What are the people most pointless to argue with?

I would say right wingers who want some sort of eugenics because muh social Darwinism. its rather ironic that they think we can plan out our own evolution but we can't plan out the economy.

Other urls found in this thread:


Stalin pls go

What the alternative? Market socialism?

NEETsocs usually. Their actual ideology is/was so ill-defined (even in its own time) that people who adhere to it can claim it's anything that's convenient to argue for in a given debate. They're socialists; they're capitalists. They're isolationists; their imperialists. They care for their people; they practice social Darwinism.

Planned economy doesn't always mean Stalinist-style, especially with the advent of better computers and computer networking that can handle a lot of the process that in the past might have been handled by slowly-processed paperwork and do that processing efficiently in a relatively decentralized fashion.

I don't believe in horseshoe theory in terms of real world institutions, but in terms of changing regular peoples minds who have no financial interest in the current system in which they dwell in, extremes tend to bode well with other extremes. It's easier to convert ancaps to other forms of anarchism. It's easiest for fascists/militarist righties to become tankies.

The hard part is converting "moderates" of all stripes. The problem is no matter how mush you get through to them "conventional" wisdom comes back like a seesawing hammock to bring them down to centrism again.

Processing power won't solve anything. Ever heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? The Soviet system had issues with lying/exaggerated production reports all the fucking time which made it difficult to meet demand in an efficient way.


just fucking stop

Libertarians can literally pull a taqqiyya on you. Also have you heard of 'argumentation ethics'? ie. the fact that you are arguing instead of resorting to violence means you in fact accept libertarianism/


my god, I was spooked all along, violence really is the answer



1231Good thread bump 81231

Hardcore nazis. Doesn't matter how much you give them evidence,they simply do not listen

Hegelians in general, especially so if you're not a Hegelian/ you are influenced by (late, mainly) Kierkegaard; Anarcho-Transhumanists if you are an Anarcho-Primitivist (and they are aware of it) and vice versa, finally, any non-academic-ish/ armchair/ antagonistic discussion often leads nowhere (other than petty, misguided feuds), at least so in my experience.

Part of the problem was, if Mikhail didn't meet production quotas, he or his family get's thrown into a gulag and tortured, or forced hard labour.
If you had human rights and individual protections, so people aren't killed over not meeting quotas, then people would have less incentive to lie or exaggerate their production reports.


I don't know to argue with eugenicist. Your only argument is

The trick is to not kill people over missing quotas.

Also the trick is to not let people manually report stats, you can take most of them directly from their automatic systems.

Ideological centrists. If your ideal is literally "nothing should ever really change", it is very hard to convince you that all of society should be broken down and rebuilt from scratch.


Isn't that literally the definition of conservative?

Voluntary eugenics is a good idea and completely compatible with communism.

It's an out dated idea from an old time that will not fix anything at all. DNA is not as programmable as you think it is just by choosing which people fuck. Indeed, the most talented people are usually flawed in such a way eugenics and your fascistic wet dreams would cull them outright.

So basically you're a cunt. A stupid cunt who thinks they're smart.

If people with heritable genetic diseases don't have children, we won't get people with genetic diesases. That's what i'm talking about. Not only letting "talented people" (whatever the fuck that mean) have children.

This is unethical in itself because demanding people not have heritable diseases casts out an enormous enough amount of the population.

There is no negative that can be fixed by simply telling people with them not to reproduce. It's also inherently impossible to enforce, life wills itself, it breaks through barriers and its chaotic. Seeking to control reproduction outside of a strict totalitarian way will not work, and even then, it will not work. For a variety of reasons.

I'm not saying talented people don't reproduce, I'm saying talented people were born of what people in eugenics would cull.

Do you understand what voluntary means?

Good luck getting medical professionals on your side when it violates their oath lmfao

That's even less possible.

No, it's relevant.

Which oath? Hopefully you aren't one of the people who think modern medical professionals actually take a centuries old oath
What is this even supposed to mean? I from the start said "voluntary".

Read this article: dailystormer.com/hotwheels-why-i-support-eugenics/


And I said it's impossible to achieve much from that, to the point you might as well see the results as impossible.

>Read this article: dailystormer.com


You'd know all about being 100% Hippocratic (or, consistent, really, about anything, except your palate for shit)