[Catalonia attempting to separate from Spain]

Interesting stuff, I can't say for sure whether the Catalonians ought to or ought not to have their independence given I know little of their present situation nor whether they'd be better prepared to resist the migrant crisis detached from Madrid or if they're basically sinking their own ship by attempting to build a new one out of the wreckage. 

I think they would probably be better able to institute reforms that satisfy the local population with independence, however governments being governments, I doubt very much that it'd help those Spaniards in the long run. The Castilian rule over Spain has had mixed results throughout history, I can't say for sure that it's a good idea for a race to divide itself politically, but if Spain's in trouble, I can't say it's wrong for a fraction of the Spaniards to cut out a lifeboat to save themselves. 

But then again, they're small and becoming further weakened if they secede, therefore I doubt it's worth it in the long run. Like I doubt Bavarians or Saxons would benefit much in the long run by seceding from Prussian Germany. If it didn't help the Southern Americans to secede from the Northern Americans, why would it help the Catalonians? It is basically the same thing, I think, but with different costumes and accents. 

[Why Bad Boy?]

I cannot say for a certainty whether I'm on the mark or dead wrong, or if any of what I'm about to say is relevant to you and your history, but I'll dare to try to analyze you and your so-called "bad boy manipulation". 

On Stef and bad boys: Refer to pretty much any podcast or youtube video with the word "pick up artist" or some other synonym and you'll have his general idea as to why bad boys are the way they are and why some women are attracted to them. I'll try to boil it into two sentences (note he hasn't said this to my knowledge but I think this can summarize it and be used as a ruler): bad boys hate their mothers, bad girls hate their fathers, and since both bad boys and bad girls want, for some reason, to repeat their childhoods into adulthood (perhaps for sexual success), they intuitively seek out that which is most familiar to them.

If a man has a slut for a mother and a deadbeat for a father, he's likely to have a bad impression of both genders and feel indifferent towards manipulating women for sex and pissing on men for whatever. If a woman has basically the same childhood she's bound to see men as temporary animals and therefore merely pursue men for sex, especially when a welfare state absolves her of the need for a provider, then she's likely to pursue men like her dad and coincidentally fit the bad boy's mom. I think the reason why people do this is because it is both familiar and sexually successful--and we mammals pretty much live to be sexually successful. Therefore I assume you don't respect women (to be clear I mean see them as merely holes for semen or lesser animals that either need guiding or can't be held responsible for their own behavior) because you, either  consciously or subconsciously, were raised to think that by your own parents perhaps because they lived that model or that was the lesson you inherited by their example. 

I could say this is why lots of women don't respect men, and why lots of traumatized people don't respect or think little or people in general--their childhoods imprinted subconsciously that people are fundamentally like robots doing what they're commanded to do, or like dominoes doing what they do because some other domino hit them.

And if you, consciously or subconsciously, see most people like dominoes or robots then it is pretty easy to see why you'd be indifferent to using cheep women for sex and hungering to "defile" high quality women with your "impure sperm". 

Perhaps by extension you have a very low opinion of yourself and therefore "punish yourself" by including yourself in the "cheep" and "low rent" categories of people.

I say this in part because I can relate; when I used to be a Communist and later a Fascist, I used to think very poorly of the average man and to some degree I still have this problem, hence why I decided to stop talking about politics and the human condition in public until I have confidence that I'm not merely projecting the "lessons learned" from my own childhood. 

I think fundamentally you lack confidence and don't value most people. You probably punish yourself with impossible (or just beyond your reach) standards and have a bad relationship with your parents, and therefore enjoy "manipulating and defiling women" as both a form of self-flagellation and revenge against your parents. 

I know it's a pretty far-fetched theory, but I'm sure at least 10% of it is applicable to your situation and the remaining 90% can be adjusted to fit your case. The fact you describe yourself like a barbarian at the gate of civilization who is unworthy to enter and takes pleasure at defiling it hints me that. 

It might also be a race thing. Being Eurasian, you might have an extra layer of complicated feelings because you probably feel kinship with two distinct races and have criticisms of both and are probably frustrated that so many of both groups don't accept your criticisms and reform themselves. 

Or maybe I'm projecting a bit, since I can kinda relate to being angry at my tribe and therefore seeking of a new one. As much as I love the Philosopher Tribe it is few in numbers and hard to find offline, and non-existent outside my weekly sessions.  

I think a therapist, ideally an older married man, might have be the man you need with a shovel and a pickaxe ready to dig into your soul and discover what it is that pains it and causes you to feel gratification for that which you know to be evil. 

[A rational proof that taxation is theft.]

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Well, we tried that, and that is what we are arguing over. The problem with shirgall's definition is that it already presumes that tax is deducted by immoral force. 

Well, if "tax" is by definition forceful than it is immoral. I think the debate it whether or not "tax" is even "tax" by the definition I provided, and if it is in some cases but not in others, what or where are they? 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

You include force in your definition. How eactly is the current pope forcing someone to believe something? Saying he is lying is one thing, but that claim is rather different.

You misunderstood me. I might have said the Pope indoctrinates but if I did, I made a mistake. I do not think the Pope indoctrinates at all. Some "religious" families might and some priests might tacitly allow it, but I can't say I know of any Roman Catholic priests who indoctrinate (based on the definition I gave) let alone the Supreme Pontiff, even this one. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I think as long as you have the permission to opt out of the game, you are in the game by choice. Because quite frankly, I think claiming such a level of victimhood in America is a slap in the face to everyone in North Korea, Cuba, China, and else.

Well, then there have to be two categories of people: those who can migrate (legally), and those who can't. Given I'm still poor, I can't chose to leave America let alone Pennsylvania unless I wish to do so penniless and perhaps illegally ( I don't know the law enough to say for sure--I might be wrong here). 

Unfortunately opting out involves either abdicating one's own property or moving it. Unless one is wealthy enough to afford the expenses of moving cross-country, learning a new language, new culture, etc. I don't think it's accurate to say even people in freer countries have much of a choice in determining their citizenship. Save becoming stateless and whatever negative consequences of that may be. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There are only 2 ways to become official resident of the Vatican. Become a member of the Conclave, or become a Swiss Guard. However, that is mainly in theory, as there are many others who have permission to live there. But still, you have to be very useful to the Vatican.

In that case, for most people, the Vatican can't be called attainable for those seeking total economic freedom. However for those who happen to be biblical scholars, or somehow friendly enough with the Papacy to be allowed to be living among them, I suppose this is viable. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Why is it so hard to think of the Monarch as a landlord? He inherited it after all, and before him, his ancestors either fought for it, or earned it. 

Depends on the royal government, and its legitimacy. A guy with an army who theoretically seizes Pennsylvania through force and calls himself the "King of Pennsylvania" is essentially no more than a powerful gangster and robber. Likewise his descendants are mere beneficiaries of the theft. However I think, as you'd agree, all fortunes must become virtuous with time because otherwise we all benefit from someone else's theft and it'd be impossible to know for sure who to pay back or whatever. Therefore perhaps 500 years later the Kingdom of Pennsylvania could be called a legitimate state. However the actually economic style and legal rights of the individual determine, to me at least, whether or not the Kingdom in question can be called moral. If the Kingdom respects the rights of the private citizen and the proprietors, and Counts (and higher nobles) are either those who come from families considered loyal and filial enough to the Kingdom  to be granted either a percentage of the tax revenue or are self-made or generationally-made (to invent a phrase) businessmen, then I'd say we have something close to what AnCap is meant to be--a society that respects the individual's rights of property and the Non-Aggression Principle. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

In medieval monarchies, force was always decentralised. After all, the lords were the soldiers to the monarch. It was not rare that a king had smaller armies than some of his lords.

I kinda learned that in video games, and confirmed it with the internet. 

Hence why I think, at least until better arguments are presented, a monarchy/feudal system is more moral than a modern republican one.

If you want I'd like to debate the topic further, however because I can't Direct Message (which I think is because I made a terrible mistake some months ago), feel free to email me at [email protected] .

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't think they are wrong. The question is whether or not their ownership is legitimate. A debate over legitimacy is certainly a debate I wish to have. 

Let's have it. I think it'd be a tangent here though. Either a fresh thread perhaps called or themed over whether a monarchy can be called a form of AnCap (I think it might be, at least under the right circumstances), or via email. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Hey, not my words. I think it is somehwere in the middle of Everyday Anarchy. But I agree with you. Those places are very good arguments for AnCap, and its a shame few Anarchists use them.

I might be wrong, but I could have sworn Stef spoke positively of the economic/liberty aspects of the examples given in podcasts since at least a year ago.

Although he's really the only big anarchist personality I know. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

The reason why catholic universities often descend into liberalism is their extreme open-mindedness and tolerance. Catholics are too good at tolerating other opinions, and I think that is going to be the death of us. The ones who I have been intellectually and physically bullied by in my life are protestants, buddhists, muslims and atheists. If there is indoctrination going on, it is not in the Church.

I think that has more to do with the cucking of men, rise of feminism and Socialism, and degradation of Western culture taking the spine out of Westerners than a fault with Christendom. At our best we fought the Muslims who tried to enslave us, and made peace with them once we secured our safety and security. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Seriously, just try mentioning to an atheist parent that there is historical evidence behind the immaculate conception. Since presumption of your intellectual life is immediately discarded, they will instantly move on to ridicule you.

Which is why I never debate atheists on anything substantial. I don't know much about the historical accuracy or probability of the immaculate conception but I can't say 100% it never happened (although I don't think it did personally) and if anyone has evidence and reason for it, I'd open to hear it since it could prove to be very powerful in proving the existence of God and Christ. Which is something our Christian ancestors have spent centuries attempting to prove, at least through logic and conjecture. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

 

If you are serious about this, I recommend we open a new thread, because it is a very important debate, but also off-topic here.

That would be interesting to read. My one-sentence answer is "no" since I think baptism by itself is merely a ritual of welcoming new or half-way matured life, not necessarily an imposition of anything. 

[Female leg hair]

I guess the same reason some guys don't like female pubic or facial hair? Some genetic reason that rationalizes it all?

It's amusing how topics here can range from life-and-death end-of-the-world discussions to...friggen kinks. 

That being said it certainly caught my attention as a unique post. Even if irrelevant intellectually since I figure "genetics" and "childhood"  is the cop-out that accurately answers all the reasons why we prefer certain things. Like clean bodies for women, hairy bodies for men. 

[A rational proof that taxation is theft.]

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. It is relevant because I think it is important for definig tax. 
For example, if I say "Democracy is stupid and should be considered bullying", then it is perfectly reasonable to ask how the first democracy came to be and why exactly it did in order to advance the discussion.

I think what is best is to simply offer a definition of tax and work with it. If that definition is unsatisfactory, then argue for a change of it. I will define tax as "money or property collected through force by a group" relative to rent which is voluntarily paid without the threat of force. 

EDIT: I apologize if some of my sentences are short, abrasive, or skewed: I got royally screwed and lost a half-hour's worth of words when my computer bugged out on me. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I'm sorry, man. I need solid evidence from you too in order to discuss the Pope. 

Got it. Not really important to the argument.

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I think it is unreasonable, or even evil to ask parents not to teach to their children what they believe to be correct. But I am open to changing my mind on this one.

I said (or think I said) indoctrinate, which implies forcefully making someone believe something rather than make rational arguments or proofs for something. Therefore it is moral to teach fire is dangerous by explaining it and perhaps burning some paper with it rather than hitting my child until he "agrees" with me. That's the difference between arguing/proving versus indoctrinating.

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. There is a contract, and it's called the common law, or the constitution. Renegotiation happens during elections, and opting out is even easier; all you have to do is leave.

Love it or leave it, I can't say that's moral since it violates the rights of the individual owner. Also democracy is a sham and highly rigged, therefore there isn't much of a recourse for those who disagree with the State. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There is actually a civilised state that respects private property, and of which taxes are unenforced: the Holy See. You don't hear the Libertarians mention that too often though.

If that's true I want to see if they have room for a house. I assume it'll be insanely expensive but if they got the room and I manage to work my way up to the money, I'm buying it.

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Your argument is based on the premise that the store that you own is built on your land exclusively. That may be the case in the USA, but most places on the planet, land ownership is restricted to the government. The government leases you the land to do with it what you will, and then charges you in return.

If it can be said to be moral for a sole group or person to own all the land in a country, and it can be said to be moral for that group or person to impose conditions for that land, then I think I have to agree with you. I'm not sure since I know there's a slippery slope I'm risking if I say "it is immoral for someone or a group to have a monopoly of a lot of land". Perhaps someone wiser than me can argue this point further since my mind is blanking, largely from frustration as I got unlucky with the internet.

A feudal system in which force is decentralized is easier to argue for the morality of if it is NAP compliant as technically the Counts are more Landlord than Government as a government, I will define, is a centralization of force over a geographical area and uses force to maintain its ownership/supremacy.

My point earlier was how it is important to be clear with definitions. I think most of us Rightists define the government as a "monopoly or supremacy of force with which it reigns over an area of people and land". 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

4. I don't disagree with anything on this point, but I have to say that there is still a lot to polish on your (all Anarchists) argument. The case for AnCap is still very weak, and Mr.Molyneux admits this in his book, because it has never existed yet. My issue is that you keep talking about theory and ideas, whereas there is a ton of material out there in the world, wherein countries have come close to AnCap. And all of you seem to be unwilling to discuss them.

What do you mean? I think the early Roman Republic, early Roman Empire, early America, etc. are great examples of almost-ancaps worth arguing as demonstrations that the less government and taxation there is, the better. Therefore no government and no taxation is theoretically the best. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

5. "Indictrinated" is an extremely overused and vague term. 

Let's define it as forcing someone to believe something or pretend to believe something. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Also. If you think it is easy to "indoctrinate" a child into faith, dude, no. It is frickin hard, because a child is born to question things. And the questioning only increases as they get older. Unless of course the parents turn them over to the state where the nature of skepticism is literally beaten out of them. There is absolutely no person on this planet who has been coerced or  into being christian by their parents and then stayed christian, because the respect for free will is the fundamental thesis of christianity. It is impossible to indoctrinate someone into Christianity. Because if it involves force or lies, that is not christianity.

I agree with you completely. I just mean there are fake Christians that do this and they're worth condemning. Also since children are too young to really argue for themselves, I think they should wait until they're around 16-18 before being introduced to more abstract concepts like God. I think children should be raised with values through demonstration and reasoning. I think taking a child to Church and claiming God is real without proof is bad for a child since it contradicts the Christian values of skepticism and free will, as I am essentially overpowering intellectually my hypothetical child rather then letting them make their own decisions as adults and arming them to make those decisions well as children.

If that makes sense. I am not at my best, so I might be confusing with my words. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

4. Hang on. Let me rephrase.
Dear Lord, Jesus Christ, please bring it to the attention of Mr.Molyneux that some of us are dying to see that debate between him and Duke Pesta. And also please bring down your balls of fire on the heathens who refuse bring proper arguments to the forums. But in the end O Lord, it is not my will, but yours that be done. Amen

My homie Jesus will whoop your arse. Just watch

Lol keep it clean man. 

Lol but still. I think this is a very important debate and one I've been paying attention to for weeks now. I'm curious how you two can argue it, and how I can argue it based on what I know, so let's not get too dirty...

[A rational proof that taxation is theft.]

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

I don't owe you anything. I choose to participate of my own free will. Are you trying to force me into your irrelevant side missions? "Another settlement needs our help", indeed.

Sorry to interject, but I had to say this was a clever statement that speaks my mind. I don't think when the first tax came to be (which would be further complicated by how a "tax" could be defined, I mean if tax=theft, then the first tax was when Caine stole Abel's life, or beyond) is in any way relevant to the discussion.

 

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

The Pope pushes religion (Catholicism *and* socialism), on children.

THIS Pope does. Definitely not a proud moment of Roman Catholic history. FYI I am of the opinion that religion should be taught to adults, not children. More precisely the existence or non-existence of God should be a subject for adults who can debate for themselves, while the Christian values can be demonstrated/taught/argued to children without the need of God.

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

The Duke of Luxumbourg takes things without consent.

 

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

MISHI (NOT shirgall): 

3. Do you have an argument to support it, or...?

IF the Grand Duke of Luxembourg arranged a contract with his entire citizenry that stipulated point by point what rights the citizen has, what rents (not taxes because he's supposed to be a landlord) are owed, and what the rents will be going to, and EVERY citizen has agreed to it, THEN it could be easily argued that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a moral non-NAP violating state. However I assume the taxes collected go to whatever the bureaucrats want it to go and the citizenry is in no position individually to arrange for a new contract or re-negotiation, or even a negotiation at all. 

I don't think the "love it or leave it" argument can be called a moral one since there is no place where private property will be totally respected. Sure I could live out in the Gobi Dessert...until some desert animal or bandit comes along and robs my property. I would have to start from scratch in "creating civilization" and God help us when the Chinese government decides it no longer tolerates the micro-state growing in its backyard and starts taxing us. Then it becomes an Amerindian style retreat deeper into the woodlands/arctics/deserts until there is nowhere left to run.

Hiding out in the wilderness is not a viable strategy in the long-run unless the goal is merely temporary freedom. 

The basic argument is something like this: You own a store, I have a gun. I say it'd be an awful shame if something bad happen to it. Pay me 500$ per month and I'll have some of my boys patrol it. Mind they have their own preferences so here's a.... (insert byzantine contract here)... and now here's where you sign your name.

Doesn't that sound like a mafia shakedown? And that's what governments do constantly. They threaten harm, either by their own hand or by others, and offer "protection" for money. If it's theft for the Mafia then why isn't it theft for the State, who is far stronger and is possessed of far more resources?

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Sounds like an important thing not to know about something you feel (sorry, trigger word) so strongly about. I am here, actually begging to be convinced about this topic, and you can't make a good argument. And you still have 7 billion people left aside from me. Keep up the work and you will be done by judgment day.

Well, the plan is to slowly grow an international AnCap community through demonstrating how effectively Peaceful Parenting and NAP following improves the quality of one's own life, and therefore by extension attract others into living it. Demonstrating the effectiveness of living a principled life is generally more productive than arguing for its effectiveness, although the latter may be necessary for a would-be man or woman of principle to procreate, I don't think it's worth arguing outside of personal relations since it is far better to demonstrate why AnCap, NAP, and UPB are great and moral than to spend countless hours arguing for it while the State indoctrinates millions of children. It's a race we can't win through argument alone. We have to demonstrate it and put a spotlight on it and attract the curious. Over time, which may be centuries, this plan may yield fruit enough for a real AnCap to be possible.  

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. I wish Duke Pesta and Mr.Molyneux would get on with their religion debate and trigger all you atheists away. You are so boring.

I am tempted to agree. I don't believe in God, or at least I'm not sure, but I strongly identify with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of morality and principles. I don't need a God to validate my beliefs, but rather reason and evidence. 

That being said it's not like Shirgall's wrong. Most religious families DO indoctrinate their kids rather than make good arguments for religion and wait until they're adults before trying to introduce them to religion. 

While that may not be the worst thing in the world, it can't be called moral to attempt to mold impressionable minds to fit a perceived world view, even if that view is true. Therefore while I am inclined to prefer Christians over atheists, I can't fault the atheist argument that pushing abstractions and threatening Hell for not obeying/believing is immoral because, well, it IS immoral. It is threatening children instead of reasoning with them. 

To be clear, I'm not saying ALL Christian families do it. Just that it's woefully common and worth condemnation.  

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

Hating the government isn't the same as hating the location. But to answer your question, perhaps mostly because I'm sentimental. I'm a So Cal native. I was born here, grew up (mostly) here, and despite all the traveling I've done, I quite like it here. Money is part of the issue, but it's certainly not all of it. In a sense, Southern California right now is what New York used to be a century ago, in that "if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere!" It makes more sense to be successful out here, and then move somewhere else (if it really gets so bad that I feel like I have to) than moving right now, and having a harder time in the long-run. Also, the longer I stay, the more of a chance I have to leave a lasting impact. I'm not going to get dragged down into the swamp, but I'm not going to jump shit just yet, that's for sure...

I sorta understand. I don't like where I have lived and grown up; It's easy for me to just say "screw it" and relocate once I've made money enough to do so. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

It was bigger then than it is now. Serbia used to include Kosovo, Montenegro, and more. Even some portions got taken by Bosnia after the war. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be more pleased to be wrong if the slavs did work together and saved Western civilization. I just know that every slav I've ever met has been an island, not a welcoming port, with the few exceptions being ethnic slavs born over here like me.

You know it's interesting because a lot of my old school friends were Slavs, and interestingly enough it was somewhat dependent on their accent whether or not they would associate with each other. Generally speaking Russians and American-sounding Slavs didn't judge based on ethnic history while the Serbs (the one I knew anyway) did. 

Of course I know the Kingdom of Serbia shrunk after it was merged with its neighbors in forming Yugoslavia, and later civil wars. As far as I know they're the most red-pilled on Islamic terrorism/immigration of their neighbors, similar to the Magyars of Hungary. 

You know, speaking of video games, I grew up with a certain game called "Ogre Battle", and while the one I own wasn't the one directly based off the Yugoslav wars and ethnic cleansings (which were referred to as such in the game "Ogre Battle: Let Us Cling Together" in a way that very much contrasted its cutesy pixelated dioramaic form), the one I did play, "Person of Lordly Caliber", themed very heavily on the idea of fighting for idealism over realism, the distance between the military, the citizenry, and the countrymen; as well as the corruptibility of martial power and radical revolutions. 

Pretty progressive for 90's games I'd say.

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

 

I wonder if I should feel honored, or disturbed... XD

Well, I remember reading a scene similar to how you described your life back when I was a freshman in high school. The way the main guy warily approached others and the "woke" guy who seemed to not be genuinely indoctrinated. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

Speaking of 1984, I really should get around to reading it. I never have, only Animal Farm (and found it fucking amazing). But right now my list of reading material is long enough... it'll have to take a seat in line!

It's not that complicated beyond the idea that evil does evil for power's sake. Like Animal Farm, once you get it the magic wares off. Also a book I read in early High School back when I was a Communist. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

Well most of what you learn that transpired between the Courier and Ulysses is revealed in the same DLC, Lonesome Road. The other DLCs largely hint at their shared history, but give very little concrete information to go off of until the finale when they confront each other in the Divide. Thematically, the 3 "main" DLCs all act as components of a larger, cohesive story. No surprise, then, that they're all directed by the same person, meanwhile Honest Hearts was handled by a different director, which easily explains the drastically different tone, theme, and disjointed feeling that it had with the rest of the game. Which order you play them in really only impacts the order that you learn different pieces of information. Though going by the overarching narrative, as well as the ending slides of the DLCs, Lonesome Road is truly intended as the finale of the story, the other DLCs serving as a primer, supporting the final confrontation to come.

The abridged version of Ulysses and the Courier's backstory is that both were Couriers, and their paths crossed several times, but it probably left more of an impression on Ulysses than his counterpart. When Ulysses discovered the Dam for the Legion, the Courier discovered Hopeville, which started a new settlement that eked out a living in the harsh area. Ulysses tracked the Courier to Hopeville, and having lost his home to the legion's conquests, he felt like he found a new home in Hopeville. This was destroyed (along with the entire settlement) when the Courier delivered the Enclave package containing a detonator that triggered all of the nuclear missiles in the underground silos of Hopeville, creating apocalyptic earthquakes that shattered the whole area, killing almost everyone there. Ulysses took this destruction of his "second home" very hard, and held a personal vendetta against the Courier for their role in its destruction, even if it was unknowingly. More importantly, Ulysses felt like a cog in a greater machine that he had no chance in influencing by observing both the NCR and Legion grow into unstoppable powers that were going to clash, but now the events of the Divide gave him warped inspiration on "how to kill a nation". So when he learned that the Courier survived the ambush in Goodsprings, he sent them a message that it was time to settle the score in the Divide, intending to use the Courier to "deliver" one more package: the very same detonator. So Ulysses could arm the remaining missiles and use them against the Courier's "home" (which varies, per playthough, depending on the actions of the player and which side they choose allegiance), both ending these powers that he felt had grown into engines of destruction, but also so he could exact his revenge against the courier by destroying their "home", and the nail in the coffin would be that were it not for the Courier's unnecessary interference, none of this would have even been possible. They would have made this second nuclear armageddon a reality, just as they had launched a missile earlier in the DLC, simply because they wanted to progress forward, and that meant doing whatever it takes. Ulysses would prove his point, get his revenge, and stop a war, all in one fell swoop.

All this I completely forgot. 

Very interesting and definitely makes sense of the otherwise strange story. My only qualm is how could the Enclave nuked Hopeville when they no longer exist...unless the player is in his 30's. Which I consider a bit of an imposition on the whole "role playing" aspect of the game. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

As far as antagonist motivations writing goes, that's solid gold. He doesn't want some silly or cartoonishly evil scheme. It's not overly-and-unnecessarily complex. He's very direct about what he wants and why he wants it, and when you learn the deeper backstory behind it, it fleshes out his character more so you may even relate to him in some ways. Yes he's largely motivated by revenge, but he's also pursuing a goal to stop what he sees as a greater evil, not so different from how your character is working towards a greater goal in "resolving" the situation in the Mojave Wasteland.

I agree, given context, he makes a sensible villain. I wouldn't feel too badly for him, since he could have used the same trauma as an impetus to join a group like the Follows of the Apocalypse and basically be a post-apocalyptic Stefan Molynuex instead. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

I'm reminded of what I heard about the Seasteading Institute. I hope it gets off the ground, and provides a good opportunity to found (experimental) freer societies, though I imagine it will probably cost an arm and a leg to be given the chance to participate. You'd get to live out a fantasy of existing in a not-mutant-ravaged Rapture like in Bioshock- albeit one floating on the ocean surface, rather than sitting on the ocean floor -and potentially escape from a Leftist Apocalypse on land in a freer society, in one relocation! Then again, I first learned about this back when I was much more left-leaning, from a source that's increasingly obviously left-leaning, so for all I know, it's already been contaminated with all their bad ideas. I know a simple cursory look at their website right now that they spend an awful lot of attention to environmental concerns, and alarmingly little attention to social frameworks. Either they really plan on winging it with their floating societies and see what different permutations of anarchic structures can lead to, or I just misinterpreted their aims entirely...

I'm hugely skeptical of any group claiming to be founding a mico and experimental society, mainly because of what the motivations and mindsets of the leaders might be, as well as the consequences of trying to assimilate into such a group. It could very well be a cult. 

I think the idea of this one in particular is interesting. Or at least would have been interesting if what you thought they were about was the truth rather than a masturbatory hippy-dippy commune of doom. 

I think it would be cool if a city like Rapture could be built and sustained; humanity's ultimate ego trip. I mean the city, even as a ruin, was pretty cool in the game and seemed like it would have been a nice place to live minus the added crap Bioshock 2 revealed. I mean, the godlessness of the society left it vulnerable to religious extremists. I think for AnCap to really stand the test of time (arguably Rapture was a hypothetical AnCapia) it needs a moral backbone based on Classical Liberal and Christian principles as well as, especially for the inherently duplicitous and stupid, a God-figure to be the moral stick which keeps the donkey from lazily sipping carrot juice. (What a wonderful metaphor I made at midnight, eh? Point being good people need not a disincentive for bad while "neutral" and bad people do). 

 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

Actually, I live in "the most conservative" area of Southern California. Granted, that really only means the lowest percentage of leftists to everyone else is 30% (and it's usually 60%, instead of bay area 80% and above). But in my particular field, there's also a rather large number of conservatives, which I attribute to the job being very competitive. So the nature of our work weeds out most (but not all) of the leeches, and my office is on the boarder of this area that's "the most conservative" of So Cal. So I don't have to hide that much amongst my peers. Clients is another story...

The real problem is the leftist government. My little corner of the state may be more reasonable as a whole, but we're still being legislated into the ground by our dear Governor Moonbeam...

Hmm... Why do you live in California if you hate it so much? I get it if it's financial, as that's why I still live in a place where I'm a hated ethnic minority. Once that's settled though, I'd recommend leaving the area for somewhere in the Midwest. 

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

 

I really, really doubt it. Hate to be a stick in the mud, but even if this optimistic vision of yours does happen, it'll be generations and centuries beyond me. I'll only ever live to see the divide continued. The transformation of Russia serves as a very encouraging spectacle of what might be possible, but for reasons I cannot understand, the other slavs just don't share the same values. They're much more inclined to go with the multi-cult vision of the world, because they want to join the EU's new world order. Somehow being repeatedly invaded is a memory only the Russians have about the world around them. In spite of having been enslaved by the invading Muslims for centuries, the other slavs are totally cool with joining the very power that's welcoming in their historical enemies. Very few pockets are putting their feet down and demanding anything of the waves of migrants, and Serbia is one of those few pockets. No surprise at all, then, that when they're asked to work and make themselves useful, the migrants just walk right through the country. It's pathetic how transparent this situation is, and yet how clouded every looking at it wishes it to be.

Serbia's not exactly a "small pocket" given their former Kingdom was the main force in expelling the Turks in the 19th century. 

Even if it'll take centuries, that's hardly a bad thing. It's not great, but it's bearable. We humans can only do so much in our short 50-year lives, we ought to take pleasure in nudging the rock even if just an inch, for every generation that pushes it an inch is a generation less it'll take to be gone with the boulder. 

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

 

On the contrary, I believe I took it precisely the right degree of far enough. Most of what I said was simply an explanation of my own nature as it pertains to that philosophy of looking after your own legacy to protect what is right in the world. When I say I look to identify "threats" or "lost causes", it's precisely because they're the kinds of people who do NOT exhibit a sort of curiosity or humility. They don't show a potential to realize that they were wrong all along, they exclusively project delusion and hypocrisy. For example, there are people in my family I've deemed "lost causes", and as such have cut all ties to them whatsoever. It's the decision to cut ties with family that others might consider monstrous, but to me it's just what needed to be done. We're talking people who threaten to call the police because they get themselves so worked up that "I'm" the one threatening them. And of the few times they actually try to "debate" me, their crowning argument is "no, you're wrong". There's no room for growth in people like this. They don't show any signs of integrity, or an inclination for curiosity. They're dead-set in their ways, and their ways are "everyone else is wrong". All those internet stereotypes of SJWs who decry "racist, sexist, xenophobic' toward all their enemies? Yeah, these people literally say exactly that. So am I taking things too far when I look at people like this and my assessment is "this is a genetic dead end, AND they can never offer me anything of value in my life, so drop them like a hot plate and never look back"? I'd say no, it's an appropriate reaction, given the circumstances.

Given what you've described, I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable point. 

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

When it comes to strangers, I'm just more closed-off, out of caution. Again, my surroundings being so rife with liberals, it's a behavior that's largely born out of necessity. Chances are simply much too high that if I were to be open and honest with everyone I ever met, I'd be on the receiving end of an Antifa-styled mob beating. But when two of us who share enough in common both approach each other (equally cautiously), and we both pick up enough cues from one another that we kinda guess we may believe some of the same things, we usually both timidly toss out a few comments to see how the other reacts. I've met a couple really cool people by taking such chances after getting a certain vibe from them over the course of conversation.

Reminds me of 1984...

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

It's quite likely, in fact. Not more likely than otherwise, but 10% is nothing to dismiss. So getting shot in the head, you have a 1 in 10 chance of surviving. Clearly, the Courier was one such fluke. As for the Courier's actions that led to Ulysses' response, he made his point by the end of the lonesome road that it WAS entirely your fault, regardless of whether you knew what you were doing or not. Just as you had the choice to turn back and not face the consequences of your actions, you didn't have to take this job or that. You didn't have to do many of the great (or terrible) deeds, but you chose to.

Unfortunately I can't remember enough to comment. I know I did the DLCs (every time) out of order, so that might have screwed up my knowledge of their extended story lines.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

It's certainly a good choice, for the time being. While the rest of the world welcomes in their own demise, Russia is one of the few places that seems to be trying to stay alive in any of the ways that matter.

It doesn't hurt I have historical cousins living by the Volga. Or maybe formerly living by the Volga given WWII. Also they have a strong Christian moral code that I respect, even if they may or may not be close to Libertarian. They could get there. Russia has little history of being free, yet they're freer and wealthier now than ever. I wonder what their "peak" would be...

In the shorter term (next 5 years) I plan on moving to a more conservative country in a freer, safer state. Ideally one without regulations against homeschooling and low taxes. I don't know what Russia's tax and homeschooling policies are, but I have heard they respect freedom of speech more than we do and are wiser to BS. I don't discount the idea of changing my citizenship to Russian and assimilating into the Russian culture--it depends on circumstances and how well I can learn the language as well as what ever happens here in America. 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I must apologize for the long (loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong) delay. The truth is that I've been very busy with work, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that I've kept you hanging all this time.

Yes it is; Mazlow's hierarchy of needs and all that. I remember you work in California, guessing based on what I read in a field where Leftists are commonplace...

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Yes, the person was female, but it wasn't "that" type of relationship. She was an elderly mother of someone I'd been conversing with, and when I heard her speak I noticed her (familiar) accent, so I asked about it, and when I felt that brief "kinship" of being fellow slavs- and she didn't -I remembered how we damned Serbs see brotherhood in our fellow slavs where they themselves see none... or even worse, grudges. (Just look at what happened to LONG time friends Vlade Devac and Drazen Petrovic, or the documentary "Once Brothers" that covers their falling out, all because of a flag.)
On that note...It's a lovely idea that we could see our bonds and unite over them rather than fixate on the divisions and remain divided. But I just don't see it happening. Too much pride and too much resentment. Even I, after all my eagerness to see fellowship in other slavs, have been jilted enough times that I've grown more cynical towards the prospects of any form of unity. There's just too much bad blood and grudges. It's not going to happen. =/

Who can say? Did anyone 2000 years ago predict the GERMAN BARBARIANS or the BLUE-SKINNED SAVAGES would one day rule the world and be all Roman Law and Christian?

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

You're pretty close as far as the name goes. I always learned it as "Land of the Southern Slavs", but the difference is basically just syntax. They're otherwise identical, so you're fairly spot on!

Well, I figured "South Slavland" but adding "land" in English doesn't necessarily imply "nation". 

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

As for the war itself... I was a child growing up in the states when it happened, so I never got to experience it firsthand. I just learned about it from my mother. My most poignant memory about it were asking my mother when we'd get to go visit family in Yugoslavia again (having already been then when I was 5 before the war) and seeing a sadness overcome her face when she told me, "We can't, it's too dangerous there right now." Of course she tried to explain why and that there was a war going on, but I couldn't understand what that meant. I was 6, for crying out loud. I hadn't fully understood what death was, yet, so like hell I was going to grasp the significance of hundreds of thousands of people killing each other in a civil war that basically amounted to land-grabs.

Sadly, that's all it really was. Just people claiming territory. First the Slovenians saying "We're independent now, this is ours, it's not yours anymore", and then decades of disputes over which mountain range belonged to whom. Like Milo says time and time again, the American experiment really is unique, because it wasn't formed on the basis of who came from which stretch of what land; it was ideological-based. Well it WAS a matter of who came from which stretch of what land in Europe, and you'll hear complaining about it ALL the time from all the ethnic groups who insist that they're separate from the rest of their countrymen. No I'm not Italian, I'm Sicilian. No I'm not Spanish, I'm Catalan. No I'm not English, I'm Scottish, for God's sake! And so on it goes... Just imagine trying to tell these people, who staked their claims on ancestral homeland and lineage, that their claim wasn't as important as this bigger picture. As Stef pointed out in a fairly recent video, every time multi-ethnic nation states have been attempted, they always devolved into the same squabbling and fragmentation. The term "Balkanization" specifically refers to this phenomenon of a nation splintering because of what happened to Yugoslavia, and what happened to Yugoslavia is just so typical of these types of attempts at forcing people to band together who wouldn't come to that decision on their own. Yeah, the CIA was involved, and yeah, trying to take over land because you wanted valuable resource deposit were involved, but ultimately these efforts to sow dissent would never have taken root if the soil of fragmentation weren't so fertile.

 

No, the Greeks are not considered Slavic. Though we do share a kinship with each other, strangely enough. Go figure, a Czech feeling less camaraderie towards a Serb than a Greek does to the same...

I think given time and the right conditions, that could change. Germany, France, Scandinavia, and mainland Italy used to be heavily divided. Heck, Russia used to be dozens of smaller countries! Now it's breakable into roughly 3 based on religion and geography. 

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

Being able to look at people and assessing them as "worth saving" or "dead weight" is a goal I often aim for. However cold and dismissive it may appear, I'm always trying to identify "threats" or "lost causes", and I'm very detached and pragmatic when it comes to the matter of severing ties. Not even blood relation gets in the way of determining whether you're worth keeping in my company or better off persona non grata. The problem is that I still hold that delusion of fellowship, at times, when I should instead be identifying "threats" or "lost causes". It's a bad habit I've been trying to rid myself. I realize how monstrous it appears to some people, but that's just the way it is. I don't hold any "monstrous" intentions. Hell, no matter how much I wish to disregard someone, I still don't wish them ill. I don't spite them when they're sick, I don't mock them, I just desire to stay away from them, and them me. I probably could do MORE to isolate myself from certain people.

I think you're taking what I said months ago too far. I have changed a fair bit here;

Don't be too hard, internally, against the victims of abuse. Recognize they're victims, and move on. Recognize "who can be saved" based on subtle tells (are they curious? Do they act in adherence with what they say? Do they ever concede points willingly?) and decide for yourself if that person is worth reaching out for. You lose time, but could gain a friend.

Of course if your job involves these people, don't risk it. I don't know what you do, but if it's something where you can choose who you work with or relocate, I'd suggest that. As an author I can be highly selective of who I work with and, eventually, who and how I'll publish. Chances are I'll either indie-publish or self-publish since the Regressive Left has infested the publishing world...

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I suppose it doesn't help that "being social" and "NOT burning bridges at all costs" is integral to my line of work... Oh the irony. I'd be so much better suited to callously assessing people as "already dead" or not by my nature, which is inherently detached and pragmatic. Yet I go out of my way to fight that nature, because work. Still, the nature is there, so maybe should I ever get successful enough that I become "so fuck-you rich", I'll find it quite EASY to fall back on very cold analytical assessments of people's worth. XD

I know Stef has commented about this sort of thing, I'll refer to him on it. I'll try to paraphrase what I remember: recognize your limitations in a given scenario, and work from there. Don't try to change it, rather instead keep doing what you're doing for as long as you must until you have demonstrated yourself so well that your "bohemian politics" become "quirks".

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

Never change! =D

On that aspect, I won't. On others, I must!

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

I know I had a "different" upbringing than most around me. One half of the family was assimilated American "mutt", and the other was culturally-intact immigrant. So I grew up hearing stories of the American dream and swallowing the creeping-Socialism blue pill in schools, as well as stories of what it was like "in Europe". Many of the things I'd hear regarded demographic strife of the day; the Muslims this, the English that, etc. So that rubbed off on me in unintended ways, but even then I was so obsessively-specific that when I reported to my parents that "some Mexican kids" were bullying me, I was just being accurate. I didn't think they were ganging up on me because of our racial differences, I'm pretty sure it was because they were a group of 4-5, and I was a loner. I just recognized the differences in people, and never shied away from pointing them out. Still, my parents felt like they had to sit me down and tell me not to be racist. So I saw the fear of "don't be racist" at a VERY young age, and grew inoculated against it early on. In time, when the problem of political correctness grew rampant, I'd already learned why it was bullshit well before the brainwashing was too far gone. The same could not be said of... well, never mind.

I remember when I was first in a fight with non-Whites. My experience at home was different. My mother wept, and my father taught me to fight back with my fists. Sadly this meant getting into trouble with the school system which punishes victims as well as aggressors. Eventually I just grew big enough and savvy enough not to be bothered by wannabe thugs and avoid the real ones. 

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

I'm sure it's all still there. It's just behind layers of culture and media that refuse to acknowledge it. Like Jeff Foxworthy's tame "You Might Be a Redneck" bits, there's back-and-forth stereotypes we still have of each other. Germans having rigid and strict work ethics even appeared in The Simpsons back in the 90s, so despite several decades of brainwashing, it's still there. You just gotta know where to look, like any kind of truth. If all you do is behold the gatekeepers, it's not that the smugglers don't exist, it's that you're choosing not to see them. Beneath the veil of PC is a very eager populace dying to tell some racy jokes at the slightest provocation!

I know that very well. And those kinds of people are the kinds that build nations!

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Speaking of direct impacts and whether or not the next big leader is a benefactor or a dictator, I'm reminded of a major part of my family history that I only recently (this March, in fact) became aware of. The short version is one man had a miserable life because he stuck to his principles in a situation where principles weren't popular, and another person deliberately abandoned those principles to NOT have a miserable life, but had the opportunity and authority to save the former's life. AND he's STILL alive, and his mind is still sharp! It's my most immediate goal to be able to close some deals right away so I can finance a trip back to Europe to speak to him about his life and his choices. It's been nagging me ever since I learned what he did. I can neither condemn nor commend him, and that moral grey has been bothering me.

Interesting. I'd argue if a man has to act badly to survive, he can be morally excused to a certain extent. If I was a German under Nazi rule, I could be excused for not engaging with Jews and not hiding any. Actively hunting for them is a different story.

Generally speaking, to have principles, one must live by them as best as he is able. That means not starting fights that cannot be won nor trying to be included in the "unprincipled people's" table. And, at some point, reach out for the like minded and form communities based on shared values.

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Ideally, we don't find ourselves in a situation in which caving our principles can be considered laudable under ANY context. But that's what separates us from socialists: we don't confuse idealism with reality. We have to make peace with what actually is, not with what we wish it to be.

 

Having spent literal YEARS discussing the merits of the game on another board ostensibly catered to the series... A bunch of us came to the conclusion that had the "original" (or something like it) plan for the game's ending been maintained, had Bethesda given Obsidian a decent chunk of time to work with, instead of an unreasonable and rushed development, we might've seen a game like the original Dark Souils in which the creators saw no NEED for DLCs, and where subsequent DLCs would truly add to the narrative without feeling tacked on. Sadly, what we got was a great game with and ending that felt second to the greater character story that can only be completed if you finish the DLCs in a particular order, and that regardless of how you play them, they'll always feel tacked on, because they were. Not because they were afterthoughts; they certainly weren't. But they were added later, because they couldn't be added in to begin with.

The real story really is the conflict between the two couriers. Benny serves as an ingenious sleight-of-hand as a faux antagonist and his failed assassination attempt on the player character and the greater geopolitical strife of New Vegas are merely the catalysts that get the journey started. But it was your character's history with Ulysses that got him to set the events of the game in motion, and his setting of the events in motion that begat the confrontation at the hellscape ends of the world that would determined whether civilization would survive or whether a new apocalypse would be ushered in. Even something as sentimental as a robotic companion that won't truly "die" because it's just a copy of the real thing you befriended serves as a powerful emotional anchor for the final conflict, where you have to choose the attachment of something inorganic over the lives of millions of people, and yet the decision is a hard one to make. Really, the final boss of the game wasn't Lanius, it was Ulysses. He followed in the great Fallout tradition of well-meaning but flawed individuals whose goals threatened the entire world, and putting him down or stopping him some other way was the REAL endgame. Who holds Hoover Dam just doesn't compare to saving the whole fucking world. Plus, there's plenty of game files that hint that the game wasn't really meant to end after the battle for the dam.

Some of us disagreed about exactly how it could've played out, but essentially you either heard all about the enigmatic "original Courier Six" just like the vanilla game, or as the creators initially intended, you had the chance to MEET said character, then spend the rest of the game realizing they were this figure who almost got you killed, and after the major conflict with the Legion was settled, they'd send you their ultimatum to face you to decide the fate of the wastes, and he'd make his same grand point when you confront him, that none of this really needed to happen at all- it happened because you just had to keep going. It was a great commentary about your characters, as well as a clever jab at how players typically approach video games, in a way that wouldn't be seen until Chara's monologue to the player in Undertale. Yeah you just helped save an entire city, maybe helped them build a new country, but you also ushered in certain doom because you couldn't just leave this character's past alone, and he just had to make his point clear.

To a lesser (but still very poignant) extent, the other DLC antagonists also serve as a much more profound confrontation than the vanilla game's final act. Between a madman you chase all across the desert with ambitions of "wiping the slate clean" and absolutely deranged and morally-vacuous scientists hell-bent on escaping their prison and using the world as "test subjected" for their demented experiments, and of course Ulysses and his poetic aspirations about "waking the sleeping giants of the old world", each represents a far greater catastrophic threat than an army attacking a strategic position, and the squabbles between different groups in the setting where that attack will take place. It's like looking at the first few battles in Tactics and insisting that defeating the raiders was the real victory, when it was in fact the menacing Calculator that had to be defeated at all costs that served as the true adversary for the whole game. Naturally, the squabbles and your character's role in either pacifying or exacerbating them make for a more complete and "real" world, and these are where the lovable charm of the games has always been found. But it's in those greater conflicts that cannot be avoided by simply idling away the days that ground the stories, and lead to a more epic conclusion that makes your choices feel all the more satisfying. Whether or not you made The Den a better place matters because you stopped a second global holocaust. Whether or not New Vegas gets claimed to remains independent because the rest of the world was spared from a life-ending catastrophe.

How New Vegas should be governed is certainly the more though-provoking ending to the game. It gives all sorts of opportunities for very different players to decide what their "perfect world" would look like, given the same opportunities to shape it as the Courier does. There's certainly much less to talk about where antagonists whose motivations are purely genocidal are concerned.

 

I think that's enough for now, right? =)

While saving the world is obviously bigger than lobbying for a particular political faction, it is much less likely to be a problem for people in the real world. In the real world, bad guys usually think they're good guys and it is up for the IRL protagonist to discern who the real bad guys and good guys are and act accordingly. 

I'd argue the thing with the "courier backstory" is weak based on how it's not something ever likely to happen in real life, and largely (if not entirely from what I remember) faultless on the part of the player. 

That being said ED-E (who I pronounce E-dee) is a cute eyebot and the DLCs added great and enjoyable variety even if their stories were less interesting (except in the Zion Valley thing, which was very biblically themed and something I didn't appreciate at first). 

As is the case in real life, the individual characters matter far more than the groups they represent. A good King cannot make the system moral, but he can make it fair. It is a centuries' long project to unite and assimilate disparate and rowdy groups of people. America was highly divided politically, even by modern anti-Trump hysteria standards, until Lincoln smashed the South and public schools started brainwashing little Americans into believing in the nation-state--which I'd argue as an effect was a good thing, although I think peaceful parenting and honest arguments would have been better, people such as Stef were not in political power and therefore the result of a bad thing (public education) was as good as it could ever have been (pan-Americanism as compared to fractured provincialism). 

I think the way the Slavs are going to be united is most likely through a changing in the public school and religious curriculum. Should they promote pan-Slavic nationalism, then 40 years from now a pan-Slavic state could emerge. I think a better approach is peaceful parenting and good arguments, however I think the former is more likely to happen as I think only a minority of people will become good parents, leaving the journey to AnCap a multi-generational one.

On the other hand, I think, based on what I know, the Eastern Europeans have far stronger faith with greater cultural backbones and that will shield them from the horrors of what the Western and Central Europeans are enduring. Perhaps petty provincialism can save Western civilization in the East. After all, nationalism failed the West after WWI and while I'm pretty sure we'll become nationalists again it probably will be when things are beyond the pale and therefore a matter of time instead of when crisis can all be averted. 

Which is why I'm seriously considering emigrating to Russia in 5 or 10 years should the situation in America not improve. Russians have their problems, but their continued existence is not one of them. 

[What Is Virtue?]

12 hours ago, Mole said:

Virtue is truth seeking. From this simple axiom comes a number of wonderful conclusions.

Now this I think it close to what is truly virtue. After all, pretty much everyone who claims X is virtuous is saying X is true (maybe. I'll make some examples and try to find a case where that isn't true or needs to be stretched). 

Actually as I typed I remembered you made some...what's the word, "tortologies?", basically conclusions based on premises boiled into a single sentence. 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

1. Abstain from drugs or other fantasies as they weaken your ability to recognise reality.

2. Make choices that will give you even greater choices in the future, so that you can seek more truth.

 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

3. Survive to preserve your truth-seeking ability within yourself. You must hold this as universal and not say that survival is only for myself since a part of truth-seeking is recognising that others are not objectively different, hence any rule saying only I deserve life must be a delusion since it is an arbitrary distinction, which is the opposite of truth-seeking.

This one's contradicting reality. People are objectively different. Therefore based on a preferred metric of value (like values), people's lives vary in value. Hypothetically though "only I am valuable" is impossible because chances are I've very much skewed my ruler in favor of myself based on some underlying problems within myself. If I base people's worth based on adherence to and pursuit of truth, then guys like Stefan would be at the high end while sophists and traitors would be on the low end. 

Theoretically it's possible for someone "at the highest end" to say only his life is valuable, but...technically he'd be wrong because literally everyone has a value on the metric of "adherence and pursuit of truth" scale even if that value is relatively less than oneself. Being lesser isn't necessarily bad. I have an IQ of 144, therefore relative to me most people are lesser in terms of horse power. However a guy with 130 could easily school me on something I'm ignorant of or through having a greater genetic focus on, say spatial reasoning, over my strength in verbal acuity, which wouldn't be very useful in situations where skill is required over speech.

 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

4. Be productive so that you may enhance the survival of yourself and others. It is also an application of your rationality.

5. Be creative for inherent in art is some truth about reality.

6. Admire others who also seek truth, and support them so they make seek truth even more.

7. Apply yourself according to your abilities since that is where you will have the greatest knowledge of truth. For example, a brick layer is using his potential and nobody understands the metaphysics of bricks quite like he does.

8. Be moral for if you value truth-seeking, you must value it in others as they are not objectively different.

9. Raise children for they will learn the truth from you and build upon it to even greater truths.

10. Seek leisure as long as leisure is a celebration and reflection of all you have achieved.

11. Socialise so that others may teach you, and you shall teach them.

12. Be compassionate as compassion is the recognition of the reality of the internal world within ourselves and others that we often ignore.

13. Play games, for games are a set of rules that are derived from reality, hence games simulate reality and so are a form of truth-seeking.

14. Have courage as courage is simply expressing one's beliefs about reality regardless of what others wish you would express.

We can prove this axiom from first principles. Every decision we make requires that we recognise reality to some degree. Even a drug addict recognises the reality of where he gets his drugs. Therefore no decisions should be made that weakens this capability. In other words, free will should not commit suicide. As soon as you start taking drugs or murdering people or believing lies, your capability to DECIDE to do those things weakens. Without free will we don't exist, for free will is what distinguishes us from our environment. Everything must value itself. An apple ought to be an apple, however, unlike us, it does not have a choice. We are moral agents, so we ought to be moral agents. We ought to not sabotage ourselves. If we did not have the ability to recognise truth, we would literally be unconscious since there would be no concept formation. Truth is the highest value.

Very much agreed, and sounds like something the great Stefpai would say. You know your stuff. 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

Universally Preferable Behaviour is essentially a synonym of truth-seeking. All mankind (universally) necessarily prefers (preferable) truth from falsehood (truth-seeking behaviour) at a given moment. UPB is objectively required at any given moment. That does not mean we always prefer it in the future. For example, someone prefers the reality of their beer sip when that occurs but is sabotaging themselves to be able to recognise the reality of the future. Perhaps they get knocked out or become delusional. In fact, all vices are not people deciding to do harm to themselves at any moment, but harm to themselves in the future. The action always comes after the decision. Suicide is generally not virtuous, but even the decision to kill oneself requires a preference for life over death even if that life is being sabotaged because all decisions require life.

Ethics is derived from epistemology is derived from metaphysics.

Truth-seeking is derived from truth is derived from reality. That's the simplest philosophical system that could exist.

 

Therefore: Virtue=Truth-seeking. Someone who isn't virtuous (but not necessarily evil, which requires direct violations of the rules rather than a dulling of the ability to follow them) is basically anyone from a deadbeat to a con artist. Virtue requires adherence to moral values and therefore evil people cannot be virtuous, for truly moral values can be objectively proven as "good"--or preferable. I think. I'm still not totally sure since I haven't read UPB much and what I know is based on his debates with others' on UPB and the arguments he's made/quoted from the book since writing it. 

 

[A rational proof that taxation is theft.]

42 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Yes, the Grand-Duke acquired the Land legally, bestowed upon him by the Holy Roman Emperor. I agree that most contemporary governments don't have the moral right to own everything in the country. Quite simply because a government does not exist. There is no such thing as a "people", nor a "nation", because there is no personhood there. In a monarchy however, there is a very well-defined actual legal person who is the owner of a given country. And as I have argued before, Monarchies are the best argument for private property. The best maintained countries in the world are those under a monarch. 

Which doesn't cease to interest me. I think anti-monarchic propaganda has given monarchism (at least Christian monarchism) an exaggeratedly bad rep. Of course I'm still preferential to AnCap, however if that isn't "an option" (meaning it can't be done or can't be done yet) then I am strongly leaning towards a very morally and lawfully upright monarchy. 

Since Kings and other territorial rulers are actual people, they can be held accountable in contracts whereas "governments" (like corporations) are not individuals and therefore unaccountable to law or morality. Respect and faith in the law is necessary to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society. Combine Classical Liberalism, Austrian Economics, some AnCap, Christian values (which arguably a part of Classical Liberalism) and a monarchy is the necessary transition from a faceless state to a free society. 

42 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I am not well enough equiped to enter into a discussion over such legal matters. I would think that as long as the parties sign the contract of their own free will, they are bound. And unfortunately, a contract can and does affect one's children. Your parents sign on your behalf, and you can only opt out when you reach legal age.

Neither am I; I speak of morality more than law here. I think a child should not be liable for their parents' contracts, and therefore at around 20 should have the option of opting out of whatever their parents agreed to (or continuing it). Like citizenship and tax: morally we should all have the option of consenting to tax for that would make governments far more efficient (and indistinguishable from charity, mercenary army company, and mercenary police force, in many ways) and far more responsive to the individual. Monarchies can satisfy this standard. Theoretically a King can be (as they were in many countries) bound by the laws of both the nation and of the Christ, as well as the common law values that are foundational to modern libertarian/ancap thought, (theoretically a King can be--I repeat) a morally consistent landlord and/or charity owner but with extra respect given to the history of the seat. 

42 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. In Luxembourg, for example, there is no birthright citizenship. Which means the govenment does not put the shackles on you at birth. 
I would challenge the 99% thing. If you concede that a monarhch, as the private owner of the land, has the right to collect rent from residents, then about 40 of the 200 countries in the world don't steal. This gets a bit complicated because not all monarchs are owners of the Land, but conservatively, they usually are.

I can't speak for all monarchies everywhere. Does Saudi Arabia or Kuwait abide by the Christian and libertarian values that is historical to the West? I don't know, but I'd assume not. Japan is technically a monarchy though real power is vested in the Imperial Diet (fundamentally the same as a parliamentarian republic therefore) and therefore it could be said the Diet's lack of accountability and desire to appease has been the Achilles Heel of modern Japanese society. 

However I think as a transition out of Statism a Christian and Western monarchy is far greater than any republic or democracy. 

[A rational proof that taxation is theft.]

28 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

People seem to have really strong opinions on tax around here. Whenever I hear an absolutist statement, I always look to poke holes in it, as most do. 

Is the tax that the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg take of its residents theft? The Grand-Duke owns all of the land of Luxembourg, and so I would think one has every right to demand payment from those who use his property. Also, there is every reason to believe that the people of the country are in full consent to the tax, because were they not, they could very easily  move to Monaco a few miles away, where there is absolutely no tax. Where am I going astray here? (Same goes for most other monarchies by the way. I just picked Luxembourg because it is close to my heart.)

Somebody please explain...

I cannot comment in detail about the laws of Luxembourg nor Monaco, but I can say if the Grand Duke is the legal owner of all Luxembourg then he is in the right to collect rent from his citizens. Even if his hereditary ownership came about through force, all fortunes are made virtuous through time. Most governments however do not have moral ownership as the people born onto those lands are unable to consent towards paying taxes and following the laws for force would be enacted against them if they refused. 

There cannot be consent when force is involved.

While Luxembourg may be an example of a gigantic privately own land (I'll take your word for the sake of argument that it is), most countries are not and most countries do not allow negotiation on the part of "tenants" to barter for individual rights unless it involves having less of them.

To clarify, in a landlord scenario, the tenants should be able to barter with their landlord for a re-negotiating of terms, and children should not be born into debt nor duties imposed by those that came before them. I cannot choose to not pay taxes without be arrested or deported and/or having all my property (what little I have) confiscated as "punishment".

If Luxembourg is basically a gigantic privately owned land operating based on the libertarian values of the NAP and, in relation to children, not binding those too young to consent to contracts made in their name, then it is not equivocal to 99% of the worlds' governments who collect tax (not rent) based on violating individual property rights as well as demanding children be obligated towards making due on contracts supposedly agreed to by a voting public (which itself violates the property rights of the "minority") decades in advance. 

[How many Jihad attacks or what will it take for the West to wake up?]

I think it's less a matter of people being woke but rather of courage. Most western governments protect the migrants (and their American equivalent) from legal/lawful punishment and punish the natives for so much as suggesting there should be punishments for bad behavior or measures to crack down on what's causing it. 

Once western governments are either populated with a Rightist/Christian majority the Europeans/Americans will do what they must or are told in regards to the crisis.

It isn't a matter of wokeness by the populace but a sense of "permission" by the government. Therefore either the government has to redpill (which would be interesting as I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) or the people have to stop fearing the government and take the law into their own hands.

Either way the West is doomed for war unless we can convince the government they'll be re-elected if they kick out the Muslims and/or elect anti-Muslim/anti-crime politicians. 

I seriously recommend migrating to somewhere like Russia if you or anyone you know would rather ditch this mess we've inherited.

[Confused]

On 8/25/2017 at 0:22 PM, lorry said:

I mean, it is total supposition, but "Bannon is going to war" and he must know, by virtue of him time in office, who needs to get, metaphorically, taken into a field and shot in the back of the head.

This is off topic, but I think (feel?) as though Scaramouchi being fired was the plan to. Like, he (Trump) needed someone to come in,  get something done, but that someone was going to get wrecked for it. Someone needed to take one for the team. I get that, I've done that, and I'd do that for someone who has or would do it for me. As Stefan pointed out many times, Trump is being attacked all day every day and he doesn't need to do it, he is taking one for the team. It light of that I don't see how Scaramouchi could say no, even if it means getting wrecked, assuming a similar mind set. Hell, Scaramouchi had to do it (would feel as though he had to do it) if he has the same mind set.

The crazy thing is we could be totally overestimating him. I mean, I used to think the President was this awesome 666D Chess expert. While it's probably true in some cases (like baiting the media to make them look foolish or distract etc. etc.) I doubt it's true all the time (like the God-awful bombing of Syria's air strip thing which luckily didn't kill anyone) . 

Maybe getting fired/resiging makes it easier for the likes of Bannon and Gorka to be effective. Maybe it's all a part of a future grass-roots campaign to seize all (or at least like 60%) of the congressional seats so that Build the Wall, Ban Islamic Immigration, and Deport Illegal Aliens and Repealing (and hopefully not Replacing) Obamacare can actually happen. 

Or maybe the President's a tired old man who's running out of energy from all this inertia. However I'm inclined to bet the former given his life history of combating inertia and getting things done. The law needs enforcing, racial tensions need easing, and civil rights need protecting. We're still in the first eighth of his first term. Who know's for sure what'll happen. 

[Confused]

6 hours ago, lorry said:

On November 6th, 2018, 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 seats in the Senate are up for election. It would be a shame if someone organised the base and made sure key people in opposition to Trump's agenda didn't get re-elected.

 

 

 

Well now, I've never thought about it like that. The balance of power could shift radically enough for the President to fulfill his campaign promises.

[What Is Virtue?]

4 hours ago, mgggb said:

Negative virtue,  like the NAP, can be absolute and universal because it requires lack of action.

Positive virtue is subjective for two reasons involving action. 1,  You must choose what you define as a moral ideal. And 2, you must choose if a given situation is in the spirit of the ideal. 

That sounds like 10 different levels of relativism, so let me give an example. 

You define telling the truth as a moral ideal. But if nazis are going from house to house looking for Jews, telling the truth is not in the spirit of your ideal. 

So this gets into what "the spirit of your ideal" means. And I don't really have a definition in words for that. I think that based on your world view you prefer certain outcomes. Achieving an outcome can usually be done based on broad principles. However, if a principle is being used against your desired outcome then that principle is maladaptive to the situation and must be discarded. 

 

That's about as close as I can get. I'll think about this some more. 

If a value is subjective, it cannot be moral right? After all, morality is preference's objective cousin. On the other hand, ideals can be moral. Maybe my ideal is to rid violations of the NAP in the world. How to do that is largely subjective but the moral goal is moral because it is objective--anyone can not abuse or otherwise violate the NAP and it is impossible for two people in a room to willingly violate and be violated by each other because it then becomes consent and no longer a violation.

I think we're getting closer to making a case for what a virtuous action might be. We have a virtuous goal, but a virtuous action is going to be harder since hypothetically I could spare the world of future NAP violations by destroying it or mind-controlling it or whatever sci fi world ending totolitarian project I could think of. 

 

[Words]

Before starting an argument, it's usually a good idea to first define the abstract terms being used. 

For example, "What is 'Far Right'?"

If I define "Far Left" as totalitarian dictatorship, then "Far Right" becomes Anarcho-Capitalism.

If I define "Far Left" based on the French Revolutionary definition of Socialists and Republicans on the left, then the Far Right is Monarchists and later Fascists. 

If I say "Far Left" is an abandonment of traditionalism in favor of new world values, then Far Right becomes staunch traditionalism to the point of being against any sort of change.

That's why I break it up into "Social" (i.e. social mores and principles) versus "Economic" left-right. A Social Far Leftist would be your typical pansexual Multikult degenerate while a Social Far Rightist would be anything ranging from old school Christian to Islam (which is very different but similar in that they're both traditionalist. If I base "Far Right" as "ultimate christendom", then Islam could be somewhere closer to the middle). Economic Left and Right being obvious: Leftists are totalitarian central planners while Rightists are individualist free market guys. 

Since arguing Left/Right can be a pain without understanding the definitions being used, I always define them first and ask what my partner in the debate thinks they mean, and try to establish a workable definition based on Left/Right being oppositional and based on what people identifying as Left/Right are. 

I'd recommend that for any abstract term like "conservative", "liberal", and even "fascist" as to some "fascists" a "fascist" is merely someone who wants a structurally stable and peaceful ethnostate rather than a big socialistic central planner with a slightly different rhetoric. 

 

[What Is Virtue?]

Before I say anything: I apologize for making you all wait 8 days given I was the one who made this post. I was very busy, and will likely still be busy for a while, but I have a good time now to make some replies and start a new thread about the drama of the August 7th Protest. 

On 8/5/2017 at 2:07 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Virtue is a quality of person who acts in a way which manifests the values that he holds.

Virtuous action is those moral actions (those that dont violate NAP) that acheive a specific value. 

Values are entirely subjective.

Contradiction: Morality is objective, therefore moral actions are objective, and therefore virtue is objective. 

On 8/5/2017 at 2:07 PM, Eudaimonic said:

What's meant by "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuos" in my opinion, is: "Love is an involuntary response to the actions in others that manifest the values that I value, when I myself act to manifest the values that I value, if those actions are moral."

Which makes it in the realm of objectivity again, and therefore "what is virtue remains". 

On 8/5/2017 at 2:50 PM, mgggb said:

Virtue is that which you hold as your highest value. So "love is your involuntary response to that which is your highest value in another". 

This differs from @Eudaimonicdefinition because it is amoral. This matters because what is good is somewhat arbitrary and people who are not good people still have people they love.

So basically your actions are the manifestation of your abstract values on life. 

This is possible, but that begs the question as to whether "A is virtuous" is a subjective statement or not. Arguably it can be objective insofar A is upholding his values, however it is subjective in the sense that those values A is upholding don't have to be moral.

A workable definition.

 

 

On 8/6/2017 at 9:18 AM, mgggb said:

I think I may be using the same words to mean different things. The issue I am taking with "love is our involuntary response to virtue, if you are virtuous" is the "if you are virtuous" part. However, "virtue" connotes "positive goodness" as opposed to "what one subjectively values as good" which is how I was using it. And "love" implies "a positive attraction" where as I was using it as "attraction". So, I guess a reformulation is "attraction is our involuntary response to what we subjectively value". 

I think that works. What do you think? 

I think it dodges the central question of "what is virtue" and what acts are virtuous (objectively speaking)? 

Is it even possible to determine whether an action if virtuous, or is it an after-the-fact sort of thing?

For example, is saving a life virtuous? Is that objectively moral? Is it context dependent? I know this is an autistic question, but one that bothers me because I want to speak from a position of absolution and conviction rather than doubt and compromise. 

It's easy to say what don't-dos' are, it's much harder to say what the dos' are objectively. 

Like we know keeping healthy, being smart in choosing a vocation, having self-discipline, etc. etc. are productive to our own livelihoods but they don't necessarily hold a moral context to them because bad guys can also follow these things for their own bad ends. 

To repeat myself: What is Virtuous? How do we know it's virtuous? And since virtue is that which is objectively moral, then a re-defining dodges the question because the intent is to suss out the "dos" as compared to the "don't dos" (or at least the "would strongly prefer you do", since the only "dos" I can think of are ones opposite the violation of the NAP, like peaceful parenting as compared to neglect and violence).

[I find one of my ideas illustrated: Power does not corrupt, it only gives corruption a means to express itself.]

Well, hypothetically, a King who technically wields ultimate martial power can decide to not use it, not collect taxes but instead form a donation system, and be consistent with the people subscribing voluntarily to his stated reason as to why he's maintaining an army. 

He'd no longer be a King in the traditional sense, but he'd still wield great power since his ability to tell his men what to do and expect it done means he can "change his mind" and go back to robbing people to maintain his mafia. He could also choose to keep it a voluntary system. The problem is if the soldiers are willing to obey him like a dictator...then for how long can this be sustained? His monopoly on force would have to be broken alongside the faith in his power in order to make this model sustainable without regression.

However, without the faith and loyalty of his soldiers and the monopoly of force, he no longer wields ultimate power. 

Therefore while a good man can wield ultimate power, he cannot sustain it because to remain good he must inevitably take actions that would reduce it. 

[What Is Virtue?]

If the definition of love is my involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous, then what is the definition of virtue?

I think we all know instinctively what actions are virtuous as compared to not, in general, but how do we know? How do we fact check? Is charity virtuous? What if charity results in enabling an existing problem rather than fixing it? Does that context make that example of charity immoral? If so then charity in general can't be virtuous. Or that example isn't charity.  

Someone asked how to love; someone else stated what love is; someone further state what virtue is. However while I can accept the premise that "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuous" I do not know for sure what is virtue. And that's the key part that ends the pondering and allows action in pursuing love and evolution.

 

[Unable to feel love?]

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Hi, Hawkland

Would you be willing to consider that maybe there is something wrong with the definition of love?

I have found that love is not an emotion, but an action, which is self-sacrifice. If you love someone, it manifests in you sacrificing your time, yur energy and your life for their good. According to the Catholic Church, it is anything but an involuntary response. It is a very conscious decision that you make.

Your problem is that you have had people around you who it did not cost you much effort to love. More than likely, they were the ones sacrificing more for you. If you don't love, that means you have not sacrificed enough yet. A parent loves a baby not because the baby is so virtuous. There is absolutely no virtue in shitting your pants and screaming for attention. The parent loves the child because of all the time and energy they have invested in it.

If you want to FEEL LOVE, you should try loving someone for no reason whatsoever. Try visiting an orphanage, a hospital, a retirement home, or wherever you can give without getting back.
If you give love only if you get love back, that is not love, but business. If you don't give love, and only take love, you are a parasite. If you never get love and never give love, you are probably dead inside. If you give love regardless of what you get back, you are a saint, which few of us are.

I'd like to expand upon Mishi's reply.

Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous. To be virtuous (I think) is to be willing to do good for others without the guarantee of gratification and the willingness to sacrifice something of oneself for someone else. However I wouldn't say mutual self-sacrifice is "just business".

Ideally: Man sacrifices time and money to build a house for Woman and Children to live in. Woman sacrifices time and fertility to support Man and raise Children. Children sacrifice their freedom in exchange for security and education. Although Children can't actually make their own decisions in terms of child-parent relations, I'd say that's a fair general statement.

The hard part is knowing for sure what virtue is and how I (or you) would know when I am being virtuous. Is charity virtuous? Is helping others virtuous? Does it depend on the context? Is virtue only self-sacrifice without receiving sacrifice in return? Or is virtue an equivalent exchange between two or more people? 

I don't know the answer (even though I gave one above) and can only guess and try based on what I "feel" is virtuous. I think we who aren't psychopaths have a natural inclination towards knowing what virtue is without being told. I think Christianity could be a helpful guide for figuring it out since Christendom is the foundation of Western Culture.

I've attempted  to combined the definition Mishi gave with Stef's, for I don't think they contradict. If virtue is self-sacrifice without expecting something in return, then it is still possible for a virtuous person to involuntarily have strong feelings for another virtuous person--or perhaps more precisely that person's deeds and history. Arguably a person is their recent actions and history. 

I can't say how to feel love, for I think either you can or you can't. I love Diet Coke. Nowhere near the same way I love quality women and men (especially the high quality women), but I'd say it's a good measure in the same sense a penny is a good measure for financial value.

If you can say you like something (like a good soda or food), then you can compare your liking of that to your liking of something else. Love could be called an extreme liking, but I would add the caveat of "involuntary response to virtue" because there is a fundamental difference between liking something a lot (like a video game) as compared to loving something (like a person). 

I think maybe, after having said all this, you can discover love by filtering out all the crap around you and imagining to yourself what a perfect woman (or man if you're a woman) would be like. You'd love that woman more than anything save the children you bare with her. Compare that ideal with reality, and you have a measurement stick for love. Of course if you want to have all that and if you want your ideal to be truly great rather than subjectively great, then you must live and act virtuously. 

Which again returns me to the question "what is virtue". If you can answer that question without having any holes in it, you can stop pondering and start acting.

My "acting definition" of virtue is borrowed from my younger years: "That which is productive for oneself and others." I consider working to become financially established enough to have a family virtuous for a man, and working to make oneself moral and integral virtuous for a woman. Being a good mother and father is also virtuous. 

However I know my definition is weak, and am therefore up for criticism so I can hammer it out.

In fact, I'm going to make a thread about it.

[Dealing With His Mother: Overreacting Or..?]

4 minutes ago, S1988 said:

I was a little surprised that you were talking about yourself all of this time, but I can see where you're coming from. Sometimes, it's nerve-wracking to talk about you problems. 

Have you thought about getting a roommate? It's a way for you to save money without living with your mother.

I'm a big introvert and I don't like the idea of living with a stranger. I'd rather just buckle down and make my peace for the while and focus on my work and then move out once I can afford a house. I don't think I should spend money when I don't have to. I value my privacy as well. 

 

[Dealing With His Mother: Overreacting Or..?]

1 minute ago, Fred Black Fox said:

Sounds good!

I personally define "RTRing" as "Openly and curiously examining and expressing one's emotional state in the moment in order to increase self-knowledge and the quality of relationships."

With RTR you can find out why emotions come up and and also if they are actually yours, like with the confusion that I thought your friend projected onto you by never admitting that he was confused (i.e. he’d unconsciously deny his confusion, pretend nothing is happening and by that confusing you). Or if your own emotions are "true" or come from your false self, like you mentioned.

Simon grew up learning how to cope best with a violent and unstable environment (his family), so that is really all he ever knew. As an adult, his environment naturally shifted towards more freedom and peace, but that made him terribly anxious. Therefore he went out looking for something similar, and the ring to him literally felt familiar. Having to cope with violence directed at him makes him feel in control once more.

Thank you for that. I am definitely interested in hearing the audiobook. 

1 minute ago, Fred Black Fox said:

But RTR is about much more, of course. And it’s very nice to listen to, too – Stef is a great voice actor

I know 

Stefpai has a great voice. I'm glad it puts it to great use. 

[Dealing With His Mother: Overreacting Or..?]

4 minutes ago, Fred Black Fox said:

Oh, well, that explains why you were so emotionally invested in your friend’s issues

I had not considered before the fact of the financial dependence. It is obvious that you don’t have as much free choice as you would need to act on your conscience.

I believe your therapist’s advice is sound. It makes sense to not challenge if that threatens the fulfillment of more fundamental needs.

When it comes to deFOOing, I have my own experience with that. One thing I would say is that you can always have conversations with her. She will always be there if you want to talk to her, and so there is no immediate need to focus on your relationship with your mother now, instead of when you are in the position that is, I would argue, necessay in order to have satisfying conversations that can give you emotional closure: A relative equality in power.

Therefore, I would say there is no loss if you don’t engage now, if you abstain from trying to be honest with her... You can always do that later!

Does that help?

Yes, that helps. On one hand I realize there's no immediate danger (I'm lucky then most on this board I think) but at the same time, it's hard. However he told me to change the way I think about it. Do I literally have a hole in my heart (as an example of a metaphor)? No. Is confronting her over little things really worth the trouble? Not now at least. I'd be better off disengaging when I'm frustrated than escalating and exhausting myself pointlessly. Perhaps things can change once I've made myself a real man by owning the roof over my head, but until then I may as well just accept things as they are and work with it.

4 minutes ago, Fred Black Fox said:

I am sure you have read RTR?

I haven't, but I have heard it mentioned and talked about many times in the call-in-shows so I have some layman's knowledge about RTR, but until I properly set the time to read it I can't say I'm confident about it and my memory about the subject is rough. I remember "taking mental control and remembering myself in the conversation"--a form of self-awareness, I think. I know there was some mention of a "false self", a scab wound we feel like we have when someone else's ire remains with us. Identifying when we are feeling something true to us as compared to feeling the "scab" was something I remembering being important.

Then there was the metaphor of Simon the Boxer, who I think was continuously getting into fights as a way of acting out and repeating his abuse as a child.

I might be able to dedicate some time reading it soon. I've been awfully busy lately, work aside. However I'd like some confirmation/correction about the statements I've made since I don't know/think if I am right.

[Dealing With His Mother: Overreacting Or..?]

4 hours ago, Fred Black Fox said:

I’m not sure why, but I get quite confused reading your posts in this thread. I am not critizising – I just wanted to give some feedback

This is interesting because normally I don’t get confused anymore.

I have read other posts of you and you seem like a very intelligent and insightful guy. I would not expect that you easily get confused, in general, either.

It seems, though, that your friend really does not know what to do at all. Because of that, he runs to you, asking you how to handle the situation.

Well, that is a weird question because there really is no answer to it. Handle it... "with care", maybe?

My sympathies go out to your friend! What you described is indeed a very troubling situation.

Could it be that your friend is really confused, but has never actually said to you anything like "I am really confused" or "I don’t know what to do"?

Instead of admitting that he really doesn’t know what is going on and what to do, he is pretending that there is some kind of predefined "plan of action" that he needs to know, or that "deFOOing" is a mere un-emotional thing that is like and takes as much time as moving to another town. It is anything but. It is only the sad conclusion after a long-enough battle trying to rescue a damaged relationship.

In other words, could it be that he is projecting his confusion onto you?

All right, I will confess that I am actually talking about myself but I wanted to hide that fact because I was very emotionally charged when I first typed the post and didn't want to reveal that I was talking about myself--I suppose for reasons without basis, although ironically I've demonstrated myself a liar. 

This incident happened with me and I was simultaneously contacting my therapist. His advice was essentially to keep my head down and either "don't escalate" or disengage if I sense something like that again until I am financially independent with my work and able to live on my own. I am inclined to follow his advice. 

Interesting how it's when I'm dishonest that I am confusing. I suppose I should be proud of the fact that my dishonesty is obvious since it hints that I am never dishonest. Of course, it also reminds me how I might as well never be dishonest unless my life depends on it (literally--like the killer asking for me or my family members hypothetical).