Just Say No
(twitter.com)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
Not sure I agree with this - I oppose all that shit for reasons I’ve convinced myself are actually for the good of everyone involved -
“gender affirming” leads to 41% suicide rate? I’m opposed for their own good (not to mention the poisonous effect that normalizing their delusions has on everyone else)
“Diversity” leads to zero trust environments built on endless resentment and race rioting? I’m opposed to that for everyone’s good, not just my property values or whatever
Same for fags, same for the ZOG, same for the clotshot, same for all this shit. Interested in other’s opinions on this.
No, you're right.
If anyone actually cares about the future of a functioning society, solipsism has to be put on a the back-burner.
There is a reason why the most successful nations in history had stringent rules on conduct and policy; family and economics. If you don't have these rules in place the entire system breaks down and fails (as we've seen time and time over again where the rules are ignored/broken and by proxy the entire infrastructure eventually collapses).
If people are making decisions, enabling policies and opening the door for decay, then it will eventually spread and it will eventually rot the moral and social columns of the social infrastructure, and inevitably cause a collapse.
It's not a matter of saying "No", just to be "evil" and selfish, but saying "No" for the sustained betterment of mankind.
No, you’re right! Great points all around.
The neoliberal/neoconservative death spiral of the last hundred years is like the Tragedy of the Commons on steroids, or maybe on estrogen-mimicking phytohormones
We must give up some amount of our individual desires and wants for the good of the whole then?
That's kind of how it's always been for some societies to be successful. There's always a give and take, both on the micro-level with inter-personal relationships (i.e., how to have a sustainable marriage) and on the macro-level with extra-personal relationships (i.e., workforce, municipality, republic/democratic/monarchical engagement).
There is always going to be some level of individualism you need to keep to maintain self-worth and self-determined valuation, while also having to give some of it up for the collective good. It's a fine balancing act, as one of too much or the other leads to collapse, which is typically why most successful nations have found that balance through some form of theocracy.
I’m not religious but am frightened by what people that lack it seem to believe. I greatly dislike the idea that my morals should come from a higher being but without it people start cutting up kids and telling them they’re the opposite sex while simultaneously saying that the opposite sex doesn’t have anything to do with what body parts you have.
It’s insane! I’d rather live among real Christians than atheist.
I'm with you. The 4000 year old book of "stupid superstitions" is a surprisingly good guide to civilization level morals. These things are for everyone's good.
It turns out that we aren't the first civilization to discover degeneracy. Or the first one to discover socialism. Or the first one to discover importing foreigners. Every other group that did that collapsed and went extinct, and we're next.
And the reason those "outdated morals" are still around is because only the people with those morals survived, and the deviants destroyed themselves. It's not obvious why these rules work, but they do, and it's in everyone's interest for us all to follow them.
Very much true too. Coddling is often not the answer. Not even just with trannies and faggotry. Sometimes people need to be left to figure out their own problems or fail. It really is for their own good. Otherwise they tend to be doomed to repeat them.
Except this is where "equality feels like oppression" comes in as a core truth. You've now recast yourself as the leftist side of the argument to seek "the greater good" for some abstract ultimately religions beliefs.
"Gender affirming" care IS better for the selfishly motivated people who push hardest for it, and in a zero sum game any gain by anybody other than them is a loss, a loss is opposition, opposition begats conflict and conflict justifies force.
You advocating for "more winners" is advocating for their loss. That's all that matters. You are trying to take away from one group to give to another in the name of fairness, and that designates you as an Adversary.
This is clown world of course, so you are harming demonic anti-human pedophiles to benefit innocent children, but the structure of the conflict remains the same.
Just as if my whole community was made up of rapists, the moral imperative would not be "the greatest good" and sacrificing my family, it would be painting the streets with their entrails. Very selfishly.
If I could sum up. If the only difference between you and your enemy is who ACTUALLY deserves the treatment under discussion, the treatment isn't actually inhumane. Which fine, but it places you in the same moral category as them. It's not enough.
It's the same way that you can't distinguish Hitler quotes from BLM ones, the framework is identical, leftist are literally one binary switch away from agreeing with the Holocaust, and that switch is "the jews didn't ACTUALLY do that, but white people DO"
Tl;Dr no bad tactics only bad targets doesn't work as a moral framework
The true pirate/fuck-you-i-got-mine mentality is pretending to hold some ludicrous moral position for personal social gains. Because pretending to be the good guy is a very easy get out of jail free card in a highly passive, risk averse societies like most modern Western countries. It's common human nature to side with whichever guy is perceived as being more "good" in an otherwise unsubstantiated conflict. Denying that the majority of people, normies especially, have pro-social instincts is almost as foolish as denying biological sexes exist. There is power in PR, a mediocre man with 100 idiots behind him can be more of a threat than any individual in many theaters.
Saying abandon morality is saying you should just join whichever guys have the current social advantage. Thinking personal interest will automatically drive people to oppose the prevailing crazy ideas of IDPol and biological denialism just means you're not approaching personal interest as smart as the rats selling out their fellow man for good boy points and kickbacks from the cult hivemind.
Their definition of "decent fucking human being" is off and to almost all of it I say no. I generally treat random people cordially, meaning if they've done nothing to shift me either way, I'll be polite. Do I want them to get run over by a train? Yeah probably not. Am I really going to care when they do? No. Caring and respect is earned, not a default value. People that know me and are in that group know I'll go a long way to help out with things. Those that aren't in that group, sorry, not my problem. Especially for those that don't want to help themselves first.
Another way of looking at this is dunbar’s number. I don’t choose not to care about everyone equally. I can’t care about everyone equally - and neither can anyone else. The people that do purport to care about everyone equally are necessarily mislabeling a different behavior. For some it is pathological altruism, for others it is a twisted form of nihilism or narcissism. But it isn’t genuine love or investment - not on a universal level - because people are not mentally capable of such a thing.
What a meaningless piece of rhetoric from a group of self-professed moral relativists. Playing on their own godless terms, everything within the game of nature/life seems to be about systemized models and how long and successfully these structures can hold together from the individual unit to the whole, usually that comes with some strong parameters of who fills what niche and how smoothly the foodchain operates within that ecosystem as the result of a number of very discriminatory processes - by this metric how successfully I can model a society can't always be about making everyone happy, comfortable, or accomodating people of an entirely seperate cultural egregore; my own structure tends to fall apart in doing so (because nature is brutal towards the permissive) granted, this tends to be their exact stated goal which is to "deconstruct" everything yet there doesn't seem to be an actual blueprint in mind. Maybe we're talking to the wrong chess pieces.
In anycase, my way, our way, has literally given these people the very concept of decency to bastardize and distort to begin with so it is important to set boundaries, and boundaries tend to start with "no".
"Just be a decent fucking human being" is like being commanded to watch the player character apply all of his buffs and save his game while you're still pathing along.
Just be permissive goy!
“Just be a decent fucking human being” = let me do more communism. Always.
My response would be “assume that people are self-interested, then run the simulation”. We’ll see which worldview offers the most predictive power.
Another way to say it would be this: in the history of the world, at no point has “everyone just” done anything. So if your ideology depends on “everyone just” doing something, then your ideology is doomed.
It's not exactly meaningless, it's essentially a threat. "Agree with us or become an outlaw in our eyes. We'll do anything we want to hurt you once we deem you not decent and not human"
Never enter into a deal without the ability to say no. I tell my foster kids this, and then they're surprised when I use it on them.
My more complicated way of putting that is "don't drive down a road that is too narrow to turn around on, you're stuck only going to the end". But I use that a lot.
Right before the smartass kid crashes because he's too stupid to drive a long way in reverse.
Then ask what his conflict resolution is when the guy behind him refuses to reverse with you.
If you don't have wiggle room you better be prepared to be at the mercy of the whims of others or prepared to do something pretty damn drastic.
"Just be a decent human being" correctly translated from sloganeering to English is actually "Do everything communist leftist radicals want to the detriment of yourself and your loved ones."
Oh I'm a master of saying no, I have SO many techniques to say it that I'll share a few:
The 'I'm wearing earphones so I blank you handing out leafets' no
The 'professional no' where I write a 2 sentences instead of just saying your idea is shit
The 'gamer no' where I play a team game, you want me to follow on a dumb Idea and I watch at a safe distance to see if you actually got lucky or if I have to fall back to clutch.
Saying no is the difference between living and being ideological cannon fodder.
The nice thing about this approach is it forces the other side to enforce their will if they don't want you to do something. And if there's one defining attribute of modernity, it's that people really don't want to enforce their will (at best they want someone else to enforce their will on their behalf).
This is just a transcript of someone winning an imaginary shower argument. Twitter was a mistake.
"Just be a decent fucking human being" is almost as insidious and nasty as "we just want healthcare".
i've seen what you consider to be a "decent fucking human being", and i want no part of it.
I think that person has run into too many people that just have no idea of the concept of fairness and respect. And I can't blame them, either. I've seen more than my share of them.
Some people treat respect as dealing with strangers like this: "I'll be decent to you, you'll be decent to me"
But some out there, frankly far too fucking many really, treat respect as authority: "If you don't treat me with the respect I think I deserve, I won't treat you like a human being"
And those people, sadly, are too fucking plentiful.
No, but to this.