Dglgmut

This is it. They have experience with black people, and they are being held to a standard of anti-racism by people who don't have the same experience. And by that I don't mean that anti-racists don't have experience with black people, but I think their experience is typically with the woke/"educated" blacks who are generally middle class or above and feel something similar to white guilt (guilt mixed with wanting to belong to the group of victims they share a skin tone with). This is tricky. I have heard that at least one study has shown that police get physically aggressive more often/quicker with black/Latino suspects. Now perhaps they are acting proactively to avoid escalation from the suspect (to make sure they do not fail the--I don't know the scientific term, but--bitch test). So what's the solution in the case that the extra aggression is actually beneficial? Do they start to increase aggression against other races??

The event and the sport are not what I'm talking about, it's how the (white) public views black people. They can't tell the difference between a black criminal and a productive/peaceful black citizen. Basketball has become the main plinth displaying Disney approved blackness. Basketball fans also talk about how there is a new phenomenon of "flopping" in the NBA that was never there. Drawing fouls and dramatically falling to the ground is now part of the strategy (playing the victim). The connection is about how the media exploits the whiteness of liberals, in that they see blacks as a monolith, and tries to control the image of that monolith. Then when the white liberals see a video of a black person committing a crime, they can't see what's happening. Meanwhile black people, who don't see themselves as a monolith, can see what's happening, and sometimes purport the same lie as the media: "We're all the same, and we're always the victim." ("He could have been my son." - Obama) I'm not saying I have a full analyses of what's going on, but I do see that there is some cultural significance in the rise in popularity of basketball, as well as ties to other changes we are seeing around us.

The article Michael posted is interesting. The writer got a lot wrong, but I do think basketball as a rising cultural force is notable. There is definitely something there. I don't think it's so much about the sport itself as it is about the makeup of the athletes that makes it such a phenomenon. It's the leftist approved representation of the black male. And even if you see something that's unapproved, the commentators can tell you what you really saw. I just had a thought about how opposite two of the forces at play in the whole racial movement are; I'll use the case of Ahmaud Arbery as an example. On one end of the spectrum you have black people with a heavy in group preference stating publicly that Ahmaud was just jogging and that he was just looking around that house to... uh... appreciate the construction work. Then on the same side you have white people that are so white they actually believe the bullshit. Now anyone with any connection to reality can see what was happening.... he was staking out the house. But white-hating blacks and the naive ultra-white liberals are on the same side, even though they're diametrically opposite, and they both support the same narrative. I think this has something to do with the rise in popularity of basketball, too. It's partly to do with having a facade of black America that the white liberal can be comfortable with, like Lebron saying of Trump's "locker room" comment, "We don't talk like that in the locker room." How white do you have to be to actually believe that? And I don't mean to use "white" pejoratively, only that the type of people I mean to degrade are those who would take offense to that.

The difference between leftist ideologies is like the difference between different sects of a religion. They still worship the god of Equality (non-competition). and there is major overlap in the history of their ideas. Sticking with this analogy, there are many self-identified Catholics who have not studied their religion on an academic level. This is true about all kinds of Marxists, though... if it wasn't, communism would have worked.

I'm glad he's dead, it would be wrong for tax payers to have to pay for this terrorist's imprisonment. The left-wing terrorists seem to have a type: Willem Van Spronsen Willem Van Spronsen was an anarchist and anti-fascist who was shot and killed by Tacoma Police officers while trying to set fire to a propane tank with incendiary devices during an attack at an ICE detention center in Tacoma on Saturday, July 13. 2019 Van Spronsen was previously arrested in 2018 at the Tacoma detention facility when he was accused of lunging at a police officer who was detaining another protester. (Courtesy of Twitter)

It's amazing how some people compare Bishop's murder to the targets of Rittenhouse. Their brains are not functional... Everything is justified in approaching equality; that's the only way to make sense of their evil. I saw a new mural on the front of a women's shelter yesterday: "Until We've All Made It, None of Us Have Made It." Anyone who disagrees with this must be bigoted towards those groups who are typically seen as having not "made it." They are riling themselves up. They are stoking their own craziness because they think the chaos today is their opportunity to finally do something good with their lives.

This would be absolutely fitting, unfortunately it looks like this guy's organs won't be worth much. After the "We got a Trumper, right here!" you hear, "Right here?" immediately before the gunshot.

Those quotes all sound facetious to me.

I don't know. Like I said above, I think narcissism has a lot to do with this. These kids feel like they are lacking an identity, and this is something they can do to form one. They probably think they could come up with some pretty good rules for society, but I think a lot of them are, as other people have said, LARPing. They are saving the princess from the dragon... the princess being black criminals and the dragon being the police. The only videos of real poverty line black Americans speaking their minds, that I have seen, have been completely counter to the leftist narrative: the police are far from their biggest problem. If you don't already, check out "Last Week In Culture" on Fleccas Talks' YouTube channel, which is basically a rip off of I,Hypocrite's "You Can't Stop Progress," which is much longer and is released less regularly. Either one is much better than watching the News. Here's something I recently found that offers some perspective also:

I think this is a huge leap. The people willing to actually put skin in this game are a tiny minority, and mostly unskilled/unintelligent. They can learn some useful skills, but their ideology runs contrary to the whole notion of self improvement--the ones that become independent minded will be more likely to leave. You also have to recognize the abundance of information available to even the poorest people in this day and age: the chance of them uncovering their own contradictions is much higher than it would have been in past revolutions. I just don't see this "becoming an army" thing. These kids are not fighting for a cause, they are fighting out of narcissism. As long as there are adults with basements for these kids to comfortably live in they will not have the motivation necessary to take any real risk/put in real effort.

How organized and intelligent do you think your opposition is?? The people at the top seem mostly be a bunch of creeps just trying to hold on to their access to kidnapped children (or some other sexual deviancy), while the people on the ground are largely unskilled and inexperienced in any useful way.

I wonder how many of the lefties protesting this police shooting have worn apparel like this:

No idea about that, sorry.

Ok. I don't know the ins and outs of human evolution, just some popular theories. I still think we are in uncharted territory, and civilizations of their current scales have not had time to make any significant changes to our nature; especially when you consider the reduction in factors contributing to natural selection.

By tribe I mean the total society that a prehistoric human lived in. Like I said before, 150-250 people (the estimate I've always seen). So there would be no evolutionary roots in terms of hierarchies of tribes. Tribes would go to war with each other, but they wouldn't coexist within hierarchies, as far as I understand.

Ok, I think agree with this. Are you saying that the natural social dynamics of tribe-sized groups persist even within an unnatural societal framework, in that even though the actual "tribe" is now unmanageably large, the tribe member roles are still assigned subconsciously? Even if you're not, the idea that we naturally form groups about the size of prehistoric tribes sounds reasonable... and that those groups compete for status in a hierarchy. The idea of hierarchies of groups is interesting because it wouldn't have any evolutionary roots. If this is something we naturally do it would probably be coincidental. I don't know. Maybe there's some research on this.

The thing that's interesting about the key supporters is that basically they are just the rank below on the social hierarchy, and to be above them is to represent them, while at the same time the standard for achieving rank is variable depending on the rank, and the ranks in between hold the structure together. Meaning this: if you took only the bottom and top ranks of the hierarchy, the people at the top would not remain on top. Whatever it took for them to rise above the rank 2nd to the top is not the same thing required to raise to the 2nd from the bottom. By achieving representative status, or partial domination, of any rank in the hierarchy, you also derive from them the representation of the lower ranks. This says something about the social experiments referenced above, as the disconnect between these nonadjacent ranks evokes a sense of arbitrariness in the conception of social hierarchies in a way that cannot be natural. From the family to the tribe, is more or less what is naturally accepted by us in terms of human authority. In the Western world, we have the authority of the family, which is challenged by the teachings of the public school, which is supported by the inherently violent state. There is no rationality in the hierarchy, and so the idea of "power" is disconnected from the idea of "responsibility" or "duty." Responsibility and duty are then delegated to those with less power.

Finally got around to reading about these. I recently read a couple lines from a book that touched on this subject as well: This also connects to how I think of free will, and compatibilism. I think our actions are bound to the rules of causality, but the causes at play are partly external and partly internal. We are, in part, our own cause. However, the proportions of internal to external causation are not fixed. The domination of a person is to become a disproportionate external cause of their actions. That doesn't mean you can directly control them, in that you can't make them do whatever you want--you are limited to their natural responses. If fear locks them up, for example, you determined that behavior, but it may not have been what you intended. From the individual's perspective, filtered through rational self-interest (integrated and non-contradicting), the goal is to maximize internal causation in proportion to external. In Randian terms this is man's "spirit." We could also call it will power. This is the opposition to social power, or circumstantial determinism in general. It may be called ego, but ego can mean different things to different people. However, the egoless are tools, by any definition. They are tools either to those that control their circumstances, or to their own idea of "the greater good."

This accords with what I said here: "So it's not that some men have a purpose and some don't, it's that men derive their purpose from concepts of ranging scopes." The narrower the scope, the less non-contradiction/integration is possible. The sadist lives in a bubble, insulated from the past and future. Power can be experienced in different ways; egotism can be applied in different ways. Power over another person (status), power over reality (creativity), or power over oneself (independence)--something like that--are all different expressions of egotism. What about the anti-egotist: the man who lives for pleasure or the man who lives for society? These would be the men without a purpose, I think. Technically, they do have a purpose, but by Rand's standards they do not. They are guided either by their body or other people. Maybe these are worse than the people with corrupted minds? They are the necessary tools for these people to effect their destruction.

But Rand assigned quality to the quality. Having a career, in this sense, = good. So is the converse of your last statement also true: that just because something can be used for good does not necessarily make it good?

Here's my latest take on purpose: Purpose is a function of our abstracted circumstances. "Life" is the highest level of abstraction. If we are not able to conceive of our life as a whole, we will focus on some subset of the whole, and our purpose will be derived from this abstraction. So it's not that some men have a purpose and some don't, it's that men derive their purpose from concepts of ranging scopes. Some men may consider their life as a whole, or close to it, while others may only think about the short term (perhaps due to mental limitations or emotional inhibition). This is how I think the "integration" works. The broader the scope of the abstraction, the more contextualized everything in your life becomes. Things become good and bad that would otherwise be irrelevant. However, I don't know that having "no purpose" is really the worst quality a person can have. The worst people in history have all had a purpose. We're seeing a lot of shitty stuff right now coming from people who certainly have a purpose. I'm not sure exactly how this works, as in a way I feel like they've gone into the negatives in their level of abstracting their own circumstances, and have come out the other side, viewing everything through the lens of society. But I also think they are quite selfish, in the orthodox sense, and seeking low order pleasure/happiness while at the same time championing high order social values.

Hey, that quote is not of mine! edit: Sorry! I see you were quoting me quoting

"that movement [BLM] was orchestrated and funded in advance behind the scenes and did not arise from a grass roots movement" Let's play WHO SAID IT? So an ideological movement can be explained in black and white terms, but not a music video? Also: "So, if I were a typical music industry person, I would thing that if somebody does Satan, maybe they will make boatloads of money." Seems you are implying that the Satanic angle was the idea of a music industry person. Here's an article from 3 years ago: Wait a Minute, is Satanism Actually Really Great?

My question was do you think the values and behaviors featured in pop culture, such as that video, are manufactured or discovered by the creators?

Do you think this is a creation of the media and not a sample of real culture?