Are white people bullied and silenced?

This is more or less the point that moreno kept coming back to. If someone were to think like me what would be the point of engaging in exchanges like this at all? Best to just shrivel up somewhere in a world all your own until the day you die.

But:

1] I start with the assumption that even my own point of view is unable to escape my own point of view. In other words that, in being an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy [pertaining to the world of is/ought], it is always subject change.
2] And that, as such, I may well be wrong to think what I do is a reasonable point of view. Here all I can do is to engage in exchanges like this one. To, in other words, encounter other points of view that may well be able to yank me up out of that dilemma.
3] Besides, if one chooses to interact with others, he or she is going to find him or herself in situations where others expect them to favor “one of us” over “one of them”.

And over and again I note that my own value judgments are just political contraptions entangled existentially in one or another rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

All I do here is to tap the objectivists on the shoulder and ask them to explain how their own value judgments [when in conflict with others] are not entangled in it.

What I have not abandoned is Marx’s rejection of idealism, his speculation as a “dialectical materialist” — as a “left Hegelian”.

Okay, then you seem to be acknowledging this: that 1] in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, and 2] given new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information etc., you can well imagine changing your mind about both nihilism and anarchism.

But: the objectivists that I focus the beam on [turd, uccisore, the KT crowd etc] seem incapable of imagining reality [pertaining to value judgments in conflict] as anything other than which they assert it to be. Instead, they have invariably nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who are not “one of us”.

They are, in my opinion, meatminds.

That’s easy, vegetable brain.
It’s not a question of should - the should question is reserved for an in-group to decide for themselves, among themselves.

There are inherently different interests for different kinds of people.

Does that mean that there is no need, or no point for a rational approach to moral questions?

• Of course not.
  But one should not expect that everybody shares the same morality as an outcome of this inquiry. The rational part is more about examining whether or not what you are doing and how you are doing it is really how you are going to achieve and get what you need.

Take your own example, by nature you are more of a liberal than a conservative and that’s why after leaving the formative years of your childhood you developed towards becoming liberal.
Consult Jonathan Haidt, he did some research about the different moral foundations of liberals and conservatives. Why they have different outlooks on life.

I guess this has been big news in Huffpoo and co.

Some might be confused now. Aren’t the people who propagate this White as well?
Not in this case, they identify as something else.

This is so Weimerica.

The woman on the left holding up the card saying Fuck Whiteness is white
Now she may not identify with being white but that is what she actually is

Dude, that’s a 2% minority, check your majority white privilege.

If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just for example, a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a Jew-who-officially-hates-Jews, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists, … and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.

The method is very easy: You jump with your “thesis” (e.g.: “X is evil”) into your “synthesis” (e.g.: “if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good”) - the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the “antithesis” (e.g.: “X is good”) and telling the lie that “the antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its opposing role”.

the cosmic immutable law of rhythm swings in full force. As long as you analyze the issue through your own bubble of cultural perception, nothing will change but get a lot worse. And of course those being the takeover of the planet know this.

It is not just the problem of the caucasian culture but many other dominant ones. They all are paying the heavy price for their military interventions and/or economic invasions. China doesnt escape this pattern as tensions are mounting. Westerners are absolutely clueless about geopolitics, mainly because the white culture has had the supremacy for centuries, they didnt see anything come.

Westerners didnt see anything wrong either with bombing iraq which had nothing to do with 911, and lately libya or syria because their banking systems is usury-free and prohibiting western special interests (rothschilds, rockefellers, etc) from having stakes in them. Because these countries also used oil revenues to help directly their own citizens. Because the christian white population was unable to prevent to prevent such bombings nor the palestinian genocide, it is now their turn to suffer, Europe is being culturally destroyed and so the same side effects may reach america.

Instead of fighting for one’s own race, because now all the races are equally threatened, people should stand up against war and demand to call the troops back home. That the only worthy solution out there. People worry about their cultural identity but it is WAR the problem.

THE METAPHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE of divide and conquer
“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” ― Jiddu Krishnamurti

The opposite is true.
Because many Europeans have been trained to want to alleviate all suffering they are cucking themselves out of existence.

You know what is easy? - To let all those refugees just come in.
What is tough is to defend your borders and to regularly clean house. To say No to eternally whining morons.

I can cite many stories of western plunder mainly in africa and still on going, such as the coltan war, coltan being a mineral needed for electronics, and which has killed more than 5 million african as I type this. We all have blood on our cellphones.

Beside humanitarianism has ALWAYS been a joke, CEOs charities earning a high six figure is the evidence. The war cartel takes care about the damages, then we send in the red cross and the like to alleviate all suffering. =D> People do not see what is wrong with this paradox. The left and the right are complementary ideologies. There is no opposite but ignorance

The faith in money, and the way wealth is perceived, will have dire consequences.

ABOLISH WAR and teach economics in high school, that the best way to defend peace. Borders are but a fiction because the elites use WAR to redesign the borders as they see fit anyway. But people will cross any border when bombed or when not able to cope with destructive economics.

Teach economics in high school. LOL
Do you mean teach your morality in high school?

You think the problem is that Europeans have not lived up to ‘their’ utopian moral standards.
I say they are self-destructive morals.

The group "X“ depends always on its "therapist“ or "teacher“ or "reeducator“. It has no chance to become a good one, if its "therapist“ or "teacher“ or "reeducator“ does not want that, because it can always be ointerpreted as being "evil“.

you speak that way because you are absolutely clueless in economics, but you are not alone rest assured, willing to avoid the topics of the world unprecedented bankruptcy and economic slavery. Yet you question my moral. Do you realize that there are more slaves today that at any given time in history??? But rest assured, monetarism is coming to an end TOO.

war and economics are 2 sides of the same coin… and would surely avoid the below: please google first all the headlines below, but you can go to earthcustodians.net/platforms.html and click on the hyperlinks

PLANETARY WEB OF DEBT

7 million Americans refuse to pay back student loans | National student loan debt reaches a bonkers $1.2 trillion (and growing) in the US | Who's Profiting From $1.2 Trillion of Federal Student Loans?
The World Is $300 Trillion In Debt | Systemic inequalities play a key role in our alarmingly high level of credit card debt. | Government debt in 20 industrialized: $122 trillion (long-term liabilities non included)
Global Government debt is actually triple what we think | The $100 Trillion Global Debt Ponzi Scheme | Business Debt Will Surge To $75 Trillion By 2020, S&P Global Ratings Cautions
China's debt mountain is growing fast | IMF tells China: Fix your debt problem now
Africa risks fresh debt crisis as levels of borrowing rise sharply, warns UN | | The Dollarization and Militarization of Africa
The Bankruptcy Of The Planet Accelerates: 24 Nations Facing A Debt Crisis | FAITH MONEY and the Coming Collapse: New mini-documentary | Not just Argentina: 11 countries near bankruptcy
John Perkins - The Debt is NOT Yours to Repay | Debt, The First 5000 Years Audiobook | The American Debt Slaves | How to Turn Kids Into Debt Slaves
Money As Debt, Doc Part 2 | Part I | The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation | Financial Whistleblower Explains What's About to Happen to the Economy
ECB's First Chief Economist Warns: The EU is a 'House of Cards' | Saudi officials warn bankruptcy looming
Russian sanctions cost Italy 7bn Euros and up to 200,000 jobs - Italian MP 

I find debt in some cases to be like a joke I heard about a thief that tried robbing a convenience store with a gun, got horny in the process and, at gunpoint, convinced the male clerk to suck him off. Theyou both got into enjoying it so much that the thief took his gun away from the clerks head only to have the clerk immediately stop and say, please put the gun back to my head in case someone I know walks in.

Clinton never got the recognition he deserved for clearing up our national debt because if he had done so, the rest of the world would have no reason, without duress, to continue doing business with America, who they claimed to hate. Hence why we are now trillions of dollars in debt with no intention of ever paying it back. As long as we hold that gun to their heads, they keep sucking us off and we all enjoy it.

Are white people bullied and silenced?

Ah no, let’s talk about how those evil/clueless/uneducated/whatever White people are enabling the exploitation of those other races through economic means.
Poor Africans and Chinese are not capable of defending themselves, shitlib must save them from themselves, from the power of the all powerful White Man.

Whining bitch complains that men are holding her down. Demands they must provide for enable for her a carefree life because that’s a god given if it wasn’t for the evil patriarchy.

Living a sheltered life tends to make people delusional about their powers outside their golden cage.
They only see the negatives of the cage but not that much of what they take for granted is not a given.

What’s annoying is when people assume they know more about a certain subject if you don’t take them seriously.

I don’t know about American Jews (women), what I know is they’ve never been persecuted or denied any rights in US. As far as feminists, there are many different kinds out there. I believe that a woman should have a right to earn her own money and own her own property, to be self-sustaining if she wants to (even if she’ll have to create her own society), and not be dependent on a man if she doesn’t want to. Women in the past were quite disenfranchised in that regard and were completely dependent on males on their wellbeing. It was a power struggle, and women were left primarily only with their sexuality as their power base. Many turned to prostitution in order to gain some degree of independence (it still happens in less developed countries). A woman who is past her sexual prime (or a widow) was completely at the mercy of handouts and various charity/religious groups.

For some reason, a man believes that a woman should be sacrificed for some greater good and be completely dependent on a man, and he thinks that she would be just fine with that. But I think reality does not support this. I thought it was odd that women in Victorian times were described with such bizarre psychological ailments, like female hysteria and accompanying psychological behavioral oddities. If a woman displayed such bizarre behavior now, we’d think she was on drugs, it just appeared so extreme. Now, I haven’t read any feminist literature on this topic or looked at any autobiographical accounts, but something tells me that a woman’s life that was completely dependent on a man and did not allow her the freedom to pursue her own dream, was not that great, and possibly even played a great toll on her emotional and psychological health, which was likely passed on to her own children.

I think most women are content with what they have achieved right now, I sure am, and I’m usually not complaining. And most other women are not complaining. However, there are some extremes in feminism and I don’t agree with them. I worked with one such person. She was an activist kind of feminist that kept pushing and pushing her rights and nitpicked on every little thing. She and I did not get along very well because I was happy with what I had (fulfilled for the most part) and that did not seem to sit well with her. She guilt tripped me for not joining her in her way/mission. She said were it not for people like her, the activists, I would not be where I am right now and enjoying the rights that I have. Another mistake that I think she made was to think that if she didn’t get her way (a man was promoted instead of her) it was sexist on the part of supervisor. And I am not saying sexism does not exist in the workplace, it does, but so do many other types of discrimination. It’s not like women only get the short end of the stick, but other groups do too. Everybody plays the power game and it’s usually based on opportunity, rather than some noble principle. I wouldn’t even be surprised if some (white) men declared themselves “gay” in order to gain some advantage to other groups and get some benefits from the government.

thats smart as shit

Okay, why what one “in-group” decides rather than another? And how does one become a member of the “in-group” if not [in large part] based on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein?

Indeed, site a value judgment of your own as an example. Situate it existentially in a trajectory as I did here:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

If the political agenda of “one of us” clashes with the political agenda of “one of them”, where is the argument that allows the philosopher to transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of conflicting goods here?

Again, note a particular context in which one of your own values came into conflict with another.

Let’s use that as the foundation for our exchange here.

Satyr’s dogma? That there are “natural” ways to behave. For men, for women. For blacks, for whites. For Judeo-Christians, for ubermen. But that [somehow] this political agenda is different from embracing the philosophical agenda rooted in deontology?

How so?

But my aim here is focus the beam on exploring why/how particular individuals come to embrace conflicting moral agendas throughout the course of actually living their lives.

And that would seem to encompass a very, very, very complex intertwining of both “theory” and “practice”. There’s the part where you think about conflicting human behaviors “rationally”, “logically” from the perspective of folks like, say, Plato and Descartes and Kant. The part where you think, “What can we know about this? What can we know about this?”

In other words, what can we ascertain as the optimal frame of mind given the optimal intertwining of inductive and deductive reasoning?

And all I ask then is that these folks bring their scholastic contraptions – their lectures – out into the world existentially. How are they applicable given the manner in which I construe these conflicts from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

So, that’s how it works, eh?

Inside each of us – at birth? – is the “real me”. And however we are indoctrinated as a child, and whatever actual experiences and relationships shape and mold us over the years, this “real me” will eventually come out.

You really do actually believe that?

Well, okay, suppose that is true. If we are fated to embody the “real me” than how much sense does it make to denigrate those who are “one of them” if that is who they were always going to be anyway?

So, which “mortal foundation” does he prefer? And how might you imagine him responding to the arguments that I raise here?

Also where does your own reaction to me fall on his “Disgust Scale”?

And then of course these parts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt#Criticism

If you were high on the disgust scale then I wouldn’t interact with you. Disgust is a factor which deters people from interactions.
I find you irritating. You are not the only one with this quality though. Here’s what I think is the most agitating quality which leftist possess and which they use to get their attention fix - A mix of being smug and making shameless stupid arguments or just being plain stupid.

What do you do against that? That’s important because ‘we’ have to troll them into submission.
Any ideas how to handle those smug dummies?

I try very hard not to be disgusted or shocked by anything simply because disgusting and shocking things happen and so therefore have to be accepted
Smugness and stupidity are to be found everywhere since they are part of human nature so are definitely not exclusive to any particular demographic

So, I don’t disgust you enough that you abandon the exchange but I do disgust you enough that you don’t/won’t actually respond to the points that I raise in the exchange.

You will “interact” with me, just not substantively.

No sweat. I’m used to that here.

[b][i]Note to others:

There must be objectivists you know able to pose a considerably more potent challenge to me than the likes of Is_Yde_opN. Tell them about me, okay? [/i][/b]