plato85

There's a current vote here in Australia over same sex. There was a pro gay marriage protest with 20,000 in Sydney yesterday. i don't really care about gay marriage one way or another, but I find something very off putting about the protest, and I feel like voting against the protesters. i don't know how to articulate why I'm so strongly against protesters, but in general when there's a large group of zealots I want to stand up for the other side. Am I being completely irrational? Is spite of zealots a good enough reason to vote against gay marriage? The two issues are not strictly related. I suppose I'll have to abstain from voting.

I'm hoping the court system and trained judges isn't as irrational as local government and the general public.

I applied to court and I wrote to them that they are essentially accusing me of ripping them off, and I think they’re going to look quite silly trying to assert that in court. Thanks, I agree rouge. I'll check out Marc Stevens. Anything in particular?

Get off the drugs.

EDIT: Yeah Milo's book is a good laugh. Real easy to read. I read it the whole thing the day it came out. John Taylor Gatto was famous in home schooling circles in 90s. He won teacher of the year awards. He explains in his books that because he was under the radar teaching ghetto kids in Harlem, he got away with disregarding the curriculum, and taught partly based on the elite private boarding school model to think like aristocrats. He talks about how he built up a culture in his classes of kids who actually wanted to learn and how He built up their character and intellect. 'An Evening with John Taylor Gatto' which is a series you can on Youtube or Free podcasts. 'Underground History of American Education' is his best book and there is a free audiobook here.

I wouldn't say it's that the boomers don't care. They have a meek culture of not being politically active, not talking about politics at the dinner table. There's probably no avoiding war, the Sunnis are on a war footing. They'll probably rise up on the streets one day under Erdogans orders one day.

Then the closer the relation the closer their morals are. Society is not divided along ethnic lines, it is divided along conservative/libertarian and Socialist/multicultural lines. And these groups are getting further apart. The point is, how do we bring socialists across to unite society?

Well, naturally we tend to identify with people with similar morals to us. I suspect interests are secondary. A country could be brought together on common morals, or divided into different groups. Morals should be based on truth, evidence, and rationality. Identity should be based on morals, not the other way around. If society was open to argument and debate, and learning, and put our arguments to the test of reason, we'd find we all start to have more in common as all we start to agree with the best moral arguments. if on the contrary people claim that all moral codes are equal and decide it's offensive to challenge someone's outlook, society is divided into multiple identities with not much to bring them together. The identity worth wearing for me is one along my moral line. I identify with honesty, rational, grown up, independent, self reliant, responsible, mature. If people thought of identity in terms of their morals like this, identity politics wouldn't be a thing. Having said that, identitarians are exposing the insanity of the left, and I'm optimistic that identiarians will destroy political correctness.

This is not stricly about socialism, but In Carol Quigley's book The Evolution Of Civilizations, he talks about different cultures mixing together. It's a very interesting book if this is what you're interested. Keep in mind the establishment thought he was one of them. He says that civilisations go through 7 stages, but don't necessarily move forward through these stages, sometimes backwards. Mixture - a new culture mixing with an old culture can be very difficult Gestation - the cultures start to merge and forge a new stronger culture Expansion - Good times, good economy Age of Conflict - war Universal Empire - All enemies defeated world government - Roman empire / Ancient Chinese empire only two examples so far. Good times leads to decay. Decay Invasion He says a unique feature of Western civilisation is that we keep getting to age of conflict and then resetting to expansion, rather than getting universal empire and decay. Thich is how the West became so advanced. This probably meant more in the 50s when he wrote it. It feels like right now we're in all of those stages at once.

I've got a parking fine which I'm considering taking to court which could cost me several hundreds if I lose. The law is vague and I'm not sure how strong my argument is so I need your advice. I consider you guys as good as lawyers. I pulled into a car park, and the parking sign said to pay on a mobile app, "PayStay" and it gave an area code. I downloaded PayStay and paid the correct area, but I switched two letters on my license plate and I didn't notice. I got an $80 ticket. The law I allegedly broke was: "Parking where fees are payable: The driver must (a) pay the fee (if any); and (b) obey any instructions on or with the sign, meter, ticket or ticket-vending machine. Definitions: traffic control device means a traffic sign, road marking, traffic signals, or other device, to direct or warn traffic on, entering or leaving a road; with, for information about the application of a traffic control device, includes accompanying or reasonably associated with the device; I applied for an internal review and the city wrote back "We don’t withdraw fines in these circumstances. Before starting a session, drivers are given multiple opportunities to check that they have entered the correct vehicle registration and zone number. If these details are not accurate, you have not correctly paid for parking and the PayStay session is not valid. We strictly enforce the correct use of PayStay." I'm thinking of taking this to court on the grounds that the instructions within the app are not reasonably with the sign because: 1. The law is vague and obviously wasn't written with a phone app in mind. 2. It is not reasonable to argue that a typo in a phone app is a crime, and there is nothing anywhere in the road rules about making typos. The City claims that my parking was "not valid" even though they acknowledge that they have a record on their system that I've paid. If they know I've paid then I must have obeyed the signs, and the only thing that makes my parking invalid is that they say it is invalid. Is my argument sound enough? Or is it a stronger argument that the app is reasonably with the sign because the sign mentions the app?

I have the same instinct, but if everyone else is using newspeak, using classical definitions leads to confusion and anger. I'm just thinking back to my original post: After I we defined these arguments, he continued arguing with his definition and I continued arguing with my own definition until he called me a Nazi and I ended the conversation. I would have thought since I was the one defending conservatism and he was the one challenging it, he would shift his position somehow. I guess that's the ad hominem fallacy. So there's no point in using someone else's definition, and standing up against deliberate fallacies is what's more important. I have to learn to identify when they're using this kind of argument early.

Adam Curtis' - Century of the Self is all about this stuff and how it has played out in the past. The full documentary series is on youtube.

I'm not sure how talk about identity, it's not something I know much about. It seems to me that progressives put identity above logic and reason. So perhaps the best way to challenge their morals and politics is to challenge their identity. I don't really know how to go about it. I've done a little bit of reading and I've read that Mazlow's hierarchy of needs says that higher level needs are abandoned to meet lower level needs. If someone needs belonging they will join a group and abandon their own thoughts and beliefs and conform to the group. No wonder it doesn't matter how much you argue with these people it doesn't help. No wonder debating, arguing, reasoning doesn't affect these people. It probably has the opposite affect, because they'll see an argument as a personal attack for them being part of their group. Then how do we bring them across to independent reason? 20 years ago everyone was proud to be from our country including immigrants. Now it seems that national identity has been demonised, so there's no moral identity to bind everyone together. Perhaps 'identity crisis' is the best way to describe the post-modern world.

Don't expect reality to return anytime soon. Come the next crash they'll bring in helicopter money / universal basic income. That could keep the system going for another 20 years before John Galt takes over.

I completely agree the clock is ticking, and I haven't found a a successful strategy yet but I'll dedicate my life to finding one. Debating and arguing like adults doesn't seem to help. My latest theory is, in simplest way of putting it the two mainstream outlooks: Enlightenment outlook: Truth > Morals > Politics Postmodern outlook: Identity > Morals > Truth > Politics So discussing politics with someone with different morals that you is a waste of time, you need to address the different morals first. The post moderns see the world as 'us vs them' and their morals are based on their identity. i.e who they think they are. So to bring someone post-modern across to reality, my theory is that we have to first challenge their 'identity', 'us vs them' outlook. I don't know how. I suspect they have assumed a 'group identity', in place of a weak sense of them self and who they are. So challenging their group identity might involve building up their self esteem first. Good luck with your Son. Let me know how you go.

I'm reading Explaining Post Modernism - Stephen Hicks. He puts forward a strong argument that Post Modernists don't actually believe most of the things they say, rather they see the word as 'us vs them', and they're only interested in winning. Political correctness and deconstruction are just rhetorical tools to win political ends. This supports my argument that their identity underlies all the bullshit, and it's their identity that we need to attack somehow, not their lies.

I'm reading The Great Divide, He talks about the tripartite: 1/3 of people work and produce 1/3 of people work for the government 1/3 of people receive government benefits. The last two groups will always be against the first group, so we will never be able to vote against socialism.

Adopting the views of the group often leads to a suicide cult (Hitler, Starlin, Mao). How do we break people's group conformity?

Perhaps another way of putting identity is the self. Perhaps people with no real sense of their self assume these group identities. I don't know. I've always assumed morals are based on truth but, if for some people morals are based on identity then no wonder we've been wasting our time arguing about truth and reason. Maybe the only way to bring someone to reason, is to improve their sense of self so that they give up their assumed group identity? I'm thinking aloud here. Does anyone know anything about this?

I've been thinking about this for a few days. There might be another approach. The theory behind the Nicola method is that people who desperately need to feel included bow to peer pressure. I know this bi-polar personality. They lack self esteem and that's why they need to fit in with other people. Because they need to fit in with other people they don't have good defense mechanisms, they don't defend themselves and they easily conform because they want to fit in. Their low self-esteem and lack of defense mechanisms leads them to be incredibly passive-aggressive out of some kind of compensation. But they don't realise they are arseholes. They think of themselves as the 'nice guy' and they'll rationalise it and believe it. They couldn't imagine any reason why anyone would not see them as the nice guy? they don't rock the boat! They don't just think of themselves as the 'nice guy' they identify as a nice guy. This is why they support selfless causes like feminism if they're a man, BLM if they're white, refugees if they're a citizen. They make a practice of virtue signalling because they feel the need to prove that they're the nice guy. Virtue signalling is akin to psychological states like a mid-life crisis where someone starts trying to act young as if it will convince everyone else, or middle-class signalling where people show off prestige to prove their identity. There is a certain desperation and hollowness to it, almost a cry for help. So if you challenge an idea based on reason, this is not just a challenge of an idea, it's a personal attack on their identity as a nice guy. That's why they take arguments personally and get cranky and passive aggressive. My theory is, an alternative to the Nicola line "Have I said something wrong?." When someone gets passive aggressive, we ask "Why are you being an arsehole?" This will throw them, because they have deceived themselves into believing they really are the nicest guy around and everyone else are arseholes, and we directly challenge that identity. The identity is the underlying problem, all other moral issues are secondary, and political issues are tertiary. Asking "why are you being an arsehole?" will change the argument and their style of arguing. Up till now they've been on the offensive throwing passive aggression at you, but as soon as you suggest that they're an arsehole, their deep need to feel accepted will set them on the defensive, and they will try to convince you that they're not an arsehole, which means they'll engage in the discussion more honestly and accurately.

Silverchair Lyrics "Anthem For The Year 2000" We are the youth We'll take your fascism away We are the youth Apologise for another day We are the youth And politicians are so sure We are the youth And we are knocking on death's door Never knew we were living in a world With a mind that could be so sure Never knew we were living in a world With a mind that could be so small Never knew we were living in a world And the world is an open court Maybe we don't want to live in a world Where innocence is so short We'll make it up to you in the year 2000 with...

I would say that I have a large vocabulary, but perhaps not an up to date one. I do regularly find that my definitions are out of date, or though deception I've taken completely the wrong definition. A good example of this is, at the start of the year I thought I identified as alt-right because the media were describing my favourite political commentators as alt right. People like Milo Yiannopolous. I was going around defending the alt-right claiming that it was a complete fabrication that the alt right are Nazis or even racist. I often find my arguments go in circles because I've got a different definition of a word. A few days ago I was defending conservatism and conservative values for ages. After half an hour of arguing I found out my definition of a conservative is anyone who feels that the past was better and that society is moving in the wrong direction, and are therefore opposed to much change. He told me his definition of conservatism was a white male patriarchy that opposes social change because they don't want to lose control of their world domination. Sure that second example is fairly extreme and hyperbolic (and unfortunately I didn't make this up). On a serious note whether it's my error or someone else's, this kind of thing happens to me all the time. Any advice?

It's chilling looking back at what I wrote, that the alt-right wasn't a racial thing. I was mostly watch mainstream media. The media was describing libertarians like Milo Yiannopolis as alt-right. So I assumed alt-right just meant something like, the people who were left wing but who have crossed over and voted for Trump. When you sent me video of Jared Taylor, I thought this is a smear on the alt right, to put people like Jared Taylor in with Milo Yiannopolis. I've since learnt how wrong I was, especially after the events in Virginia yesterday. No wonder I was getting funny looks when I was telling people I was alt right. Damn media.

I've just read the article and I'm feeling very aroused. Thanks for posting it! The world makes slightly more sense. It turns out lacking much social insecurity makes me lightly autistic. It gives me special reasoning skills and makes me quite unpopular. Whether this line works, I'll certainly be taking the theory into account in my arguments: When I make an argument against an idea that someone holds, the average person may see it as me just disapproving of them. Cowards. I'll keep you posted.

An update on my quest to bring SJWs to reason. I haven't managed to bring any across yet but I am developing quite a knack of defeating their arguments quickly, so I'll share some basics. They see truth as relative, which means to them truth moves around from your point of view, which makes them very difficult to reason with. They use relativist language, including strange definitions for many words, which means you'll argue in circles for a long time until you figure out they're talking about something entirely different. It's very important to keep an eye out for these words and try to define your words early or use different words. They struggle with categories. For instance "you're against immigration, Hitler was against immigration, therefore you're in favour of genocide." They make these categorical errors all the time and they're really easy to pick up on, and back them into a corner. They value people over truth. They base their morals around people and then come up with truth later, as opposed basing their morals on truth. I suspect this is why defeating them in debate doesn't affect them much. They may be incredibly intelligent but that doesn't help them reason. They can turn all their intelligence against reason. It's almost like somebody has set their brain to work against them. "The ends justify the means" is a common phrase you'll find in socialist literature. We all tend to project our values onto other people, so while libertarians like to read our own values of honesty and liberty into other people, it may not be there. And SJWs tend to read deception and dishonesty into us. Truth and honesty is the best policy and a good weapon against all this nonsense. The means are the ends, and there's no point in winning the culture wars if we give this up. They are deeply authoritarian. They don't believe in liberal democracy and open debate. I have made a few of them openly admit it, and it horrifies me. They know full well that progressives are running society even though they'll argue it's the other way. The main goal of a SJW in debate is to make his opponent accept their sense of guilt, either for being alive, or for being successful. Refusing to accept their guilt turns them very nasty. Because they turn nasty, the vast majority will pay lip service to SJW guilt publicly. So in their mind SJWs are used to winning emotional arguments even though the vast majority people think they lost the debate on rational grounds. There may or may not be much use engaging an SJW on rational grounds, the emotional argument is more important. Merely refusing to accept SJW guilt and giving reason why not is not winning the emotional argument in SJW eyes. In their eyes it's like giving up and refusing to stand for morals at all. That is not to say that we should accept their sense of guilt as our own, we shouldn't. We need to find another way to appeal to their emotions to win the argument. If you can debate your way to underlying beliefs and get them to be honest about it, it is really abhorrent. It's a bit like the end of Atlas Shrugged when the bad characters are revealed for who they are. It is a lot like the way Stephen Hicks explains in this video: