Perception Isn’t Reality

There is division within the Manosphere.  Its Christian faction doesn’t share the morality of the PUA blogs.  Our politics range from radical libertarian to staunchly social conservative to “”it’s hopeless just build a bunker” to more mainstream (with the occasional anti-feminist liberal thrown in for good measure).

But there is one thing that unites all of us who’ve swallowed the Red Pill.  We believe in reality.  We know that there’s an objective world outside ourselves that is what it is whether we like it or not.  You’ll find some disagreement about the exact nature of reality, but very little disagreement with the objective nature of reality itself.

Such a perspective is immeasurably important and increasingly rare.  The beliefs that men and women aren’t necessarily what we want them to be but instead have innate characteristics that don’t just change if we get little boys to play with dolls, that hope doesn’t maintain a relationship, that actions have consequences, are all subsets of the knowledge that A is A.

A is A (A) is a fundamental precept of Western Civilization.  It’s the reason we’ve developed such amazing technologies, how we’ve been able to build strong economies, and what’s enabled us to develop a viable middle class.

Leftism, along with its bastard spawn feminism, is doing everything in its power to break down this fundamental belief.

Rarely will anyone other than a philosophy professor openly declare that they don’t believe in reality.  Of course they believe in A; what idiot possibly couldn’t?

Don’t listen to what they say.  Watch what they do.

Observe academia’s focus on Womyn’s Studies, African-American Studies, Native-American Studies, Gay Studies, Chicano Studies, and Critical Theory.  Each of these implies that history, law, and literature mean only what those who share whatever perspective think they mean.  What we’ve called “American History” is actually no such thing–it’s only WHAM History (white heterosexual able-bodied male), and our calling it “American History” merely diminishes the experience of the oppressed.  Never mind that WHAM’s have played a predominant role in the development of our country (and no, it’s not because they were white), we need to cut James Madison from our textbooks to devote more space to César Chávez so that Hispanic kids can relate.  You see, they don’t have a shared cultural experience with James Madison, so unless we put in more Hispanics it’s not real to them.  Perspective matters more than reality.

Was César Chávez important?  Yes.  Was he more important than John Adams?  Your answer depends on the color of your skin.  There’s no way to answer objectively because there’s no such thing as objectivity.

Notice the continually evolving interpretations of sexual assault.  “Assault” is no longer an objective act that somebody either does or doesn’t do, it’s now whatever the “victim” thinks it is.  Whether you believe Zimmerman attacked Trayvon or Trayvon attacked Zimmerman isn’t a question of fact but a litmus test to determine whether or not you’re sufficiently socially aware.  Who gives a damn about Zimmerman’s bloody nose.  No self-respecting black person could possibly believe that Martin did anything wrong, for Trayvon’s plight was an encapsulation of the African-American experience, the facts on the ground be damned.  Disagree and you’re a racist.

Men aren’t supposed to believe that life begins at conception because they’ll never have to go through a pregnancy.  Only blacks have the right to criticize the barbaric behavior of other blacks, but everybody has the right to judge rednecks.  If you point out the FACT that obscenely drunk women are more likely to get raped (men being so barbaric and all), get prepared for accusations of “rape apologist”.

To our opponents, there is no objective Truth but only perspective.  All claims at objectivity are merely attempts to control the narrative.  If you believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms, you’re not actually trying to interpret what the dudes who wrote it were saying, you just want to keep your guns.  If you think that fathers should be the heads of their households, you’re just saying that because you want to be in charge.  There is no Truth, only Power.  It’s therefore perfectly legitimate to warp whatever truths you can to promote your agenda because that’s what everybody does.

Only that’s not the case.  Whether it’s the Constitution or Shakespeare, they said what they said, not just what we want them to say, and some of us are actually trying to figure that out.  Will we sometimes disagree over the meanings of the words and phrases they used?  Yes, but disagreements over what they said are legitimate when we’re actually trying to figure out what they meant.

I don’t believe in the feral nature of female sexuality because I want to believe it.  Frankly, I really wish that I could believe otherwise, that I could win the girl by being a really nice guy.  I don’t want to have to be a bastard, but I know that sometimes I do.  I’m not looking for an excuse to oppress anybody.  I’m just trying to understand how things really are and make my way the best I can.

Likewise, I don’t oppose affirmative action and massive income redistribution schemes because I hate the poor, I’ve simply driven through Detroit enough times, talked to enough people from similar environments, and read enough to know that our “good intentions” only make things worse.

But our enemies can’t give us credit for this.  Whether it’s our views on the economy, race, or gender, we’re just looking for an excuse to retain Power, the very Power the left is trying to take away from us.  Our supposed attempts to retain Power are worse than evil; their attempts to take that Power away (and even magnify it) are nobility personified.

I’ve expounded on one of the ways to fight this rhetorically before, but rhetoric is only a reflection of a much more fundamental battle.  One of the reasons I oppose male-victimhood is that I don’t want us to buy into the false premise that Truth is subjective and try to use the left’s power-narrative against those who aren’t like me.

Today, an accused rapist is presumed guilty because feminists control the legal system.  If we buy into their premises but win that Power back, we’ll live in a world in which rape victims are presumed guilty (Man Power!).  What I want is for actual rapists AND false rape accusers to suffer.

For most leftists to determine how bad it was for five guys to beat some schlub they’ve never met into a coma, they first need to know the races and sexual orientations of the perpetrators and victims.  Five white guys beating a black?  Lock ’em up and throw away the key.  Five black guys beating up a white?  Well, they have to be punished (I guess), but we need to understand how oppressed they’ve felt and maybe take it easy on them.  Five straight whites beating up a gay?  Punish!  Punish!   Punish!  Two Hispanics and three blacks beating up a gay Asian?  Let’s don’t not talk about it.

I know we’ll never get there, but I want to live in a world in which five guys beating another guy into a coma is severely punished no matter who they are.  It’s an objective crime, and it should have an objective punishment.

Today, hate crimes laws codify that some crime victims matter more than others.  A few decades back, the same principle applied, only we protected a different group, for some of us bought into the faulty notion that some lives were worth more than others.  Swinging this faulty pendulum back to favor my group is no victory.

We need to defeat the idea that Truth is merely an extension of Power and not an end in and of itself.  This requires us to unflinchingly examine Truth to the fullest extent we can, no matter where it leads us, no matter how much it might hurt.  Truth doesn’t change if you’re black or white, straight or gay, rich or poor, male or female.  It is what it is.

A is A.  Let us never forget it.

This entry was posted in Feminism, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Perception Isn’t Reality

  1. Pingback: Perception Isn't Reality | Viva La Manosphere!

  2. earl says:

    Isn’t that the truth? When I was a nice guy…girls didn’t care or take advantage…yet when I act like a jerk to them I feel terrible but they eat it up.

    • Stingray says:

      Are you really acting like a jerk though, Earl? There is a big difference between actually being a jerk and being a man.

      • earl says:

        Yeah you are right. I act like a man…which means I’m a jerk with a reason.

        Like when she doesn’t act feminine or disrespects me.

        But it still takes time to unload years of brainwashing. I’m closing in on 1 year of red pill knowledge vs. 18 years of whatever I used to believe.

      • Martel says:

        Sting, also sometimes we call it “being a jerk” because if we did the same thing to other guys, it would be being a jerk. Stuff like showing up late, interrupting, etc., would show disrespect towards other men. Part of swallowing the Pill is learning that we need to treat females in ways we wouldn’t necessarily treat each other.

      • Stingray says:

        Yeah, I would call that stuff being a jerk. I just don’t like seeing the word jerk misused. Part of getting past the brainwashing is not using their words to describe your own behaviors when their use of those words is wrong. It’s really hard to describe these behaviors differently. I get that. But the delineation should be made. If the men here, especially the ones who are so highly respected as commenters (and our host) do not see or use the delineation, then those who respect you will struggle even more. Don’t sell yourselves short. Men being men is not wrong.

      • earl says:

        It really is a huge fight between knowing her nature and going the authoritative route…versus being attracted to her and wanting to protect her from harm.

        In the end I’ve decided the authoritative route is the best route to protect her…but women often never see it that way because of the brainwashing. So you have to learn to build up a really thick skin and be prepared for a lot of flaming arrows to be shot at you.

        I’ve had a lot of them shot at me recently from different women…and no matter how strong you are it does eventually wear on you. It can be almost as bad as getting stabbed in the back by the knife of one woman…but at least you see the arrows coming.

      • Stingray says:

        Earl,

        I truly can’t imagine. I remember myself and other girls shooting arrows but when we were called out on it being embarrassed about it. Then working to prove to the man we wanted that we were indeed worth it and that we could change. It doesn’t seem women are at all interested in that any more and I don’t get it. Most women in my generation (X) wanted to get married and we knew it. It was important to us. We screwed up a lot because we got the beginnings of modern day feminism. But we still struggled to at least try. That does not seem to be the case any more.

        Am I reading your above comment correctly in that you’re 19?!

      • earl says:

        I feel 19…but my biological age is much older.

        Early 30s.

  3. The Lucky Lothario says:

    Arguably a counter argument could center around the ethnicity/gender/sexuality being a part of the truth that you’re observing. And that disregarding those facts is actually a denial of the truth.

    Incidentally, I think this post is spot on and totally agree about the idea of objective truth which shouldn’t be bent to avoid ‘offending’ people. “Tolerance for everyone, except those white males since they deserve to pay for all those years their ancestors had at the top”

    • Martel says:

      We shouldn’t disregard those things, but the idea that you can only comment if you have a “shared experience” violates the notion of objectivity. Perspectives matter in that they influence how we interpret and respond to reality, but reality itself is the fundamental issue.

  4. M3 says:

    Great post.

    I’ve noticed that divide in the sphere as well. At one point i was going to make a post about it, saying that no one train of thought or political leaning should be allowed to ‘claim’ the sphere for their own. It’s not called the Republishere or the Catholisphere for a reason. It’s the MANosphere because it’s about men and their issues dealing with bitter taste of redpill.

    Lord knows, as an Atheist who believes in Universal Healthcare and that any ‘ism’, including Capitalism can be a force for evil because human nature is what it is.. well, sometimes it’s a lonely road up here saying i don’t believe in Reaganomics or that all answers lie within the Conservo-Christian Right wing politic arena.

    But generally we all do come to the same intersection because of the same underlying rot in Western Civilization, and yes it usually comes in the form of uber Liberal policies of this i cannot deny, Feminism included.

    Most rational thinking people do want to live in a world where 5 guys beating up 1 guy are punished, regardless of oppression, real or imagined. It’s the basis of the ‘equality’ everyone holds in such high regard when paying it lip service. Equality before the law, the law is supposed to be blind to everything except metting out justice proportionate to the crime and applied equally to all parties, where any change or deviation from the previous judgement sets ‘precedent’. You can’t have one standard for X and another for Y and claim the scales of lady justice are balanced. People need to have faith that justice will always be served correctly.

    Otherwise, people will revolt.

    • Martel says:

      “i don’t believe in Reaganomics or that all answers lie within the Conservo-Christian Right wing politic arena”

      Part of the Red Pill is the recognition that “all the answers” don’t lie with anything here on earth. You’re correct; people are imperfect. Therefore all economic and political systems will have flaws. I support free markets because 1) I don’t believe that we have the right to control each other, and 2) capitalism has the most realistic views of human nature, it harnesses individual greed for the greater good instead of trying to stamp it out.

      There are divisions within the Manosphere, but the common fealty to recognizing reality is what unites us, and that matters a whole lot. There’s a reason that most of us who’ve swallowed the Pill tend towards economic freedom and social conservatism, for those most logically flow from a correct understanding of human nature.

      Nevertheless, those like yourself who don’t agree politically are still Truth-seekers, I just don’t think you’re interpreting that Truth correctly. Still, you want to get Truth, you believe that there IS Truth, and that matters more than getting some of the specifics wrong. My disagreements with those like you are therefore respectful.

      • Peregrine John says:

        Well put. I’ve been noodling around the idea for a blog, apparently very blue-pill-friendly, which nevertheless has at its root the concepts described in this article and your preceding comment.

      • Martel says:

        John, please elaborate…

      • Peregrine John says:

        As I’ve looked around the androsphere and related bloggery, and as I’ve tried to impart reality-based advice to those I know personally, it has struck me that the biggest stumbling block to spreading Truth is breaking through the shell of interwoven lies that is the Matrix. If someone’s noticed the disconnect between propaganda and reality, and have become irritated by it, they’ll probably come looking for us here; but any number of people who are well-meaning and intelligent and who would embrace what we call a red pill existence really have very little idea that the big illusion isn’t merely dysfunction but is, in fact, a complete sham. God knows I’d have made a shorter path to wakefulness if I’d just had a few clues sent my way a few years earlier. It’s frustrating to look back and see how close I was, without realizing there was anything to be close to.

        We lack (in the androsphere) much in the way of ways to guide those who might be interested in a more clear-eyed world view. So now I’m looking for ways to scratch into that shiny blue shell. I’m a seducer by nature, though only recently educated in the art (one of Vox’s alpha-irritating sigmas), so it makes sense to apply those talents: seduction is, really, little more than dodging preconceived notions about something to be able to show that defenses against it are pointless and even detrimental.

        At least a couple of ideas have come to mind of how I can do that in a blog. The one I was thinking of in my earlier comment is conceived as an open-minded experiment in positive thinking, spirituality, life hacking, and philosophy – which it genuinely will be, please note. Collecting ideas for it, I’ve noticed that a discussion regarding opinion vs. perception vs. reality will need to be started early and returned to fairly regularly. Identifying and separating these is anathema to a blue pill mindset, for reasons you’ve discussed here as a start. Hell, even inserting perception into the mix throws a pretty big sabot into the Matrix machinery.

      • Martel says:

        Interesting stuff, & keep me posted.

        I’ve noticed that much of what we learn about Game can also be used to spread knowledge of Game, for Game and Rhetoric are very similar skills. The goals of a seducer and the persuader are somewhat different, but many of the same principles apply.

        We’re right about this stuff, and some of the intellectual heft in this corner of the interwebs is truly impressive, but we’re not spreading it fast enough. If you have ideas on how to better do that, we need ’em.

        Keep me posted. It sounds like you could play an important role.

      • Peregrine John says:

        I have no particular illusions of importance, though if a few can be converted this way, or at least unfriendly soil loosened a bit so good seeds can lodge and grow, it would be a very handy thing for us to know. I’ll certainly let you know what’s up and how things are going with it. To continue the metaphor, the Good Book says one will sow and another harvest, so it’s likely I’ll never see the end result of it in most cases – but some evidence of increased reception to popping a red pill will surely show now and then.

  5. JB32 says:

    Maybe it should be called the “Reality-o-sphere.” That’s what the issue is realism vs. idealism, where idealism has taken its current insane nihilistic post-modern/post-structural form.

    • JB32 says:

      I’m talking about idealism in its philosophical meaning. Casually, idealism means having ideals and is OK; philosophically idealism means that what we perceive is true and that there is no objective reality.

  6. GAH, this got so long, WordPress wouldn’t let me post it… at first I thought you’d banned me. I decided my faith in the libertarians meant there had to be another explanation, so I broke it into two parts… and I bet that will work.

    Rarely will anyone other than a philosophy professor openly declare that they don’t believe in reality. Of course they believe in A; what idiot possibly couldn’t?

    All Buddhists are not idiots. Really. And this is what you have just said.

    Speaking of your red pills, THE MATRIX borrowed many concepts from Buddhism, and I don’t like it when people appropriate elements of my faith, to trash my faith.

    There are two ways to approach this, looking at the materialist/postmodern concept and the spiritual/Buddhist concept. There have been right and left wing Buddhists… nobody ever accused the govt of Myanmar of being run by leftists. In the West, Buddhism tends to be the province of liberals/leftists because most Christians are on the right. Most American Buddhists are refugees from Christianity, since that is the legacy of the West. (In Indonesia, it’s quite different.) I think there is an element of religious rebellion in Western Buddhism that is not necessarily intrinsic to Buddhism per se, just as there is a rebellious element of Protestantism (root word: protest) that is not necessarily intrinsic to Christianity per se.

    What we’ve called “American History” is actually no such thing, it’s only WHAM History (white heterosexual able-bodied male

    But surely you know that for several centuries, only white males could (legally) own property or businesses, serve their country or govt, elect representatives, etc. Are you saying this had no impact on that history, that the majority of the population was actually disenfranchised? How is that possible?

    To our opponents, there is no objective Truth but only perspective. All claims at objectivity are merely attempts to control the narrative.

    The color red is the best color… its objectively true. The next best color is orange. Objectively true.

    Please account for QUALIA, if everything is objectively true. You can’t. Impossible to do. This is the philosophical question at the heart of what you are saying.

    Further, if you can call female sexuality “feral” and claim to be objective, why can’t I fall back on Nietzsche and claim all male sexuality is about the Will to Power and be as objective as you are? It’s actually the flip side of the same argument, Yin/Yang.

    You claim to be ‘objective’ and then make an emotional claim about the nature of ALL women. This is the equivalent of feminists, whom you dislike, making emotional claims about the nature of ALL men.

    Yes, but disagreements over what they said are legitimate when we’re actually trying to figure out what they meant.

    Okay, but what information is necessary to learn what they meant?

    As you know, there are many meanings to even one short statement. Snapping “get in the house!” to a child (which I just heard someone say, outside… which is why I am using this random example), can mean mom is tired, or it could mean the child is tired… or the child was supposed to be inside a long time ago and disobeyed, or the child was not supposed to be outside at all, or their room is still a mess, or they left the microwave going and burned the popcorn… or it could be that you are just an irritable, mean mom. Or maybe this was just a babysitter or aunt and NOT the kid’s mom, and she resents having to take care of someone else’s brat. Etc. The possible meanings of one text are endless, or we wouldn’t have 28,000 Protestant sects, all claiming that THEIR version of the Bible is the correct one.

    We might, in fact, come to the conclusion that 1) the kid burned the popcorn because 2) they wanted to get back at their mean mom. We can come to that conclusion (correctly) even if mom and child claim otherwise and don’t even believe it themselves.

    Part two to come… hopefully

    • Martel says:

      “All Buddhists are not idiots. Really. And this is what you have just said.”

      No, I was paraphrasing what lefties sometimes say if you directly accuse them of denying the existence of objective reality. I intended no slights against Buddhism and was entirely unaware that postmodernism (which I despise, although it’s created some good art) has been accused of stealing from Eastern traditions. I’m criticizing what began in the West with Kant, and I strongly object to Kant’s reasoning and the doors of errant thinking it pioneered. I don’t know enough about the Eastern take to have much of an opinion other than vague, and admittedly uneducated, disagreement.

      “But surely you know that for several centuries, only white males could (legally) own property or businesses, serve their country or govt, elect representatives, etc. Are you saying this had no impact on that history, that the majority of the population was actually disenfranchised?”

      Whatever the reasons for WHAM’s having more influence than others at the time of the Founding, that’s how it was. Louis XIV “disenfranchised” French pig farmers to a much greater extent than Thomas Jefferson, but the fact remains that if you want to learn about late 17th century France you should spend more time learning about Louis than the pig farmer. Recognizing this in no way disrespects French pig farmers of the time, many of whom I’m sure were downright wonderful people.

      “The color red is the best color… its objectively true. The next best color is orange. Objectively true.”

      That’s an opinion and an entirely different argument than “the table at which you are sitting does not actually exist” (which is what some blowhard tried to convince me a couple of months ago).

      “Further, if you can call female sexuality “feral” and claim to be objective, why can’t I fall back on Nietzsche and claim all male sexuality is about the Will to Power and be as objective as you are? It’s actually the flip side of the same argument, Yin/Yang.”

      Actually a pretty substantial portion of male sexuality IS feral, which is why I don’t think it’s a good idea for girls to dress like hoochie mamas and pass out on fraternity house pool tables. The difference is that modern men are trained to recognize their own aggressive sexual tendencies and can therefore better control them. Both women and men have been taught that female sexuality is somehow more pure, so college girls are running wild and nice guys are wondering why the hell women keep banging the guys that they’re supposed to despise.

      “As you know, there are many meanings to even one short statement. Snapping ‘get in the house!; to a child…”

      Actually, it means that the kid’s supposed to get back into the house. It might be nice to know all the depths and nuances, but anything other than that is ultimately superfluous.

      “The possible meanings of one text are endless, or we wouldn’t have 28,000 Protestant sects, all claiming that THEIR version of the Bible is the correct one.”

      Varied? Yes. Endless? No. Anyone who thinks that the Bible advocates sacrificing your firstborn daughter before an Asherah pole isn’t reading it right. Just because we can’t always be certain that we’re correctly interpreting reality, that doesn’t mean that there is no objective reality. You can strive for Truth and still be wrong. That’s okay. Seek (honestly) and ye shall find..

      • Spoos in August says:

        Just wanted to chime in here and note that the separation between observation and the true character of the thing observed is a fundamental part of empirical knowledge. The statistics of measurements, for example, depend on that precept. Now, leveraging that disconnect (which certainly appears to exist) to argue that all of reality is just perception is an intellectually irresponsible bridge too far. But I don’t think Kant really deserves all of the blame for the postmodernists, since they’dve inevitably found another way to justify their trendy worldview.

      • Martel says:

        @ Spoos: Kant doesn’t deserve ALL of the blame, and he’d probably be genuinely horrified at what the PM’s have done with his thoughts, but he DID open that initial dastardly box of suggesting that we might not be able to correctly perceive reality. This led to all the philosophical nonsense of the 19th century that the PM’s expanded upon.

        He and Rousseau were the beginning of the West’s intellectual downfall. It’s up to the horse whether or not he drinks, but if you led him to water, you certainly made it easier for him.

      • Spoos in August says:

        But we don’t actually perceive reality completely accurately. A good example is the basketball game film where people are asked to count passes: they don’t notice the guy in the gorilla suit walking back and forth.

        That said, our perception of reality is biased predictably, and we can compensate for this. It’s also pretty accurate most of the time. (It kind of has to be, since the guy who doesn’t notice the tiger in the grass gets eaten.)

        The leap from inaccurate perception of an underlying, uniform reality to the non-existence of that reality is wholly a non sequitur.

        I think, realistically, that people suffering from the ennui characteristic of every declining civilization will make that leap even without someone like Kant coming before them. The Epicureans dressed it up better than the postmodernists, but people don’t seem to cope very well when they have time to ruminate and philosophize.

  7. Part two

    It’s an objective crime, and it should have an objective punishment.

    St Thomas Aquinas talked about moral relativity (oh yes he did) in terms of “harm”, which is close to Meister Eckhart’s and Buddha’s concepts too. If I steal 5 bucks from someone like Donald Trump, who will probably not even notice it, is that as morally-wrong as stealing 5 bucks from some peasant in Guatemala who makes 5 bucks in a whole month? Duh, easy call. But to you, to moral absolutists, stealing is stealing, and you would give the thieves equal jail sentences. Right?

    If not, why not? Isn’t it the same?

    Further, what if I tell you I stole the $5 to feed my kids? Many prostitutes are doing that work to feed their kids… does that make any difference to you, IF the assertion can be proven?

    If it doesn’t matter to you, you may be showing justice, but no mercy, and your Bible has warned you about that.

    Over time, we have become lax on gay rights since we have a hard time ascertaining how what two people do has any bearing on us… the fact that we have all learned a friend was gay and NEVER KNEW (i.e. it did not readily impact us at all) –means that we have ascertained there is “no harm done”… the fact that the Right has begun to argue HARM instead of morality (i.e. they claim gay marriage will harm children or hetero marriage), means they have conceded this fight and are now arguing on our terms.

    And so, per your example, if some kid was raised by the Manson family, I expect them to beat some schlub they never met. Manson thought that was good times. But it always creeps us out when the middle class, all-American nice kids (Jodi Arias) morph into Mrs Bates, and we rarely cut them any slack. (We EXPECT Charles Manson, rejected by his alcoholic mother, raised in abject poverty, passed around in foster care and a runaway/rape victim by age 13, to be a mess.)

    On some level, we already look into the backgrounds of criminals to figure out what makes them tick, and we are far more harsh with the people we think had everything and threw it all away. Again, we ALREADY subscribe to a measure of moral relativity. And you do too, you just don’t admit it.

    A is A. Let us never forget it.

    And if you delete your post… the A will disappear. It might be judged never to have existed. Can you write “A” in Catawban? No, since its a dead, forgotten language and nobody knows how they wrote A, although they must have had some equivalent of the first letter of their language, or some way they made the sound “A”…. . But it is now gone: all that is here, passes away and is impermanent, second by second.

    That is what Buddhists mean by truth being relative.

    A better way to phrase what you mean is to single out POSTMODERNISM, which would be the materialist version of Buddhism. (I think they *stole* it from us, but thats another argument)

    I’m glad that you oppose “male victimhood” or I would not bother to talk to you. You really do seem to want to get to the bottom of things. But please understand that some of us on the Left do also, and after many decades of serious, hard work, have come to other conclusions. We are not bad people. You say don’t look at what we say, look at what we do, and I will go along with that. (Currently, have a bug up my butt about the Tumblr SJW kids… and how they type type type but DO nothing, and then talk about going to the Hot Topic. Really? Social justice, man!–but hey, lets buy some more dumb t-shirts made my Asian sweatshops! A POX ON THE TUMBLR-SJW house.)

    Thanks for listening and namaste. No insult intended by my last post… you might want to check comments on the my last post at MY blog (getting to be a swamp, so beware). When I say “racist”–I think it is something we all have, it is not a dirty name for some people and not others. Its like any other thing (maybe “tribalist” would be the more accurate term, actually) that I think we have to eradicate in ourselves.

    • Martel says:

      Interesting question about the $5. I’d have to put some thought into an answer, but just because I don’t know, it doesn’t mean that there’s not an answer. I will boldly proclaim with certainty that raping six year-olds is wrong.

      Much of life is deciding between bad choices, and in situations like a totalitarian state like North Korea you’re often left with horrid predicaments (do I rat out my friend and let him go to the concentration camp, or do I risk getting my own family sent to the camp instead for NOT ratting him out if I get caught?). Stealing is bad. Letting your kids starve is worse. Under such a circumstance, you may be doing wrong by stealing, but you’re doing the best you can under difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, stealing is wrong,

      Yes, we cut people slack, we’re often relativists. Still, relativism is something we should work to avoid, as doomed to failure as our attempts may be. In one sense, you could say that a rich kid murdering is worse than a Manson child, but to know for sure we’d have to see into their hearts, which is impossible for us to do. What we can do is determine that murder is murder in the legal sense and hold everybody to the same standard to the greatest extent we can.

      “And if you delete your post… the A will disappear. It might be judged never to have existed.”

      But it still will have existed. It might not matter that it existed, but it still did. Whether or not be prioritize what actually was over what people think was makes all the difference in the world.

      “I’m glad that you oppose “male victimhood” or I would not bother to talk to you. You really do seem to want to get to the bottom of things. But please understand that some of us on the Left do also, and after many decades of serious, hard work, have come to other conclusions. We are not bad people.”

      “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” I can only guess as to what’s in your hearts. However, “by their fruits shall ye know them”, and the fruits I see from leftism include Detroit, massive federal deficits, and lots of kids of all races and classes growing up without dads (a women needs a fish with a bicycle, etc.). Is the other side perfect? Far from it, but the more leftist influence I see, the worse more of the problems they rail against often get.

      Yes, being called “racist” rubs me wrong, for racism is something I fight against, HARD. Regarding tribalism, I don’t think it’s impossible to eliminate it, but it needs to depend on shared values instead of biological traits like skin color. But that discussion is for another day.

      • Peregrine John says:

        Certain actions are always good. Certain actions are always bad. The others depend on why they are done. This is flatly biblical.
        The existence of grey does not render all things unmoored.

  8. Pingback: The Mixed Message Trap | Alpha Is Assumed

  9. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/24 | Free Northerner

  10. The mooring itself is an illusion. THATS the real red pill.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s