apply to you if you were good enough at killing people? But you don't want to because your particular sense of morality hinges on the happiness of the people who couldn't care less about you. And you call yourself Se-valuing somehow.

I generally think that people would like to live. Otherwise, why would they hate murderers? My sense of morality at work I guess.

They hate murderers for taking other people away from them I think. If people have to live and suffer they want to see that other people are suffering worse. If someone else dies they're jealous.

Power is situational. In a culture dominated by social awareness, the socially aware get the most privileges. In a culture dominated by logical skill, the logical survive and the socially aware exist at the bottom rung unless they can utilize a logical person.

This makes no sense. There is only one kind of power and that's the ability to actually do things. How doesn't matter. Logic is worthless if it doesn't accomplish anything and social awareness is worthless if it doesn't accomplish anything. Yet you can live in your theory-bubble if you want to.

Our world has some semblance of order. I was talking about something that's closer to a post apocalypse wasteland or something.

I live in a post-apocalypse wasteland with no semblance of order. AMA.

Edit: I think that there's some kind of Ti/Ne conflict going on here.

Yeah, you've probably never used Se or Te in your life. It's all about the possibilities and the abstractions with you.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You're really making Se sound stupid because not many Se valuers I know would ever confuse their pawns with their kings - and the top chess champion in the world seems to be a SLE.

A deranged and unhealthy IEI person or ethical person in general would probably think that their prison husband/army brat hunk was a 'king' so I guess in that sense you are right- but objectively, no. Even we aren't that stupid though and are well aware how something can be special to us but not that useful in a more practical or objective sense.

You'd have to be quite stupid to make that mistake. LIIs and EIIs should probably stop getting so impressed, scared and/or awe-struck just because somebody beat somebody else up but that's probably more of a society thing too.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

"who would win if rules and laws didn't exist"

That makes no sense to me, it's too big a what if question and it would never happen anyway - because Te is much too powerful. The world is just getting "worse and worse" in this regard anyway- as most people fight in courtrooms and in the polls then out on the streets gladiator style. Even if for awhile you made that a thing- it would not sustain itself for very long. Even if you blew up every organization and institution that existed and just wanted to make some boss fight arena- a LSE would build a courtroom out of the sticks in the forest. I don't really like these Ne what if games...

[Metamorph]

That's an interesting point. The fact that we can see them shows that our Universe isn't exactly closed.

Yes. But it also doesn't matter that much because what people do matters more. It's like many people say, why does it matter if the Sun will supposedly burn itself out in billions of years if we can fly somewhere else or add more fuel to it anyway? All that matters to me now is getting to the next day, the next year, and the next decade, not these grandiose hypotheticals. Once I get to the next million years then that'll start mattering. Now I'm not even sure if there'll be a next century or everyone will blow themselves up first.

I actually think that I'm Se valuing partly because I'm not Si valuing. A caregiver who can provide me food seems kind in some ways, but completely uninteresting. I tend to think that I can do it myself, or that it doesn't matter anyway.

If you think you can do it yourself, wouldn't that just make you the Si ego?

I also fit the decisive dichotomy historically, in that I slowly get ready for events (mobilizing) and take a long time to stop being ready for events (unmobilize).

"Historically" implies you don't anymore.

If people want to die anyway, then isn't the murderer doing their friend a service?

No, because people wish it would've been them. Look at the stories of martyrdumb: people mostly just hate the martyrers more than they like the martyrs. It's like horror movies, all the focus is put on the psychos with machetes, none is put on the nameless victims.

So you're saying that spheres of influence that are different don't exist?

Yes. There is one world and that one world is the one that matters. The weakest general is more powerful than the strongest infantryman and the poorest CEO makes more than the richest janitor. I would rather be the lowest-ranking general than the highest-ranking infantryman and I'd rather be the poorest CEO than the richest janitor.

How's the radiation?

Lovely.

I would agree that I generally have very low Se. However, I think that I might have been arguing with Te throughout this thread.

Where are your facts? All you say is your feelings. I haven't exactly been citing my sources either, but at least I give some facts.

Edit: Are you Fi PoLR?

Si. I don't take socionics too seriously, but I couldn't care less about Si.

[AWellArmedCat]

I think at least part of the issue has been telling people over and over again who clearly aren't at all racist/sexist/homophobic that they in fact are racist/sexist/homophobic. Conservatives get accused of those things all the time, but I genuinely don't think most conservatives deserve those labels. The US does have a problem with racism for example, but it is not a problem caused by most people or even most conservatives. It's a relatively small group of people that hold genuinely horrible views like that. That small group is still too large I will grant, but it simply isn't most conservatives, or even really that big of a proportion either. I think it's pretty counterproductive to be constantly accusing your political rivals of such horrible things. If you're a conservative and you constantly hear the other side tell you how evil you are, you'll become numb to the accusations and dismissive of a lot of things on your side that actually are discriminatory or prejudiced that you might have called out otherwise.

Yes, a lot of conservatives may say things that sound offensive with regard to race/sex/orientation/whatever, but that doesn't equate to them being genuinely prejudiced. It's really just a sign that they don't have the same liberal/upper class educational background that has been obsessed with power dynamics in society for the last several decades. They'll say all kinds of things, but you've gotta dig a little deeper than the words people use before you start accusing them of holding nasty prejudices against groups of people. These days, I believe a little over half of registered republicans are in support of things like same-sex marriage for example. We could argue that that's not as many as ought to, but I still think the whole identity politics thing and bad faith accusations have, and continue to be, incredibly counterproductive.

Of course we should still call out genuine instances of prejudice. I'm not saying calling out real cases of evil -isms isn't a good thing. I just think we need to be a lot more precise in our targeting of them and not go into every situation assuming that the conservatives are automatically all prejudiced against X group of people or whatever.

That's of course just some brief thoughts on the identity politics end of things, and there are doubtless a thousand other equally or even more important factors, but I don't think it's difficult to argue that identity politics nonsense has been a net negative in the US at least when we look at how it's fueled the alt-right's fires over the past couple years

[Manatroid92]

I think at least part of the issue has been telling people over and over again who clearly aren't at all racist/sexist/homophobic that they in fact are racist/sexist/homophobic. Conservatives get accused of those things all the time, but I genuinely don't think most conservatives deserve those labels. The US does have a problem with racism for example, but it is not a problem caused by most people or even most conservatives. It's a relatively small group of people that hold genuinely horrible views like that. That small group is still too large I will grant, but it simply isn't most conservatives, or even really that big of a proportion either. I think it's pretty counterproductive to be constantly accusing your political rivals of such horrible things. If you're a conservative and you constantly hear the other side tell you how evil you are, you'll become numb to the accusations and dismissive of a lot of things on your side that actually are discriminatory or prejudiced that you might have called out otherwise.

Yes, a lot of conservatives may say things that sound offensive with regard to race/sex/orientation/whatever, but that doesn't equate to them being genuinely prejudiced. It's really just a sign that they don't have the same liberal/upper class educational background that has been obsessed with power dynamics in society for the last several decades. They'll say all kinds of things, but you've gotta dig a little deeper than the words people use before you start accusing them of holding nasty prejudices against groups of people. These days, I believe a little over half of registered republicans are in support of things like same-sex marriage for example. We could argue that that's not as many as ought to, but I still think the whole identity politics thing and bad faith accusations have, and continue to be, incredibly counterproductive.

Of course we should still call out genuine instances of prejudice. I'm not saying calling out real cases of evil -isms isn't a good thing. I just think we need to be a lot more precise in our targeting of them and not go into every situation assuming that the conservatives are automatically all prejudiced against X group of people or whatever.

That's of course just some brief thoughts on the identity politics end of things, and there are doubtless a thousand other equally or even more important factors, but I don't think it's difficult to argue that identity politics nonsense has been a net negative in the US at least when we look at how it's fueled the alt-right's fires over the past couple years

It's very much the case that there's a lot of conservative people that don't have bigoted/outdated social views, yet will still support the party that will keep or even welcome politicians/representatives with those same views. On the one hand, it's not fair to broadly paint all of one base of supporters as having identical views (even some Trump supporters aren't greedy or evil, they've just gotten wrapped up in his charisma due to naivety and lack of real exposure to the complexities of politics), but on the other hand if the party representatives are being embraced by party leadership then it's a terrible look from the top down. If the US citizens at large had a robust (public) educational system that embraced critical thought and gave the honest truth about the country's history, I think a lot of people on the right would be rejecting the Republican party.

In Australia, our Liberal party (Republican-lite in actuality, haha) lost really hard in the previous federal election. Despite a lot of our country's media leaning to the right quite hard (a lot of the media companies are owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp), people eventually caught on that the party had no real principals or policies to stand on, nothing to deal with medical or housing issues, poverty etc. and their leadership is blatantly out of touch with the public at large. In a rare moment of introspection, after this loss the party has decided to...double-down on far-right rhetoric (despite all evidence showing it was the complete opposite thing they should have done).

It's often said in Australia that where the US goes, so do we. I'm beginning to wonder if, in some cases, our country's recent trend is going to act a signpost for the US instead.

[DogOfDanger]

You know, I realize that maybe I've somehow been mean. People here seem somehow offended. So I'll just leave the discussion to others.

If anyone wants my input on anything, feel free to make a comment. I'll probably just be observing.

If I post here without someone's request, it's due to my natural forgetfulness.

You need to learn not to apologize to entitled narcissists going on about their compassion when you've done nothing wrong. This pretense of compassion that people in the US foster is mostly a social/political game. It's mainly imposed onto society from the top, for very specific reasons related to political strategy and voting demographics, then adopted by individuals for convenience and their own self-advancement (or so they believe), and to some degree naivety. You can tell the compassion is false by the fact the very same people are often completely vicious in many other contexts. Infact often this pretense of compassion is what's used to justify very open aggression toward rivals. They also often don't respond to reason.
When you apologize this way, it's because you're afraid... but you further justify antisocial authoritarians getting offended at everything, expecting everyone who doesn't want conflict to just submit & appease them... by apologizing you are just seen as weak, people aren't going to reciprocate your gesture of reason, because what's driving them is not really compassion anyway... reason built on false pretenses is not sound. if people aren't willing to play in society reciprocally, which inherently involves compromising ones perspective for something larger, then let them sit isolated in front of their computer screens for another decade until maybe they learn better... the internet cares much more than the real world does.

[Metamorph]

The alt-right came from New Atheism, the Skeptics' Movement, and Gamergate. Additionally, many alt-right individuals seem to be actual card-carrying members of pedo organizations such as NAMBLA. You can also be a New Atheist if you believe in God, at least, if your name is Sam Harris. Then, Sam Harris has probably been doing tons of DMT with Joe Rogan, but that doesn't explain the non-blitzed New Atheists' lack of contact with reality, or the fac they're generally much worse at support the alt-right and being pedophiles. Regardless of all this, the alt-right started QAnon to accuse everyone else of being pedophiles instead and to promote the idea that Donald Trump, an amazingly conservative and Christian man known for reality TV, Playboy magazine, and projects such as the Trump Taj Majal, is basically the second coming of Jesus and will kill reptilian vampires like Hillary Clinton who torment children to drink their blood and get a hypothetical drug first described in a novel.

The alt-right is a lot like Osama bin Laden sleeping with blue-haired strippers and watching Final Fantasy movies in his cave while telling Saudi Arabian plane hijackers to crash into towers whose owners are looking for a cheap way to demolish them.

I saw GamerGate as it happened, though. It was annoying, and it's still fun to insult people like Sargon of Akkad by calling them what they want to be called.

[Metamorph]

Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right | Salon.com

New Atheism: An Autopsy. What to make of online unbelief—now… | by Ben Sixsmith | Arc Digital | Medium