Vent: I hate the intellectually dishonesty of saying some instead of all

Not for Posterity
1

Funny and accurate meme highlighting the letter of the law but disregards the spirit of the law.

image

“Most circles should die because they’re red.”

“But this circle isn’t red.”

“Ah but I said most not all gottem.”

“Except of course, that functionally I meant all because the existence of blue doesn’t deter my original opinions or statements on all of the circles but I will use plausible deniability as a cover.”

Yeah. Sure. Ok. Whatever. So anyone can promise not to fuck your mom and fuck your dad instead because they technically didn’t mention anything about him too right?

2

All circles should die, even the blue ones.
The Blue ones are often complicit or tolerant of the red ones, and insofar as their existence is used to dangerously justify exceptions to the general rule, they should also be purged.

“Not all people who express pedophilic proclivities actually rape kids.”

Ok. Cool. Still need to kill those people though because they are functionally broken and benefit no one with their existence, and sooner or later, they will either turn red, or create red circles in the future, no matter how blue they might be at the moment.

In conclusion, I would fuck both your mother and your father to death.

3

So “proclivity reliably predicts action” except when it doesn’t.

“Disposition doesn’t guarantee the act but disposition should be punished.”

So everyone in this scenario is guilty until proven innocent and thought crimes are real and deserving of punishment?

“Not all of the infected spread the plague but it’s better to kill them all anyway.”

Even if the infected know the majority are doomed its obvious they will tolerate them. First of all the motivation to purge other people is pretty rare. Second even if they did they probably feel pity for them at best and worry targeting them puts themselves at risk of being collateral damage at worst.

It’s better to cure a disease then to deal with the consequences of it and honestly we agree in prevention but differ in solution.

The infected do not need to die, they need to managed until they no longer pose a risk. Killing people for what they might do is paranoia.

Is every feminist dingbat correct about men because men commit 80% of violent crimes? Since proclivity is so bad in itself there’s no need to worry about the pesky details of actual conduct.

How can you ever expect anyone to give you benefit of the doubt if you don’t do this yourself? It’s a completely dysfunctional way for society and the individual to live.

4

This made me chuckle.

5

Yes, and that’s a good thing—here’s why

6

I mean, ‘most’, ‘some’ and ‘all’ are all different words. ‘all’ implies a practical absence of any case to the contrary, ‘most’ states a non-absolute condition. ‘some’ is just ‘an amount’, and I think it translates to ‘a minority’ colloquially.

Most human beings are clearly identifiable as male or female. The few that have a chromosomal abnormality that makes their anatomy slightly confusing (ignoring that with enough examination, you can probably sort them into one or two bins unless you have an agenda for which it’s convenient not to) doesn’t change that in the broad scope of things, humans are each either male or female. But it would still be technically wrong to say that all human beings are neatly categorizable and genitally undeformed.

7

When you encounter a Grizzly Bear in the woods, are you going to say “This violent animal is innocent until proven guilty!”
Obviously you wouldn’t, because that is a retarded losing strategy. Maybe in the 10% of times that the Grizzly Bear doesn’t maul you to death you might insulate your worldview and not have to confront your flawed thinking, but in the other 90% of cases you would be torn to shreds and not even be able to form those erroneous opinions in the first place.

Pity is a survival strategy to try and preserve those who do deserve to live, but it only works in a social make-up where the majority of the population has a Positive trait that needs preserving. In a dysfunctional society where the majority is not worthy of this pity, it is unwise to grant it to them.

According to Feminist Logical framework, yes, treating the minority with contempt over the actions of the majority is correct. Their logic is flawed however because their axioms are not logically consistent: I.e. The majority of men are not misogynists, therefor treating them as such is retarded, or, the majority of men are misogynists, but this behavior is fundamentally healthy and should not be opposed. Or, the majority of men are misogynists, therefor maybe you should get married and have children so you can earn protection from these Men you stupid foid…
If we say that “The majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by Niggers and other flavors of brown”, and we know that these niggers and browns are the majority of the population, then by telling women “Not all Men!” you’re essentially just lying to them to avoid confronting their logic.
It is the majority of men who commit crimes (At least recognized ones if we overlook abortion), and therefor women are right to fear them.

Nobody should give me or anyone else the benefit of the doubt, we are all a part of collectives defined largely by our genetics and to a lesser extent our social background.
I should be judged as such, because my individual wants and needs are trivial in comparison to the collective good.

8

There’s a difference between groups and individuals. A beach is yellow, the grains may be mostly yellow with some variation.

image

The egalitarian argument is that the beach isn’t yellow because some of the grains are blue. This confuses “the beach” with “the grains.” The beach is “mixed.”

It’s a parlour trick where you move the focus from groups to individuals.

People treat groups like groups and individuals like individuals. A white nationalist may hate Jewish people collectively and seek to deport them all. But he might also know some Jews and be friendly with them. A Jewish person may fear / despise white nationalists but, again, like a few of them.

Generalizing and individuating are functions of our internal economy. It may sometimes be less effort to generalize a group of people than to inspect all of them. But it may sometimes be less effort to look at specific instances. There are no rules regarding this, just whatever is less effort.

If the Nazis only cared about generalities, then they never would have bothered to inspect the ancestries of all German citizens. They would have just deported the vast majority of foreigners and moved on with their plans. Nor would they have bothered to go after politically-adjacent heretics, such as Emil Nolde. In some ways, individualism can be even more persecutory than simple generalizing.

Of course, when someone cares enough about removing foreigners, they are both generalists AND individualists. They start with stereotypes, and end with inspections.

9

Hahaha. You should become an actual journalist but shitpost your real beliefs in your writings. It would be hilarious.

10

Nobody should give me or anyone else the benefit of the doubt, we are all a part of collectives defined largely by our genetics and to a lesser extent our social background.

Well then, you should know that trust is an emotion and hard wired into human biology. Trust as an emotion is simply giving others the benefit of the doubt. If it was so evolutionary successful to do the opposite then this ability to trust others wouldn’t have survived long enough to be widespread. Cooperative groups out-competed paranoid ones. If we’re defined by our genetics then you must acknowledge genetics gave us built-in trust.

If you want to do all you can for the “collective good” then evolution itself has already spelled it out for you the proper way of achieving that.

When you encounter a Grizzly Bear in the woods, are you going to say “This violent animal is innocent until proven guilty!”

A grizzly bear is an animal and lacks the intentionality of a human. Nobody actually judges animals on a scale of guilty to innocent because there’s no agency behind an animal, only determinism. Also even if you assume it’s guilty until proven innocent, your behavior probably isn’t going to be “kill all grizzly bears on sight” it’s “avoid grizzly bears on sight”. Whether or not you’re choosing to believe something is innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent is dependent on the punishment. It’s easy to assume guilt in everyone if your “punishment” for them is just avoidance, it’s a lot harder to assume guilt in everyone if your punishment is death. It’s not just “assume everyone is guilty” you’d also have to ask yourself “guilty of what? And what response?”

Or, the majority of men are misogynists, therefor maybe you should get married and have children so you can earn protection from these men you stupid foid…

Huh? I should adopt a grizzly bear to protect me from grizzly bears? I thought we just established why trusting grizzly bears was a bad idea. Or are you suggesting they should be controlled and muzzled to become the effective weapon they always were?

this behavior is fundamentally healthy and should not be opposed.

If healthy here just means natural it’s correct but what is natural isn’t good. Animals rape- sorry, “force copulate” a lot. Rape is natural but rape isn’t good.

I think the overall premise here is that you dehumanize humanity as simple deterministic animals when actually humans deserve a lot more credit then they ever receive.

Since knowing me better will be beneficial to you, these my the three strongest beliefs: I have strong family values, I have strong in-group loyalty and I’m an anthropocentrist (human supremacist).

11

I’m not trying to say groups and individuals are the same thing. They aren’t.

The only reason it seems that way is because I think generalizations about the group affect the individual in the long run. It’s all about the second-order effects.

Think of the “Not all men!” counter argument. You can counter with “No, not all men but most men” and technically be right but you’re assuming all parties involved are going to act in good-faith. It’s not just a simple generalization or cognitive short-hand, it’s a slippery slope because this isn’t a nothing burger statement that gets sucked into a vacuum void, it has real cause and effect.

The real effect of this is that it turns into propaganda and mainstream thought and idea. The concept becomes normalized and when it becomes normalized the generalization becomes exaggerated. It turns mild caution into paranoia.

Which matters because now you have a bunch of paranoid schizoid spinster women refusing to date men because they assume all men are killer rapists or whatever. Then suddenly you have radfems saying aborting boys is a good thing because they all develop into evil men anyway.

We should actually be assuming everyone is a bad faith irrational actor. We should think everyone is a midwit who can’t handle nuance because that’s just the social reality of the people.

A paranoid society is a socially disharmonious society and a social disharmonious society leads to the masses being numb at best and aggravated at worst.

The people are just as well-intentioned as they are retarded.

People treat groups like groups and individuals like individuals. A white nationalist may hate Jewish people collectively and seek to deport them all. But he might also know some Jews and be friendly with them. A Jewish person may fear / despise white nationalists but, again, like a few of them.

And yeah two people from opposing teams can get along. The Pollyanna principle (basically the general innate kindness of humanity) causes that. It’s not that people consistently divide groups and individuals separately, it’s that people are just unironically good natured.

12

Yes, Trust is an emotion, and like anything else within the human repertoire is has both a negative and a positive usage. When unearned, Trust leads you to being taken advantage of by people that will try and harm you. When applied correctly, it is used to maintain the bonds between individuals in a community.

You should have to earn my trust, and likewise, I should have to earn your trust. Generalities are thus a form of heuristics we use to more effectively manage our Trust. However, I will not make an exception to the rule until you have sufficiently demonstrated that you are worthy of being an exception.

Paranoid Groups survived because they kept Trust within their group, reserving only for those they deemed Their Own. As such, every organism, every Race, every Group, is defined by this: I.e. being naturally paranoid of outsiders who want to take your resources for their own.
Their is no long lived cooperative group in history that existed without Paranoia set against the outsider. And every group that put Universal Cooperation above Internal Sustainability collapsed, literally every single time in history.

Human beings are Animals as well, some groups more than others. Evolution deemed fit that we advocate for our own Racial success over other groups. And determinism applies, or should apply, just as readily to racial groups as it does to animal groups.

As such, I assume all Black People are criminals and have low impulse control the moment I meet them, and they have to prove themselves otherwise. I do not treat Whites this way, because they are my Ingroup, and have statistically proven more well behaved and agreeable to me. However, if a White Person proves to be Bad to me, then I will likewise authorize their exception to the rule the same way I would justify a Good black person.

Lets say you’re playing a game of Blackjack with 3 cards left in the deck, and 2 of them are bad leaving a 66% chance to bust. Why would you hit when the odds are against you?

Nature is the primordial Good. Nothing exists without natures say so, and everything returns to or is selected out by nature sooner or later. You can delay the outcome, but the results will arrive sooner or later no matter how much you protest. Human beings excel when we listen to and try to emulate Nature. This is not an advocacy for savagery mind you, but merely analyzing what made us strong in the first place and replicating that behavior to make us even stronger (I.e the sterilization of retards).

Rape has evolutionary advantaged just like anything else, but in the majority of cases we deem it bad, therefor we generally avoid rape. But if the Foids don’t want to reproduce and instead want to kill the entire species, is it not only Natural but Moral to justify their rape? Because, their individual desires should not take precedence over the collective survival of the species in this scenario.

I am a White Supremacist, not a Human supremacist. As my genetics are Northern European, the preservation of those that are like me takes precedence over all others. Thus the preservation of others should only be considered to the extent that it is beneficial to my own Race.

13

I don’t think the problem is Generalizations, but Faulty generalizations. Or rather, generalizations used to justify faulty survival strategies.

I.e. The generality that “Not all men” being false, is not a mark against generalizations but of the inaccuracy of the statement. Or, if the statement is accurate, using that to justify a total fear and abandonment of Men is a faulty survival strategy, and therefor the problem is not with the Generality but how it is being applied.

If the generalization is generally true, are you just going to advocate that people make statistically bad choices throughout their lives? For what benefit? What does it offer us to act in this way?
Suppose most Women take your advice and put themselves in the path of the Majority of Men. Given that the majority of Men are Indian or some form of Inbred Brown Rape Rat, you’re telling them they should tolerate this majority?
When more accurately, I think you would agree that the while the statement is true, women should instead pursue the minority of men who are better protectors and providers, i.e. not Indian or brown.

Your argument is essential leading into the same as many common talking points that Pro-Whites use to talk down National Socialist ideas, E.g: “We can’t engage in censorship because that is what are enemy does.” or “We can’t use swords because our enemies use swords and that would make us like them.”

You shouldn’t fear to use and apply generalities if they are accurate and can be used to bring about positive ends. Hell, to even put yourself against such rhetoric is to make General Statements against Generalities. So again, the problem isn’t the generality, it’s how it is applied.

Guns don’t kill people, they are merely a tool for whoever is standing behind the trigger.

14

The generality that “Not all men” being false

Actually I don’t think it is false. If humans are just deterministic animals then the rape thing is more likely. Men generally are horny and want sex. Simple.

Given that the majority of Men are Indian or some form of Inbred Brown Rape Rat, you’re telling them they should tolerate this majority?

Yes.

If a woman is in a relationship with a man she should be willing to put out. It’s emotional abuse to refuse without a valid excuse like pain or fatigue. If her man wants to bang her even when she’s asleep she should permit it. If she doesn’t want to that’s fine but she should leave him if so.

The jews are massive simps that like to tell everyone otherwise and you fell for the propaganda. :blush:

Do you honestly think a society is better for permitting a woman who feels regret or heartbroken after a relationship to just cry rape and punish her ex everytime lol?

If the generalization is generally true, are you just going to advocate that people make statistically bad choices throughout their lives? For what benefit? What does it offer us to act in this way?

This assumes there’s only two options to choose from. One bad option and one good option but actually there are many options to choose from and some options are less risky than others and fewer options are low risk and ethical.

women should instead pursue the minority of men who are better

True, honestly I agree and the best man is a man who won’t hurt you.

15

Foids don’t want to reproduce and instead want to kill the entire species

Isn’t it a very mainstream idea to consider celibacy morally good? It’s not good for the species and collective to survive actually. Aren’t there wars going right now where the women have all fled not giving two shits what happened to husband, father and brothers? :rofl: So heartless and so cowardly of them but they deserve to flee because “the species” is sooo important right?

Eye for eye makes the whole world blind and if the world is filled with eye thieves it deserves to go blind. Simple.

Rape has evolutionary advantaged just like anything else, but in the majority of cases we deem it bad, therefor we generally avoid rape. But if the Foids don’t want to reproduce and instead want to kill the entire species, is it not only Natural but Moral to justify their rape? Because, their individual desires should not take precedence over the collective survival of the species in this scenario.

Idk man, sounds like some brown rapist logic to me. Maybe racists just hate people that remind them of themselves :blush:

You see when a white guy does it, it’s based but if a brown guy does it, it’s barbaric.

16

Well that’s exactly the point. A behavior, option A, has a 66% negative outcome that is worse than option B, that has a 33% negative outcome. This means that option A is generally negative, and option B is generally positive.
Modern jewish society likes to disincentive ethical behavior by creating conditions in which more negative outcomes are accrued through a particular course of action. Principled business practices equals more Taxation, more Regulation, etc. But the natural consequence of these behaviors without all the social engineering fuss is what I’m focused on determining.

17

Mainstream does not equal Moral. Consensus is not a determination of Truth. The reason for this is that a consensus can be manufactured, and what is mainstream is often contrived.
And yes, those women who betray their people for their own individual benefit are cowards and traitors. Fleeing danger does not necessitate betrayal of your people, but most women of all races do this because they are conditioned only to value their own survival as what needs preserving. *This could be seen as an extension of their biological mechanism to survive in order to reproduce, but reproduction without loyalty to their race resulting in a loss of fitness and genetic cohesion simply makes their actions vain and short sighted, and statistically more prone to negative outcome.

Not Eye for an Eye. Just steal the eyes of the ones doing all the stupid shit and make their Evil blind. Only the Righteous are pure of sight.

I was merely citing an hypothetical example where Rape would be morally permissive. And yes, browns who do it are doing it because they are trying to replicate themselves as an organism. It is fundamentally no different from if a White Man does it. The argument is instead that Brown Men rape more, and lack the impulse control to not rape. For them, they do not weigh justification or Outcomes, they act simply as their whims demand, just like modern women, no cause or rationality, not weighing the pros and cons, simply impulse to action, the end.

Are you either Brown or a Woman?
I am going to assume you are until proven otherwise because this is generally the case, judging by your rhetoric. Statistically, this is a proper assumption.

18

*This could be seen as an extension of their biological mechanism to survive in order to reproduce, but reproduction without loyalty to their race resulting in a loss of fitness and genetic cohesion simply makes their actions vain and short sighted, and statistically more prone to negative outcome.

It’s not really that. Whenever there’s a debate on this, lots of men will defend women doing it because if women survive the species survives even if their nation loses. Women will defend it too but at least that’s egotistical.

Not Eye for an Eye. Just steal the eyes of the ones doing all the stupid shit and make their Evil blind. Only the Righteous are pure of sight.

A roundabout way of saying takers (or those that take the most) should be punished and those who don’t, shouldn’t be.

Are you either Brown or a Woman?

Woman.

19

That isn’t really what I was saying. It’s still assuming there’s a total of two options, when I was implying there’s option a, option b, option c, option d, etc.

20

Yet another win for statistics.

I do not defend women doing that. A race is a combination of both its Men and its Women. One cannot exist without the other.

And it isn’t Taking that is the problem, it is taking without Merit. Taking without just cause. Taking despite the results indicating a generally negative outcome.
All the Jews “Taking” children on private islands are not moral, because there is no real moral justification for this behavior. All the Migrants in Europe who commit 2/3rds of the sexual assault are not Moral for this behavior, because it results in decaying societal trust and trauma. All the wars started to secure resources for the Jews fought by White Men are not moral, because the Nations betrayed their own foundation. We could make grander arguments that justify their behavior is a necessary extension of their organism, but I am only defining Morality in this instance relative to what is Right for White People.

Might does not make right, but the moral should strive to be mighty, because if you are not able to Take when Morality demands it, you are nothing.