PornHub: Alleged Sex Trafficking and Rape Videos

[xerx]

Y'know, for a person who derides my belief of how r/K selection might be on to something, you're kinda proving my point. I assert you are r-selected and you are certainly living up to my expectations of such an entity by the by. How and why is, once more, up to you to find out. I find it better to rely upon the subject's willingness to research claims contrary to their own belief as an indicator as to whether or not they're in a "conversion" state.

End, it's not nice to use r/K selection theory to make character assassinations.

[End]

End, it's not nice to use r/K selection theory to make character assassinations.

I ain't assassinating anyone here. The theory makes morally neutral statements. That doesn't mean I have to assume such neutrality in how I employ it. Socionics is much the same. It's by and large a non-moral field, but it can provide insight into matters that may be moral in some form. It is, for example, quite predictable that an r-selected individual would sneer upon the virtue of chastity or find the notion of being disgusted upon learning your newest romantic prospect had banged over 100 other people of both sexes as being some form of wrongthinker.

Again I say, such things I would have spelled out in minute detail in the past in the hope that the sheer force of logic as defined within the bounds of our arguments were absolute. That I could "force" someone else to admit they were wrong as if I was teaching a child how and why 2+2=4. That I could somehow make a deductive argument in regards to morality to a person who, at this current point in time, will never listen exactly because they cannot accept the prospect of the existence of True/real evil or the possibility of their salvation if such a thing exists even if they participated in it. I was once a fool...

[xerx]

I ain't assassinating anyone here. The theory makes morally neutral statements. That doesn't mean I have to assume such neutrality in how I employ it. Socionics is much the same. It's by and large a non-moral field, but it can provide insight into matters that may be moral in some form. It is, for example, quite predictable that an r-selected individual would sneer upon the virtue of chastity or find the notion of being disgusted upon learning your newest romantic prospect had banged over 100 other people of both sexes as being some form of wrongthinker.

Again I say, such things I would have spelled out in minute detail in the past in the hope that the sheer force of logic as defined within the bounds of our arguments were absolute. That I could "force" someone else to admit they were wrong as if I was teaching a child how and why 2+2=4. That I could somehow make a deductive argument in regards to morality to a person who, at this current point in time, will never listen exactly because they cannot accept the prospect of the existence of True/real evil or the possibility of their salvation if such a thing exists even if they participated in it. I was once a fool...

I mean, you do employ the term "r-selected" as a pejorative. The theory itself may be neutral, but your usage of it is clearly meant to be derogatory.

[End]

I mean, you do employ the term "r-selected" as a pejorative. The theory itself may be neutral, but your usage of it is clearly meant to be derogatory.

You're probably right, but I can at least try to explain. It came from my days as a philosophy major in college. I asked the question "Is an eternal orgasm an ultimate good/good ending for humanity"? From several angles I answered no, but too many of my piers thought that prospective fate was awesome and a thing worth sacrificing for. Hence, my disdain for the r-selected.

To their credit, my professors shared my concerns at the time with such a future. I am unsure as to whether or not they'd voice their agreement with me now. Back then, it was OK to be to the right of Mao, Stalin, or some other commie dictator. Now? Calling them out as commie dictators runs the risk of you being labeled the N-word (the one that's not a racial slur).

As we now live in a world where the mere association with a thought criminal in any scintilla of a way makes you just as bad if not worse than them... Well, I do hope this site takes privacy seriously because by merely responding to me in any form of good faith you're just as bad if not worse than myself in the moral codex of the current system. You, like me, are "far right" now. At least it seems the IQ barrier and the seeming dedication towards freedom of thought on this site has inoculated it from full on convergence. Whether or not that trend holds remains to be seen...

[xerx]

You're probably right, but I can at least try to explain. It came from my days as a philosophy major in college. I asked the question "Is an eternal orgasm an ultimate good/good ending for humanity"? From several angles I answered no, but too many of my piers thought that prospective fate was awesome and a thing worth sacrificing for. Hence, my disdain for the r-selected.

To their credit, my professors shared my concerns at the time with such a future. I am unsure as to whether or not they'd voice their agreement with me now. Back then, it was OK to be to the right of Mao, Stalin, or some other commie dictator. Now? Calling them out as commie dictators runs the risk of you being labeled the N-word (the one that's not a racial slur).

As we now live in a world where the mere association with a thought criminal in any scintilla of a way makes you just as bad if not worse than them... Well, I do hope this site takes privacy seriously because by merely responding to me in any form of good faith you're just as bad if not worse than myself in the moral codex of the current system. You, like me, are "far right" now. At least it seems the IQ barrier and the seeming dedication towards freedom of thought on this site has inoculated it from full on convergence. Whether or not that trend holds remains to be seen...

Not really. It's still very much OK to be to the right of Mao and Stalin. The idea that you're not "allowed" to express conservative opinions doesn't seem very credible. Ben Shapiro still has a Youtube channel, Fox news hasn't been taken off the airwaves by "big government", and right wing memes are still allowed to circulate on Facebook.

WRT. to the alt. right: it is a truism that social media—which is less restricted than corporate television—has made it more common to express extremist views. Calling someone a "Nazi" used to be a bland joke two decades ago, because only fringe wackos were believed to espouse these ideas. At least within living memory, our culture has never been as politically incorrect as it is now.

University arts and humanities departments are arguably more to the left, as is much of popular entertainment, but it's not clear that this is the result of coordinated censorship. It could simply be the case that this type of profession attracts more liberal-minded people who gravitate towards self-expression. Cops and military brass tend to be more conservative on average, and the simplest explanation is the authority-driven nature of this type of work.

Economics departments and business schools are very much ultra-capitalist. It's arguable whether capitalism represents a more conservative or liberal philosophy; but, in the current zeitgeist, the concept has been heavily appropriated by conservatives. There are openly Christian universities, like liberty university, with its own safe spaces, which unashamedly bans speakers that it doesn't like, including Christian speakers that are critical of Donald Trump.