#betterangelsofournature — Public Fediverse posts

@Hyolobrika @Ottovonshitpost @dew_the_dew @pyrate @sickburnbro I'm not doing it justice though : #betterangelsofournature has a description of this kind of balance between attraction and repulsion of various kinds of drives that really makes sense of this sort of thing. Once you get over the first bump it doesn't bother you so much

"you cannot understand the neurobiology of violence without understanding the neurobiology of being afraid, and being anxious" #betterangelsofournature probably went into this in another pov but
seriously

@Dice @DK_Dharmaraj @Humpleupagus @King_Porgi @Nike @borzoi @colonelj @lichelordgodfrey There is a relationship, between social progress in jurisprudence, social progress a la #betterangelsofournature , and social progress in public health.

Innovations like 'writing' allow us to compare notes, to verify whether the rules we have are fair, when their outcomes match with the contexts that bring them into being, when compared to eachother. It allows us to use double entry accounting systems to facilitate trade so we don't solve all our problems with 'bash ug with rock' type solutions, and we can start keeping track of what hurts and heals us far beyond mere memory

innovations like 'the computer' 'high level languages' 'the internet' and 'neural nets' allow us to do much more, and the progress made possible in peaceful interactions, in dispute resolution and the practice of law, and the treatment of maladies both from the individual to the whole globe are very much in flux in terms of what's possible due to limits that used to hold us back being thinkable to bypass.

ie it's not a false equivalency

#stateandrevolution point
2) Marx's #forgottenwords

"The *first* decree of the Commune...was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people"

This sounds like a great idea, and I have a long history of supporting it ( see for example, https://defdist.org )

but a couple of subthoughts are knawing at me

i) #betterangelsofournature the long arc of history seems to be against empowering individuals to be more violent. It's of course pro-leviathan and the whole point here seems to be to do away with the monopoly of violence generally. But I do think there's some handwaving about the tendencies for internecine tit-for-tat to get out of control if everyone's armed. Maybe there's no general solution here and it's a community-by-community thing?

ii) How *do* you arm a people against firebombing? Is this one of those "we'll solve that problem once we start getting closer to being firebombed?" There seems to be not only a guns vs butter problem here but also one of too much generality of 'what are you arming them against'? Granted 'armed' is a pretty general purpose concept...

:communism:

@123abceng @LaylaAlexandrovna also worth taking into accounts is progression over time a la #betterangelsofournature - ie long term change in trends. ie we shouldn't weight 1974 as high as more recent studies, since things were slightly different, then

@Zalzen @overflow actually the people who lived in the woods were lead much more violent lives, on average.

see: #betterangelsofournature

it's probable that we're not quite as peaceful as we were say in 2013 but we're not off by much, and the last decade was a very peaceful one all said and done

Finally got around to reading Tarrant's #greatreplacement manifesto that has been so heavily censored

"I want you in my sights. I want your neck under my boot."-Brenton Tarrant

Perhaps he wasn't referring to me, specifically
- maybe I'm the wrong kind of marxist. But given his propensity to win at any cost, the lines will be blurry even in that case. So the feeling is mutual tbh.

Brenton Tarrant wants to increase birthrates at all costs. I cannot abide by his being willing to sacrifice me for that purpose, among other things. I will choose to sacrifice myself for my own cause, kthx

Tarrant tried very hard to reduce everything to support this - and to his credit he's willing to give up the little bit of political baggage that *is* going to cause problems for him (taxes as theft - non-white empires who are willing to levy taxes are going to *steamroll* any ethnostate following him to the letter even in the absence of nuclear weapons which thankfully he didn't think worthy of mention). But that's a political point of disagreement and evidence in practice could swing thing either way. Maybe a no-tax ethnostate would work fantastically. Colour me skeptical. Even #dalwaalislamyya, supported by expats though it was, had some taxes.

There's basically 4 gaping holes in his manifesto

1) The australian aborigines / new zealand equivalent and, generally, anti-colonialist forces elsewhere.

2) Nuclear weapons. I don't think he has any concept of how easily and quickly his cherished 760-980 million could be exterminated and how precarious the situation is right now

3)
> the egalitarian nation [sic] is a myth

and yet

He rages against it in principle. Even if it did exist, he would destroy it. Even if there was a working marketplace of ideas, he would tear it down. Even if there were a free library, a testament even to his white culture...he would burn it and everything within it. It's pretty clear he has lost sight of the possibility of
a egalitarian solution and this suggests the kind of mistake you make when you have a static view of the world with only one rate available to you - birthrates. When change is difficult to understand so changes themselves become salient features of the world. There is a way out that doesn't involve everyone just fucking killing and raping eachother and most of us are living it. It's counterintuitive but once you see it you can't unsee it. Sadly he doesn't seem to.
See: #betterangelsofournature

louder for the followers in the back:

SPARE THE GODDAMN LIBRARIES YOU BARBARIAN CUCK

4)

> at all costs

This is by far the most dangerous part of the whole manifesto.

It's self-defeating - once you embrace this type of thinking you start doing things like 'kill the child in order to save her'. And sure, there's some situations where that's justified.
But there are costs which should not be paid.

There are horrors that shouldn't exist, period, and which we should strive to prevent no matter who we are. And he is willing to summon them.

He thinks we won't remember who he is. And maybe he's right. For him, personally he's right. But we *will* remember those who win using his words. And we will remember what terrible things they did, like we who remember the muslim rape gangs, what happened to the zimbabwe economy when the printers went brrr, and the holocaust.

I think though that the one thing I take away from this manifesto more than anything is that - moderates are always the first up against the wall, and the close enemy is always the most hated[1]. I am starting to see this sort of thing as the close enemy to those who have reacted most strongly against it - ie the censors, the liberals, the major media, the corpolitical. They aren't as different as they might portray themselves, to the monsters this man is trying to unleash on the world.

[1] #betterangelsofournature i think