Confused about what an Intellectual Turing Test is? Click here! Please read, then vote at the end of the post. Feel free to speculate in the comment section about this person’s identity!
What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?
I argue using logic and evidence. I try to be nice about it. I gently mock my opponents’ incorrect facts, unfair argumentation, and motivated reasoning, but I try not to make it personal.
I do this because I feel it is the best way to make a positive difference.
I recognize that to a mob, this is inferior to pure tribal signalling and chimp rage. However, in my opinion these things are dangerous and destructive when wielded from power, although they are effective. By contrast, they fail when attempted from weakness. Progressivism is strong; neoreaction is beyond weak.
Of course I wish that everyone would care about truth and they would be polite, but in reality they cannot and/or will not, and what they are doing is effective. So, “should” is kind of ridiculous applied here. “Should” people do something they cannot and will not, and which works against their perceived interest? I am an atheist, so “should” leaves me cold.
I suppose, though, that in my irrational heart I think that people “should” be nicer, and more logical and evidence-based. FWIW.
What is the true reason, deep down, that you believe what you believe? What piece of evidence, test, or line of reasoning would convince you that you’re wrong about your ideology?
I started out wanting to make the world a better place for everyone, which was a part of the progressive morality that I was raised with. This led me to libertarianism, when I realized that rights and democracy were fundamentally opposed. I proceeded to anarchism, when I dropped the belief in rights as jejune superstition, and began to accept innate human diversity. Finally I settled for neoreaction when I realized anarchism was improbable in the extreme for humans as they are. I still want the world to be better. I still espouse politics that I feel would be best for most people. What people need most is stable, sane, and effective government. This is true in the West, but it’s obviously true in the Third World.
What would convince me I am wrong? Well, here are some possibilities that would really undermine my ideology:
- proof that humans are, generally, not driven by status-seeking, not greedy, not powerlustful, and/or not tribal and nepotistic; and that they are not unconsciously Machiavellian about their motives.
- proof that IQ is unreal and/or uncorrelated with various desirable outcomes, including national income and relatively good government.
- proof that intelligence, conscientiousness and criminality are not highly heritable.
- proof that supernatural things (rights, God, morality) exist.
None of those seem likely to me. Here’s a few things which seem possible, albeit unlikely, and difficult to understand within neoreaction:
- a democracy which is not moving leftward over the long run.
- a state-run welfare system that does not create a dependent class.
- a class of educated and liberated women with above replacement fertility.
- a democratic state which is financially responsible, that is, which does not have increasing debt and other financial obligations over the long run.
- a limited government that stays limited over the long run.
Which sex from evolutionary time was into hunting, competition, war, territory, and dominance? Simulate those things, and what sex will that appeal to? Similarly: simulate beautiful young women to gaze at; who will that appeal to?
Gaming appeals to men much more than women. It’s biological.
The existence of any domain in life that is dominated by their suspect classes (cis/white/male) is potentially suspect to progressives, because it violates their axiomatic belief in equality. If everyone is equal, then the only possible explanation for any disproportion in group representation — for any group — must be discrimination, which is always wrong, except when it’s not. Biology is not an acceptable explanation.
As such, progressives began to criticize gaming, including game content, gaming culture, and gamer demographics. In particular they criticized the representation of women in games, virtual violence, and the highly male skewing of serious gamers. Progressives attempted to use criticism to change gaming and games.
This would have worked fine before the Internet. But on the Internet, one can talk back anonymously, and men did. Gamergate represents a backlash, a revolt against unwanted progressive criticism and SJW entryism. A sizable minority of gamers, as well as trollish third parties looking for lolz, organized well enough to exert some commercial pressure on game magazines and developers to push back against the progressives.
The conflict almost immediately became largely tribal, divorced from any real “issues”.