The Border

[Dreiko]

Meritocracy is pretty much antithetical to giving people opportunities based on where they had the luck to be born, or who they had as parents.

Meritocracy is against giving people opportunities to begin with. It presupposes that they will create their own. And then use them to benefit their offspring and when maximized, humanity as a whole.

It's very simple, a lot of the foundational advances in human civilization were achieved by only a handful of individuals but were shared with everyone eventually. Whoever that first caveman was who decided to come up with a way to use fire, that guy's prolly the best. Then you have the people who advanced medical technology, then stuff like physics and math and engineering, only a few humans advancing human knowledge was enough to turn hundreds of billions of us throughout the ages from animals into people. Compared to that gain, being relatively wealthier or more highly esteemed is peanuts.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Meritocracy is against giving people opportunities to begin with. It presupposes that they will create their own. And then use them to benefit their offspring and when maximized, humanity as a whole.

It's very simple, a lot of the foundational advances in human civilization were achieved by only a handful of individuals but were shared with everyone eventually. Whoever that first caveman was who decided to come up with a way to use fire, that guy's prolly the best. Then you have the people who advanced medical technology, then stuff like physics and math and engineering, only a few humans advancing human knowledge was enough to turn hundreds of billions of us throughout the ages from animals into people. Compared to that gain, being relatively wealthier or more highly esteemed is peanuts.

They only got to make those advances because they weren't stuck farming or clothes making or whatever.

There's no such thing as truly individual achievement.

 

[Silvanus]

Meritocracy is against giving people opportunities to begin with. It presupposes that they will create their own.

This is all kinds of

 

[Dreiko]

They only got to make those advances because they weren't stuck farming or clothes making or whatever.

There's no such thing as truly individual achievement.

Well no, the person who came up with using fire was from before people established farming, back in the hunter-gatherer times, which was a lot harsher. And a lot of inventions came from people who had such jobs and were looking for a way to make performing them more efficient, and then stumbled into a greater discovery.


And sure, the achievement is relying on the people who came before the single individual who made the discovery for allowing them to be alive, which is why the achievement eventually spreads around to everyone. The point is that you still had only a handful of people come up with most things we rely on to live, so to achieve progress you don't really need a whole lot of people's help, and once you do, a whole lot of suffering will be alleviated anyways, in a more effective way than is currently achievable.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm just not an SJW and am centrist on cultural issues.

This is patently false on this issue. What you stated about the border is very clearly SJW

 

[Dreiko]

This is patently false on this issue. What you stated about the border is very clearly SJW

Yeah obviously you will have crossover with SJWs on some issues since they too are people. Hitler was also a vegetarian.

 

[Trunkage]

No you misunderstand. I was just glad to see someone doing something other than complaining about a side.

Well, I was being general, but I'm also talking about this site too. Here I'll show you through a question:

How many times have you taken on one of my suggestions in the many years we've talked on here?

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah obviously you will have crossover with SJWs on some issues since they too are people. Hitler was also a vegetarian.

That... makes you an SJW

Like, do you know how labels work? You only have to do it once, you only have to say something that can be miscontrued as SJW and you dont at all have to be an SJW

I have no idea why you'd think you being an SJW or not would be relevant to whether your seen as a SJW

 

[Dreiko]

That... makes you an SJW

Like, do you know how labels work? You only have to do it once, you only have to say something that can be miscontrued as SJW and you dont at all have to be an SJW

I have no idea why you'd think you being an SJW or not would be relevant to whether your seen as a SJW

Nah, only the central stuff about something makes you that thing, not the peripheral stuff that anyone irrespective of label does which by definition will also be done by people whom labels fit.

Not having my stance about the border is what labels you, since my stance is actually the normal person view that anyone who doesn't identify with any group would espouse.

If you're neutral you could be misconstrued as you describe since you haven't taken a stance either way but when you claim the opposite stance then that eliminates the risk for misunderstanding. Now obviously someone who is ignorant can get the wrong impression, but that is their problem. If you're blind you can't see anything but that doesn't mean that nothing is visible.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Well, I was being general, but I'm also talking about this site too. Here I'll show you through a question:

How many times have you taken on one of my suggestions in the many years we've talked on here?

As in, agreed with them or argued about it?

 

[Trunkage]

Nah, only the central stuff about something makes you that thing, not the peripheral stuff that anyone irrespective of label does which by definition will also be done by people whom labels fit.

Just to be clear. MOST of those labelled as SJW were just called that on one idea they had stated

As opposed to Anti-SJWs (or now anti-woke), who have placed being Anti-SJW/woke as part of their identity, 'SJWs' just say what they think is good for society. Sometimes that got them labelled as SKWs. (They might call themselves Feminist)

SJW has been used since at least 2012. How many people you point who was called SJW back then that you still call SJW now?

Not having my stance about the border is what labels you, since my stance is actually the normal person view that anyone who doesn't identify with any group would espouse.

Dude, no. If this was a stance of a 'normal person', it wouldn't need to be suggested as a policy. It just would BE policy. Most people (in America but also in my country Australia) see your policy as destroying the very fabric of society

If you're neutral you could be misconstrued as you describe since you haven't taken a stance either way but when you claim the opposite stance then that eliminates the risk for misunderstanding. Now obviously someone who is ignorant can get the wrong impression, but that is their problem. If you're blind you can't see anything but that doesn't mean that nothing is visible.

MOST people called SJW were neutral. It was just a term to stop discussion from happening. Like woke nowadays

 

[Trunkage]

As in, agreed with them or argued about it?

Not just agreed with. Actually, changed your mind

 

[immortalfrieza]

Just to be clear. MOST of those labelled as SJW were just called that on one idea they had stated

As opposed to Anti-SJWs (or now anti-woke), who have placed being Anti-SJW/woke as part of their identity, 'SJWs' just say what they think is good for society. Sometimes that got them labelled as SKWs. (They might call themselves Feminist)

SJW has been used since at least 2012. How many people you point who was called SJW back then that you still call SJW now?

Dude, no. If this was a stance of a 'normal person', it wouldn't need to be suggested as a policy. It just would BE policy. Most people (in America but also in my country Australia) see your policy as destroying the very fabric of society


MOST people called SJW were neutral. It was just a term to stop discussion from happening. Like woke nowadays

It's like "Moral Guardians" or whatever, SJWs are just the latest generation of people pushing their own prejudices under a guise of doing good.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well no, the person who came up with using fire was from before people established farming, back in the hunter-gatherer times, which was a lot harsher.

Well, the example was really bad. For one, fire use is so ancient that it's really debatable whether the hominids who first did it could be called people. Secondly, because it's incredibly, incredibly unlikely that any one individual invented fire use one day. Techniques for using fire likely evolved over thousands of years from the exploitation of natural fire all the way to increasingly sophisticated purpose-built firemaking tools.

And it's an aside, but compared to the life of an agricultural labourer throughout most of history, being a paleolithic hunter gatherer was kind of amazing. You spend the vast majority of your time wandering around, meeting other groups of people and hanging out. Then occasionally you have to hunt a mammoth or something, which probably sounds hard until you realize that humans versus mammoth is such a ludicrously unfair matchup mammoths just straight up stopped existing because of it.

But this kind of conveniently brings us full circle. It took a group of humans working together to kill a mammoth. All that time early humans spent socializing served a very clear imperative, because early humans were incredibly, intimately dependent on each other to survive. It's only in the post-agriculture period of organized societies that we can begin to pretend that advances and important thoughts are only had by a handful of elite specialists who naturally deserve all the rewards. Technological and societal progress has always been iterative. It's about finding ways to improve what already exists, and without people building the things that already exist nothing gets done.

 

[Dreiko]

Just to be clear. MOST of those labelled as SJW were just called that on one idea they had stated

As opposed to Anti-SJWs (or now anti-woke), who have placed being Anti-SJW/woke as part of their identity, 'SJWs' just say what they think is good for society. Sometimes that got them labelled as SKWs. (They might call themselves Feminist)

SJW has been used since at least 2012. How many people you point who was called SJW back then that you still call SJW now?

Dude, no. If this was a stance of a 'normal person', it wouldn't need to be suggested as a policy. It just would BE policy. Most people (in America but also in my country Australia) see your policy as destroying the very fabric of society


MOST people called SJW were neutral. It was just a term to stop discussion from happening. Like woke nowadays

Ok so I'll agree to disagree with you because anyone I ever saw being called that was engaged in some sort of social justice/equity/intersectionalist bout of self-righteous anger and the stuff you describe are so upside down I can tell we will go in circles for eternity.


Maybe it is just different echo chambers and what have you, where you only saw random normal people get called SJWs and I just saw blue haired screeching harpies who wanna ban normal acts from free humans being called that, but I digress.

Well, the example was really bad. For one, fire use is so ancient that it's really debatable whether the hominids who first did it could be called people. Secondly, because it's incredibly, incredibly unlikely that any one individual invented fire use one day. Techniques for using fire likely evolved over thousands of years from the exploitation of natural fire all the way to increasingly sophisticated purpose-built firemaking tools.

And it's an aside, but compared to the life of an agricultural labourer throughout most of history, being a paleolithic hunter gatherer was kind of amazing. You spend the vast majority of your time wandering around, meeting other groups of people and hanging out. Then occasionally you have to hunt a mammoth or something, which probably sounds hard until you realize that humans versus mammoth is such a ludicrously unfair matchup mammoths just straight up stopped existing because of it.

But this kind of conveniently brings us full circle. It took a group of humans working together to kill a mammoth. All that time early humans spent socializing served a very clear imperative, because early humans were incredibly, intimately dependent on each other to survive. It's only in the post-agriculture period of organized societies that we can begin to pretend that advances and important thoughts are only had by a handful of elite specialists who naturally deserve all the rewards. Technological and societal progress has always been iterative. It's about finding ways to improve what already exists, and without people building the things that already exist nothing gets done.

I mean, I don't disagree with you (and certainly the first fire users were people who saw natural fire from dry brush or a lightning strike or something) but I think you're just leaving out key factors here.

Everyone would hunt the mammoth together, but the sharing of the meat and pelts and so on wouldn't be anything remotely close to equitable since people would just fight for the bits they wanted with eachother and the stronger men would get the lion's share.


Working cooperatively is not the same as sharing the fruits of that work fairly. It mainly means that a lot of people would choose subjugation over hunger. That part has never really changed, only the level of the constant risk we are at has.

 

[Trunkage]

Ok so I'll agree to disagree with you because anyone I ever saw being called that was engaged in some sort of social justice/equity/intersectionalist bout of self-righteous anger and the stuff you describe are so upside down I can tell we will go in circles for eternity.

Maybe it is just different echo chambers and what have you, where you only saw random normal people get called SJWs and I just saw blue haired screeching harpies who wanna ban normal acts from free humans being called that, but I digress.

Yes, yes SJW evil. Destroying society blah blah. We heard, we get it. You didn't at all even attempt to answer the question and just pretended calling someone bad is an answer

Show me where those callrd SJWs from the 2012/4 era are now. Becuase I can show you a bunch of same Anti-SJWs from that era that still acting with self-ritgheous anger. Can you do the same thing?

Because I've stated numerous times that the term SJW is usually targeting random people that arent SJWs. Just saying their self ritgheous says nothing to me

Also, when did you turn into the tone police? I remember a discussion a couple of months about trans issues I think (I think it was actually Dave Chappelle). And YOU were talking about how the Liberal were being tone police and destorying their side of the argument. What happened to that Dreiko?

 

[Dreiko]

Yes, yes SJW evil. Destroying society blah blah. We heard, we get it. You didn't at all even attempt to answer the question and just pretended calling someone bad is an answer

Show me where those callrd SJWs from the 2012/4 era are now. Becuase I can show you a bunch of same Anti-SJWs from that era that still acting with self-ritgheous anger. Can you do the same thing?

Because I've stated numerous times that the term SJW is usually targeting random people that arent SJWs. Just saying their self ritgheous says nothing to me

Also, when did you turn into the tone police? I remember a discussion a couple of months about trans issues I think (I think it was actually Dave Chappelle). And YOU were talking about how the Liberal were being tone police and destorying their side of the argument. What happened to that Dreiko?

Err, not society, just the arts and cultural bits I am into. I guess you could define society as a thing that allows you to live in a way that can include those things, but it still has ways of dealing with those people so it is not being destroyed when you endanger those things.

This is not a personal vendetta with any specific individual and I am both not a particular fan or enemy of any of those people you inquire about. Some have gone to the right, some have gone into the SJW side (like that AA guy who started the whole thing) but I really don't care about these people. I'm only a fan of art and culture, these people are just indications of a climate that affects the things I am a fan of, and it is in only that context that I care about what they have to say. Basically if you wanna look back and assess the differences, the main thing you have is that people with good economic policy have been too weak to risk alienating people with retarded cultural policies because they value being seen as virtuous, and on the other side you have people go insane and let their hatred overrule their love of the things in life.

So in that climate it is in fact possible to support the right economic policies while also adhering to your love of the arts, without sacrificing it to fear of losing (since we already lost anyways with Hilldog) or to hatred of some other random groups. Basically the right wing would oppose SJWs because of hate but I oppose em out of love for the things they endanger or risk ruining.


And I'm not policing their tone, the tone is great, the thing they base it on is at fault. Being self-righteous is totally fine, you just have to have something that warrants it, and it is great in direct proportion to that thing. Being that over merely not being sinful in some neologic definition of sin that you expect others to adhere to is ridiculous.

 

[Trunkage]

Let's just deal with this
So, let's paraphrase what you just stated here

And I'm not policing their tone, the tone is great, the thing they base it on is at fault. Being self-righteous is totally fine, you just have to have something that warrants it, and it is great in direct proportion to that thing. Being that over merely not being sinful in some neologic definition of sin that you expect others to adhere to is ridiculous.

'Everyone is allowed to be self-righteous as long as Dreiko approves of the message'

1) Why are you the arbiter of what warrants this tone?
2) This sounds exactly like tone police. If you are determining what is acceptable for a tone, you are being a tone police
3) Could you imagine that some people DO think that it worthwhile
4) I don't actually disagree with the sentiment that something are ridiculous to the proportion of the tone. But here's the problem:
5) This comment you created is a great example of what SJWs stated. For example. there has always been a huge conservative outcry at the demographics of the US shifting from white to diversity. They would say that this would destroy society etc, etc. Those called SJW that this would be ridiculous, and the conservatives are over exaggerating what is going to happen. Then the SJW would be called an SJW. That's generally how the term SJW works. Make a reasonable claim, and you'd be called an SJW. That's how it's always worked. Most people called SJW were not even close to what you are claiming. See also: Political Correctness and Woke. As other example in non-SJW territory, see Climate Change debate, atheist and any religion, gun control, abortion and Covid.

If you want to prove me wrong about claim that most people called SJW were not even close to what you are claiming , provide any evidence that there are still SJWs around for a decade who are making the same claims they did back then. Make sure that it's not just a one off comment that gets labelled as SJW, that they are still making the same claims even when corrected. This is why I keep asking you. You are making grand statements and providing no evidence. And please, stop pretending that just because you disagree with something or think its ridiculous, that means everyone agrees with you

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Whatever issues you have with the border, this shit is unacceptable

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Whatever issues you have with the border, this shit is unacceptable

Well, all you have to do is decide that anyone who doesn't share your shade of skin color is less than human! Then you can do whatever you want to 'em.