Controversial General Political Discussion

[Zenos7]

Jordan Peterson will just be vague and dance around the topic.

Thats his MO

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

Blud I’m just referencing a Wikipedia article

Yeah sure.

 

[Monkey D Theories]

Thats his MO

That’s why I can’t stand to listen to him

it’s like he’s trying to make himself sound smarter than he really is by being intentionally convoluted

 

[Mathias]

Jordan Peterson lost all of his alpha male cred when he sobbed about being an incel leader

 

[Zenos7]

Jordan Peterson lost all of his alpha male cred when he sobbed about being an incel leader

On piers morgan?

 

[Mathias]

However, attempts to bring about true communism and all these calls for revolution only means lots of death and the very high risk of a dictator emerging, as seen time and time again.

That's because all of these idiots have based their system on a full revolutions made by authoritarian parties behind a charismatic leader over decades and decades which resulted in ever lasting mass murders. You should compare communism to republicanism and secularism which took over a century to become as we know it in France.

Post automatically merged: Sep 3, 2024

On piers morgan?

yes.

 

[NAMELESS]

The reality about communism that no one thinks about is no one knows how to reach true communism. Karl Marx envisioned a society that was stateless, moneyless, and most importantly, classless. That was original communism. How do get to that point? How exactly would a society like that function and be sustained? No one knows because Karl Marx died before finishing his work.

We what we've have seen throughout the years we're alterations of communism like Lennism, Anarchism etc., and many dictatorships under a communist state took hold because of unstable political transitions.

So when we say "Communism has never worked", it's simultaneously true and false since we've never had true communism in the first place. However, attempts to bring about true communism and all these calls for revolution only means lots of death and the very high risk of a dictator emerging, as seen time and time again.

All Utopias are unachievable.

 

[Logiko]

Progressism and woke agenda trying to push back capitalism are not going to work

I do not disagree with that necessarily. My point is that I think that we can arrive to communism without a revolution.

I thik a similar system can be created if we take down one by one the fundation of capitalism. Capitalism will still exist, but will be weakened enough for people to aim naturally toward a new system.

For example, let's say that enough people learn about social sciences and the absence of meritocracy on the planet, the only one who will be left to push that system are the one benefiting from it, meaning the 1% and some ultra rich. It will be a piece of cake under said situation to take down capitalism.

But if you try to take down capitalism without getting rid of meritocracy or liberal values.. well it will be like trying to get rid of Kaido why letting Orochi rule Wano.

Revolution are necessary under authoritarianism from a group of people, but when the problem is the ideology behind a system.. a revolution won't change anything. We will simply get blood for no reasons.

THat's said, reformism can't be down lightly, it NEEDS to be RADICAL.

And changes in term of education must be made quickly for rightist to understand quickly why they are defending an oppressive system.

 

[Ravagerblade]

Jordan Peterson lost all of his alpha male cred when he sobbed about being an incel leader

 

[Cherry Hilk]

I agree with that. That's why I can't really call myself a communist, and extrem leftist or even a revolutionnary. The system to apply is too fragile and we have not enough certitudes to be sure that such system would work and would not fall under an authoritative regime. So we need to go through trial and errors.

But we don't need to go toward communism right now to make things better. We can already render the society we live in much more fair and inclusive for all. But for that, we need to make sure that some people will participate in the effort. We simply can't expect to live in a fair society where some are unfairly more wealthy than the others.

This mindset might evolve, but I believe that we will arrive naturally at the system similar to communism without its negative point WITHOUT trying to create a big revolution. For that, we need to get rid of a lot of beliefs:

- Meritocracy must fall
- Rightist must understand that they are simply not on the right side no matter the subject
- Liberalism must end
- All social oppressions (ableism/Patriarchy/Systemic racism/imperialism and colonialism) must be understood COMPLETELY by everyone and attacked on a systemic level on the entire planet.
- Capitalism must be pushed back to its limits and be on the brink of disappearance.

And THEN.. the society will structure itself toward a better system.

But this can't be done if we don't take a radical leftist approach on politic everywhere. Radical meaning radical and not extrem. (extrem being revolutionnary).

What’s wrong with meritocracy?

 

[Zenos7]

no it was jp who cried about it

 

[Logiko]

What’s wrong with meritocracy?

Everything

A bit of context first:

At the end of the monarchy in France and the cast systems, there was a need to create a better system, more equal for all. So we created the human rights, something that resonnated everywhere and we started to developp society around more social values. The ideas was we are all created equal and therefore deserve all equal rights and access to goods. This is what created the notion of universalism and over time a meritocratic society.

To put it simply, a meritocratic society is a society where merit will be rewarded. In this type of society, if you become rich, it's because of your efforts and not because of your blood (like monarchy or feodalism).

This was a very good idea on paper and a necessary step out of the oppression created by previous monarchic systems. The problem is that Meritocracy relies on vision of the world FULL of myths:

- Myth about how human evolve
- Myth about history
- Myth about we create social relations
- Myth about the way the human society is structured
- Myth about wealth
- Myth about the notion of merit and the reality of poverty
Etc.

Here is an explanation with the help of sociology on why meritocracy does not exist and how the world really works:

In short : Meritocracy is not something that exist and will NEVER exist. It's an impossibility by essence.

So what happens when you create a society based on merit ? Well, you relies on said notion to explain the differences of wealth. Under a meritocracy, you are forced to believe - because of the system - the those who are on top or rich are there because they deserved it and those who are poor or below are here because it's just a lack of luck or because they didn't work enough or because they are non deserving by essence.

In other words : Meritocracy is the CORE belief that allows our current system and most of the current oppressions created by capitalism to stay unchecked and unquestionned by people and the entire system.

As long as meritocracy will stay an hegemonic belief, there will be oppressions against poor people, against women, against people like me, against racialized minorities, against LGBTQI+.

Most oppressions are multiplied and sometimes created by capitalism.

Therefore the fight to end the belief in meritocracy is also the fight to end all oppressions.

 

[Cherry Hilk]

Everything

A bit of context first:

At the end of the monarchy in France and the cast systems, there was a need to create a better system, more equal for all. So we created the human rights, something that resonnated everywhere and we started to developp society around more social values. The ideas was we are all created equal and therefore deserve all equal rights and access to goods. This is what created the notion of universalism and over time a meritocratic society.

To put it simply, a meritocratic society is a society where merit will be rewarded. In this type of society, if you become rich, it's because of your efforts and not because of your blood (like monarchy or feodalism).

This was a very good idea on paper and a necessary step out of the oppression created by previous monarchic systems. The problem is that Meritocracy relies on vision of the world FULL of myths:

- Myth about how human evolve
- Myth about history
- Myth about we create social relations
- Myth about the way the human society is structured
- Myth about wealth
- Myth about the notion of merit and the reality of poverty
Etc.

Here is an explanation with the help of sociology on why meritocracy does not exist and how the world really works:

In short : Meritocracy is not something that exist and will NEVER exist. It's an impossibility by essence.

So what happens when you create a society based on merit ? Well, you relies on said notion to explain the differences of wealth. Under a meritocracy, you are forced to believe - because of the system - the those who are on top or rich are there because they deserved it and those who are poor or below are here because it's just a lack of luck or because they didn't work enough or because they are non deserving by essence.

In other words : Meritocracy is the CORE belief that allows our current system and most of the current oppressions created by capitalism to stay unchecked and unquestionned by people and the entire system.

As long as meritocracy will stay an hegemonic belief, there will be oppressions against poor people, against women, against people like me, against racialized minorities, against LGBTQI+.

Most oppressions are multiplied and sometimes created by capitalism.

Therefore the fight to end the belief in meritocracy is also the fight to end all oppressions.

Sounds a lot like the kind of things that those who didn’t manage to accomplish their goals like to believe to feel better about themselves.

 

[Logiko]

Sounds a lot like the kind of things that those who didn’t manage to accomplish their goals like to believe to feel better about themselves.

Which is logical, those who are unable to achieve their goal because of different reasons (social, health, income etc.) are the most likely to question said belief. This doesn't mean that they are wrong. It simply means that they are the ones who are directly impacted.

Meritocracy is a scientific impossibility. You can try to find any kind of possible way to look and defend this belief, but it will never be real.

The reason is simple : Reality and the human society does not work and will never work that way.

 

[Zenos7]

Sounds a lot like the kind of things that those who didn’t manage to accomplish their goals like to believe to feel better about themselves.

Its also lacking nuance. No one is oblivious about some peeps being wealthy through inheritance or sheer luck. So obviously you wont have pure meritocracy, but its still generally possible to become wealthy based on merit. . .

 

[Ravagerblade]

no it was jp who cried about it

But do you understand the semantics of it? Or y'all just looking at it and laughing? Ask yourself why... don't just lol for the lolz...

 

[Logiko]

but its still generally possible to become wealthy based on merit. . .

No it's not. When you deconstruct at look sociologically at the reasons behind said wealth, even in the case where it should be acceptable, you will find out that various forms of capitals and priviledges are playing in the mechanism of the wealth of the person.

It doesn't mean that said person is non deserving, it simply means that she will have access to forms of priviledges that others won't.

The notion of merit is simply a myth.

You are not on the side of rationnality by trying to nuance the concept of meritocracy. You are in a form of denial. You hold up to a system that you think works at least partly. But in reality it does not. Never. Since it's a fantasy, a belief of a system and proprieties of social structure of individuals that does not and will never exist on the planet or the universe.

 

[Cherry Hilk]

Which is logical, those who are unable to achieve their goal because of different reasons (social, health, income etc.) are the most likely to question said belief. This doesn't mean that they are wrong. It simply means that they are the ones who are directly impacted.

Meritocracy is a scientific impossibility. You can try to find any kind of possible way to look and defend this belief, but it will never be real.

The reason is simple : Reality and the human society does not work and will never work that way.

In other words:

« I have renounced to try making something out of myself and thus I’m going to blame the world for it rather than try to improve as much as I can. »

Totally not a defeatist mentality, born out of sheer envy, self-hatred and passivity, apologetic towards mediocrity, and leading to stagnancy…

 

[Logiko]

In other words: I have renounced to try making something out of myself and thus I’m going to blame the world for it rather than try to improve as much as I can.
Totally not a defeatist mentality, born out of sheer envy, apologetic towards mediocrity, and leading to stagnancy…

That's usually what you tend to think when you understand that meritocracy and freewill are illusion created to justify or systems and life. It can be problematic to see the world in a positive way at first. It's true. It can even create a form of distanciation with reality.

But those are two fundamental things that we need to understand at one point or another. At least as long as we want to create a better future.

But this is a simple stage of acceptation.

Look at me. Do you feel that I'm trying to promote stagnancy ? Mediocrity ? Delusion ? Aphaty ? Antipathy ? Renouncement ? Giving up ? Negative thoughts ?

Not really. And the reason is simple : While I know that meritocracy is a myth and Free will does not exist, I consider the illusion of Free will as fundamental to live. So yes, I know that when I'm writing here, it's not a will created ex-nihilo that pushes this body to write, it's a simple result of the physical and material laws of nature. But this result is me. I'm choosing to be defined by this result. And therefore, I live fully and in harmony with the illusion of Free Will.

But this also means that I need to get rid of Meritocracy, since this is a system that is not necessary to live. I fact, this is a system and a belief that creates oppression everywhere.

Out of all the people here, I might be the one who is advocating the MOST for change. For the end of the status co. For people here to wake up. For people to learn about politic, media literacy, science, human decency.

I'm the one here who will tell you that it's possible to change when everyone else will tell you that change is not needed.

This means that your fear and reply is not rationnal.

Wanting the end of meritocracy is therefore not the creation of a defeatist mentality. It's the creation of the mentality that tries to think out of the box.

I've literally NEVER seen someone who think that meritocracy is a myth and was not a fundamental social warrior. Either on internet or in the streets.

Defeatism is the acceptation of this mythical belief.

Defeaitism is the unwillingness to question an oppressive and irrationnal system.

Defeatism is the stubborness to defend meritocracy because you saw a few people succeed because of what you think is hard work.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

Jordan Peterson lost all of his alpha male cred when he sobbed about being an incel leader

Why do you think 50% of young men defend his loser ass?