Who Are The Proud Boys?

[Leo Gura]

It's funny but also true that having a preference for sleeping with women vs men makes you sexist. Think about it.

Bias a very deep dynamic.

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, Meta-Man said:

@Leo Gura

09:13

 

potato queen... WHAT? 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Lyubov

[dyslexicCnut]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

And you calling them white supremacists doesn't count. THEY have to self-identify as such.

My dude, you just put out a video about the importance of epistemic pursuits of truth, yet you're insisting that the only way to be a white supremacist is to self identify as one? Holy shit, I'm beyond disappointed. Let's see if you'll even bother addressing this obvious deconstruction of your logic, or if you'll conveniently ignore it, once again, in favor of something less challenging.

We can undeniably agree that a racist person will not self-identify as racist, nor will a fascist self-identify as such, nor a neo-Nazi and the likes. What separates a white supremacist from this group? A white supremacist must simply conform to the definition, which is simply "The belief that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people. and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society"

According to you, the definition of white supremacist is "Any person who overtly refers to themselves as a white supremacist".
I imagine your definition of racist is "Any person who overtly calls themselves racist" with no further qualifiers. This is obviously untrue.

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Link us a video of a non-white white supremacist which is not a Dave Chappelle skit. I want to see these non-white white supremacists in action.

Wow that was easy.

I wonder if you'll still reject this example however, since he doesn't explicitly declare himself a white-supremacist. You forced me to waste paragraphs explaining why that is a nonsense prerequisite. If you don't think this guy meets the definition of white supremacy then you have absolutely no right condemning peoples' failure to pursue epistemology as proudly as you seemed to in the latest Actualized video.

Quote

I would like to know if that Asian gay dude truly believes that whites are better, or he simply prefers to sleep with white guys in the same why that I enjoy Asian girls.

Okay, I give up. You obviously didn't even watch the video you were shown, but if you had managed to hang in there for a mere 28 seconds you would have had that question answered. I've started it at 9:41 as opposed to 9:13 so that your epistemic mastery won't falter at the insurmountable task of committing to 30 seconds of attentiveness.

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, dyslexicCnut said:

My dude, you just put out a video about the importance of epistemic pursuits of truth, yet you're insisting that the only way to be a white supremacist is to self identify as one? Holy shit, I'm beyond disappointed.

Spare me your hysterics and gas-lighting.

Quote

Let's see if you'll even bother addressing this obvious deconstruction of your logic, or if you'll conveniently ignore it, once again, in favor of something less challenging.

We can undeniably agree that a racist person will not self-identify as racist, nor will a fascist self-identify as such, nor a neo-Nazi and the likes. What separates a white supremacist from this group? A white supremacist must simply conform to the definition, which is simply "The belief that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people. and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society"

According to you, the definition of white supremacist is "Any person who overtly refers to themselves as a white supremacist".
I imagine your definition of racist is "Any person who overtly calls themselves racist" with no further qualifiers. This is obviously untrue.

It's complicated.

Obviously most racists do not self-identify as racist, nor do they need to in order to be considered racist. But white supremacy is a slightly different matter. If you truly believe the white race is superior and meant to rule over others, you'd be more open about it.

While you bemoan the problem of white supremacists not being willing to call themselves out as such, you're overlooking the opposite problem: you projecting white supremacy on people whose worldviews you don't really care to understand or distinguish.

According to you, anyone you suspect of being a white supremacist IS a white supremacist -- because you say so. How convenient! How would anyone ever prove you wrong? Even if the person tells you, "But I'm not a white supremacist! I don't believe whites are better than blacks" you will say, "Of course, that's exactly what a white supremacist would say!"

Vaush falls into this trap on a daily basis. It comes from a lack of perspective.

Quote

Wow that was easy.

I wonder if you'll still reject this example however, since he doesn't explicitly declare himself a white-supremacist.

This dude is a serious right-winger. But this video does not show him claiming that whites are superior to blacks. It might seem that way, but if you listen carefully the point he is making (using his right-wing logic) is that black people should stop acting like victims. This is what he means by "you people". "You people" = black people who act like the white man oppressed them and needs to fix them.

I think his view is dumb, but I would not call that white supremacist.

The problem is that liberals and progressives LOVE to call right-wingers white supremacists the second they hear any kind of ethno-nationalist talking points.

Being ultra-conservative does not equal white supremacy, even though the two may look similar in the mind of a left-winger.

This issue is FAR more complex than you make it out to be.

Quote

Okay, I give up. You obviously didn't even watch the video you were shown, but if you had managed to hang in there for a mere 28 seconds you would have had that question answered. I've started it at 9:41 as opposed to 9:13 so that your epistemic mastery won't falter at the insurmountable task of committing to 30 seconds of attentiveness.

 

I watched the video in my first response. I still say it is unclear. Just cause the dude likes to suck white cock does not make him a white supremacist.

[StephenK]

On 10/4/2020 at 6:47 AM, dyslexicCnut said:

"Is it possible that slavery and modern socio-economic factors are to blame?"

It is certainly the case that slavery and socio-economic factors are not to blame and do not explain the entire picture. In the same way the sun does not cause the weather. This is just reality. Are they contributing factors? Certainly. Note how your line of questioning sets up slavery and socio-economic factors as the cause of all problems in the black community, without the nuance of it being part of a larger more complex picture within the domain of the environment. Note also that you've completely rejected the idea of genetics/epigenetics coming into play (which, strictly speaking, is part of the environment as well) which makes you blind to the effects of epigenetics and hence blind to reality.  Note also how you leave no space for the idea of personal responsibility -- just constantly externalizing problems and playing the blame game. A word of spiritual advice: constantly trying to externalize issues is going to lead to a life full of misery.

You're implementing black and white thinking (pun intended) and searching for an easy scapegoat. This is how a lazy mind operates. Unfortunately your desire will never align with reality.

So your mamma is right. That is a cop-out.

On 10/4/2020 at 6:47 AM, dyslexicCnut said:

"So you reject the idea that issues in the black community stem from their environment as oppose to their own failing?"

Again, this line of questioning sets up the duality of 'I have zero responsibility for the miserable aspects of my life.' (someone else is to blame) or 'it's all my fault because of genetics'(I am to blame). Note how victim-hood and the blame game are central to your phrasing of the question. Reality will not conform to your black and white thinking, because reality is not black and white. No complex system has a singular causal agent. The nature of complex systems is that they are multifaceted with feedback mechanisms within and without.

As for your mother, I think her using the word 'cop-out' is a polite way of saying: "Life is hard. Own it. Stop being a victim and stop being a cry-baby."

[Lyubov]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I think his view is dumb, but I would not call that white supremacist.

The problem is that liberals and progressives LOVE to call right-wingers white supremacists the second they hear any kind of ethno-nationalist talking points.

Being ultra-conservative does not equal white supremacy, even though the two may look similar in the mind of a left-winger.

This issue is FAR more complex than you make it out to be.

 

I agree and I think the reason why people really locked into left wing and green spiral world views label them all white supremacists is because the ultra-conservatives still end up doing much of the dirty work and furthering of white supremacist political interests. I think holding both points that they aren't necessarily 100% being driven by political motives to purposefully make people of their ethic background more powerful AND regardless of their motives their actions align with what white supremacists want to see happen. 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

because the ultra-conservatives still end up doing much of the dirty work and furthering of white supremacist political interests.

Yes, any far-right politics in America will functionally be white supremacist in its outcome -- which is what Green libs are reacting to. I totally get that.

[StephenK]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, any far-right politics in America will functionally be white supremacist in its outcome -- which is what Green libs are reacting to. I totally get that.

Interestingly, I could rephrase your statement and generate a talking point on the opposite side of the political spectrum: "Yes, any far-left politics in America will functionally be communist in its outcome -- which is what Blue conservatives are reacting to. I totally get that." It is interesting that both sides (left/right) appeal to the slippery slope argument.

[Gidiot]

@StephenK  while I agree with your point, I don’t see how they are the same, communism could be high consciousness or low consciousness,  it still is an ideology which you shouldn't buy completely into, but I don’t lump in white supremacy anywhere near as close.
 

You can point to leaders (Stalin, mao etc)and the blood on their hands but if you read Marx and then read say David duke there is a distinct difference in the level of consciousness. 
 

criticizing from above vs criticizing from below 

maybe communism is inherently flawed and cannot function in this century or the next but I like the ideals of it for sure. I’m not so much of a pragmatist to say that since it can’t be done in 2020 to forget about it. 
 

white supremacy however has been proved to be very toxic and oppressive many many more times than any one Stalin or mao or Chavez could ever do

Edited October 5, 2020 by Gidiot

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, StephenK said:

Interestingly, I could rephrase your statement and generate a talking point on the opposite side of the political spectrum: "Yes, any far-left politics in America will functionally be communist in its outcome -- which is what Blue conservatives are reacting to. I totally get that." It is interesting that both sides (left/right) appeal to the slippery slope argument.

And in a sense that's not wrong. If you listen to the most radical leftists they tend to want some pretty radical socialistic stuff that probably will never work in practice, at least not for hundreds or thousands of years. Yes, both extremes of the political axis are slippery slopes that veer off into delusional ideas of society which will never scale to the mainstream. The center is a pragmatic compromise and tends to scale well.

For example, some far leftists advocate the idea of totally open boarders or actually disbaning the police. This is a silly utopian idea that will never fly. Covid clearly shows the importance of national boarders.

But there is still a difference. The ideals of communism are more conscious than the ideals of white supremacy or nationalism. There is no way that white supremacy will ever work in the future. But communism or socialism might. It's just a question of, To what degree?

White supremacy is an evolutionary dead end. Socialism is not. At least not yet. There is much to study and learn from socialism even if we don't fully go socialist (which, BTW, I don't advocate doing in our lifetime). But there is little value to studying the merits of white supremacy or nationalism other than as an example of what not to do. At least not in developed countries like the USA or Europe. Maybe in the Middle East or Africa nationalism still has some merit, although even that is becoming hard to stomach. The illusion that your nation/culture is the best simply cannot survive in our globalized economy.

How much easier life would be if people simply surrendered the notion that their culture/nation/race is the best. It's such an obviously childish and self-biased position.

[Gidiot]

@Leo Gura I’ve always loved the ideals of communism/socialism, but feel like it can be improved upon/made more pragmatic/marketed better by a creative visionary thinker, I’d love to create/improve a system which is kind of a spiral wizard government  that identifies a the need for balance between the collective and individual aspects of human society as its core philosophy kind of like what the us government was getting at with the checks and balances.

buckminster fuller/Venus project is a nice inspiration and end goal but the means need to be achieved and I guess the only way to do that is to study through experience which is something a lot of philosophers and economist that created these systems did not do. 
 

getting off topic but yea white supremacy or the proud boys don’t care about looking forward, perspective jumping, or problem solving, ethnic/nationalist/stage blue toxicity/ white supremacy primarily cares about subjugation....not liberation and commiseration/love/truth/consciousness which I believe should be the ideals of humanity, these aren’t socialist or communist they are just the human heart and that’s where the marketing needs to be improved.

[StephenK]

@Gidiot @Leo Gura Yes, communism would work great if people were innately more altruistic. But right now in 2020, communism is like giving a 1000 horse power super-car to a 5 year old child and his friends. The child is simply not developed enough to wield such power. And to give such power to a child would be an act of cruelty in my opinion.

Give them a bike instead.

But yes, I agree with your message: if humanity is to evolve, we have to move towards more expansive ideals , which communism embodies better than nationalism/fascism.

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by StephenK

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

@Leo Gura I’ve always loved the ideals of communism/socialism, but feel like it can be improved upon/made more pragmatic/marketed better by a creative visionary thinker, I’d love to create/improve a system which is kind of a spiral wizard government  that identifies a the need for balance between the collective and individual aspects of human society as its core philosophy kind of like what the us government was getting at with the checks and balances.

That's a noble life purpose.

7 minutes ago, StephenK said:

@Gidiot @Leo Gura Yes, communism would work great if people were innately more altruistic. But right now in 2020, communism is like giving a 1000 horse power super-car to a 5 year old child and his friends. The child is simply not developed enough to wield such power. And to give such power to a child would be an act of cruelty in my opinion.

Yes, I totally agree. That's the biggest lesson we learned from Soviet Russia, China, and Korea.

Socialist ideals are good, but ideals are not enough to make a thing fly. It needs to be practical too. A 1st grader cannot handle algebra. Most people are too selfish to handle socialism. So we need to work on the selfishness part.

[No Self]

It has been said that true Communism has never been attempted. 

The likes of the Soviet Union and Maoist China represented not so much collectivisation as giving a single madman ownership over tens of millions of people, then being surprised when human rights were not so good. More akin to the tragedies of Belgian Congo.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, No Self said:

It has been said that true Communism has never been attempted.

This can be a clever cop-out by lefties. I think it's too convenient to say that true communism was never attempted. The point which conservatives are right about is this: what if it can't really be attempted because human nature doesn't allow it to even get off the ground? At least not at our current level of development.

If every time communism is attempted it goes horribly wrong, that tells us something important about the lack of fit between communism and people. It's sort of like saying, "I've never truly attempted to put on a size 8 shoe" when my foot is size 12. Yet I keep going to the store and buying size 8 shoes, convinced that one day a "true attempt" will finally get it on my foot.

"True attempt" is a very loaded and sneaky notion in this situation.

[Apparition of Jack]

@Leo Gura I agree with this to an extent, a pure moneyless classless utopia is out of the question at this stage, but at the same time I think it’s also important to note that in all the places where communism has been tried, it was usually in some of the most brutal places in the world (imperial Russia, 20th century China, etc) and/or deliberately undermined by capitalist powers. When the system you’re building from is already very corrupt and dangerous, it’s hard not to get corrupt and dangerous results.

If, by some miracle, a democratic socialist party took power in the US, for instance, I find it very hard to imagine a repeat of the tragedies we saw in previous countries simply because America is too conscious and developed for that. 

[No Self]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This can be a clever cop-out by lefties. I think it's too convenient to say that true communism was never attempted. The point which conservatives are right about is this: what if it can't really be attempted because human nature doesn't allow it to even get off the ground? At least not at our current level of development.

My source for the claim that Communism has never been attempted was not a leftist source, but CrashCourse Economics on YouTube. I tried to find the reference but failed. The most obvious flaw in the implementations involved giving unlimited power to murderous psychopaths. But I agree that it is ultimately futile.

On a very small scale, communities where people care for one another can work, though it doesn't seem to scale up to entire nations due to the social forces that naturally promote narcissists to the highest positions of power.

We are better off incrementally improving existing systems by weeding out corruption and striking the right balance of government intervention versus free market type policies.

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

and/or deliberately undermined by capitalist powers. When the system you’re building from is already very corrupt and dangerous, it’s hard not to get corrupt and dangerous results.

Yes, 100%.

BUT! The question is, Is America today perhaps also so corrupt and capitalistic that socialism will also collapse if implemented again?

Quote

If, by some miracle, a democratic socialist party took power in the US, for instance, I find it very hard to imagine a repeat of the tragedies we saw in previous countries simply because America is too conscious and developed for that.

I don't know about that.... America is pretty fucking corrupt with capitalist ideology and money and habits.

I think you are right that we would not get Soviet style gulags, executions, and dictators. But I think there would be enormous cultural backlash, and business leaders would probably start a plot to bring back the old system which they have gotten addicted to.

For socialism to truly work it requires more than merely changes in law. It requires a cultural reprogramming. Which freaks people out. If socialism was implemented in full, it could be enough to cause a real second Civil War.

The people have to want it. You can't just sneak it upon them or ram it down their throats.

[Godhead]

"Gay men have taken over the Proud Boys Twitter hashtag"

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/04/us/proud-boys-twitter-hashtag-gay-men-trnd/index.html

[Leo Gura]

Don't worry guys. I just realized, the next Civil War will waged on Twitter