Incels, and what social isolation does to the mind

[Elegiac]

You obviously haven't put in any effort. Jung and Nietzsche's philosophies are almost if not already 100 years old and a lot of development has happened. If you cited a more modern nihilist philosopher I might have taken you a bit more seriously.

They're also complete bullshit but that's besides the point.

[Elegiac]

Lots of them are for sure. There are plenty of interesting critiques out there though. Just as there is a lot of shitty music out there

Oh I meant Jung and Nietzsche specifically. It's prolefeed for college edgelords.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I mean, yeah, if you want to boil it down to that, sure. It's an upgrade over our current system. Personally I'd describe it as: "Using fairly mainstream redistribution policies to establish a proper social safety net and alleviate the concerns of working class people so that women return to motherhood and civil society."

But yeah, sandwiches and kitchens will work, too.

Just seems like you are perpetuating those toxic gender norms by insisting that women learn that their proper place is in the home.

[Nirn]

Since the topic of this thread is incels, just remember that they are literally the product of the sexual revolution. The other fruits of that "necessary" social movement are:
-Increases in single motherhood
-Decline in birthrates
-No Fault Divorce becoming the law of the land
etc.

Not really positive developments for social stability.

It is fairly amusing that a Amish, a Haredi, a orthodox Mormon or a Salafist societies are filled with more stability and vitality required for long term prosperity.

[Elegiac]

It is fairly amusing that a Amish, a Haredi, a orthodox Mormon or a Salafist societies are filled with more stability and vitality required for long term prosperity.

Are they, though?

If "traditional society" is so stable, then what happened to it.

[Endus]

I have put in the effort... I just disagree with your understanding of it, and agree with Jung's and Nietzsche's observation.

Like I said, you attended three classes of Phil 101 and skipped the rest, and think you know all philosophy.

You're flat-out wrong about what nihilist philosophy is about. This isn't something you get to "disagree" with people about; you're in the wrong but lack the basis of understanding to realize that. It's no different than an anti-vaxxer waving their one (discredited) study saying they've got evidence that THEY believe, and you've got evidence YOU believe, so we should agree to disagree. Same non-argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they, though?

If "traditional society" is so stable, then what happened to it.

That's probably the silliest goddamned thing about this whole argument.

"Traditional society is so much more stable, except that it's prone to collapse if you challenge any of its precepts".

Ignoring that the second directly contradicts the first. It doesn't even make internal sense, let alone have any reasonable justification in philosophy.

[Nirn]

Are they, though?

If "traditional society" is so stable, then what happened to it.

Take a look at their fertility rates.

[Elegiac]

Take a look at their fertility rates.

The implication here being that reproductive agency destabilises society.

[Nurasu]

The implication here being that reproductive agency destabilises society.

Contraception will destroy mankind.

[derpkitteh]

Are they, though?

If "traditional society" is so stable, then what happened to it.

well, for the middle east, constant dicking around by russia and the US happened to it.

was pretty damn stable before all that.

that's not to say their ways are acceptable, they're abhorrent. but eh.

i don't think sexual freedom is what leads to societal instability, it's mass immigration and cultural disharmony.

[Wildberry]

"Traditional society is so much more stable, except that it's prone to collapse if you challenge any of its precepts".

"Why does traditional society stop existing when you modernize it" is really not a good take.

Contraception will destroy mankind.

This but unironically.

[Nurasu]

"Why does traditional society stop existing when you modernize it" is really not a good take.



This but unironically.

Why is that not a good take? Stability implies the ability to withstand outside influences, especially so called inferior ones.

[Elegiac]

That's probably the silliest goddamned thing about this whole argument.

"Traditional society is so much more stable, except that it's prone to collapse if you challenge any of its precepts".

Ignoring that the second directly contradicts the first. It doesn't even make internal sense, let alone have any reasonable justification in philosophy.

Because it's folly, plain and simple. Barbara Tuchman points this out;

The last French Bourbon to reign, Charles X, brother of the guillotined Louis XVI and of his brief successor, Louis XVIII, displayed a recurring type of folly best described as the Humpty-Dumpty type: that is to say, the effort to reinstate a fallen and shattered structure, turning back history. In the process, called reaction or counterrevolution, the reactionary right is bent on restoring the privileges and property of the old regime and somehow retrieving a strength it did not have before.

- Tuchman, Barbara W. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam

It doesn't make sense because it's not a rational standpoint, which is why whenever any of the people that bemoan modern western society are actually pressed to substantiate their ideas they tend to resort to verbal evasion (see: Connal).

[Wildberry]

Just seems like you are perpetuating those toxic gender norms by insisting that women learn that their proper place is in the home.

Gender norms aren't toxic. Modern ones are. That's really my point here. Women do have a place outside the home, it's civil society, not work.

It is fairly amusing that a Amish, a Haredi, a orthodox Mormon or a Salafist societies are filled with more stability and vitality required for long term prosperity.

Average Amish woman: Married with kids
Average Modern Woman: 3 abortions and a dog

Really healthy society we have. I'm sure there we'll be able to manage automation and neoliberal fiscal policies crushing the middle class.

[Milchshake]

Like I said, you attended three classes of Phil 101 and skipped the rest, and think you know all philosophy.

I'd put a wager on more likely...

"Watches 100 hours of youtube, think they know more about philosophy than people who read or write books."

"Bonus Level! They know all the secret knowledge the bookish elites don't want you to hear!!11!!"


/sarcasm

wait a second... honest question; can you sarcasm these guys that are walking cliches? I mean logic has no effect. Reason has no effect. What else is there?

[Elegiac]

Gender norms aren't toxic. Modern ones are. That's really my point here. Women do have a place outside the home, it's civil society, not work.

Yes, I too studied that part about Republican Motherhood in AP History.

Average Amish woman: Married with kids
Average Modern Woman: 3 abortions and a dog

Really healthy society we have. I'm sure there we'll be able to manage automation and neoliberal fiscal policies crushing the middle class.

Are you really sure you want to die on that "Amish women are happier" hill, given their past history with depression rates and domestic abuse?

- - - Updated - - -

Contraception will destroy mankind.

If you want to get technical about it, agriculture destroyed mankind.

[Wildberry]

Yes, I too studied that part about Republican Motherhood in AP History.

The Republican Party has room for anti-Capitalists? I'll be sure to sign up.

Are you really sure you want to die on that "Amish women are happier" hill, given their past history with depression rates and domestic abuse?

The Amish aren't my cup of tea, it was a lighthearted jab at the horrendous state of modern women.

[Elegiac]

"Why does traditional society stop existing when you modernize it" is really not a good take.

Misogyny and now Luddism. Quite a checklist.

[Wildberry]

Why is that not a good take? Stability implies the ability to withstand outside influences, especially so called inferior ones.

Oh, you think the modern West is doing a good job "withstanding outside influences" right now? Do we really have to go there?

- - - Updated - - -

Misogyny and now Luddism. Quite a checklist.

I'm sure we can tack a few more isms on there by the end of this.

[Elegiac]

The Republican Party has room for anti-Capitalists? I'll be sure to sign up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_motherhood

""Republican Motherhood" is a 20th-century term for an attitude toward women's roles present in the emerging United States before, during, and after the American Revolution. It centered on the belief that the patriots' daughters should be raised to instill the ideals of republicanism, in order to pass on republican values to the next generation. In this way, the "Republican Mother" was considered a custodian of civic virtue responsible for upholding the morality of her husband and children. Although it is an anachronism, the period of Republican Motherhood is hard to categorize in the history of Feminism. On one hand, it reinforced the idea of a domestic women's sphere separate from the public world of men. On the other hand, it encouraged the education of women and invested their "traditional" sphere with a dignity and importance that had been missing from previous conceptions of Women's work."

For someone insistent that others "read this", your reading is far from eclectic.

The Amish aren't my cup of tea, it was a lighthearted jab at the horrendous state of modern women.

And the solution is apparently worse conditions. Aight.