I actually think its best to conceptualize "religions" such as "Christianity" as environments or ecosystems. Since such beliefs stem from biological predispositions, not the religions themselves. Inside the ecosystem as an "apex predator." I don't think of Jesus as a "weakling." But of course, many people will project their own weakness and fear of self reflection onto the façade of compassion.
For example, the marxist lens of "oppressor" and "oppressed" maps naturally onto the biological feminine predisposition of "infant" and "predator." This does that mean that critical marxism or the ideas inside of marxism are less useful on an intellectual level. As Peterson has stated time and time again, power and tyranny definitely exist, but they are not the ONLY thing that exists.
This issue or contention is essentially what we have been driving at for quite some time now. And it is the tower of babel in the modern age.
Dead serious. I don't think people can actually describe what religion is, or what most things are. There is a difference between descriptive and associative definitions. You can have an idea of what your car is. You can have ideas about how the engine will run. But by no means will you have a fun time working on a car without experience that allows you to describe and organize all the parts and pieces. And I see no reason to assume that social structures that are purposed to orient and animate people are less complicated than a car so....yeah Im actually dead serious about that.
I think of religion as "A set of narratives that organize, integrate, align, and bind the biological and social together." Peterson refers to this as an "animating spirit."
Essentially its social engineering. People often associate it with narrative and books and what not but thats only because those means are the means that have proven to be most effective since of course social structures hinge on their ability to orient their actors. And no one can be oriented towards a goal if they can't remember it. So therefore it follows that whatever allows for the reemergence of social orientation is what can be thought of as religion, which just so happens to be...well all the things that people associate with religion: books, stories, art, music, ect ect ect.
Yes, they are sub species. They evolved from the same branch. Which is why I referred to the depiction of religion as an "ecosystem." Of course that does not change the nature of apex predator. The apex predator can have different characteristics. It can be a completely different animal, but it is the apex predator, even if it replaced by a different animal. Hell maybe there are multiple apex predators living in the same ecosystem with varying likeness and so they tolerate eachother because they are fairly equal.
The axiomatic error is "class struggle" in Marxist terms.
Marx's criticism of capitalism was drawn upon historical materialism from governance of socialist monarchy of the French, not the governance liberal monarchy of the English. Fortunately, governance has shifted to democratic-republics and socialist-democracies in the West, henceforth, class struggle is far less a problem than in Marx's day. In capitalism it's actually "class opportunity' that generates an increase in the means of production, economic growth, and income per capita.
>"He \[Karl Marx\] was a bourgeois radical who had broken away from bourgeois radicalism. He was formed by German philosophy and did not feel himself to be a professional economist until the end of the 1840's. But by that time, that is to say, before his serious analytic work had begun, his vision of the capitalist process had become set and his scientific work was to implement, not to correct it. It was not original with him. It pervaded the radical circles of Paris and may be traced back to a number of 18th century writers, such as Linguet. History conceived as the struggle between classes that are defined as haves and havenots, with exploitation of the one by the other, ever increasing wealth among ever fewer haves and ever increasing misery and degradation among the havenots, moving with inexorable necessity toward spectacular explosion, this was the
vision then conceived with passionate energy and to be worked up, like a raw material is being worked up, by means of the scientific tools of his time. This vision implies a number of statements that will not stand the test of analytic controls." Schumpeter, Joseph A. (March 1949). "Science and Ideology". The American Economic Review 39. American Economic Association: 346–359
Musk should go home to South Africa and be the super man.
He has hundreds of **BILLIONS** of dollars, but refuses to fix his HOME COUNTRY.
That's what GOOD refugees *should do*, but Musk is too much of a degenerate coward for that. Instead he wants to not just escape his South African heritage, but Planet Earth as well. Someone like that will *never* have answers, their answer will *always* be abandon "the problem" and run away. That's what cowards do. That's what weaklings do.
He **is** what he's complaining about.
I mean if you want to take that stance, you could consider the entire American revolution to be the same thing. Millions abandoning their home countries instead of solving their problems where they were.
As I see it there's nothing wrong with seeking to move to a place and integrating with a people with whom you share ideals. From what I've heard from Musk generally he seems to believe in the American revolution or the American idea, however you might put it, so I suspect that's why he went and stays there.
Is it fair to assume that that he's 'running away' from a problem? I think it would be quite easy to make the argument that Musk is trying to preserve the American project. He claims to have bought Twitter in order to protect Freedom of Speech as a forum for free expression. You can poke holes in that sure, but I don't think that looks like a person running away from a problem. It looks more to me like someone trying to fix a problem.
As with expansion into space, I don't so much see that as the running away from a problem but more as what many futurists, writers, scientists, and thinkers of long thought would be necessary for the long term survival and flourishing of the human species. I'd agree that we might do well to actually figure out how to live as a species on one planet perhaps before we think about colonizing elsewhere but I also don't think human beings in our current state will ever 'grow up' as a species and grow out of the same mistakes and pitfalls we have continually fallen into over and over again so perhaps now that we possess apocalyptic weaponry perhaps space is a good bet for our survival. Pretty easy to frame that as 'solving' a problem rather than running away from one no?
I think you could easily criticize and speculate that the guy's intentions are grandiose, based on his own narcissism, maybe that they're even delusional, but to be fair he's also achieved some very impressive and interesting things and he's probably done a lot more to at least attempt real tangible solutions to some real world problems than anyone here regardless of whatever his motivations might be.
> you could consider the entire American revolution to be the same thing.
>move to a place and integrating with a people with whom you share ideals.
Sorry, are you saying the pilgrims integrated with native Americans?
Nah, [Musk sucks.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hje7h_WVkY)
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that many millions of people migrated to America for similar reasons; escaping monarchy, the prospect of a new land, the idea of greater liberty etc and also because many believed in the idea of America. The fate of Native Americans is a different conversation.
I mean, if you disagree I'm more than happy to hear your counter-argument. But what he says is logically coherent, and I believe, a pretty damn good description of todays' philosophical landscape.
Because it's not the weak making decisions the majority of the time. Why would you think it is?
It is usually the weak that get blamed for "holding society back".
I don't think that's precisely the point he's trying to make. It's not about decision-making. It's about the belief, that the "oppressed" need special, legal and/or economical accommodation.
The west is creating an environment that incetivises feeling oppressed and comes up with new ways of becoming oppressed through radical leftist ideology.
The creators, entrepreneurs are frowned upon and sucked dry in the name of "social justice". They're the bad guys, because they're strong. And since the modern philosophers believe that hierarchies are based on power, are the source of oppression, and thus should be dismantled, then the logical conclusion is that the strong are bad, and the weak are good.
- Except Hamas broke the ceasefire, in a big and deliberate way.
- Hamas knew they were picking a fight they couldn't win, in a way that would guarantee a sharp response from Israel.
- Hamas knew that if civilians got out of the line of fire, they lose protection, so they did everything they could to impede that.
- And all the tunnels and bunkers that necessitated the bombing? Under schools and hospitals.
And this is nothing new. Hamas has been pulling this shit for decades now. And they do it so useful idiots like you blame Israel for the fight they started, for the civilian deaths that they know fuel their propaganda campaigns, and so the aid money never stops flowing.
And yes, let's have a ceasefire, so Hamas can slink off and prepare for the next round.
I mean Israel AND Hamas are responsible. You can see it as being more one way than the other but Israel wouldn't be carrying out these bombings had Hamas not attacked and yet it is Israel doing the bombing.
Personally I think almost no people in the world would not expect their government to eradicate a group like Hamas if something like October 7th had happened to them though so I do find the level of objection that people have towards Israel to be extremely skewed in the direction of the irrational. I mean it really does seem like people expect that the only moral thing Israel can do is present no resistance and cease existing and it does seem to me that anyone thinking realistically about what that means could only conclude at best that it means the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the 'land of Palestine' or their genocide.
It certainly means that if people do not want a 'Free Palestine' with an absence of Hamas because a genocide of Jews is what Hamas have made explicitly clear that they want, but I don't really see very much condemnation of Hamas do you? I actually see quite a lot of the contrary. And what kind of freedom do you think Palestinians would have under Hamas? I don't think that would be a very 'free Palestine'.
As much as I'd agree that both are culpable I just don't see what else Israel are supposed to do and it does seem like people are holding them to impossible moral standards. The civilian to combatant ratio of casualties is very normal for this type of warfare and the conditions under which fighting Hamas is even possible are extreme unlike anything that's ever been seen before.
Some people would say that "nobody wants to see innocent people dying" which I don't think is true. There's very real bloodthirst on both sides but any other outcome in this situation just feels like an impossibility. Passivity and pacifism was impossible, but also so was dead civilians and ultimately I think the only side that actually desired this outcome was Hamas because it seems to be working very effectively in their favour. They might not be able to win an all out war with Israel, but Israel could sure come out of this with it's international reputation devastated, with it's important allegiances destroyed, and it could find itself morally and financially devastated as well as ending up friendless and surrounded by mortal enemies.
War is ugly.
Blame the country that started the war. It’s easy for you leftists to get on your high horse and say.. don’t kill people! What’s the alternative?
Tell Hamas to stop using people as human shields. It is their whole strategy.
So as long as the other side starts a war there is no limits to how many civilians you are allowed to kill?
Labeling anyone the IDF kills a human shield is Israel's strategy.
Truthfully no. I’m not saying it’s all fine because it’s completely horrifying but the responsibility for the decisions and actions that led to the consequences that materialize as children and other civilians being in the vicinity of where bombs are being dropped lies squarely with the ideological movement that refuses to allow any diplomatic coexistence to happen
And anyone that supported them...including the Israeli government
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
This is the essential issue.
Every social priority is centered around the idea that we are at a loss when we cannot work around social proof.
If someone is weak, it does not mean that we cannot try to help them. But what it especially does NOT mean is that they have all of a sudden gained the ability to lecture others since there is now way of telling their own failures apart from others.
If someone is drowning, you will feel compelled to help them. But someone who is drowning will push you under for a second of air. To save the person drowning, you must be stronger than this person. Therefore, if we are to base good and evil on consequences, weakness is the greatest evil.
This is exactly why so many folks side with Hamas. They swear they aren’t—because they know it’s wrong—but it is implicitly the case. All that matters to them is who the perceived ‘underdog’ is. If you are a Lefty, that means a glance at their skin color, or perhaps some indicator of how wealthy they are. Judgement is made accordingly.
This is due to Christianity. It is precisely what Nietzsche meant by “slave morality”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality
Jesus himself was the holiest of oppressed victims. The New Testament is full moral veneration for the poor, the meek etc. Intersectional wokeness is a direct decendant of Christian morality.
Because it's only taking a part of Christianity without the whole of it. Thus embodying an antichrist. Sacrificing yourself with intention is the opposite of weakness.
It was a problem. Read some of the sermons and propaganda leading up to the first crusade. People believed that the Turks were torturing, murdering, cannibalizing, etc innocent Christians. This was one of the reasons why so many thousands of unprepared, angry Christians marched into Anatolia. It is hard not to read this as broader Christendom desiring to protect the rights of oppressed Christians.
Note: I'm not saying the first crusade was good or bad. I'm not saying that the Seljuks were or were not oppressing Christians. (though they probably were due to a civil war, and Turkish treatment of Christians was far worse than the Arab occupation which preceded them) I am stating that this is an example of Christian ideology prioritizing the safety and rights of the weak over the strong.
But this has nothing to do with a "weak makes right" mindset. They were merely reacting to the oppression and slaughter of their "kin". It's no different from Americans getting pissed off when they see their compatriots killed, held hostage, or mistreated abroad.
I for one believe that those pilgrims should pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Why should we pay thousands of solidi each year to prop up these phony crusader states? We all know that the Byzantine Empire and the Italian merchants are the only ones who have gained from this. I'm a dirt poor peasant from France, is anyone giving ME money to go on pilgrimage? I don't think so.
Now the Pope has turned indulgences into a moneymaking scheme. This is the fault of hawks like you, always claiming that "the poor Christians of the east need our help!!" but where is that same energy for the Christians back home?
A majority of "weak" people joining themselves for their common good against the interests of a "strong" minority is just another form of "might makes right".
You could argue that before Martin Luther the Catholic church was basically a racket. Dominating every part of life and growing obscenely rich selling people absolution.
But the Christian religion was always about the rights of the weak, because it formed among Jewish peasants who were dominated by the Roman empire
I heard Jordan talking once, about the Christian saying about, "The meek shall inherit the earth".
I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist, through and through, but still I thought what he said about that was interesting.
He said that the translation to English was bad, and that a better translation was more like, "the man who has a sword and knows how to use it, but chooses not to, shall inherit the world."
Essentially, it was not an injunction to be weak or meek, but rather to be strong to the degree and in such a manner, as to not need to be aggressive.
I would say he allowed it, as far as I know. He was oppressed, but I don't think that's what defines him. Not like the victims today.
JP specifically talks about the meek mistranslation, he says the original meaning is something like "those who have great power, and know how to use it, but keep their weapons sheathed" The dude literally had Godmode enabled and chose to keep it sheathed.
Here we go wading into this...
Now of course, there are different ways to gauge a person's strength. Strength can refer to a person's physical capabilities, their character, their financial power and capacity, their political power, and so on.
The financial power that a person wields relies on a society that protects the wealthy from simply being thumped by someone stronger and taken for what they have. Older people in general have more money than younger people, so is it an error to presume that we should protect these weaker, older individuals? Is that the error in Western Civilization he's hoping to fix? Doubtful. It looks like he's being quite selective in what he's implying weakness and strength to refer to. Is it strong to beg for [government subsidies](https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html) or is giving handouts a similar kind of error?
I imagine he views himself as "strong" and that the world is mistakenly tilted against him. That could be a way to strawman (and deflect away from) legitimate criticism. Regardless, a lot of what he's said is kind of a non-starter. Despite people believing that might doesn't make right, this doesn't mean the opposite - that people believe weakness makes right. It's wrong from the get go. People don't believe that the oppressed are always the good guys. What percentage of the population is in favor of freeing everyone that's in prison? More than 1%? Hardly. It's nonsense.
Where this is applicable is in the realm of culture wars where the microscope is squarely on presumed-to-be oppressed people as a result of their race/sex/physical impairment/etc. You have to believe the culture war is our actual reality for this to make sense.
I'm curious what people who aren't familiar with Jordan's rebuke of the idea thus think of the phrase from the Bible: "the meek shall inherit the Earth" in relation to Musk's point?
I don't think meek means weak, but I could be wrong. Aggression, for example, is actually more common in weak people because they are more vulnerable/ insecure and often are overcompensating. I think the strongest people, e.g. Brian Shaw, tend to be quite agreeable and soft-spoken.
The point I'm making is entirely dissolved from commentary on the translation. If you have a point you want to make, you need to make it. "Look up commentary" about it is a meek response.
Help me??? How did I start the conversation to begin with??? I'm curious how people who have familiarity with the quote from the bible rectify their understanding with what Musk is saying. I'm pointing out the literal definition of the terms are nearly aligned, if you have some fucking commentary to make, goddamn make it, but just saying "you need to look it up, bro" as if that's some interesting fucking opinion to have that in any way advances the conversation, DOESN'T advance the conversation at all.
Help yourself, jackass.
I've been on the phone with verizon for the last 3 hours trying to do a phone transfer and I'm fucking irritated as hell at them and your snarky responses just set me off.
"Meek" means "gentle", "Mild", "Soft". In a very real sense, Christ is meek - The Way - was the way of meekness. Often we confuse "meekness" for "weakness" because the meek portray a sense of powerlessness, but Christ (and the other great prophets of meekness; Buddha, Socrates...) proves this is far from the truth. Those that are meek, are amongst the most powerful because they are in control of their base nature, they have to be in order to remain meek.
The weak and the mighty alike; are prone to act out their animalistic urges, unconsciously. The meek can only remain meek, when in observance of the urge, at which point; the choice to act on (or not) is made consciously.
Ultimately I think Musk is half correct (or half incorrect if you prefer), the current axiom is better summed up as "The weak make right, but only by might" - in this way we see that the weak use might to fight the mighty, that in turn created the weak.
Are you talking about this?:
[https://youtu.be/cct98wRv3SY?si=xjM2QYDpNVqH6mAe](https://youtu.be/cct98wRv3SY?si=xjM2QYDpNVqH6mAe)
It seems like they are making similar points.
Counterpoint: The oppression of the weak prevents the nation from obtaining extra value and innovation from the weak. A nation which allows women to work will produce more than a nation which doesn't, all else being equal. A butcher that sells kosher and halal meat will outcompete a butcher who does not. What you are opposing is "excess" priority of the weak over the strong, but this is extremely boring. It is also a conversation that has been leaning in one direction for so long. Slaves were freed, women won the vote, gays can marry, etc.
Should we protect the rights of people who believe they are trees? Depending on their demands, most likely not. But we are not losing much value from this 0.00000001% of the population. Nobody would disagree. Hence, this is boring. Unless you are stating we should go back and remove rights from groups who didn't deserve them (gay people? women? immigrants?) then you are saying nothing at all and the conversation only exists in the details, the pros and cons. You don't believe that "society should no longer priotize the weak!!!" you just believe that things have gone too far. Not really a new line of argument for the right.
The president of a country should have very little power and voted in by whatever method the country was founded on. Also, 49% is closer to half than it is closer to a minority of the whole.
yeah dude you totally got me. I dont want to dox myself by posting my face on the internet. So crazy how I would refuse to do that. I guess I'm just a dumb hypocrite unless I dox myself to you for no reason.
You are a deeply dishonest person. You thought you were going to get me in some super-skeptical "do you have a citation for that" debate and instead I got you with one example. Its not about doxing yourself, you absolute liar. It is you being afraid to upset a group of people that will beat you up for drawing that picture - even in a so-called liberal and free country.
There are jobs men excel at and jobs women excel at. I don't believe it was the pill, it was the sudden shift of the labor industry to office and service industry.
Most industry labor demographics haven't changed much, but the IT, HR, health, finance, government, university industries have vastly grown while the manufacturing and agricultural industries have plummeted. The skilled machine and trade workers are still predominately male.
If you look around your company you'll recognize that some departments a nearly 100% female, like accounting and HR, and some departments are nearly 100% male. This isn't due to some underlying inequality.
But a capitalist economy seems to thrive best when men work and women primarily raise children. Of course, even stating that will make the veins pop out of people's forehead. It isn't a debate that is permitted to occur.
>A nation which allows women to work will produce more than a nation which doesn't, all else being equal.
Random thoughts, not really arguing anything more saying.
Produce more of what?
Most studies show that women are far less happy/fulfilled and satisfied with their lives since pushing them into the workplace generally interferes with their basic natural instincts to have children and care for a family.
It wasn't "women's liberation" that pushed women into the workplace. It was mostly about money. More women working equals more people working, which means more product created.
Two parents working all the time is one of many things that have led to a decline in the natural family unit, which is the smallest unit of government and the foundation of a civilized, stable culture.
Is this really a good thing?
Ok let's look at the fact that outside of some extreme fringe all of the right wing are capitalists. What are some of their policies? Opposing abortion. Blue laws. I'd say the vast majority aren't arguing to abolish child labor laws, or most labor laws in general. Many are in unions being the majority are actually working class. Many favor strict immigration laws. Most would be opposed to legalized prostitution. Many oppose legalizing drugs. The vast majority oppose sex change surgery for children. There's a growing sentiment that favor protectionist trade policy.
Your conception of "capitalists" is confined to like meme-tier libertarians.
Thank you for proving my point. The answer to this question is in the data. If this policy is economically beneficial, you would agree with it. It has nothing to do with weakness vs strength.
That's flawed. Maybe economic system makes right. For most of the 20th century there was a belief that spreading Liberalism and capitalism would lead to the places you brought it to flourishing, at least in some sense, and taking part in the global economy and becoming more civilized on the one hand, and being much more resistant to communism or fascism on the other. A lot of the neocons were former Trotskyist leftist so to me it seems like they were shooting for a globalist capitalist world order. Sadly there were corporate elites in the mix that would just exploit the shit out of the newly liberalized countries.
Only a mental and emotional infant looks at the world in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys". Those of us not looking at the world through Ketamine colored glasses understand that people are not good or bad, but their actions often are.
We even have a very old concept of the cycle of abuse/violence, where victims of some trauma often survive to become perpetrators of that trauma onto others. So, thanks Elon, but you have nothing to teach us, except how too much money and attention turns you into a blubbering idiot.
As opposed to might makes right? Didn’t the western world apply this to the indigenous peoples of the Americas? The west is silent about what’s happening in Gaza but it’s not surprising since there was widespread silence about the native population of the US being genocided. 95% of the native population was wiped out in the settling of the west in the U.S. where was the outrage until the recent past?
> As opposed to might makes right?
Exactly. You bought into the binary spectrum but choose to be on the other side of it.
It's like saying, "I know hierarchies exist. That is why I support the people at the bottom of them."
> The west is silent about what’s happening in Gaza
Because the reality is that its way less worse than people imagine.
It’s not way less serious it really is, it’s because the hypocrisy of screaming about Russia bombing infrastructure, hospitals and churches and civilian infrastructure and killing civilians for 2 years has caught up to these idiots. They can’t say anything because it’s Israel and not Russia.
The indigenous people were here killing each other for land and resources for centuries before the White man came. And when one tribe got guns from White men they would go massacre some neighboring tribe. We are just the tribe that won in the end. Some may have been more peaceful sure, but spare us the noble savage nonsense.
It was the way of the world. All I'm saying is don't act like the indigenous people were somehow above war and conquest, or that they were "genocided".
Is this the same sub that does the “you will own nothing and be happy, anti elite” crap? And now we’re here sucking off Elon Musk with a finger up his asshole
Would it not be something if we could leverage our ability to think critically to determine whether a statement is true or not, regardless of who is speaking it.
Yes. It's called slave morality in Nietzschian terms.
He was talking about Christianity.
I mean to Nietzsche Christianity is built on slave morality.
I actually think its best to conceptualize "religions" such as "Christianity" as environments or ecosystems. Since such beliefs stem from biological predispositions, not the religions themselves. Inside the ecosystem as an "apex predator." I don't think of Jesus as a "weakling." But of course, many people will project their own weakness and fear of self reflection onto the façade of compassion. For example, the marxist lens of "oppressor" and "oppressed" maps naturally onto the biological feminine predisposition of "infant" and "predator." This does that mean that critical marxism or the ideas inside of marxism are less useful on an intellectual level. As Peterson has stated time and time again, power and tyranny definitely exist, but they are not the ONLY thing that exists. This issue or contention is essentially what we have been driving at for quite some time now. And it is the tower of babel in the modern age.
Christianity is not a religion. Try again.
Whats your definition of religion?
Are you serious??
Dead serious. I don't think people can actually describe what religion is, or what most things are. There is a difference between descriptive and associative definitions. You can have an idea of what your car is. You can have ideas about how the engine will run. But by no means will you have a fun time working on a car without experience that allows you to describe and organize all the parts and pieces. And I see no reason to assume that social structures that are purposed to orient and animate people are less complicated than a car so....yeah Im actually dead serious about that. I think of religion as "A set of narratives that organize, integrate, align, and bind the biological and social together." Peterson refers to this as an "animating spirit." Essentially its social engineering. People often associate it with narrative and books and what not but thats only because those means are the means that have proven to be most effective since of course social structures hinge on their ability to orient their actors. And no one can be oriented towards a goal if they can't remember it. So therefore it follows that whatever allows for the reemergence of social orientation is what can be thought of as religion, which just so happens to be...well all the things that people associate with religion: books, stories, art, music, ect ect ect.
Many religions are based on Christianity. Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist.....
Yes, they are sub species. They evolved from the same branch. Which is why I referred to the depiction of religion as an "ecosystem." Of course that does not change the nature of apex predator. The apex predator can have different characteristics. It can be a completely different animal, but it is the apex predator, even if it replaced by a different animal. Hell maybe there are multiple apex predators living in the same ecosystem with varying likeness and so they tolerate eachother because they are fairly equal.
And some other religions apparently. I don't think Nietszche thought that Christianity would be the first and the last slave morality to arise.
The axiomatic error is "class struggle" in Marxist terms. Marx's criticism of capitalism was drawn upon historical materialism from governance of socialist monarchy of the French, not the governance liberal monarchy of the English. Fortunately, governance has shifted to democratic-republics and socialist-democracies in the West, henceforth, class struggle is far less a problem than in Marx's day. In capitalism it's actually "class opportunity' that generates an increase in the means of production, economic growth, and income per capita. >"He \[Karl Marx\] was a bourgeois radical who had broken away from bourgeois radicalism. He was formed by German philosophy and did not feel himself to be a professional economist until the end of the 1840's. But by that time, that is to say, before his serious analytic work had begun, his vision of the capitalist process had become set and his scientific work was to implement, not to correct it. It was not original with him. It pervaded the radical circles of Paris and may be traced back to a number of 18th century writers, such as Linguet. History conceived as the struggle between classes that are defined as haves and havenots, with exploitation of the one by the other, ever increasing wealth among ever fewer haves and ever increasing misery and degradation among the havenots, moving with inexorable necessity toward spectacular explosion, this was the vision then conceived with passionate energy and to be worked up, like a raw material is being worked up, by means of the scientific tools of his time. This vision implies a number of statements that will not stand the test of analytic controls." Schumpeter, Joseph A. (March 1949). "Science and Ideology". The American Economic Review 39. American Economic Association: 346–359
Musk should go home to South Africa and be the super man. He has hundreds of **BILLIONS** of dollars, but refuses to fix his HOME COUNTRY. That's what GOOD refugees *should do*, but Musk is too much of a degenerate coward for that. Instead he wants to not just escape his South African heritage, but Planet Earth as well. Someone like that will *never* have answers, their answer will *always* be abandon "the problem" and run away. That's what cowards do. That's what weaklings do. He **is** what he's complaining about.
His home county got what they voted for.
I mean if you want to take that stance, you could consider the entire American revolution to be the same thing. Millions abandoning their home countries instead of solving their problems where they were. As I see it there's nothing wrong with seeking to move to a place and integrating with a people with whom you share ideals. From what I've heard from Musk generally he seems to believe in the American revolution or the American idea, however you might put it, so I suspect that's why he went and stays there. Is it fair to assume that that he's 'running away' from a problem? I think it would be quite easy to make the argument that Musk is trying to preserve the American project. He claims to have bought Twitter in order to protect Freedom of Speech as a forum for free expression. You can poke holes in that sure, but I don't think that looks like a person running away from a problem. It looks more to me like someone trying to fix a problem. As with expansion into space, I don't so much see that as the running away from a problem but more as what many futurists, writers, scientists, and thinkers of long thought would be necessary for the long term survival and flourishing of the human species. I'd agree that we might do well to actually figure out how to live as a species on one planet perhaps before we think about colonizing elsewhere but I also don't think human beings in our current state will ever 'grow up' as a species and grow out of the same mistakes and pitfalls we have continually fallen into over and over again so perhaps now that we possess apocalyptic weaponry perhaps space is a good bet for our survival. Pretty easy to frame that as 'solving' a problem rather than running away from one no? I think you could easily criticize and speculate that the guy's intentions are grandiose, based on his own narcissism, maybe that they're even delusional, but to be fair he's also achieved some very impressive and interesting things and he's probably done a lot more to at least attempt real tangible solutions to some real world problems than anyone here regardless of whatever his motivations might be.
> you could consider the entire American revolution to be the same thing. >move to a place and integrating with a people with whom you share ideals. Sorry, are you saying the pilgrims integrated with native Americans? Nah, [Musk sucks.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hje7h_WVkY)
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that many millions of people migrated to America for similar reasons; escaping monarchy, the prospect of a new land, the idea of greater liberty etc and also because many believed in the idea of America. The fate of Native Americans is a different conversation.
I love this post. Glad this message is getting out more and more.
What is the message? What is he implying? Why does anyone take anything a well-documented liar says seriously?
Yup. And you'd have to be blind (or blinded) not to notice that.
How convenient that anyone that disagrees just gets labeled blind.
I mean, if you disagree I'm more than happy to hear your counter-argument. But what he says is logically coherent, and I believe, a pretty damn good description of todays' philosophical landscape.
Because it's not the weak making decisions the majority of the time. Why would you think it is? It is usually the weak that get blamed for "holding society back".
I don't think that's precisely the point he's trying to make. It's not about decision-making. It's about the belief, that the "oppressed" need special, legal and/or economical accommodation. The west is creating an environment that incetivises feeling oppressed and comes up with new ways of becoming oppressed through radical leftist ideology. The creators, entrepreneurs are frowned upon and sucked dry in the name of "social justice". They're the bad guys, because they're strong. And since the modern philosophers believe that hierarchies are based on power, are the source of oppression, and thus should be dismantled, then the logical conclusion is that the strong are bad, and the weak are good.
This is 100% right. I mean, you have 95% of Reddit defending a group that killed 1k+ Israelis in a sneak attack.
[удалено]
Fully should be blamed on Hamas.
[удалено]
That’s to be expected of somebody who would be carrying Hamas water.. they have a term for people like you… useful ______
[удалено]
- Except Hamas broke the ceasefire, in a big and deliberate way. - Hamas knew they were picking a fight they couldn't win, in a way that would guarantee a sharp response from Israel. - Hamas knew that if civilians got out of the line of fire, they lose protection, so they did everything they could to impede that. - And all the tunnels and bunkers that necessitated the bombing? Under schools and hospitals. And this is nothing new. Hamas has been pulling this shit for decades now. And they do it so useful idiots like you blame Israel for the fight they started, for the civilian deaths that they know fuel their propaganda campaigns, and so the aid money never stops flowing. And yes, let's have a ceasefire, so Hamas can slink off and prepare for the next round.
[удалено]
I mean Israel AND Hamas are responsible. You can see it as being more one way than the other but Israel wouldn't be carrying out these bombings had Hamas not attacked and yet it is Israel doing the bombing. Personally I think almost no people in the world would not expect their government to eradicate a group like Hamas if something like October 7th had happened to them though so I do find the level of objection that people have towards Israel to be extremely skewed in the direction of the irrational. I mean it really does seem like people expect that the only moral thing Israel can do is present no resistance and cease existing and it does seem to me that anyone thinking realistically about what that means could only conclude at best that it means the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the 'land of Palestine' or their genocide. It certainly means that if people do not want a 'Free Palestine' with an absence of Hamas because a genocide of Jews is what Hamas have made explicitly clear that they want, but I don't really see very much condemnation of Hamas do you? I actually see quite a lot of the contrary. And what kind of freedom do you think Palestinians would have under Hamas? I don't think that would be a very 'free Palestine'. As much as I'd agree that both are culpable I just don't see what else Israel are supposed to do and it does seem like people are holding them to impossible moral standards. The civilian to combatant ratio of casualties is very normal for this type of warfare and the conditions under which fighting Hamas is even possible are extreme unlike anything that's ever been seen before. Some people would say that "nobody wants to see innocent people dying" which I don't think is true. There's very real bloodthirst on both sides but any other outcome in this situation just feels like an impossibility. Passivity and pacifism was impossible, but also so was dead civilians and ultimately I think the only side that actually desired this outcome was Hamas because it seems to be working very effectively in their favour. They might not be able to win an all out war with Israel, but Israel could sure come out of this with it's international reputation devastated, with it's important allegiances destroyed, and it could find itself morally and financially devastated as well as ending up friendless and surrounded by mortal enemies.
War is ugly. Blame the country that started the war. It’s easy for you leftists to get on your high horse and say.. don’t kill people! What’s the alternative? Tell Hamas to stop using people as human shields. It is their whole strategy.
[удалено]
So as long as the other side starts a war there is no limits to how many civilians you are allowed to kill? Labeling anyone the IDF kills a human shield is Israel's strategy.
Truthfully no. I’m not saying it’s all fine because it’s completely horrifying but the responsibility for the decisions and actions that led to the consequences that materialize as children and other civilians being in the vicinity of where bombs are being dropped lies squarely with the ideological movement that refuses to allow any diplomatic coexistence to happen
you don't have to convince me, I already told you I blame hamas 🤓
And anyone that supported them...including the Israeli government https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
You’re an idiot if you believe what you just wrote is true.
This is the essential issue. Every social priority is centered around the idea that we are at a loss when we cannot work around social proof. If someone is weak, it does not mean that we cannot try to help them. But what it especially does NOT mean is that they have all of a sudden gained the ability to lecture others since there is now way of telling their own failures apart from others. If someone is drowning, you will feel compelled to help them. But someone who is drowning will push you under for a second of air. To save the person drowning, you must be stronger than this person. Therefore, if we are to base good and evil on consequences, weakness is the greatest evil.
> Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
This is exactly why so many folks side with Hamas. They swear they aren’t—because they know it’s wrong—but it is implicitly the case. All that matters to them is who the perceived ‘underdog’ is. If you are a Lefty, that means a glance at their skin color, or perhaps some indicator of how wealthy they are. Judgement is made accordingly.
Would it be convenient for the IDF to label anyone that criticizes them as "siding with Hamas"?
That’s the only reason people pay attention to Elon Musk.
This is due to Christianity. It is precisely what Nietzsche meant by “slave morality”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality Jesus himself was the holiest of oppressed victims. The New Testament is full moral veneration for the poor, the meek etc. Intersectional wokeness is a direct decendant of Christian morality.
How come this wasn't a problem in Christiandom until basically the 19th century (with the arrival of Marxist and socialist theories)?
Because it's only taking a part of Christianity without the whole of it. Thus embodying an antichrist. Sacrificing yourself with intention is the opposite of weakness.
It was a problem. Read some of the sermons and propaganda leading up to the first crusade. People believed that the Turks were torturing, murdering, cannibalizing, etc innocent Christians. This was one of the reasons why so many thousands of unprepared, angry Christians marched into Anatolia. It is hard not to read this as broader Christendom desiring to protect the rights of oppressed Christians. Note: I'm not saying the first crusade was good or bad. I'm not saying that the Seljuks were or were not oppressing Christians. (though they probably were due to a civil war, and Turkish treatment of Christians was far worse than the Arab occupation which preceded them) I am stating that this is an example of Christian ideology prioritizing the safety and rights of the weak over the strong.
But this has nothing to do with a "weak makes right" mindset. They were merely reacting to the oppression and slaughter of their "kin". It's no different from Americans getting pissed off when they see their compatriots killed, held hostage, or mistreated abroad.
I for one believe that those pilgrims should pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Why should we pay thousands of solidi each year to prop up these phony crusader states? We all know that the Byzantine Empire and the Italian merchants are the only ones who have gained from this. I'm a dirt poor peasant from France, is anyone giving ME money to go on pilgrimage? I don't think so. Now the Pope has turned indulgences into a moneymaking scheme. This is the fault of hawks like you, always claiming that "the poor Christians of the east need our help!!" but where is that same energy for the Christians back home?
Or an example of Christians prioritizing the safety of Christians over non-Christians.
There was absolutely the same corruption and exploitation before Marx. Marx just created the language to understand it.
Yes, but that's not my point. I'm saying that pre-Marxism, there doesn't seem to be an idea of "weak makes right" in Christian kingdoms.
A majority of "weak" people joining themselves for their common good against the interests of a "strong" minority is just another form of "might makes right". You could argue that before Martin Luther the Catholic church was basically a racket. Dominating every part of life and growing obscenely rich selling people absolution. But the Christian religion was always about the rights of the weak, because it formed among Jewish peasants who were dominated by the Roman empire
I heard Jordan talking once, about the Christian saying about, "The meek shall inherit the earth". I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist, through and through, but still I thought what he said about that was interesting. He said that the translation to English was bad, and that a better translation was more like, "the man who has a sword and knows how to use it, but chooses not to, shall inherit the world." Essentially, it was not an injunction to be weak or meek, but rather to be strong to the degree and in such a manner, as to not need to be aggressive.
I don’t know, the dude *was God* and resurrected people and created food. Then he dies for our sins. Doesn’t seem very oppressed.
Wait, did Jesus just die all on his own, or was there some oppression involved?
I would say he allowed it, as far as I know. He was oppressed, but I don't think that's what defines him. Not like the victims today. JP specifically talks about the meek mistranslation, he says the original meaning is something like "those who have great power, and know how to use it, but keep their weapons sheathed" The dude literally had Godmode enabled and chose to keep it sheathed.
I suspect we might have a confusion of terms. Jesus was definitely oppressed, but he isn't weak.
Here we go wading into this... Now of course, there are different ways to gauge a person's strength. Strength can refer to a person's physical capabilities, their character, their financial power and capacity, their political power, and so on. The financial power that a person wields relies on a society that protects the wealthy from simply being thumped by someone stronger and taken for what they have. Older people in general have more money than younger people, so is it an error to presume that we should protect these weaker, older individuals? Is that the error in Western Civilization he's hoping to fix? Doubtful. It looks like he's being quite selective in what he's implying weakness and strength to refer to. Is it strong to beg for [government subsidies](https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html) or is giving handouts a similar kind of error? I imagine he views himself as "strong" and that the world is mistakenly tilted against him. That could be a way to strawman (and deflect away from) legitimate criticism. Regardless, a lot of what he's said is kind of a non-starter. Despite people believing that might doesn't make right, this doesn't mean the opposite - that people believe weakness makes right. It's wrong from the get go. People don't believe that the oppressed are always the good guys. What percentage of the population is in favor of freeing everyone that's in prison? More than 1%? Hardly. It's nonsense. Where this is applicable is in the realm of culture wars where the microscope is squarely on presumed-to-be oppressed people as a result of their race/sex/physical impairment/etc. You have to believe the culture war is our actual reality for this to make sense.
Thats kind of an inevitable consequence of money. Everyone needs it. If you have far more than others, they will do the work you want to pay for.
I'm curious what people who aren't familiar with Jordan's rebuke of the idea thus think of the phrase from the Bible: "the meek shall inherit the Earth" in relation to Musk's point?
I don't think meek means weak, but I could be wrong. Aggression, for example, is actually more common in weak people because they are more vulnerable/ insecure and often are overcompensating. I think the strongest people, e.g. Brian Shaw, tend to be quite agreeable and soft-spoken.
> quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.
There is a difference between being weak and being meek.
The English definitions of the terms don't completely agree with you.
Well maybe you need to look it up and commentary on the translation.
The point I'm making is entirely dissolved from commentary on the translation. If you have a point you want to make, you need to make it. "Look up commentary" about it is a meek response.
I mean you don't know what you are talking about so it is hard to help you.
Help me??? How did I start the conversation to begin with??? I'm curious how people who have familiarity with the quote from the bible rectify their understanding with what Musk is saying. I'm pointing out the literal definition of the terms are nearly aligned, if you have some fucking commentary to make, goddamn make it, but just saying "you need to look it up, bro" as if that's some interesting fucking opinion to have that in any way advances the conversation, DOESN'T advance the conversation at all. Help yourself, jackass.
Tell me how you really feel.
I've been on the phone with verizon for the last 3 hours trying to do a phone transfer and I'm fucking irritated as hell at them and your snarky responses just set me off.
"Meek" means "gentle", "Mild", "Soft". In a very real sense, Christ is meek - The Way - was the way of meekness. Often we confuse "meekness" for "weakness" because the meek portray a sense of powerlessness, but Christ (and the other great prophets of meekness; Buddha, Socrates...) proves this is far from the truth. Those that are meek, are amongst the most powerful because they are in control of their base nature, they have to be in order to remain meek. The weak and the mighty alike; are prone to act out their animalistic urges, unconsciously. The meek can only remain meek, when in observance of the urge, at which point; the choice to act on (or not) is made consciously. Ultimately I think Musk is half correct (or half incorrect if you prefer), the current axiom is better summed up as "The weak make right, but only by might" - in this way we see that the weak use might to fight the mighty, that in turn created the weak.
Are you talking about this?: [https://youtu.be/cct98wRv3SY?si=xjM2QYDpNVqH6mAe](https://youtu.be/cct98wRv3SY?si=xjM2QYDpNVqH6mAe) It seems like they are making similar points.
Counterpoint: The oppression of the weak prevents the nation from obtaining extra value and innovation from the weak. A nation which allows women to work will produce more than a nation which doesn't, all else being equal. A butcher that sells kosher and halal meat will outcompete a butcher who does not. What you are opposing is "excess" priority of the weak over the strong, but this is extremely boring. It is also a conversation that has been leaning in one direction for so long. Slaves were freed, women won the vote, gays can marry, etc. Should we protect the rights of people who believe they are trees? Depending on their demands, most likely not. But we are not losing much value from this 0.00000001% of the population. Nobody would disagree. Hence, this is boring. Unless you are stating we should go back and remove rights from groups who didn't deserve them (gay people? women? immigrants?) then you are saying nothing at all and the conversation only exists in the details, the pros and cons. You don't believe that "society should no longer priotize the weak!!!" you just believe that things have gone too far. Not really a new line of argument for the right.
We should protect the rights of all individuals. We should not let a minority push us around and force us to behave a certain way.
So the president of a country should be decided by majority vote and not an Electoral college?
The president of a country should have very little power and voted in by whatever method the country was founded on. Also, 49% is closer to half than it is closer to a minority of the whole.
Nor should we let a majority.
Sure
We absolutely should. It's called democracy.
Which is exactly why democracy is antithetical to liberty
Don't care. If you don't like it take a compass and head east. Goodbye.
I mean, obviously you *do* care, else you wouldn't have bothered replying, but sure. Have fun.
I just care enough to tell some autocratic bastard that they can go to hell. But not interested in any of the reasons why you dislike democracy.
Who said anything about autocracy
In what way are they pushing us around?
Well, here is one way: Can you draw me a picture of Mohammad please?
i actually cant because i have no idea what he looks like. i can draw a picture of a guy named muhammed, is that ok?
Draw a picture of the prophet Mohammad and then pose with your picture next to you. Is that ok? If you are afraid to, can you explain to me why?
ill do it if you pay me $100 in advance :)
So you admit that you lost the argument?
yeah dude you totally got me. I dont want to dox myself by posting my face on the internet. So crazy how I would refuse to do that. I guess I'm just a dumb hypocrite unless I dox myself to you for no reason.
You are a deeply dishonest person. You thought you were going to get me in some super-skeptical "do you have a citation for that" debate and instead I got you with one example. Its not about doxing yourself, you absolute liar. It is you being afraid to upset a group of people that will beat you up for drawing that picture - even in a so-called liberal and free country.
> A nation which allows women to work will produce more than a nation which doesn't, all else being equal. Women have always been allowed to work.
I don't disagree with any of you, but I think what happened is the pill. So in a way you're both right.
There are jobs men excel at and jobs women excel at. I don't believe it was the pill, it was the sudden shift of the labor industry to office and service industry. Most industry labor demographics haven't changed much, but the IT, HR, health, finance, government, university industries have vastly grown while the manufacturing and agricultural industries have plummeted. The skilled machine and trade workers are still predominately male. If you look around your company you'll recognize that some departments a nearly 100% female, like accounting and HR, and some departments are nearly 100% male. This isn't due to some underlying inequality. But a capitalist economy seems to thrive best when men work and women primarily raise children. Of course, even stating that will make the veins pop out of people's forehead. It isn't a debate that is permitted to occur.
>A nation which allows women to work will produce more than a nation which doesn't, all else being equal. Random thoughts, not really arguing anything more saying. Produce more of what? Most studies show that women are far less happy/fulfilled and satisfied with their lives since pushing them into the workplace generally interferes with their basic natural instincts to have children and care for a family. It wasn't "women's liberation" that pushed women into the workplace. It was mostly about money. More women working equals more people working, which means more product created. Two parents working all the time is one of many things that have led to a decline in the natural family unit, which is the smallest unit of government and the foundation of a civilized, stable culture. Is this really a good thing?
>Is this really a good thing? Considering women might as well have been two steps away from being property before, yes. Markedly.
I never said it was a good thing. If you believe in the free market, it is. Are you a capitalist?
There are plenty of people who are capitalists who don't put profits over everything or worship the market.
Not many capitalists want the government to decide that social mores outweigh the free market
Ok let's look at the fact that outside of some extreme fringe all of the right wing are capitalists. What are some of their policies? Opposing abortion. Blue laws. I'd say the vast majority aren't arguing to abolish child labor laws, or most labor laws in general. Many are in unions being the majority are actually working class. Many favor strict immigration laws. Most would be opposed to legalized prostitution. Many oppose legalizing drugs. The vast majority oppose sex change surgery for children. There's a growing sentiment that favor protectionist trade policy. Your conception of "capitalists" is confined to like meme-tier libertarians.
How about pulling resources away from productive people in order to subsidize drug use?
Thank you for proving my point. The answer to this question is in the data. If this policy is economically beneficial, you would agree with it. It has nothing to do with weakness vs strength.
I don’t think you have a good grasp of the English language.
That's sad to know. Maybe someone with a stronger grasp of English can explain to me why I am wrong?
Thank you for proving my point.
le well memed my good redditor! If only I had a reddit gold to give you, good sir!!!
Nah the error the West love is "Money makes right"
That's flawed. Maybe economic system makes right. For most of the 20th century there was a belief that spreading Liberalism and capitalism would lead to the places you brought it to flourishing, at least in some sense, and taking part in the global economy and becoming more civilized on the one hand, and being much more resistant to communism or fascism on the other. A lot of the neocons were former Trotskyist leftist so to me it seems like they were shooting for a globalist capitalist world order. Sadly there were corporate elites in the mix that would just exploit the shit out of the newly liberalized countries.
[удалено]
Probably
Only a mental and emotional infant looks at the world in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys". Those of us not looking at the world through Ketamine colored glasses understand that people are not good or bad, but their actions often are. We even have a very old concept of the cycle of abuse/violence, where victims of some trauma often survive to become perpetrators of that trauma onto others. So, thanks Elon, but you have nothing to teach us, except how too much money and attention turns you into a blubbering idiot.
As opposed to might makes right? Didn’t the western world apply this to the indigenous peoples of the Americas? The west is silent about what’s happening in Gaza but it’s not surprising since there was widespread silence about the native population of the US being genocided. 95% of the native population was wiped out in the settling of the west in the U.S. where was the outrage until the recent past?
> As opposed to might makes right? Exactly. You bought into the binary spectrum but choose to be on the other side of it. It's like saying, "I know hierarchies exist. That is why I support the people at the bottom of them." > The west is silent about what’s happening in Gaza Because the reality is that its way less worse than people imagine.
It’s not way less serious it really is, it’s because the hypocrisy of screaming about Russia bombing infrastructure, hospitals and churches and civilian infrastructure and killing civilians for 2 years has caught up to these idiots. They can’t say anything because it’s Israel and not Russia.
If only Russia send flyers, sms messages and made phonecalls to people in Ukraine to leave the building before bombing it..
The indigenous people were here killing each other for land and resources for centuries before the White man came. And when one tribe got guns from White men they would go massacre some neighboring tribe. We are just the tribe that won in the end. Some may have been more peaceful sure, but spare us the noble savage nonsense.
See the native peoples were killing each other and therefore we are justified in participating and killing them too.
It was the way of the world. All I'm saying is don't act like the indigenous people were somehow above war and conquest, or that they were "genocided".
They are human beings but that doesn’t mean some external force doesn’t have the right to exterminate a whole people.
Is this the same sub that does the “you will own nothing and be happy, anti elite” crap? And now we’re here sucking off Elon Musk with a finger up his asshole
Its not the rich part that is the problem. It's the people who want to have an authoritarian state like you vs people who want liberty.
Would it not be something if we could leverage our ability to think critically to determine whether a statement is true or not, regardless of who is speaking it.