taraelizabeth21

So, this thread is massive and I haven't read through all of it. I had some thoughts that may or may not be of use to you: I believe it's been mentioned that you didn't "excuse" your father or absolve him of moral responsibility for what he did. In the quote above you say that he beat you, and then within the next sentence you say he was a good man. Good men don't beat their sons. Because you hold this contradiction in your mind you can justify all kinds of terrible behavior--particularly on your own behalf. We all might have the inclination or resentment toward people who seem to be more stable than us, in your case it seems you have a preference for destroying virtuous women, but it's the mental contradiction you hold in regard to your father's behavior that allows you to act out your resentment over and over again. Also it may be more comfortable for you to engage in an emotionally manipulative relationship as that is what you are accustomed to. The thrill you get from it may be that your brain perceives you have switched from the victim to the aggressor, and that makes you feel powerful & untouchable. It's still the same dynamic, you're just the one doing the damage now.

Hi everyone-- I understand that there are concerns regarding racism against white people in the press (for example this NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html which Stefan discussed in a recent podcast). As philosophical individuals, how do we respond to this mainstreaming of racism against white people? Do people like Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right have the correct idea? My hypothesis is that they do not. I believe that abandoning individualism and universalist principles for a collectivist vision of a racially homogeneous nation will contribute to racial tensions in this country and cause an escalation of hostilities between groups. I think we need to focus on ideas and not race. Looking for feedback on this, if anyone needs a primer/refresher on the Alt-Right here's a video that Gavin McInnes did a while back:

I completely agree. Infighting over adherence to abstract philosophical concepts is counterproductive and will only serve Leftist agenda. Regardless of who wins the argument, Leftists are the ones that really win when Anarchists/Libertarians/Conservatives fight amongst themselves

As far as poisoning the well: none of what I said are ad hominem attacks against you or anyone else designed to elicit negative responses. Again, "respect" for property rights, and "freedom" of religion are definable values that are associated with "Western" societies. These are not attacks or praises. It describes an objective fact. If you're asking me to go as far as to define what "freedom" of religion is in order to avoid poisoning the well... then you're not really concerned with poisoning the well. Everyone knows what that means. If I can't use commonly accepted phrases which refer to specific/definable ideas that are well known, then I can't even speak at all. So, I don't think you're concerned about me poisoning the well, you're trying to keep me paralyzed and unable to respond. The words I have chosen can be tied to phenomena which I have explained multiple times. I described to you Western values, I've shown that Leftist principles DO degrade/oppose those sets of values, and, if a majority of people in the US had followed your example, and prioritized adherence to a philosophical theory over practical matters, negative consequences WOULD have come to pass. And, from what I understand about Stef's particular issue with voting: it wasn't a moral issue, he saw voting in previous elections as a useless gesture which was designed to encourage further compliance from the populace. There was too much corruption in Washington for it to make any difference whatsoever; but he changed that stance based on Trump's candidacy. To address immorality: you've attempted to argue that voting is immoral; you have not proven that. Again, being that I am not the one aggressing/using force against you, and the state is, I cannot be held morally accountable for any actions in this case. By extension, neither can you. The state is the moral agent and, in its violent monopoly, renders us all victims. How we individually respond to this issue (i.e. whether we vote or not) cannot be a moral judgement. Now, we are in a particular situation here where one candidate would have accelerated the financial, social, and military decline of the United States. So, Stef took up the mantle to convince us all to vote Trump. Again, according to your own framework of immorality which establishes the state as the moral agent, the aggressor, you cannot hold me, the victim, morally accountable or accuse me of initiating force against you for voting. I don't accuse you of initiating force for not voting, nor do I think abstaining can be called immoral based on UPB. I do however think that the decision not to vote represents a concerted denial of the practical realities of the current situation. So, I spoke out against it in order to attempt to potentially dissuade any other well-meaning person reading this thread from following your example. I can't emphasize enough that Clinton wanted sites like this shut down. She threated to drone strike Assange, to nuke Iran. I mean, the list is endless. And it would have come to pass. And then you would have found out what it's like to actually live in a country that subjugates its citizens. So again, before you start accusing people of immorality you might want to consider the medium through which you are communicating. Because it is a medium that, through your inaction, could have been lost to us all. Is this a moral issue? No, I can't make the argument that it is. But it's what would have happened regardless.

In regard to "poisoning the well," not really sure what you mean, but I make no apologies for expressing negativity toward courses of action that I think will allow for the degradation of Western values in the United States. These include: respect for women, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexuality, right to bear arms. Allowing Clinton to take the White House would have also allowed more criminals to come unvetted into my country where I live, some of which who are actively part of terrorist organizations. All of this would have been occurring while her administration simultaneously aggravated foreign wars, mainly with Russia. Look at her policies, look up the vast amount of evidence there is to support that these are the things she wanted to do while in office. This is to say nothing of the FBI investigations, the information that came out in Wikileaks ("spirit cooking," wtf??). Then you add in the cultural decay with concepts like "privilege," etc. and the labeling of everyone as racist/sexist. Degrading marriage/family values by the left. All of these factors work to break up the cultural cohesion of the West and endanger its citizens. I mean, Europe is being destroyed by these very policies as we speak. So, to address your issue of not defining Western Civilzation: see above. You're talking about subjugation but you have no idea what true subjugation is. Taxation may be theft, but this isn't Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. But it could have been! Please at least try to consider the practical realities of what is occurring around you. That doesn't mean give up your morals, I certainly haven't, but don't look down on the rest of us for not wanting to see the US become Mexico and to fear the practical consequences of what that would mean. You're fighting an abstract war about whether or not the state is immoral and how immoral I am for participating and accusing me of subjugating you with my vote? To continue your shooting analogy, you're aiming at the wrong target, here. And yes, government is immoral. I'm sure no one here would argue otherwise. But this election meant the difference of living in a third world country rife with crime, financial ruin, and war--OR continuing to have this conversation and promote anarco-capitalist ideals in relative safety and security. Again, Stef cared about this election because it's outcome probably determined whether or not he could even continue to put out content. So before passing judgment I'd at least consider that you're utilizing a format that was jeopardized by the outcome of this election to even get your message across.

So, it seems that the main argument of this video rests on the fact that winning the biggest states could guarantee a win, and that there's no protection against that--so, it doesn't "really" protect the rights of the smaller states which become irrelevant if you can win the largest ones. Which, if we lived in a political vacuum where voting priorities and divisions weren't easily determined across state lines and populations, would be a valid argument. But, the fact of the matter is that Democrats outnumber Republicans in urban centers (and I think in the population at large?). Democrats have done a fair amount to ensure this by encouraging immigration (illegal & legal) and offering out welfare to attract more people to come here. As has been noted before, this creates a dependent/permanent underclass which will always reliably vote Democrat. The result of this: the country eventually decays and crumbles as cultural cohesion, financial stability, and the safety of the populace evaporates into a distant dream. So a "pure" Athenian-style democracy would pretty much unilaterally result in democrat victories across the board. Gore would have won in 2000 (not that I necessarily think he would have been much different from Bush...) and Clinton would have won this time around if the popular vote count is to be believed. I've heard talk of proven cases of non-citizens voting, so, who knows what those actual numbers are. This video focuses on the theory behind the Electoral College, and that it doesn't "guarantee" theoretically that the states' voices will be protected. Well, going by the popular vote would absolutely destroy states voices. So, if the concern is preserving the ability of states to participate in the election then clearly out of those two choices the Electoral College system is superior. If you take this last election as an example, because of the makeup of the country and the actual distribution of democrats/republicans across state lines, the Electoral College is functioning exactly as it is supposed to. To prevent mob rule and to ensure that a few major cities don't get to decide the fate of the entire country. The United States is a gigantic country, and the individual preferences of people in democratic strongholds should not be the deciding factor which tips every election. If they manage to abolish the Electoral College before Trump's administration can affect change and ensure that illegal immigration is reduced, it's Democrats all the way down. And, yes, I guess technically, theoretically, if you can manage to win all of the big states then the others don't really matter. So by that logic it doesn't protect all the states. But that is not the reality of the situation! There's no President, if current populations and values hold, that can win California AND Texas. He's emphasizing theory at the expense of reality, and also it seems attempting to discredit this Presidential win as an example of the Electoral College functioning properly, fairly, and within the bounds of what was intended by the Founding Fathers. I feel that this election finally gives weight and meaning to the distinction: Democrats vs. Republicans. Democrats at this point want mob rule and pure "democracy" because they've been taking measures for decades among the populace: mainly media collusion/propaganda and manipulation of the voter base, which would ensure that they would always, always win. Republicans want to preserve the Republic because it's the only way at this point that Conservative values will have any voice in society or ability to affect change. Maybe we can revisit the conversation at a later point in history when there's been some type of balancing out of Liberal values and principles from the population, but until then, the Founding Fathers put this system in place for a reason and I don't claim to know more than they did about how to organize government.

Everybody go home this guy just won the thread

So sorry to hear about this situation, Chris! That's such a difficult problem. In this instance, though, I do think you're being pushed around. Her family is pushing her around and then subsequently she's pushing you around. What is her financial situation at this point? Are her parents supporting her? If so, that can make the situation a whole lot more difficult for you. Being 20 and just about to graduate college isn't exactly a stable point in general for young people, but I'm not sure what her major is or what her plans are. If she has a clear vision for herself and a plan to support herself outside of college, and she's still clinging to her family regardless, there might be a chance that she'll come around to seeing things your way if you stand your ground. But also, she's about five years younger than you, which just adds another layer of complexity to the situation. She's had five less years to encounter these ideas and grapple with them, so she might just not be mature enough or emotionally prepared to process what you're saying. When I've encountered similar situations in the past I've told the other person that I don't like the way that the family is treating them, and that it makes me angry to see them be abused. That approach tends to make the person feel less attacked while also communicating how frustrated you are with the situation. But, if your girlfriend is both financially AND emotionally dependent on abusive parents and unwilling to sever one or both of these ties despite the negative impact its having on your relationship, you might want to consider ending it. From what you've said, it seems like there's significant pressure on you to get married to her just to continue the relationship, but at the same time you don't really have a say over how and when that happens. You mentioned that if you get married, her parents HAVE to be involved, but that should not be what is going on. Getting married is probably the biggest decision you will ever make, and you want to be on equal terms with your partner when negotiating that. It's between you and her--not her and her abusive family. I just can't help but feel like you're really getting the short end of the stick, here.

This is so true! Makeup is a difficult subject for so many women, including me. I've gotten in fights with friends and ex-boyfriends about it. Definitely a contentious issue. I think maybe it's difficult to discuss what is actually going on beneath the surface psychologically for a lot of women

I mean, I don't really know how much it has to do with how attractive I am or not. Obviously I'm not unattractive but I don't feel that I stand out amongst the general population at my office. I work in Customer Service/Sales. There are A LOT of better looking women than me around. I got direct feedback from my female boss that my fashion and presentation choices affected the way I was seen around the workplace. This went from not wearing makeup at all for the entire first year of working there and being rejected for a promotion... To wearing makeup and within months getting promoted. Obviously there are other factors as to why that happened, but, honestly, it's not something women can just ignore. I tried to do so at my own expense and had to amend my views. Personally I wish that I didn't have to work or think about it at all. When you're a wife and mother you don't really need to put as much time and effort into your appearance because you're concerned with more important things like... I dunno... raising the next generation, but, financially that's not in the cards for me right now. But, Wuzzums, to address your point... I guess if I was only dating the one twin because I liked his car... then I'd be angry if I found out it was a rental? I don't want to be difficult in following your analogy though. Finances do definitely factor into things when it comes to choosing a man, but it's hard to imagine the scenario you're talking about. I honestly feel like I would need to know more details. Maybe you could explain more of what you are getting at?

Trump is not the only path to victory, but Clinton wants to start a war with Russia. This is not a complicated concept. Trump wants international cooperation, Clinton wants war. There are multiple sources online which will demonstrate her Hawkish policies. So, yes, the movement will continue with or without Trump. Still, I'd prefer not to see my husband (and potentially myself??) drafted to fight WWIII. I'd prefer to significantly reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. I'd like the middle east to be put back together. I'd also prefer not to have my news outlets like Breitbart shut down because they disagree with Clinton's politics and are willing to report on her myriad of scandals. The damage that this woman can do should not be underestimated, so I am warning against it, and I believe dsayers perspective to be a dangerous one that will encourage other people in the United States not to act while we still have the chance. I have no interest in "shaming" anyone.

You accuse me of perpetuating the evils of the State by voting. My response is: if you're concerned about perpetuating the State, then your inaction (not voting) and your action (arguing that others should do the same) will lead to Clinton getting elected, which will mean a direct increase in State power. Literally, the State will grow and expand in scope if other people follow your example in this instance. But more than that, both you and I are the victims here, victims of State power. So you can't rightly accuse me of being unethical, because I'm not the one initiating force here, the State is. Given that that is the case we could all close up our laptops and go home because none of us is really culpable as individuals for what goes down. But if we decide to do that there are practical consequences. There is still time left; there is still some choice left to us. So again, your devotion to the purity of your ideals will mean the death of those ideals in real life. If every high IQ, capable person in this community just decides to up and say "Fuck it, I'm AnCap, I decline to participate for moral reasons," well, guess what: Clinton wins. We lose our platforms for free speech, we lose our economic stability, and quite possibly a lot of people lose their lives. So, to address your issue of the "unchosen positive obligation," I can't argue that you're immoral if you don't vote. You're not the one initiating force. Likewise, you can't accuse me of being immoral if I do, because neither am I. What I can point out, however, is your inconsistent position on this subject--and the hypocrisy of accusing me of perpetuating the State. If your goal is to shrink the State, the best way to do that is to vote for the candidate in this particular context who is going to shrink the state. The consequences of not doing so, while they cannot ultimately, morally be attributed exclusively to your inaction based on UPB framework, will ensue regardless. We are all living under this threat, the only way we can all get out of it is to coordinate and choose the safest course for our society. In this case, the safest course to avoid war, economic destruction, and an increase in State power, is voting Trump.

So, just gonna share some thoughts. I think I might be the only woman on this thread so far? (I apologize if I'm wrong about that). I think probably barring extreme cases where someone is maybe wearing a prosthetic nose or significantly attempting to alter their appearance with the intent of deceiving someone else, wearing make up is not a moral issue. Stefan has pointed out in some podcasts the sexual nature of makeup and its role in sexual arousal/attraction. So it can give a lot of clues about how a woman feels about herself. But you have to understand that, as a woman in the work force, not wearing makeup puts you at a huge disadvantage. (http://www.hngn.com/articles/15359/20131020/women-who-wear-makeup-most-likely-to-get-hired-and-be-promoted-survey.htm) I took a vocal stance against makeup for a long time and really had to eat those words when I applied for a promotion at my job. I started wearing makeup and it had a massive impact on the way that my bosses and coworkers viewed me. So keep in mind that those statistics exist when evaluating how much makeup a woman does or does not wear. I thought Wuzzums made a good point here in relation to dating: There is something to be said for noticing how much time and effort women put into wearing makeup and noting their relationship with it on an individual basis. Like, if your girl can't go for a run without filling in her eyebrows first, you know, you might have a problem. But unfortunately in the workplace it's kindof a requirement if you want to be looked upon favorably by superiors and coworkers alike. There are a lot of ways to tell if a woman is vain and empty, and I think heavy reliance on makeup/unwillngness to be seen without it is definitely one indicator. However, in the dating world, I think it would be a mistake to say that any woman who goes out in public and presents herself to strangers while wearing makeup is automatically looking to deceive and is horrible/vain. The truth of the matter is that in the workplace you're received better while wearing makeup, and I can't imagine that that doesn't extend into the dating world. Besides, if a woman is looking to date you and spends some extra time putting on makeup to help appear attractive to you, that's an effect that she can replicate in other scenarios, so I don't see it as false advertising. And, I mean, if you don't like a woman as soon as she takes her makeup off then she's probably a bad person... and also wearing a shit ton of makeup. I wear makeup all the time and I can't imagine wearing so much that it would obscure what my actual face looks like or enhance my attractiveness enough to make someone who wasn't attracted to me at all suddenly be mad with desire. It's cool to get this insight, though, so, if anyone takes issue with anything I've said I'd love to hear more about it

Nothing significant to add other than to say I thought this was a v eloquent response If you accept that the state is the aggressor, and the population are those being subjected, then your moral outrage against me and others who support Trump is hypocritical. You have to apply the same standards to yourself as you're applying to the rest of us. You think your inaction is not action in itself? None of us fucking like that the state exists, but it does. And in this situation we have a responsibility to each other to ensure that our society remains as free as it possibly can be so we can continue to even have this conversation. You realize that Clinton wants to shut down sites like this? She HATES the alt-right and alternative media in general. She's made direct threats against Breitbart and now, with the ICANN transfer, do you think it won't be possible for her to come after Stefan? To shut him down? Not only are you not voting, but you're actively attempting to get people to agree with you, or at least you're arguing against people like me. In the current environment, which is one with a state, that means that you're advocating for a world view which may lead people on this site to abstain from the election, which is not good for Trump. If it's not good for Trump it's good for Clinton, and Clinton wants to destroy freedom of speech and take us all to war. If you agree that I don't own you, well, apply the same logic to yourself. By NOT voting, by refusing to acknowledge the danger that Clinton represents to humanity, you are acting as if you own us all. That your devotion to an abstract principle is more important than the threat that Hillary Clinton poses to humanity at large. It's arrogance of the highest order. Ultimately the state is the aggressor, and is putting us in this situation, but that is the reality. Do we focus on how unfair it is, or do we fight? If we didn't have a state this wouldn't even be a conversation, but we do have one. So we have a responsibility to make sure that we do whatever we have to do to keep it in check. You do realize that you're attacking people who want to protect you, your life, and your freedom of speech? Trump will stand against the political establishment, Hillary will take it to its logical conclusion. Your inaction and your arguments will directly lead to catastrophic scenarios. How do you have that right? How do you have the right to sit in your ivory tower and look down on the rest of us, who are trying to protect our society? You would be willing to risk the lives of all the people you know, the society you enjoy, because you aren't willing to acknowledge the reality of what is occurring here? If arguing against the state is so important to you, then why aren't you going to do everything you can to protect free speech? I'm not sure why you're asking for a definition of "support," I think it's pretty obvious that it means I agree with Trump policies, am planning to vote for him, and will argue on his behalf because I want him to be president rather than Hillary Clinton. Because I do not want to go to war, and I want to be safe from the destruction she would bring.

I mean, I feel like you've given enough info to at least prompt some more basic questions. But, yes, it would be good to know more about what the relationship is between you and your friend? Is she an ex or is there any romantic tension between you? How close are you? Has this guy given you any reason to suspect him? I don't think it's unusual at all for a person to want time alone or to have activities that they really need that space for, but is the guy giving off any other red flags? I know you mentioned he is wealthy--does he seem like a womanizer or have history of dishonesty? Do you get a weird feeling about him in general, like something is off? Has there been any drama in their relationship to begin with, like him leaving another girl for her or him cheating?