I expected that but No. Badmouse and vee agreed on what is socialism and what isn't. This is why this whole thing has me confused. If there is some underlying agenda i fail to see it…
I would expect Sargon feels like he can "own" a dumbass like roo in an online debate. Although they're both pretty incompetent so eh.
I am listening live right now sargon is getting schooled
Sargon basically just admitted that communism is inevitable. So is he now /ourguy/
I am bewieldered by this. Am i in the real world? Did some one buy off Sargon what is happening?! Why is a marxist platformed on a 760000 sub channel and owning the host?!
It's good for growth. Youtube is dominated by far-right youtubers (and centrists that pander to them). Far-Left youtubers brake up the right wing echo chamber.
So more of us should contact these youtubers for a platform? tho i doubt sargon will have some one else considering the hammering he is just getting from Jason of all people
If he pivots his channel left, what should his new handle be? Zhukov of Strelkovka?
They need views. The whole aut-right moneycow has given the ghost, so they are trying to diversify.
It's the magic of the marketplace.
Sargon of Carlgrad
Although I think every socialist vs. rational skeptic/libertarian debate I've ever listened to has been chock full of cringe, it's a good thing in the long run that our ideas are getting exposure.
what the fuck i love freezed peaches now
I like this idea. We should do it whenever someone becomes commie and change their name accordingly.
Possibilities are endless.
How did he admit that?
Not so much that it's dried up, as that the less authoritarian of them have finally realized that the aut-right isn't content to support fellow travellers who tip-toe around race. They assumed that all of the skeptics were just crypto-reactionaries and expected them to pivot to explicit white nationalism and fascism after a while. They've come to realize that many of the skeptics were actual liberals playing them for revenue and are lashing out in revenge.
So the traffic is still there, but now they have to drive rage-clicks by associating with leftists.
there's something to be said about liberalism struggling to adapt to structural change. Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro together with Steven Pinker and the new atheists are pro-empire neocons, who never fail to bring up the existential threat represented by assad/putin/extremists from both sides of the spectrum which are of course just as bad. Follow the money to shady neocon think tanks like TurningPoint USA and Bill Gates in Pinker's case. The technics of neoliberal management in universities have begun to undermine the system as a whole by making the defense of free market ideology and Empire increasingly difficult. Peterson in particular is interesting because he is a psychologist marketing a ready made mentality designed to help the post industrial middle classes cope in an increasingly uncertain world, a hodgepodge of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, Jung and bourgeoisie protestant common sense. The skeptics are mostly naive liberals saying whatever will bring them the most ad revenue.
We must ask ourselves, what was the SJW? Why did it capture the imagination of millions? The 10s saw a massive cultural shift to 'social issues' driven by hi tech communicative capitalism.The contemporary subject is simultaneously more atomized and more connected than ever, a source of monetizable data hooked up to uncountable pavlov dog machines, reduced to mere labels, under constant surveillance not only by the impersonal tech conglomerates, but also by the other inmates of the panopticon waiting to pounce on the slightest transgression. High intensity emotional engagement based on 'identity' is apparently very profitable. Discourse and identities have become much more homogenized, divided between a protective cocoon of institutions( the world of decent people, corporate PR and HR) and the lawless exteriority where anything goes. The president of the united states himself exists at the borderline, a topic unfit for polite company. The manipulation of affect is crucial to the functioning of late capitalism, it's all about making people feel the right things at the right moments. The alt right is not like the fascist movements of the 20th century but an overflow of affect produced by the contradictions within the system(this is why ironic shitposting is also shitposting). The reason Hollywood keeps trying to rebrand itself as woke is because the product must present itself to the consumer as the image of unconditional love and acceptance. Even arms manufacturers have adapted elements of intersectionality into their internal systems of management. Films like the Lego Movie, The Emoji movie, Ready Player One and Black Panther, all in their own way are almost lovecraftian examples of how the capitalism has infiltrated every aspect of our psyche. total advertisements and celebrations of ''pop culture" as a fetish in itself. bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/843165bf-1e69-3dec-873e-973fc8e604a5
If there's any reason at all to respect S*rgon it's probably this, although I suppose he's just doing it because he suspects he will be able to easily discredit and ridicule them
why tf does everybody hate Sargon so much? He's hardly a genius and he can be an idiot sometimes but he seems to try at least.
He had a talk with Jared Taylor where he heard him out but consistently opposed his bullshit, and he stars Marxists sometimes. He's just some liberal that tries to be consistent about freedom of speech and imo that's commendable even if his politics beyond 'muh free speech' are dumb.
oh and antifa retards coming onto his stage, booing literally the prototype of liberalism inthecurrentear are completely retarded and make us look like complete morons that would shoot anyone that doesn't outright believe in socialism. Srsly fuck antifa
that's coming on too strong I guess, but at least oppress if we were in power
He did this when he debated Muke, too. He's not very good at debating.
Ta very much
Sargon seems to have a mutant conception of Communism. Which is when we reach critical mass through the enormous wealth generation gifted to us by the capitalists who then usher in a new age of post-scarcity through social services and UBI. There's a lot to take apart here, it's not really coherent.
That doesn't surprise me
this is your brain on rejecting the labour theory of value.
notice how these people always claim to be 'classical liberals' ? ie. they defend capitalism in its purest form. Peterson and Shapiro are likely deepstate assets but i'm not sure about Sargon.
Peterson is quite open about it in a way. Doug Lain did a vid on him dredging up a quote where he says, paraphrasing "the purpose of psychiatry is to enforce social stability, and I'm fine with that". He's a proud soldier for the capitalist status quo, though he seems blind to the fact that the same bourgeois liberalism he peddles is also the source of / perfectly compatible with his bugbear, trans acceptance and whatnot.
I wouldn't say Peterson is anti-trans as much as he is defending a particular middle class way of life, and a way of understanding the world and the self. He is a huge Ayn Rand fan for one. Capitalism creates irresolvable contradictions. The spectre of muh SJW was conjured up by critical race theory legal scholars, social media driven communicative dynamics and the techniques used to rationally manage large organisations. Corporations are woke precisely because they are obliged to avoid lawsuits. While the bourgeoisie revolution of 1789 established formal equality before the law, the post cold war liberal revolution attempted to establish subjective equality of psychological states, amongst increasing material inequality. It only succeeded in further undermining the basis of liberalism. Concepts like fairness became dilluted and eventually gave way to trollish revanchism. That trollish sensibility was a thing among the liberal left before the right adopted it in turn (drinking coffee from a male tears mug, doing things to performatively spite the outgroup rather than out of genuine conviction).Ultimately, intersectionality is a politics of affect it demands you feel a certain way and express those feelings publicly and unambiguously. It is a well defined psychopolitical regime incompatible with Peterson's middle class protestantism as well as with other systems. Don't our 'identities' feel oddly ahistorical and artificial, labels and affects imposed by some faceless bureaucracy and not expressions of authentic being? tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/253614/is-feminist-lemonade-kosher
The World has never been better is another of the favourite themes of both Peterson and Pinker, as is the fetishisation of 'the enlightenment', which they don't understand in the slightest(Peterson thinks Kant was an anti-Enlightenment thinker; it is not the enlightenment of Hume or Rousseau they speak of, and certainly not the one of the Parisian mob). For Pinker and Peterson, muh enlightenment boils down to a naive faith in gradual capitalist progress driven by the market and the enterprising Individual. Attempts to change the system in any way are framed as inherently dangerous and totalitarian. This brand of 'Classical Liberalism' seems to align all too well with the interests of the donor class and the state department. coincidence? On the other hand, idpol managerial liberals use the image of the wonder woman CEO president to justify the existence of Presidents and CEOs in general. Decrepit institutions (such as award shows, universities and the US presidency) gain new relevance as supposed agents of momentous historical change. But it's all illusory: a new negation of life, a mere spectacle of manufactured affect.
do you have any more on this?
What the heck, can you give some context or a link
Life support to the proles so they can afford legal weed and VR to forget about the porky owned world
And the proles not currently on UBI have to now produce enough surplus value to not only support the capitalists and increasing production, but also the life support. Thus they become more and more classcucked, being resentful towards the "parasites" and sympathetic to the capitalists that now have to bear so much burden. Brilliant idea, until the whole thing falls on its face due to lack of labor input. Actually, would supporting UBI count as a form of accelerationism then?
The capitalists would be the sugar daddies of the UBI though. It's hard to hate the person that supplies you, wouldn't the "parasites" just become sympathetic to the capitalists too?
It seems like another way to create division between the people
Also why does this board not have an accelationist flair yet? Get on that shit you slobbery dick sucking mods
I think at some point cheap automated food production would be invented, and the poorest proles would be placated for good with crappy nutrient paste laced with psychotropics and something to decrease fertility. Gradually most need for labor would be removed, leaving the proprietor class and some engineer/mechanic menservants. Future!
I take it he refers to modern internal dispute settlement. You have a complaint within the corporation, maybe someone made an inappropriate joke, you file it with HR, they have an internal panel supposedly independent that goes over it, and so on. Everything is formalized, depersonalized, bureaucratized; you don't appeal to your comrades or even your master for help, but to an institutional mechanisms. Famous cases are university sexual harassment panels. This fits into a certain way of personal interaction, namely the idealized liberal one, where everything is reduced to contractual obligations to be arbitrated by court-like proceedings. Formal equality between parties, and objectiev rules to which they are all held (which obfuscates the reality of powerlessness of the employee against the organization as a whole in which he has to work).
Maybe his views on trans issues are not that important and have been blown out of proportion because it is his claim to fame. Nevertheless, I do think there is some significance to his stance, in that it is a manifestation of the tension between the basis out of which liberalism grew (protestant christian virtues), and it's consequence (increasingly radical individualism). Like capitalism it at times eats away at its own foundation.
The spooky thing is there's a time in my life I might have happily accepted that scenario. Thankfully I woke up. Is your pic related at all?
It is not a major plot point or anything, but the book does have a world ravaged by super-bacteria, refugee camps fed off artificial photosynthesis machines (laced with drugs), and corporations willing to set off a nuke underwater and cause a city-destroying tsunami just to cover their fuckup. (also genetically engineered talking dolphins for the Posadists among us). This is the base setting of the books, before shit really hits the fan. Peter Watts released the whole Rifters series (together with Blindsight, which is unrelated) under CC, and it is available here: rifters.com/real/shorts.htm
trannies are not a product of hyperindividualism, as they have existed for millenia even in collectivist tribal cultures, usually as some sort of 'third gender' with its own social and religious functions. The way late capitalist culture views 'gender' is similar to the way it views everything else: as a fluid, arbitrary sovereign choice of the individual consumer that is at the same time sacrosant. trendy 'nonbinary' tumblr girls are just looking for a way to inscribe themselves in society, to make people acknowledge their existence and particularity, even if its through a bureaucratic loophole. Too much individualism cycles back to the destruction of individualism and the autonomy of the self. Modern post fordist bureaucracies rely on increasingly intrusive psychopolitical regimes. This entails a general levelling of identities and psychological dispositions,
I wasn't talking about the condition itself, only our cultural framing of it, which is as you described.
wow this thread was bandalized beyond recogniztion