The Nature Of Progress
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- Classical fascists aren't reactionaries. And neither are people who have a different vision of progress than the left.
-----
Join the community discord! ► / discord
Watch Us LIVE (And Click Dat Sub Button!) ► / gameboomers
GB Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
SFO Backups Channel ► / channel
-----
SUPPORT THE SHOW:
BTC:bc1q6udqgvfm9uaj59l24ut7f73wvsfu707kk6pn3m
SubscribeStar! ► www.subscribes...
Streamlabs! ► streamlabs.com...
Patreon! ► / shortfatotaku
Paypal! ► paypal.me/short...
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link! ► www.humblebund...
Amazon CAN Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/322aFAa
Amazon USA Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/30PLxgN
Amazon CAN Wishlist! ► www.amazon.ca/...
Amazon USA Wishlist! ► www.amazon.com...
-----
SFO-CIAL MEDIA! HYUK HYUK
DA TWEETS ► / sfosecretary
DA FACES ► / sfotaku
DA GABS ► www.gab.com/sh...
DA MINDS ► www.minds.com/...
DA PARLERS ► parler.com/pro...
DA STEAMS ► steamcommunity....
-----
Credits:
Thumbnail ► that one piece of american progress artwork that's kinda racist
Background ► / cryomancerlex
Music ► • Parasite Eve OST - Out...
#Reactionary
Dev, you are certainly not the biggest. You may not be the smartest, and you may not always be right. But personally, I am a big fan of yours, I get to almost every upload within an hour or two. Your fanbase may be small, but I can assure you that they are more loyal than any viewer of names like Vaush, Lauren, Destiny, etc.
well thank you very much! HEY DEV LOYALISTS, WATCH THE GAMING CHANNEL lol
Lauren Southern fans tend to be there more for thirst then politcs
@@ShortFatOtaku no thank you I watch you just to jerk myself off by hearing someone else state my own opinions
Two comments missing
Dec is the biggest: it's in the name "Short *Fat* Otaku"
If you don't march in lock step with the in vouge social or poltical beliefs you are the enemy this is not the age of free thinkers but the nightmare of unified thought.
I, for one, am proud to call myself the enemy of this status quo. If someone accuses you of something good, the best thing to do is own it.
Also yo, keep up your content! It’s pretty good.
Well whatever happened to the" I" in LGBTI. Did The T's corner it one day, beat it up, and cut it's dong off and made it identify as trans women..what happened to inclusion? why was it outcasted like a red headed steps children of unwanted progress. We the public demand to know. FreeTHEi
@@krichardson113 iam accusing you of being a cow lover. The local farm near your home has called Ronan farrow.
Do you have any comment 🎤
Are you putting out a YT apology video?
@@houseofhas9355 What the fuck are you even trying to say?
Keep on slaying papa gundam. Your shit always makes my bad day a bit better.
It’s funny how people who say Stone Age people lived in a communist social order can simultaneously say that history always moves politically left.
Well they're not very well known for consistency.
Yeah, because the man going out competing with nature for food and giving it to his mate and children is definitely communism, yet “capitalism” is an invention of the last couple hundred years and we are now in the late stages of it.
AnPrims are the epitome of this. Progress = living in mud huts without electricity, supply chains, or modern medicine.
the venn diagram between socialists and sophists is a circle with a little nub at the end. Sophists always craft their arguments not on principle but on what seems most likely to win them the argument in the moment. This is literally thousands of years old. In the republic, a book written in ancient greek times there was a man known as Thrasymachus... He sounds like vaush. Unironically, reading him will remind you of vaush and the way he argues. Thrasymachus is quickly out argued by Socrates and left to sulk in the corner as the more intelligent people continue the discussion about justice.
Stone age life is not communism.
The big mistake is assuming "new" automatically means "improved".
While they weren't good wouldn't anyone argue that the Weimar Republic and Czarist Russia were better than the Third Reich and USSR? They were "new" after all.
Sounds like people who don't remember New Coke.
@@MissRora old coke had cocaine in it.
How are you gonna tell me the new stuff is better?
@@Lonovavir there are plenty of people who argue that Tsarist russia was better than the USSR (and the 3rd reich). anyone who is not a leftist who actually compares the USSR and Tsarist russia would realize Tsarist russia was not only better once wayed up, but also lacked ideological restrictions like the USSR had.
@@Lonovavir tzarist Russia was before the Soviet Union
Vaush: "its about an unconditional willingness to challenge social norms"
translation: be a perpetual contrarian for the sake of "going against the grain"
Isn't that just some sort of hyper hipster?
That clip of him there was him talking about how Monogamy is bad and polygamy is somehow good. It’s pure brain rot material lol.
@@k96man That’s exactly what it is.
So what's the basis we should use to discern which social norms should be challenged and which ones are ok ?
Cause I think that "murder is wrong" is a good social norm that should be kept the way it is.
Are we going to get to the base most people use when discussing morality and progress, that is "the wellbeing of humans as individuals and as a species" ?
If that's the case, drop the progressive label and just think about things in a rational manner.
Ed Gein ultimate progressive.
According to Vaush, progressivism is change for the sake of change, and change just for the sake of change is just accelerationism and destruction.
@UCAgJR1-Sxb2yBQU6MGxZZMQ Yep. Many people think he’s clever in how he uses optics to “win” debates, but the reality is he’s just quick on his feet. He has no real intelligence to flex as any and all knowledge he had melted away as soon as he took that sociology class all those years ago and solidified its termination when he got the degree.
Vaush is completely empty. I can't find anything that looks like a personality in the guy.
@@HereTakeAFlower Vaush is just an overconfident oaf to me. Never met anyone who took him seriously who was over the age of 17.
if from vaush point of view to be a good progress you need to reject social norms and keep rejecting them with out a limit line what does he thinks will happen with human sexuality when we reach the point in which the only tabu are disgusting things like bestiality or pedo shit would he at that point become a reactionary or will he get on the buss with the others no matter what
"Oh, but if society collapsed, we could build under *my* ideals, and then things would work! With complete anarchy, *I* could be the one to rule it!"
Mistake number one: believing that utopia exists
Mistake number two: believing you can live there
Mistake number three: believing that if everyone gave up enough of their freedom to the Intelligentsia we could all live in utopia
Mistake number four: being mad at people then won't give up their freedom so we can "live in utopia"
Mistake number one is the big one. No rule by imperfect beings can create perfection. It is simply impossible.
It's better to just make things better one thing at a time, taking concrete steps towards what is observed to be most effective. There's a difference between utopianism and trying to improve the overall state of the world in a dignified way.
And our mistake is to tolerate these leftists, rather than treating them like the enemies they are.
Here just let me put some lead in your head and you'll see the utopia that all these religious nutjobs talk about.
I talked to to a "friend" that lamented that people are so divided, and that they hope that one day humanity can be united, to move forward to a better future.
I had told them that in order for humanity to be as united as they hope, we would all need to be assimilated into a hive mind, thus destroying individuality and freedom. They said that if it brings peace, they would gladly accept it.
It scares me to think that there probably is a large group of people that would advocate for humanity to become the borg, to achieve there ideo of utopia.
"As you move linearly in time forward, things get more dinosaur-y" - Some triceratops, 64,997,978 BC
This, unironically, but crab.
@@OuroborosChoked forget monke return to crab
@@OuroborosChoked it's always nice to see a fellow crabpilled man of culture
this just highlights the importance of the passage of time, and shows that as time passes, it marks the passage of time, and that's why time passing is important...
-Vice President Harris, circa 2022, probably
Lmao! Fucking perfectly put
Petition to start calling breadtubers "basement politicians"
How about "Creepists"?
I prefer nugtitions myself.
Groomers is fine.
All of the above.
How about "Radicalization agents"?
My favorite quote from the original Red Dead Redemption is, "Change is only good when it makes things better."
That should be basic common sense. But I guess common sense isn't so common.
But better for whom?
Because it is almost unheard of to have a change that benefits everyone and hurts no one.
@Lobsterwithinternet Ideally it benefits the most people and harms the least people in the long term, though I suppose you can justify some pretty abominable stuff with that, so also unless the benefits are unimaginably amazing, its preferable that nobody is actively murdered and the benefits are actually reaped within the lifetime of someone who votes or decides it at age 20ish I suppose.
More humans are seen as "people"
The left: "Yay, progress!"
Humans with dark skin seen as people:
The Left: "Yay progress!"
Human females seen as people:
The Left: "Progress!"
Human homosexuals seen as people:
The Left: "Progress!"
Humans in utero seen as people:
The Left instantly becomes reactionary
Oooh, they felt that in their plumbs.
Let's not forget they were the same people who fought to keep slavery, and segregation. They just went back post hoc and pretended like it was their idea, after it was already the general consensus that it was a good idea. That's what they always do.
@@markzuckergecko621 Yes. People need to stop thinking "The Left" were ever the good guys. They have always been for domination of their fellow man, not equality with them. They just hijacked and skin-suited the human rights movement when they realized they could use it to trick people into thinking they were the heroes. They are, have been, and always will be evil scum.
Conservatives completely ignoring women getting raped:
@aldiascholarofthefirstsin1051 this group bad cause my parents tries to raise me with discipline wahh wah😢
4:04 "historically as you move linearly in time forward, political opinions move left"
*Iran, Russia, almost the entire eastern bloc countries, and many others* : _OBJECTION!!!_
First thing I thought of was the Eastern bloc. Love that Cornhole said progressivism is human nature...
Let's see how these clowns would react when they talk to an ex-Yu person
England reinstating a Monarchy after Cromwell died!!!
@@The_New_IKB Dutch going from democratic republic to constitutional monarchy.
@The_New_IKB 7742 The English know full well what republicanism can lead to. Cromwell was a tyrant.
"History always moves left" goddamn, i always heard they reified history but this level of confirmation bias is just, incredible
They are playing this 3D game like a 2D game, and it's incredible how dedicated they are to making any progress infinitely more difficult.
What they don´t understand, is that history hasn´t moved left, it has moved to where it is right now and they just think that because they as a product of society agree with most of its precepts, these precepts are a result of their ideology.
History is a 3-dimensional zig-zag of of competing individuals, societies and ideologies that have resulted in the current status quo, and because most of it is agreeable to them, they think most of it agrees with them, which is, to any reasonable individual, obviously not true.
They draw a straight line from the start of human society through their current position towards their utopia and wonder why it bends left. It isn´t an indictment on history but merely one on their ability to understand it.
I've heard these same people say that only the left can produce art. They're not exactly a smart bunch.
@@Bopperann even the progress they claim to support gets bogged down by their "assistance"
They mean that it progresses from, for example, feudalism to capitalism. Gradually away from elitism to something more rooted in meritocracy and egalitarian values (which are not mutually exclusive).
"Monarchy turns to tyranny; tyranny leads to aristocracy. Aristocracy turns to oligarchy; oligarchy leads to democracy. Democracy turns to mob rule; mob rule leads to monarchy." -Polybius c. 150 BC (paraphrased)
So we are in mob rule right now?
"If you listen to fools, the mob rules." - Ronnie James Dio c. 1981 AD
Though polybius thought that cycle would end in the roman system. So his perception was a bit off xD
The wheel of time keeps turning
I mean... this is very much not necessarily true, but it certainly is true that mob rule turns to monarchy.
So do ALL forms of anarchism I know of. I would say maybe except a few weird ones I dont know about that dont make sense but none of them make sense.
Kinda also a weird transition from aristocracy to Oligarchy, and Oligarchy to democracy, since sometimes it either skips Oligarchy and/or Aristocracy via revolution or takes the third route of communism > tyranny > either bad ending of Oligarchy or semigood ending of a mix of socialism and capitalism
The irony is through "Progressivism" we HAVE seen a redaction in progress, universial sufferage is becoming less and less likely, racial boundries are increasing and everything is becoming alot less liberal period.
not to mention, the increased puritanical view. Sexuality of women is becoming more frowned upon, although men's haven't really.
You know what's also "progressive"? Cancer.
They rebranded from sophists
Good...
should have titled the video "How Voosh is not actually an intellectual"
Final Fantasy 14's latest plot actually did a good job of illustrating the danger of utopianism. It showed many societies that died because they were obsessed with the idea of ending suffering without first asking the question of whether it's possible or even desirable to do so. The reason why your society wins in the end is because it instead accepted that suffering was part of life and true progress is simply how well equipped your society is to deal with it and grow from it.
I think Wall-E demonstrates it well too lol
@@frankmerker630 Wall-e is the single most accurate representation of Marx idea of Communism. All labour is automated so it people are free. To nobody's surprise, when people dont have to work, they will waste all their time watching TV and eating.
@@frankmerker630 Wall-E showed us happy people with a high standard of living, and did everything it could to denigrate it.
I look forward to playing through it
@@Galgus2000 the main failing of wall-e's society was just a complete lack of self discipline lol. other than that the ship was pretty chill
"You can make a religion out of thi- No, don't." -Max Weber, or bill wurtz
Well it is a lot like religion. They preach much and practice very little.
@@lastfirst5863 I think you mean they preach much but practice little.
@@Mailed-Knight I think you mean they preach much and practice little.
1: “My ideology *transcends* yours!”
2: “No, my ideology *transcends* yours!”
3: “Guys stfu gas prices are 20x higher and nobody owns a house”
4: "Gas for a fucking lawn, while hearing leafblowers parasites and vehicles still burning rubber like next fast and furious movie!"
I hate the term "Reactionary" because all it's ever used for is mindless dismissal of valid criticism.
90% of what leftists say is a mindless dismissal of valid criticism. The other 10% is just incoherent screeching.
"That's whataboutism, brah".
@@RobertMorgan what's especially funny about that is the leftoids who do that are constantly using whataboutism themselves.
@@RobertMorgan lol I'm not allowed to say "leftoids" or it gets my post shadowbanned.
wtf? why isn't this comment shadowbanned while the other two are...
@@RobertMorgan what's especially funny about that is the leftoids who do that are constantly using whataboutism themselves.
a good way to blow at least a small hole in the "progress is always leftist" is to ask them wether they think anti-slavery abolitionism was leftist, and when they inevitebly respond with yes, tell them that most pro-slavery people were anti-capitalists and a lot of abolitionists were basically ancaps
I remember an anti slavery book published in the South that argued it's position not by appealing to antiracism, but to the fact that capitalism was better than slave economies, and that the south would fall behind if they kept it.
@@ethanhinton4549 in the rapidly industrializing world of the time, that actually is a true statement.
Even I'f the confederacy won its independence, which was entirely possible, its wouldn't have lasted very long as within a few decades the north would be so far ahead with mechanized equipment/production that they would get absolutely crushed.
Was robespierres reign of terror progress? How about stalins purges? Or maos great leap backwards? Leftists are feckless
The heads of the abolitionist movements were also often devout Christians.
@@LGThatcher current leftists don't want to acknowledge that...because Christianity is whiteness or some bullshit...I can see it and I'm a atheist.....just about anytime I got random help from a kind stranger, that stranger was a Christian...
Tradition is the solution to problems you forgot you had.
Traditions are unperfect Solutions to Problems you didnt live, YET
@@ilyaselasri3352 yes, but an imperfect solution is better than letting the problem fester because there is no perfect solution. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I prefer “tradition is the wisdom your ancestors have gifted you, hyper-distilled through trial and error across countless people in countless generations.”
Depends on the tradition.
Not always, sometimes traditions are stupid and based on ignorance and misunderstanding, but it doesn't mean tradition should be discarded entirely. As with all things, traditions should be looked at with an objective eye, and I see no reason not to keep those traditions which are benign or beneficial.
"Every time we chased it, millions of people have die"
MAKING THE MOTHER OF ALL OMELETTES DEV, CAN'T FRET OVER EVERY EGG!!!!!
Holy shit...
"Then where is my omelette?" -George Orwell
I always thought that was a really stupid quote, now he sounds like Stalin when he said it.
True
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." - C.S. Lewis
C S Lewis was on absolutely on to something that speaks to a much wider phenomenon that humans perpetuate. Shame people will discard his works because he became convinced of the worlds need for Christ
I believe that the greatest flaw of utopianism and progress for its own sake is its inherent blindness to its own flaws: if your ideology is meant to bring forth a perfect world it doesn't matter how many freedoms you need to trample, or how many dissenters' corpses you need to thread upon. The greater good justifies all, and this kind of logic inevitably leads to hypocrisy and tragedy.
Evil people will always exist, but if you want to see good people do evil things, you have to give them a sense of moral righteousness. Utopian political ideologies do exactly that. They give people perfect moral justification to hurt others, and that feature is what makes them incredibly dangerous.
My fellow AnCaps think the same way at times. I'm still an AnCap at heart, but I am definitely not your mainstream AnCap because I saw those flaws given how I am able to see weaknesses in other things and seek to exploit them as per my rather militant nature and upbringing. Anarchists and "Statists" are the Anarchists' own version of the false dichotomy that they so love to spouse on about. So here is my little paradox, if you don't mind, that I want to ask you: If Anarchism is supposed to be about the absence of a coercive force, and "Statists" voluntarily create a government for themselves, are you a genuine Anarchist if you destroy their government, absent of any coercive influence upon you, with your own coercive force?
The problem with utopian thinking is not so much that it's blind to its own flaws as it is the purely irrational belief that social and economic perfection can be achieved "if everyone would just learn to share with each other so no one has to go without and everyone can be happy".
It's a kindergarten level train of thought that rather ironically doesn't really work outside a kindergarten classroom when ms, teacher can make everything "fair and equal" by imposing restrictive rules on how and when students have access to certain toys/activities during playtime so that "everyone gets a chance to play with it".
This is why it tends to appeal to the lazy and stupid so much.
They can't function in a world where they look across the street from their rented room and see their neighbor driving a new mercedes that he bought with money he earned from the high paying corporate position he spent 30 years working towards getting while they get into their clapped out 1998 Chevy Cavalier that's one major breakdown away from being sold for scrap and head off for another day at the same go nowhere do nothing of value for the world entry level nothing job they've had since they were 16 because they're not smart enough or skilled enough to do anything else so their solution is to drag everyone else down to their level so they can feel better about themselves.
@@Hammerhead547
It's more complicated than that, but you're still correct.
The greater good/the right side of history = how can we get away with being monsters
I like how Whatifalthist worded it in his 10 Lies About Reality: "Not all progress is good"
That man produces great content.
Progress towards a cliff is still a form of progress.
The issue with socialists is that many of them fundamentally want to change things for its own sake, forgetting that the near totality of new ideas are bad ones which is why rational societies are slow to embrace new ideas and only do so after testing them carefully. Many of the ideas of the past century, ones most of us today take for granted, will baffle the majority of those who come after us because, like it or not, most of the ideas put into place in the past century are bad ones that will not survive the next century. If we haven't seen peak leftism, we will soon see it because that's simply what the unanimity of the past 5000 years has shown. Technology may move forward, but the future of society lay in what worked in the past, not what fails today being made more intense.
The things is that they want perfection, not improvement.
Utopia is just one bullet away after all
And many more ideas of the past century have, on the whole, turned out to be huge mistakes that we need to go back on.
@@MrLolguy93 Nah, that's just the mask. What they want is to be in charge. Being able to make changes means you are in charge. Utopia is just the promise they make while scamming you. They could live in an actual, perfect utopia, and they would find a way to convince people that there's something to be changed, and that they need to be in charge to do it.
@@bfranciscop those are the realists among them. The idealists want the utopia
Exactly, society is old. Very, very, very old. We've tried just about every idea when it comes to politics and socio economics and all that shit, we have a pretty good idea of what works. The only time necessary changes come about now, is because of some kind of change in technological advancement or other exterior factors. Lefticles have this idea that we do things the way we do because everyone is just a big meanie head racist, and they have it all figured out. So damn arrogant.
A few thoughts -
1) the Renaissance was a "reactionary" movement in a sense
2) a common misconception about evolution is the "evolutionary ladder," whereas evolution is more like a branching tree, and Whig Historiography is basically the "evolutionary ladder" concept for human history
3) speaking of, assuming that every society must follow the same historical evolution as the west is as Eurocentric as it gets, and although leftists treat colonization as the root of all evil, colonization was always justified as "progress" by its practitioners, who believed themselves to be disabusing "primitive" peoples of their "regressive" ways
4) the 20th Century saw liberalism - the old paradigm - mop the floor with the comparatively new paradigms of fascism and communism
in response to 2) linking it to a tree is a mistake i think, a tree points generally upwards, changes can also be backwards. its more like grass. some limbs gorw down as rhizomes and eventually new grass rooots cluster. some roots grow up as stolons in a simular way. it goes both directions. it also has dead ends both up and down (grass blades and stems for up, aswell as roots and balbs for down) and the dead ends outnumber the connections.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 trees have roots too
Socialism left an indelible mark on liberalism, though, and it's never been what it once was.
"colonization was always justified as "progress" by its practitioners, "
Todays progressives are tomorrows reactionaries. The snake eats its own tail.
@DoctorPhileasFragg it's the growing process I was referencing. A tree root was always going to be a root. With grass it can be either and can be both. A single branch can go above ground and be a stem and then go below ground and be a root, and then back up again, etc.
A root of a tree was always going to be a root and even if it breaks the surface will stay a root. A branch of a tree will not be a root even if it goes underground.
“The perfect utopia is the best possible dystopia”
-words coming out of my ass
Damn, your ass is deep
the words out your ass are more wise than the ones coming out of many "intellectuals" mouths
Good way of putting it
What a wise ass!! 😉
quite a well spoken ass
I remember someone I once trusted honestly answering "Yes" to the question of "Would a genocide of near apocalyptic scale be justified if the end result was Utopia?'
Never trust anybody that thinks the ends justify the means.
Never trust someone who believes in an utopia where they are in the surviving population.
@@Kuricapitalist well if the means are killing marxists i think we can make an exception
@@wtice4632 Yeah but then any surviving ones will only serve to use that as an excuse to further their agenda. Perpetuate their victim hood for longer. Eventually there will come a day where these Marxists will come to the same realizations that Marx himself came to towards the end of his life. They’ll realize how dumb they where and we should be there waiting to tell them we told them so.
Is this person by chance Bill Gates?
Just because you're moving forwards doesn't mean you're heading somewhere good
if you make a wrong turn is continuing to go forward progress? no going back to the crossroads you made the wrong turn would be heading closer to progress, continuing would be regression.
sometimes the best action to take IS inaction. Progress can be learning to stop trying to progress things.
it's like true wisdom is learning that you don't know everything.
The road to hell is well paved and easy to travel.
There's an episode of Star Trek: TOS that comes to mind; the Gamesters of Triskelion. It was one of the episodes that spawned a thousands memes, yes, but beneath the campy fight music, green-haired alien babes being seduced by a shirtless Kirk, and the incessant use of the word 'quatloo', is a thought-provoking and deeply chilling look at a sci-fi version of 'the End of History'. The eponymous 'Gamesters' are the only three remaining members of a highly-advanced race that eons ago achieved that 'utopian' state. With every issue solved, every problem fixed, there simply wasn't anything left to *do* anymore, and so they descended into hedonism, decadence, and the pursuit of self-gratification. Their culture was destroyed not by war or disease, but apathy and disinterest, slowly dwindling in number until only the three remained, little more than disembodied consciousnesses housed within brain-like containers amidst a mass of arcane machinery. The only thing that gives meaning to their existence and excites their atrophied senses is forcing sentient beings to battle to the death and wagering on the outcome, the 'quatloos' with which they bet clearly no longer have any value or purpose beyond the act of betting itself, just as the humanoids they abduct and enslave have no use beyond that short rush of what might have once been endorphins.
Once you climb the tallest mountain, and there are no more summits to reach, all you can see is the long, long way down....
There is a parallel in the Aeldari from WH40K. In the peak of their progress and civilization, they fell into hedonism, until the vices and excess brought the birth of the 4th chaos god: Slaneesh.
The fall of the aeldari brought a fight of survivial, and being eternally hunted by the androginous hedonistic god, dividing themselves into the Eldar, and the Drukari
@@alejandrotorresriquelme8714 Yup. Good analogy, I'm surprised my first thought was Star Trek and not Warhammer, considering I've been a fan since the Aeldari and Drukari were called Eldar and Dark Eldar, respectively. Slaanesh in a way is the god/deity personification of the phenomenon; pursuing ever greater excess simply for the sake of excess, to fill a void that cannot possibly be filled. The pursuit of self-gratification is an innate human (and Eldar, apparently) vice, but it is staved off by the human virtue that is the pursuit of meaning and purpose. But without obstacles to overcome, there is no meaning to search for.
I mean, there is the aphorism "hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times" for a reason. We've lived through the good times and are now overrun with soft, weak-minded men. Just look at who's running our countries. Do you think any of these men compare to, for example, a hard man like Theodore Roosevelt? How do you think Biden would fare in a debate against someone like that?
Now those weak men and those who voted for them are overseeing rampant inflation, shortages of the bare essentials, plummeting standards at our highest educational institutions, and the ever-looming specter of global war. All gilded ages fade with """progress."""
@@t.k.5844 This is a feeling that I have been fighting against since I arrived to australia.
I am an immigrant from chile, and I was born in poverty, curing my formation years, for 27 years I struggled to get scholarships and get into a good PhD in STEM. Since the Covid lockdowns I felt smothered by the protection of the state, and fell into hedonism to the point of neglecting the end of my PhD. which even I finished, didn't do as good as I wished for. I came to experience danger, I have worked with dangerous chemicals and reagents and risked injury and death, but the lockdowns broke me, broke that feeling of danger.
I realized I lacked things to worry about, and my life was good, but too good.
I miss the sense of danger
Another instance that proves star trek is not "socialist" in nature, despite what internet leftists might tell you
So, what I'm hearing is that Progressivism is actually "Change for the sake of Change" and a fantical believe in the concept of "They Changed, Now it's Better" even if it is objectively worse.
Change is not inherently bad, but the process is rather annoying and it is prone to poor results regardless of intentions.
I always wondered about their obsession with "challenging any and all social norms". I mean, suicide is universally seen as a bad thing. Thats a social norm. So, I guess my question is...why have none of them killed themselves yet? Ya know, to challenge the social norm?
God. I dated an Anarchist years ago. She (and all of her ilk) would constantly tell me that Anarchism was "inevitable" because everything has *always* moved to the Left. Oddly enough they'd get really irritated when I'd remind them of all the political movements that moved to the Right.
So, do any communists and Socialists one party autocracy all move to the Right?
When I was studying history in university in the mid-2000s, my professors always drilled into us not to think of history as linear. Nor does it repeat itself. Empires and ideologies rise and fall. There is no "end goal". To claim such would be to suggest a "plan" for humanity, which is odd tenet for people who don't believe in God.
From my perspective, I consider the march towards individual liberty and autonomy to be true progress. Freer societies tend to produce greater scientific, economic, technological, and cultural advances. You'll always find exceptions, but this is the historical trend. Nobody is going to seriously claim that Sparta, modern fundamentalist Islam, or the Dark Ages were more advanced and open than Athens, medieval Islam, or Enlightenment Britain. You can claim the Nazis made some big innovations, but their empire lasted only a decade. The PRC and Soviet Union largely made their advances by stealing tech from freer societies.
And since Star Trek was brought up, people on the show frequently bring up how freedom and individual autonomy are core values of the Federation. It's a highly free society. They only appear to have a socialist economy because the replicator, and a dirt cheap and near limitlessness supply of energy provided by matter/anti-matter reactors to power them, made money obsolete. No point going to a store to buy something when you can make it yourself on demand for virtually nothing.
To me modern socialists, and their ilk in Davos, are the reactionaries because they're effectively pushing for a return to feudalism. That whole "you'll own nothing" rubbish. Many on the green far-left have openly called for a return to pre-industrial society. What it really boils down to is a desire to control other people. Some folks call it "playing God", but even God only acts as a guiding force in most modern religious,
The only instance of fascism I can think of that "attempted to go backwards" was Francoist Spain, which _technically_ declared themselves a monarchy in 1947, but Franco never appointed a new monarch because he didn't want to deny the legitimate heirs to the Spanish crown the throne. He finally appointing the Juan Carlos of Spanish Royal family as his successor/king (which was really Franco's way of tossing the fate of the country back to what he viewed as the "proper authorities" instead of himself/his political successors) before he died in 1975.
It is simply amazing how much modern leftism sounds like a religion.
Not just a cult,
I mean specifically a religion, down to the reverence of certain virtues and whatnot.
If you think about what religion is, it’s really just a bunch of people gathered under some common beliefs about virtues and vices. The difference between ideologies and religion is just where their faith are invested in - the ultimate virtue of a god or the ultimate virtue of a perfect political system
No shit. Look up what Marx wanted to call his book original
It's dogma without spirituality/transcendence
There’s no discernible difference between a cult and any given religion.
@@HareHaruhi
Actually, they _do_ have spirituality/transcendence. Thats what their vast spectrum of mental illnesses are for.
I remember once telling my friends that acknowledging and admitting the failure of a recent system and going back to an older one that actually works is a form of progress in itself because it's learning from mistakes, and they all looked at me like I suddenly grew an extra pair of eyes or something.
"If you are on the wrong road, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." -C.S. Lewis
It is to those willing to admit their mistakes, it isn't to those with too big of an ego to admit they are wrong.
What CountArtha quoted.
If you made a wrong turn and you keep going, you're regressing. Turning around is progress.
But if your friends are too dense, then explain to them that "getting stabbed, and deciding to push the knife in isn't progress towards healing."
True
They do realize that the end goal of their policies and dreams is effectively an authoritarian monarchy, but without the "divine" selection of the "king", right?
Picturing vaush on a throne is 🤢
They can't have Kings because someday a Prince might be liberal. They need to be able to replace insufficiently tyrannical leaders.
At some level they do, they at least believe they will end up on the high place of whatever new order they create.
Of course since they are useful idiots they will only end against the wall killed by the same people they will put in power if no one stops them.
That "political science definition" of "reactionary" absolutely reeks of convenient historical revisionism.
No one that calls themselves a reactionary would phrase it like that definition is written
“I just don’t think we should allow weirdos to groom kindergartners.”
“Reactionary!
“rEaCtIOnArY!”
🎩
🐍no step on Snek! 🇺🇸🇭🇰
Show me the study.
@@dickcheesehead9714 ???
@@dickcheesehead9714
“My source is that I made it the fuck up.”
@@dickcheesehead9714 ok, its over-here by the bathroom and the guest bedroom.
Gee, I wonder why public support is declining more and more
3:03 "I find it kinda sad how right wingers always say "the left used to be x, but now it's too far". Like, bro, that's the point of progressivism."
*No, that's extremism. Even if it was progressivism, you're progressing off a cliff.*
Whenever someone says they want to arrive at their vision of the Utopia, and in their advocacy would trample the freedoms of people without any regrets because it is progress towards Utopia, i always think back to Robobrains from Fallout 4.
Programmed to help people, they came to the conclusion that even when they do their best to protect people, people still die. So the best choice is to kill people themselves to minimize human suffering by accelerating towards the inevitable.
And sure, if they succeded there would be no more suffering. End goal reached. But there would also be no humans.
So when someone shows they will trample on your freedom to arrive at their Utopia, remember that if they see it as helping in reaching it - they will take every single right from you.
You could say the end-product of our current culture obsessed with safety and harm reduction is going to be a sort of "benevolent" matrix, where people are lobotomized and pumped full of hormones, blissfully floating in their iso-cubes, stacked millions high with an average life-expectancy of 250 years, cared for by robots.
Nobody dies needlessly, no harm, no hurt feelings, just brainless joy and the death of everything that made humanity worthwhile.
I mean, what would be the argument against it?
Do you want people to die?
3:42 This point, I now realize, is almost certainly why leftists have a strong tendency to re-label everything good in history as leftwing, regardless of whether or not it actually was. I mean even the comment slightly before this timestamp does that, labeling the movement towards liberal democracy as leftwing (when the reality was way more complicated than a mere left-right dichotomy). This is most definitely why Abraham Lincoln is widely considered to be a leftist in leftwing circles, and why the great "Reorientation" myth of the Republicans and Democrats switching political positions after the Civil War is so widespread. Even a single instance of the left standing in the way of social progress would cause this entire idea to crash to the ground and burn.
If you're interested in a good time, check out the opinions of progressives from the turn of the 20th century through about 1935. You'll find open, full-throated support for that handsome and clever Austrian guy doing great things for Germany, as well as some rather spicy takes about euthanizing the Chinese for their own good. Shit that would make Moviebob look rational by comparison.
Progressives just pretend all of that didn't happen. They're history's perpetual Good Guys™ (just don't look in the closet).
you have it backwards, historical victories won by leftists are seen as good because they're left wing - liberal democracy most certainly was a left wing movement in history, the liberal girondistes were part of the left wing opposition against the ancien regime in france, and abraham lincoln was most certainly on the left as well and i'm also not sure what's mythical about reorientation because we can plainly observe the voter base of the southern democrats being absorbed into the republican party in the mid to late 20th century with the democratic party taking up the mantle of being the strongest advocates for "civil rights" and social democratic economic policies (in contrast to in the past where you had progressive figures in the republican party like theodore roosevelt making the biggest pushes toward social democracy and bourbon democrats who supported relatively laissez faire policies and "state's rights", and of course the record on "civil rights" goes without saying here)
it is true that the way it is presented is oversimplified, it's not as simple as a "switch" but it's more that certain factions within the parties transferred over to the other over time
One thing that I have consistently held as true even back when I was a Leftist is that good points can come from any school of political thought. As a result I am not a Leftist anymore, and I believe that Liberalism and Libertarian Capitalism are the best basis for a stable and just society while taking on the criticisms of the Dark Enlightenment of Liberalism and rejection of the assumptions of Liberalism that are wrong such as the blank slate theory, and embrace spirituality and nationalism as the purely materialist view misses out on a big part of humanity.
We live in a hateful, divided, and neurotic time. Its becoming more and more utopian as time goes on just to say “Hey let’s all just shut up for a little while.”
Very true. A good chunk of the problems we now face could probably be solved if we all learned to mind our own goddamn business once in a while.
A lack of real problems makes one start creating problems for themselves
Good video.
Exept Hitler wasn´t a Fascist, he was a Socialist, a Nationalsocialist.
He actively critizised Fascism but liked Mussolini.
Hitler had a communist past and read Marx but thought that his "international Socialism" wasn´t "socialist enough".
Marx also inspired his anti-semitism in the 30s, there is a photo of Hitler attending the funeral of a jewish revolutionary in 1919.
TIKhistory made a fantastic video about the topic, several actually where he explains the difference between Fascism and Nationalsocialism.
Edit: I forgot to mention that italian Fascism literally started out as a branch of Marxism, specifically Syndicalism.
Yep. People need to start associating fascists and Nazis where they belong. They're both socialists. Not Marxists, but still socialists, with all the collectivist, anti-capitalist nonsense that goes along with it.
How many capitalist countries do you know of have price commissars? How many capitalist countries have "[x] year plans" for their economies?
@@OuroborosChoked Oh shit, I forgot to add that italian Fascism literally started out as a branch of Marxism, thanks for reminding me.
This is why I generally just don't refer to the Third Reich at all. Not only do we avoid argumentum ad hitleriums, about the only thing that really unifies the serious thinkers on the matter is that no one knows what exactly Hitler truly believed at the end of the day, there's good evidence the man was insane after all. Mussolini on the other hand, much clearer and easier to work with, and he trips people up a lot more because Italian Fascism is more obscure.
@@harleymitchelly5542 Careful, I would recommend you overthink this approach.
The "Madman Hitler" argument is often used to cover up certain facts or to discourage looking into certain things by people pushing their own ideological agenda.
It usually goes like this: "Hitler was insane anyways so don't even bother looking into (thing)."
Hitler had no apparent mental disabilities and aside from that, I think it's questionable if we should grant the status of insanity (something that in our society can be used to lighten someone's sentence in a court of law because the person isn't fully in control of their actions, aka makes you a "victim" of sourts) should be given to one of the worst mass-murderers in history.
Every time people, especially right wingers who criticize fascism, point out that fascism and national socialism were still left wing, far-leftists passive aggressively claim that both were right wing because both were genocidal and nationalist. One of them even cited a video by Three Arrows about the "Austrian Painter" and how is ideology was right wing.
If genocide, racism, and nationalism are their criteria for being right wing, then Stalin and Mao did the same thing with Ukraine and Tibet respectively.
It’s actually funny when people say history moves in only one political direction, since it shows how little of history they know. The Roman kingdom gave way to the Roman Republic, which gave way to the Roman Empire, which split into multiple regional empires, which broke down into multiple regional monarchies (or Islamic empires in the East and south).
History changes based on people’s choices and needs. Feudalism came about because after the fall of Rome there was a desperate need for security and the local military commanders provided that security in exchange for feudal privileges. Nation states came about because, once security is established, it must be maintained through economic and cultural activity. This is best accomplished by freeing up commerce and establishing a national identity. People, even the uneducated, understand their incentives and disincentives and act accordingly. These actions cause societal changes in the aggregate. There’s nothing magical about “the left” that gives them any more control over history than anyone else.
"Chthulhu may swim slowly, but he always swims left"
-Mencius Moldbug
man it's only recently that I realized this as being a problem, I was raised on the idea that progress is a goal in of itself, I wonder what would happen if I call out the people in my life who act that way "what are you progressing towards or from? Are we really better than our ancestors? Is this generation any less capable of causing atrocities than generation of the mid 1900s?"
Plato wrote 'The Republic' as a utopian vision of society. After writing that book he got the opportunity to be a political adviser, and implement his ideas. It was an utter disaster.
Karl Popper even wrote a very long book about why it was hot garbage. The Open Society and Its Enemies is an interesting read, even if the late philosopher really should have stuck to fallabilism.
I agree with your concept of progress radiating outward "like ripples on a pond"
Feels kinda like a buddhist proverb in a way.
Buddhist here. The way we interpret things is often as you said, through allegory.
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.” C.S. Lewis
I´ve been watching you for a long time now (I still remember the one time when you answered my comment a few years ago) and, at least to me, you´ve become one of the best political commentators/thinkers on YT.
Keep up the good work, Dev.
thanks very much man!
I love the Hegelian Dialectics reference. Politics is a science, but everyone thinks they’re a scientific genius.
Well, political sciences, the humanities in general, always progress, progress to the next con.
Just like those who claim to have awoken to new possibilities by closing their minds.
@@andrewgreeb916 yep
@@andrewgreeb916 civ tech tree moment
The mindset of "My side is the correct side of history." is such supreme arrogance.
Anyone who, in the defence of their ideas, tells you to not listen to their opponents' ideas, knows in their heart their own ideas cannot be honestly defended. Anyone willing to resort to dishonestly in the defence of their ideas does not hold ideas worth defending.
In other words, if your ideas are good then they should be able to stand up to scrutiny in an open and honest debate. You shouldn't need to censor your opponents.
Never stop to think. Never slow down to look around. Never stop progressing. There is only what I want you to think and what you though five minutes ago.
The "moving train" metaphor comes to mind
Hegelian ideologies and his concept of progress have been a disaster for the human race.
After playing for years fallout NV I agree with you
Hegel was a blight on humanity
Day 1: I finally found a group of fellow democratic socialist to be around
Day 4: today I was kicked out because I didn’t want to be a full Marxist. Man time moves fast
The only difference between an utopia and a dystopia is the side you're on. The rulers, or the ruled.
Utopias in their original incarnation are idealistic societies on the surface with peace coming at a severe cost.
1984 is a straight up dystopia where everything sucks and there is no hope. Brave new world and the giver is a proper utopia. Everything looks perfect at first glance, and everyone is happy. However, the cost is that the masses are kept ignorant, everyone's happiness is only superficial and heavily reliant on constant distraction, and those who don't fit in with society are quietly discarded.
Utopia will become dystopia, even for those on top.
The book utopia never mentioned what happens to utopia when the people become appethetic and bored of their unchallenged life.
i sometimes wonder if breadtubers would admit that they're reactionaries if society progressed to the point where streaming political commentary isn't acceptable
We should talk about this sometime. This is a perennial topic that I cover. In short the progressives aren't wrong to see a direction in history, it's just not what they think it is.
After watching your introduction to moldbug this video seemed like an centrist remake but still a great one at that
perennialism is Authoritarianism mixed with religion, dare I say it is the globalist religion.
Vaush really not helping the pedo allegations against him when he says that to be the best leftist, you have to challenge all social norms.
Does that include ones that, for example, make taboo the sexual relations between an adult and a child? Is that a norm that should be challenged to be a good leftist?
Yeah, things move left until society collapses, and you have a dark age for some indeterminate amount of time until you get some new great society.
This is one of your best videos in a long time, and expresses exactly how I’ve felt for ages but couldn’t express.
I don’t want us to be trapped by the philosophical constructs of the Enlightenment and 20th century.
There has to be a better way to progress, TRULY progress humanity that isn’t being pursued by the current crop of political options.
I think a good step would be to get people to understand civics and politics as sets of societal goals/values. And that people can vote on or design systems or policies that help those goals align with societal values. Then view those systems as having pros and cons that are inherent to them as opposed to just believing in good vs evil or left vs right or progress vs reaction. Sort of a “What do we want to incentivize and how do we build those incentives to match our values?”
But that probably also has flaws.
It seems difficult to get people to understand politics outside of my team vs the evil team. But it seems like many people just kind of “autopilot” to that dichotomy.
Is that kind of what you’re getting at?
"Absorb what is useful, discard what is not."
-Bruce Lee, probably. A lot of quotes have been falsely attributed to him.
We don't have to. Humanity has already peaked, any further social change only pulls us away from the ideal.
We achieved full, true liberalism decades ago. Any direction from there is downhill.
The greater irony of progressives is their failure to recognize the distinction between accelarism and gradualism even within the context of their own presupposed view of linear progress.
If accelarist views of progress ultimately result in regress by being counter-productive and producing "reactionaries", then progress must be pursued gradually and with care, which is precisely what liberals and centrists advocate for.
It's not like liberals and centrals don't want "progress", whatever that means - it's rather that they believe progress best happen under stable conditions in gradual, incremental steps, whereas attempts at revolutionary 7-mile boot-steps will only result in chaos and one step forward, two steps back forms of social change.
7:50 I just noticed that in the CIV image, the high point for the modern era is Globalization😲 This is both surprising and very refreshing to see because most people tend to confuse globalism (the ideology of a unitary world governmental system that disincentivises national identity/sovereignty) and globalization (the greater interconnectedness of nations via trade and geopolitics); especially the more left-leaning folks who display a preference for the former. Glad to see the game got it right👍
didn't watch yet but I'd say that any ideology that is based on expecting the outside to conform to its view is destructive, constructive ideology focuses on how the person can change and adapt for the better
A certain quote comes to mind when reading this.
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
@@Kuricapitalist the country is the will of others, the others that expect me to do things for them are on a destructive path
By Vaush' statement at the ~4:50 mark, that means since pro-gay *is* in many ways the societal norm, progressivism needs to push against that.
Dude doesn't understand half of what he's saying and just comes across as a contrarian hipster tool.
I’ve attributed it to a car driving down the road, and that when the one behind the wheel takes a turn down a seedy road, attempting to point them in any other direction is seen as a cardinal sin.
"The end of history" as a phrase didn't originate with Whig historiography. It's an ancient apocalyptic idea originally referring to a future day on which God returns to judge the nations-now applied to secular political philosophies.
sometimes old don't means bad, but sometimes new don't means good.
only thing can be judged bad or good is how human biology can keep up.
this is not matter what you think, it only matter how world can and will do, but it takes time.
think about it! just from kings and royals to constitutional monarchy took almost ten thousand years.
And nowadays it is the Republic that is the preferred system of dictators. Royalty now is a roadblock to tyranny, rather than a vehicle.
Something I thought about recently was the distinction between having a vision *of* the future and having a vision *for* the future. It's healthy to think about where you'd like to be, but it's dangerous to think about where everyone else *should* be. Ultimately, seeking control over others stems from a fear of not having control over yourself.
Utopia naturally ends humanity, whether physically or psychologically as there is no being human without questioning concepts, challenging ideas and self examination
All are impossible for a utopia to exist, it is stagnation
When I was still in college, I used the analogy of the boat for society. The liberal's job is the sail to propel the boat, the conservative's job is the anchor to keep the boat in place, where the end goal is good fishing grounds.
The one thing undefined, on purpose, is what good fishing grounds are, as they could be forward, backwards, leftward, or rightward, or maybe no "progress" at all exists because you are already in those good fishing grounds, yet it would be dumb to remove the sails in case the fish move. We're always trying to chase that ideal, and it is a chase worth making, but there is no good definition of it that could exist that reaches into the future.
After all, someone had to consider things like the institution of slavery, genocide, insert other heinous thing progress at some point.
(I totally agree besides the last line. "Slavery"/genocide are both found in chimpanzees, and would have been something tribal humans would have done to any other humans they saw as a threat. "Slavery" in quotes because the female chimps don't exactly have a choice in the matter once their group's males and children are killed).
@@chad_bro_chill I'm speaking extremely literally. Someone, somewhere, decided it was a good idea to enslave their fellowman. Perhaps at one point there was a legit argument for it. But I don't think we'd agree that's a good idea now though, is the extent of my point.
*Insert rules of nature joke*... Oh wait I did that already.
AND THEY RUN WHEN THE SUN COMES UP
WITH THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE
@@ravioli_826 "Were gonna have to break a few of Dev's Eggs if we wanna make a Freedom Convoy Video Omelette "
@@jasohavents ‘making the mother of all videos here, Jack! Can’t fret over every egg!’
‘Not when you’re streaming the weak’
The only true progress is self progress. The growth of oneself into one’s penultimate state of being both physically and mentally through the practice of habits the individual sees as good and through activities that will foster good will and peace among your own life and the lives of those around you.
G.K. Chesterton had this all figured out almost a hundred years ago. His parable of "The Fence" still holds true today, for so many things.....
Just because a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly doesn't make a butterfly superior to a caterpillar.
I mean, butterflies are a lot more aesthetically pleasing than caterpillars but I get your point.
@@yarlodek5842 Nah bro my lv 100 Caterpie is hella cute.
I like the fake progress term.
This kinda proves that the slippery slope is not a fallacy. Shifting the Overton window in a fake progress direction makes it hard to return to normalcy and the real progress of the nineties.
It irritates the shit out of me when they chirp the "slippery slope fallacy" shit, they think that it means there's no such thing as a slippery slope, when all it means is that it's often used as a fallacious argument. But as we've seen with the left, it's almost never fallacious. Everything they push for goes way too far, really fast. Everything.
@Mark Zuckergecko The use of the slippery slope fallacy to cover up slippery slopes is textbook fallacy fallacy.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning, ie, argument A is incorrect because Arguer A is dumb. The dismissal of the argument, A being dumb, has nothing to do with the content of the argument.
The slippery slope is a heuristic observation about human nature. It cannot BE a fallacy; it can be incorrect, as heuristics are wont to be, but that's not really under debate in these things. It may be used as fallacious support for a position, but then it is just a non-sequitur.
Screeching is done now.
Funny thing is they will always be done in by what they want to preach about. Because the very same breadtubers will always slip up when their progressive movements start conflicting with each other because its not about progress its about them getting the status quo to where they want it so they're on top not about everyone else.
I have this rule: If someone is willing to say "This is so obviously fact or false." Or "It's not even an argument, it's just true/history." If they show zero evidence or don't even mention some common sense to back up their claim, I immediately assume their full of it
One of the telltale signs of a midwit is that they think something is "obvious" simply because they could not scrutinize it.
3:52 The Roman Republic famously drifted leftward when it became the authoritarian Roman Empire. It's just objectively true guys, everything moves left.
So let me see if I understand this correctly: if you view that we need to make some "progress" to achieve some goal, then eventually reach that goal, other "progressives" will then view you as repugnant or otherwise detestable?
They basically let the mask slip, all they want is a constant revolution, they want chaos and bloodshed without end, at least those fools who actually believe in a Utopia would put down their arms if they reached it, not so those grifters like Vaush, for whom "progress" never ends.
Sounds like progress is the enemy of progress, which means progress cannot happen
Yes. Once a progressive reaches its goal and decides this is a good place to stop, it becomes a conservative and thus will be hated by progressives who are already on their way to next progressive milestone.
The road to utopia has no end and is paved with the bones of “necessary sacrifices”
An idea for a video "why are trans people so hurt by basic jokes" examples like South Park,Dave Chappelle and most recently Ricky Gervais
My guess is that they believe personal things are inherently political so jokes about people is an attack to an entire movement of people
Because they have confused sexuality fragility.
Any single tiny whiff of a knock to the EGO is death kneel.
not all trans people. Only the extreme/activists get sent into a vicious rage. most trans people I know are pretty chill about it.
@@johnseppethe2nd2 They literally cannot comprehend the idea that there are lgbt people that oppose the lgbt activism. To them, the two groups are one and same, even though they clearly aren't.
@@3eve0n it is far nicer to have apolitical friends for sure
The idea of a "perfect" world genuinely gives me bad anxiety. Is that weird? A life without any challenge sounds like some weird abstract version of hell to me.
Well it would be considered static and just would feel like purgatory
“Change is neither malevolent, nor is it benevolent, change is just change”
The progress they seek and however offered to them initially seem more like distractions meant to occupy them and preoccupy everyone that disagrees with them. For one, it is absolutely farcical that they would shove their idea of progress into everyone's face and destabilize the lives of others when their own lives haven't progressed into some form of stability because of said distractions.
Vaush’s definition of progressivism being “a perpetual challenging of social norms” seems like the political version of “being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.”
In this idea that left is always progress, if 2 different groups have a solution for a problem, but one group is further left, this group would be considered correct. It must be quite convenient to arrive at, further left equals correct.
Very convenient. No need for any of that pesky 'thinking'.
So we have to forever move farther and farther left even if there is no economic or social problem it will solve, and in fact will create more problems in doing so? Have these people never heard the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
Keep up the good work dude. I enjoy hearing your thoughts like this.
I love the "we are for social change, and that is good" argument. Not every invention is a good invention. Not every direction you can progress is good progress.
That's why you will always see the left eventually eat their own. The people who say "okay, now we are going too far" aren't reactionary, they just reached their limit on what they think are good ideas.
May I remind the audience that eugenics was seen as a progressive view back in the day? The people who advocated for it saw it as the way to progress society forward in a radical way. Can't let nature sort itself out, we have to ensure the species!
Tell me again how progressivism is right? Always? And "reactionaries" are always wrong...
This was a great clarification of things i didn't understand between the dark enlightenment and vaush's yelling.
Utopias are dystopian.
The paradox of perfection.
"I know not where cthulu swims, but i know he always swims left" - Curtis Yarvin (unless he quoted that, i dont remember)
It's "Cthulu swims slowly, but he always swims left." Yarvin was paraphrasing Robert Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy which says that any complex society will eventually have an oligarchic elite who bend it to their needs.
@@CountArtha thanks, i wasnt about to search UR for an hour to find that quote
@@The_Natalist Right? I used to have so much free time when I'd waste 3 or 4 hours on research to win a stupid forum argument 😂
@@CountArtha lol, those were the days... *Sigh*
Didn’t Dune deal with Utopia being incompatible with humanity?
Left and forward are two different directions...this has always felt like a situation of giving an inch to someone and having them insist on taking a mile, all while shouting that the definition of an inch is wrong and needs to be changed to be that of a mile...
We live in a world where destiny is to far right. We live in a world where Russel Brand the Anarco Communist is to far right.