The individual against meme warfare of the collective. Discuss
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
alumnus.caltech.edu
twitter.com
The Jew as an individual is genetically a sociopathic MOB, the original NPC, easiest to program, fucking over preferably his own, not in the slightest tribal
>Individual Jews selling out other Jews to the Egyptians
>Individual Jews selling other Jews out to the Romans
>Individual Jews selling other Jews out to Charles the IV
>Individual Jews selling out other Jews to Hitler
>Individual Jews selling out their own nation
The only thing that makes Jews tribal are imagined existential threats
The moment the holocaust religion fails Jews will all start to sell each other out again
So to make jews fuck over each other give them the feeling of security and a possibility to profit
Just do what Trump does, while you dig their graves in the shadows
As prove, polish Lady explains two little known laws of the Jews
youtube.com
just jews losing control
>The Jew as an individual is genetically a sociopathic MOB, the original NPC,
>the original NPC
The fuck?
watch the video
Our ancestors were geniuses playing the jew by his own laws
>watch the video
>Jews are self interested to the core
Ok, so how is this relevant? Jews are a collective? Are you saying that?
no you retard. The laws sound "collective" but benefit only individual jews. The only thing not making the jews fuck over each other is the holohoax business. Once it is gone, they will glady start to fuck over each other
best example soros vs Israel
>Once it is gone, they will glady start to fuck over each other
Ok fine. How is this relevant?
Your meme adequately portrays individualism as a fairy tale where the "individual" is hopelessly outmatched. Maybe if you put him back in with the Roman Legion he'd have a chance.
The concept of individual rights is as paramount as it is unique. It is not a jew trick. It is the end result of centuries of reasoning our way out of the might makes right collectivist tyranny we as a species came from and it was white people who conceptualized it; it is as white as a virgin redheads ass.
That said, paradoxically - until the rest of humanity gets onto our level, its defense does require a collective effort.
>t.jew
to make shekel for your own goal you mong. You are not the brightest yid in the synagogue, are you?
chomp
>Maybe if you put him back in with the Roman Legion he'd have a chance.
Isn't that collectivism?
Now this is epic
That's actually quite a beautiful image because individualism will clear lose. It's the same sort of suicidal overconfidence displayed by this feminist monument of a foolish little girl about to trampled to death by a charging bull.
>soro vs Israel
That is just a typical jewish trick. Position yourself on both sides of the argument to control the narrative. They are still working together.
>to make shekel for your own goal you mong. You are not the brightest yid in the synagogue, are you?
Chill Arnold. I still don't understand why you're hijacking this thread. This is about the individual vs the meme warfare of the collective. Why do you repeatedly keep pushing the Jews?
>Also, I'm not a Jew you homo.
Individualism is a corrupting fantasy
>Also, I'm not a Jew you homo.
Only a Jew would preemptively deny his Jewishness
>They are still working together.
Soros is the result of a meme gone wrong. The globalization meme was popular among businessmen and women in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Much of Soros' ideas were developed at that time. So he's just a foot soldier for a bigger meme - the globalization meme. He's not really in control of his own actions.
>You are not the brightest yid in the synagogue, are you?
>Only a Jew would preemptively deny his Jewishness
What level of gaslighting are we on right now?
A more accurate portrayal would be: individualism creates collectivism and they battle against one another, devastating the individual person and any hope of a humane state.
Get it into your head: individualism creates the mass-man who becomes a unit in collectivism.
desu I prefer the formalization and transparency of power under feudalism as opposed to the modern form of anarchy when it comes to power. Lords had clear obligations to their people, and the people knew who they were. Today's powerful operate as if they have no duty to their lessers, and often operate hidden away, denying their position of power while enjoy its spoils.
>It's the same sort of suicidal overconfidence displayed by this feminist monument of a foolish little girl about to trampled to death by a charging bull.
But feminism is itself a collective. Feminism is a meme that is adopted by NPCs to form a collective.
>individualism creates the mass-man who becomes a unit in collectivism.
How does the individual create the collective?
This is even more ironic because in market terms a bull market is a good market, meaning profits and making money. The girl representing women breaking the glass ceiling ,feminism or something to the tune of female empowerment is standing in the way of the bull with an immovable attitude/stance
Women empowerment is literally standing in the way of financial gains.
The positive market is confronted by feminism
Females stop progress
Lol so many ways this can be interpreted but mostly they negative. What was the artist thinking.
Only thing i can guess is that let’s put a little girl defiantly standing up to a big bull.
>Today's powerful operate as if they have no duty to their lessers, and often operate hidden away, denying their position of power while enjoy its spoils.
Evolution baby. Humans evolve to wage war in different forms. In feudalism, was straightforward because the means of communication was slow. There were clear roles so as to prevent confusion since communciation was slow.
But with the advent of the internet, communication became fast and more efficient. Thus, a new front in war opened up - information.
But this new front also helps propagate collectivism at an alarming rate. Everyone wants to look at others for pointers on living their lives. Hence a collective rises.
usually i don't agree with comments in Jow Forums but i agree with this
*Individualism*. Individualism (a mass-ideology) destroys the authorities of society (the authority of fathers, community-leaders, various groups and ethnic bonds, etc) which stand intermediately between the individual person and the state. Thus the individual person is left defenceless against the only authority left: the state, a state that has has grown vast on this destruction.
Stop thinking in terms of individualism and collectivism. These are modern mass-ideological terms.
Man is a social and political animal. Individualism undermines his essential functioning.
>usually i don't agree with comments in Jow Forums but i agree with this
I can't find any other explanation to the atrocities committed by the elite. They are humans and thus bound by genomic code to be cooperative with fellow humans. Sure, the degree of their cooperativeness maybe low as a genotype. But it is almost impossible that all elites are consistently psychopathic - in an evolutionary sense.
I think it is more reasonable to assume that elitist behavior is a meme. Thus, those who become elites follow that meme because they are NPCs - which in turn would imply that success is not really because of only hard work but also luck. And only NPCs satisfy the condition for both hard working and lucky - because they have no inner voice that helps them critique elite culture. They rationalize everything - the usp of the NPC.
That is why I think Soros and all other elites are NPCs programmed by memes. They're not really at fault because they're not really in control. Taking them down would be like taking down puppets. The question is how to take down the ideology.
>Man is a social and political animal.
I understand. But there is a middle ground. You don't have to give over all your cognition to the state. If all of us did that the the state would essentially be a zombie meme that was run by NPC puppets. No one is really in control and everyone just rides out the wave.
By individualism, I mean the ability to see the world through your own eyes without the influence of the collective. The ability to correlate one's actions with the consequences of one's actions - a superior strategy in the long run for a state.
A state full of conscious individuals is anyday better than a state full of NPCs. We can predict the behavior of a state full of NPCs, but we can't do that for a state full of individuals.
>A state full of conscious individuals is anyday better than a state full of NPCs.
Better for what or whom? For the soul of the person? But the modern state doesn't want such a thing. That state wants precisely a predictable people. It wants high-functioning automatons.
It's not a matter of wanting to give all your cognition over to the state. It's happening whether you or I want it or not. And it is driven because we keep falling for these libertarian or liberational ideologies (of many kinds: liberalism, propertarianism, Marxism (yes, it is an extreme anti-state ideology that "just happens" to end in totalitarianism)).
We are both persons and members of society. Indeed we cannot become persons without first being members of the collective. You would not be able to speak a language or have anything above rudimentary thought without the collective of society.
Individualism will always win as long as the heartbeat of red blooded white men who demand self determination exist. That drive is what makes us unique, we are not horde insects like the mongoloids or simple beasts driven together by convenience like negroids. We forge our own destinies.
>Better for what or whom?
Survival of species.
> That state wants precisely a predictable people. It wants high-functioning automatons.
The problem is that the state itself is an automaton. It's run by NPCs who follow memes on how to run a state. They don't think about actions and consequences - their thinking is limited to experiential learning - not understanding the system as it is. They mimic good policies into being - not understand and actually ideate something into being.
>And it is driven because we keep falling for these libertarian or liberational
Yes, most of us are NPCs.
>We are both persons and members of society
Not if you're an NPC. If you're an NPC, then you're just a member of society.
> You would not be able to speak a language or have anything above rudimentary thought without the collective of society.
No. I would have more than rudimentary thought. But I may not be able to articulate it as well as those who speak a language.
>We forge our own destinies.
Is that thinking like a collective? What about you as an individual? Do you forge your own destiny?
>Survival of species.
Beetles and ants seem to be doing pretty well.
>the state itself is an automaton
Indeed. And it wants total control. It wants to make everything in its image. The last thing it wants is persons. These are a threat to it.
>Not if you're an NPC
I haven't paid much attention to the NPC-meme. It is in fact quite an old idea. One of your countrymen (Ralph Adams Cram) wrote about it in the thirties:
alumnus.caltech.edu
The state wants non-persons (essentially, NPCs).
> I would have more than rudimentary thought.
Unlikely. Most of what it is to be a person, including intellectual thought, is actualised by society. (The potential is there, but it needs to be actualised.) In the rare cases that unsocialised humans have been found, they have been little above the beasts.
Precisely
>Beetles and ants seem to be doing pretty well.
Yes. But they don't have nukes.
> The last thing it wants is persons. These are a threat to it.
>The state wants non-persons (essentially, NPCs).
True.
>Most of what it is to be a person, including intellectual thought, is actualised by society.
Common now. Are you telling me that Orcas and Dolphins don't have sophisticated thinking even though they don't have a working language?
>In the rare cases that unsocialised humans have been found, they have been little above the beasts.
And what beasts are we talking about? Where were these humans found? Who conducted the tests? What was the benchmark?
Very sketchy study if you ask me.
>We forge our own destinies.
That is, for the most part, a silly romantic idea. We become persons capable of deciding some of our fate only through being socialised. Without it, you would be a beast scrubbing about in the dirt. Noble-sounding fluff like "forging our own destinies" wouldn't even occur to such a creature.
We forge our destinies.
>Yes. But they don't have nukes.
How is that relevant?
>Orcas and Dolphins don't have sophisticated thinking
They have sophisticated "thinking" in dealing with their environment. Only man has the rational and intellectual capacities to step out of that immediate environment of stimulus-and-response and think conceptually.
>what beasts are we talking about?
We were talking about the (very rare) cases that a human has not been socialised amongst humans. Language-formation becomes impossible after a certain age.
You are taking what we have as persons for granted. But it didn't come out of thin air and it was not self-actualised. It was socialised into us. And only then can we have the power of self-actualising behaviour.
Repetition won't make it true. It is magical thinking.
What? Have you ever spoken to a feminist?
They're all hyper individualists. They straight up think families are evil because what if your dad beat you
they think groups are bad because if you don't have a group that makes you disadvantaged
Collectivist group are lead by strong individuals nazism and communism were created by thinking individuals
Individuals are better than collectivists but they are weaker
>Individualism will always win as long as the heartbeat of red blooded white men who demand self determination exist.
What specious nonsense. There are ancoms that are more grounded and realistic than you.
You live in a magical world in your head where flowery words overcome things like praxis. I don't have to warn you that realpolitik will assfuck your ideology - it already has, and it will continue to do so.
>Noble-sounding fluff like "forging our own destinies" wouldn't even occur to such a creature.
Yes. I agree.
That symbol is the opposite of modern european rational-individualism.
>How is that relevant?
Can't really compare humans with beetles and ants, now, can we?
>They have sophisticated "thinking" in dealing with their environment. Only man has the rational and intellectual capacities to step out of that immediate environment of stimulus-and-response and think conceptually.
You're talking about delayed rewards? That exists in chimpanzees as well.
Humans are humans because we evolved to have a higher stamina than our prey. That started everything. We began to explore the landscape - discovered that planting seeds grows crops - thus deduced farming and that began the start of human civilizations.
As much as you want to believe that we are intellectually superior to animals, we are not too far ahead. Most of our advancements is because of farming. Farming ensures 15% of our population can feed the 100%. The remaining 85% can focus on advancing technology.
In fact, humans are extremely inefficient at advancing technology considering that most of us haven't had to actively seek food for millennia - implying that most humans revert to their animal instincts more often than not.
If we never reverted to animal instincts, civilizations wouldn't fall. There would be no decay. But there is and degeneracy in humans is a fact more than an opinion.
>We were talking about the (very rare) cases that a human has not been socialised amongst humans.
If it's rare then why are you using it in an argument? Your premise itself is rare.
>Have you ever spoken to a feminist?
Yes. They are all cancer.
>They're all hyper individualists
Who are brainwashed by the collective.
>They straight up think families are evil because what if your dad beat you
>They
Collectivism.
>Individuals are better than collectivists but they are weaker
Fair.
Image is perfect.
Retarded individualist gets devoured and ripped apart by everyone else.
>Can't really compare humans with beetles and ants, now, can we?
We can in the point that was being made, namely, evolutionary success.
>we are not too far ahead
The difference is vast in that it is qualitative. Whilst it is wrong not to acknowledge the animalistic part of humanness, it is also wrong to acknowledge the rational part.
>If it's rare then why are you using it in an argument?
Why wouldn't I? It is logically illustrative of the case of unsocialised humans. The very rarity of it also perhaps explains why so many people take personhood for granted.
>Who are brainwashed by the collective.
Wrong. Sociology, the liberal religion, posits that collectives are the basis for all of the world's struggles, and that everyone should be smashed down to an individualistic state so that no one person can have an advantage over the other - all individuals operating independently, so that no "Male Privilege" enforcing force can exist.
You are merely calling feminists "collectivists" because it is convenient to your ideology to distance yourself from them - even though you are of the same stripe as them.
>Collectivism.
Wew. I guess since there are 2 individualist autismos ITT then individualism is a collectivist ideology.
>it is also wrong to acknowledge the rational part.
Correction: it is also wrong *not* to acknowledge the rational part.
Sociology is the study of society. I know commies have corrupted the field into a political weapon but please just call the jew for what it is. A jew commie.
>Don't identify with an ethnic group, that's collectivism and bad!
>tfw ethnic Catholics of various races built Christendom which is Western Civilization
Go home Juden Peterstein
it's always been a sham desu
nobody would care about sociology if it weren't the ideological bludgeon of academia
even in high school they taught me "okay there are a lot of theories but marx is the right one and we will be focusing on marx"
Ok juden peterstein
>We can in the point that was being made, namely, evolutionary success.
Oh common now. We were arguing on the state wanting NPCs. Sure, the discussion digressed into evolution, but that wasn't the point we were arguing on. Here is your original post and my reply that lead to that line of discussion
>>A state full of conscious individuals is anyday better than a state full of NPCs.
>Better for what or whom? For the soul of the person? But the modern state doesn't want such a thing.
Don't tell me you forgot what you typed.
>The difference is vast in that it is qualitative.
How do we objectively define qualitative considering the fact that a comparison between human intelligence and animal intelligence is mired by the discovery of farming? Humans no longer have to worry about seeking food, and thus will focus on other activities. Animals do.
So if you try to compare animal intelligence, where an animal is interested in seeking food, and human intelligence, where a human is more likely trained in abstract thinking, by using a test designed for humans, of course you will end up with results that are more likely to suggest that humans are better at planning ahead.
>Whilst it is wrong not to acknowledge the animalistic part of humanness, it is also wrong to acknowledge the rational part.
Did you mean the other way around? Why is it wrong to acknowledge the rational part otherwise?
>It is logically illustrative of the case of unsocialised humans.
No. It is not logically illustrative of the case of unsocialized humans precisely because they are rare. Unsocialized humans are not the norm, and thus any measures we develop to study unsocialized humans will be from the lens of socialized humans.
That is why it is not logical.
>The very rarity of it also perhaps explains why so many people take personhood for granted.
That made no sense.
If you break society down to the level of individuals, all their crap lefty arguments like "men make x while women make x" or "x number of males vs x number of females" would lose their meaning. They're the ones who do the grouping, noone else is doing it. That's the whole point, formation of group identities parallel to national identity to subvert the nation by division.
x vs y that is*
>Sociology, the liberal religion, posits that collectives are the basis for all of the world's struggles,
And how is this contradictory to what I have said so far?
>and that everyone should be smashed down to an individualistic state so that no one person can have an advantage over the other
>everyone should be smashed down
>everyone should
>everyone
Do you see the collective programming LARPing as individual thought here?
>all individuals operating independently,
How can they claim to operate independently when all of them follow the same template for behavior? Isn't that a collective then?
>even though you are of the same stripe as them.
I believe in women's suffrage and the right for women to be employed and take care of themselves financially without any additional help from their spouses or the state.
I do not believe in anything else advocated by feminism - including the cancerous concepts on patriarchy - because all other ideas promoted by feminism are cancer.
>I guess since there are 2 individualist autismos ITT then individualism is a collectivist ideology.
Can you think independently of my thoughts? Yes? Then you and I are individuals. Can you critique my thoughts and can we both agree that you don't have to either agree or adopt my views? Yes? Then you and I are individuals.
Is this the same for feminism? No. Most feminists are radicalized and conform to group think where they receive their teachings from an authority figure who radicalizes them in their way of thinking. Are feminists in general individuals? No. Can individuals believe in the stable ideas of feminism? Yes.
THAT IS THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU AND I ARE SAYING.
>Correction: it is also wrong *not* to acknowledge the rational part.
Fair. I didn't mean to imply that we should deny the rational part.
Stop being slippery. You started with:
>Survival of species.
I addressed that point. Now you want to make it into another.
>How do we objectively define qualitative considering the fact . . .
Intellect/rationality is a qualitatively different thing. It is a complex subject (arguments about it go back to Plato and Aristotle). If you defined reason/rationality materialistically, you end up undermining reason/rationality. Hence irrationalism in the modern world.
>Unsocialized humans are not the norm
No-one said they were.
The rest of your point is irrelevant. You don't get to stop my argument by arbitrarily (and not logically) declaring logically-relevant points out of bounds. This is why arguing with people on the net is largely a waste of time.
Western individualism is not pure anarchy, but it isn't the natsoc machine either. Of course human rights can only be assured to a virtuous people
>If you break society down to the level of individuals, all their crap lefty arguments like "men make x while women make x" or "x number of males vs x number of females" would lose their meaning.
They're analyzing society on a group level because they believe groups to be the root cause. Were you even paying attention?
>Stop being slippery. You started with:
>Survival of species.
I was replying your question
>Better for what or whom?
To my point on
>A state full of conscious individuals is anyday better than a state full of NPCs.
which in turn was a reply to your point on
>Man is a social and political animal. Individualism undermines his essential functioning.
tl;dr - I was replying your point. I didn't intend to take the discussion down an evolutionary path.
>Now you want to make it into another.
All cool on my end. I thought you wanted to continue that line of thought.
>Intellect/rationality is a qualitatively different thing....
Instead of going down a rabbit hole like the point on evolution, can we agree that you're arguing for humans being intellectually superior to animals because you think humans can plan ahead and I'm arguing against that because I believe humans are not too far ahead of animals in thinking and most of our apparent superiority to animals is a result of poorly designed tests and the large scale practice of farming?
>declaring logically-relevant points out of bounds.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I have to play by your view on logic and reason.
>This is why arguing with people on the net is largely a waste of time.
Good day to you too sir.
>Do you see the collective programming LARPing as individual thought here?
Wow, arguing semantics like a true faggot.
>How can they claim to operate independently when all of them follow the same template for behavior? Isn't that a collective then?
What, precisely, are you asking here? Independent actors aren't independent because... they're independent like everyone else?
>I do not believe in anything else advocated by feminism
Are you sure? Because they believe that groups are very evil and the individual should be the only societal unit.
>Can you think independently of my thoughts? Yes? Then you and I are individuals. Can you critique my thoughts and can we both agree that you don't have to either agree or adopt my views? Yes? Then you and I are individuals.
Okay.
>Is this the same for feminism? No.
What? Feminists LOOOOOOOOOVE to fellate themselves and their own personal beliefs and thoughts and shit.
> Most feminists are radicalized and conform to group think where they receive their teachings from an authority figure who radicalizes them in their way of thinking.
Feminists loooooooove anti authoritarianism. It's basically "FUCK YOU DADDY FOR NOT LOVING ME": the ideology. It wholly rejects authority. There's a reason many of them are anarcho communists. They believe authority itself is the source of evil - that the power of society expressed by groups have gained authority and are using it to oppress everyone else.
> Are feminists in general individuals? No.
Begging the question
> Can individuals believe in the stable ideas of feminism? Yes.
Alright, so this answers my question of how much of a faggot you are, next
No, you just built a strawman to kick around. Western individualism does not mean pure anarchy, and human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The burning need for self determination is not a fantasy, but an essential part of our being. The individual must band together in self interest of course, the important thing is that they remain individuals united by common cause and not an ignorant collective. This is something Hitler did not understand, and it is why he failed to rally other white nations to his cause.
You're right. But pure anarchy is never the real danger. Pure totalitarianism, on the other hand . . .
>human rights can only be assured to a virtuous people
Yes. If only people would take that truth to heart.
>No, you just built a strawman to kick around. Western individualism does not mean pure anarchy
Funny that you accuse me of strawmanning and then immediately put words in my mouth.
>Wow, arguing semantics
I'm sorry. I'm not a telepath. I can't read your mind. Your words are all I have to deduce your thoughts.
>like a true faggot.
Little early in the thread to start hurling insults, don't you think?
>Independent actors aren't independent because... they're independent like everyone else?
No. Feminists are not independent. They are indoctrinated. I should have stated that instead of asking you a question.
>Are you sure?
Yes.
> Because they believe that groups are very evil and the individual should be the only societal unit.
Are we now arguing on what each of think feminists believe? We I believe feminists think they're saving the world by liberating the individual from the oppression of the patriarchy while not realizing their own indoctrination.
Is that what you believe as well? No? Then we're at an impasse.
>Feminists LOOOOOOOOOVE to fellate themselves and their own personal beliefs and thoughts and shit.
And?
>Feminists loooooooove anti authoritarianism
While conforming to mortal authorities in feminist ideas?
>It wholly rejects authority.
You mean their view of authority. In fact, you mean their view of patriarchal authority, right?
Because feminists usually don't rail against women leaders, do they?
>There's a reason many of them are anarcho communists.
Indoctrination, yes. What about it?
>Begging the question
Which I answered.
And yet those same people set sail across the North Atlantic to discover new lands and into the heart of the old world to contest the old ones.
They did this because of individual desires, not by subsuming themselves to the collective
>the important thing is that they remain individuals united by common cause and not an ignorant collective.
This is essentially the essence of what I've been trying to say.
>can we agree that you're arguing for humans being intellectually superior to animals because you think humans can plan ahead
No. It's a much deeper point than that. Reason is qualitatively different. Can a mere animal conceive of triangularity, for instance? Note that triangularity (not triangles) has no empirical instantiation.
>I didn't realize I have to play by your view on logic and reason.
It's not my view (as though relativism were true). Logic applies to all people, irrespective of views.
>Good day to you too sir.
And to you.
>what about their hardcore tribalism, even with global secret lies
?
They don't analyze the society that's the whole point. Their motive is not to analyze society, it's weakening it for political gain. Their purpose is to encourage alternative group cohesion that extends traditional boundaries, to dismantle social structure that has evolved to enable society to properly function. Every next generation is made weaker than the previous and therefore less likely to threaten authority.
Why dont you shoot yourself into orbit and live as a space hermit, a true individualist
the problem with individualism assuming you have a total individual life like everyone in your nation owning a shop selling your goods is no one learns anything new.
You cannot band around the same thing.
what happens when something breaks?
>Can a mere animal conceive of triangularity, for instance?
Does a mere animal have a need to conceive triangularity? Does a mere animal have a farming civilization that has a need for language and the the definition of precise terms to sustain it? Can you objectively prove that if an animal had a need to develop the concept of triangularity, it would not be able to develop it?
Hippity hoppity slippery sloppity.
>Note that triangularity (not triangles) has no empirical instantiation.
Yes, but language does. Triangularity does not somehow bring triangles into existence in this universe. Triangularity is a property we humans assign to shapes that seem like triangles to communicate and disseminate ideas better.
>Logic applies to all people, irrespective of views.
But apparently you have a set of rules by which I'm not playing.
>what about their hardcore tribalism, even with global secret lies
Fuck. Is this some Jewish conspiracy thread you faggot? Fuck off.
Except it is within everyone's rational self interest to teach and support other members of their community. Western individualism is not randism, it does not means humans don't socialize and build communities - and most humans aren't terrible creative so they copy behavior that works. The importance of Western individualism is leaving room for the brilliant and creative to innovate, even if it would be more comfortable to stop them in the name of collective harmony.
Again, this is our greatest advantage and what the Jews and mongoloids fear most from us. The Chinese have spent billions of lifetimes trying to emulate Confucius, whites seek to surpass their equivalents.
>I'm sorry. I'm not a telepath. I can't read your mind. Your words are all I have to deduce your thoughts.
Nope, you're arguing dumb semantics like "referring to people in a general sense makes you a collectivist"
>Are we now arguing on what each of think feminists believe? We I believe feminists think they're saving the world by liberating the individual from the oppression of the patriarchy while not realizing their own indoctrination.
Lmao you heard it here folks, right from the horse's mouth
>While conforming to mortal authorities in feminist ideas?
Not only is this untrue - they will gladly sacrifice their darlings at the slightest inklings of "not going far enough" - it is irrelevant, has no bearing on their ideology. It's like saying "Platonic ideals are collectivism because Plato is the one that made them and everyone else is following Plato" it's a dumb, irrelevant, semantic argument that has no bearing on anything.
>Because feminists usually don't rail against women leaders, do they?
Depends on the situation. If it is heuristically convenient for them to do so? Sure.
>Indoctrination, yes. What about it?
So just handwave any ideological similarities you and they share because they're inconvenient.
>Which I answered.
No no no - begging the question means you're framing an argument by asking a question. You've offered no particular argument as to why "feminists are not in general individuals", you've just framed a thought where it SEEMS like they are because you ASKED whether or not they are.
And you're right, you've gone a step further and just posited your non argument with a single word
>Does a mere animal have a need to conceive triangularity?
Who was talking about need? I was demonstrating the point of qualitative difference, and you now add another irrelevancy. Your other points, where not irrelevant, seem to support mine. Thus I don't even know what you're arguing for.
Let's call it a day.
>Let's call it a day.
Sounds about right.
I gotta commend the guy for creating his own worldview, but he talks like the kind of dipshits that sniff their own farts because they took philosophy 102 at a community college.
He'll get a dose of reality sooner or later.
Should remake it to be
Brother, Sister, Mother, Father, Children
stemming from Family
and the root being Human behavior and moral justice
vs
Individualism
Neither social democracy nor nationalism are collectivist
This.
It's a very good way of depicting it. Individualism as a war against all decent order.
Meme warfare demonstrates the power of individualism though.
Jow Forums is able to generate the best memes because there's no hierarchy. Nobody has to do anything if they don't want to...
That means that memes will only spread if they're actually good memes.
By contrast, the DNC and GOP can't fight against us because they are all obeying orders from top down. They're very organized, but they have no way to see what the best course of action is. Individualism and freedom is what allows society to decide the best course of action.
Looks like the individual is fucked.
Ah, I thought you meant me.
It's frustrating, because he's not entirely wrong, but seems to be arguing without addressing the points.
>Individualism and freedom is what allows society to decide the best course of action.
this
>Jow Forums is able to generate the best memes because there's no hierarchy.
>The individual must band together in self interest of course, the important thing is that they remain individuals united by common cause and not an ignorant collective.
At least two anons know what's up.
No hierarchy =/= individualism.
> Individualism and freedom is what allows society to decide the best course of action.
Freedom for what and for whom? This is the trouble with unspecified terms like "freedom". It's close to meaningless without specification. Freedom for criminals? Freedom for junkies? Freedom for leftists? Freedom for psychopaths? Freedom for the anti-social? And to what? In the end, politics is not about "freedom" (whatever that means); it's about who/whom.
>No hierarchy =/= individualism.
Individualism means that the will of the individual takes precedence over the will of the collective.
Collectivism means that the will of the collective takes precedence over the will of the individual.
A lack of hierarchy does imply individualism... although individualism doesn't necessarily imply a lack of hierarchy.
In this context, I'm talking about freedom for the members of Jow Forums to post memes or to not post memes.