I know some, er, “difficult” women in cryonics, but I wouldn’t grudge them their cryopreservations. Especially if they revive in the patriarchal Neoreactionary World and acknowledge that I backed the right side of history.
Does it have to be an NRx world? AFAIK most NRxers are arguing for NRx countries, and exit so that people who don’t like it can leave. Without exit, it seems a lot more ‘boot stamping on a human face forever’.
Um, NRx’s aren’t arguing for totalitarian countries.
Hint: Monarchy =/= Totalitarianism.
In fact one of the main neoreactionary arguments for monarchy is that historical absolute monarchies have been less totalitarian, in terms of government intrusion into citizens day-to-day life or control of the economy, then modern “liberal democracies”.
1) If the monarch has a goal of “maximise my countries’ power” then they want lots of trade to boost the economy, which probably implies some sort of (partially) open boarders to allow international trade.
2) If someone hates living in your country, and you don’t allow them to leave, they might try to organise a rebellion.
3) If someone hates your country, they are probably not going to be the most productive citizen.
4) If the monarch dislikes some minority group, then its best to let them leave rather than persecute them, which would be likely to bring UN peacekeepers down on your head.
5) They monarch might want to attract immigration, at least from people who they believe will benefit the country, and its a lot more easy to attract people if they have the option to leave should they change their minds.
6) The monarch might actually care about the well-being of their subjects, or even of humanity in general.
There have been benevolent monarchs. There have also been sadists. In the general case I don’t think monarchy is especially likely to be oppressive, but OTOH there is a single point of failure, which means that if it goes wrong it can go very, very wrong.
If the world does end up like your Pleasantville-utopia, newly awakened people will fight to bring such a regime down, and if I live to get there, I’ll support them.
The difference is that the parent is a relevant opinion to the discussion wrapped up in an NRx cheer, while polymathwannabe’s response has no underlying substance besides “boo NRx”.
Neoreaction makes some people upset because it raises the possibility that since the Enlightenment, several generations of Westerners have existed with diminished and inauthentic lives somehow. Neoreaction pokes at the splinter in our minds.
But we might find Neoreactionary World more fulfilling of our natures, if we give it a chance.
1) It’s fascinating to see how you guys manage to take every conversation and make it all about your peculiar utopia.
2) Potential embarrassment is not the reason why we object to NRx. Just like a Christian who assumes atheists are just angry at God, you make a blanket assumption about all progressives, evidently without having bothered to actually listen to one. You cannot have a productive conversation with your ideological opponents if you keep willfully misrepresenting their motives.
3) How is humanity “diminished” by having more freedom and more equality?
4) “we might find Neoreactionary World more fulfilling of our natures” sounds like Naturalistic Fallacy had a love child with Appeal to Tradition. No good ideas can be born from that union.
How is humanity “diminished” by having more freedom and more equality?
Because these values come into obvious conflict. Freedom allows humans to sort themselves into organic hierarchies which demonstrate their inequality, as we can see in sports and in business. To enforce equality, you have to reduce the freedom of the more capable to show their excellence, and play this perverse game not to hurt the feelings of the less capable by reminding them of their inadequacies.
I know some, er, “difficult” women in cryonics, but I wouldn’t grudge them their cryopreservations. Especially if they revive in the patriarchal Neoreactionary World and acknowledge that I backed the right side of history.
Does it have to be an NRx world? AFAIK most NRxers are arguing for NRx countries, and exit so that people who don’t like it can leave. Without exit, it seems a lot more ‘boot stamping on a human face forever’.
Did anyone of them make a good argument for why a totalitarian country should make it easy for their citizens to leave?
Um, NRx’s aren’t arguing for totalitarian countries.
Hint: Monarchy =/= Totalitarianism.
In fact one of the main neoreactionary arguments for monarchy is that historical absolute monarchies have been less totalitarian, in terms of government intrusion into citizens day-to-day life or control of the economy, then modern “liberal democracies”.
Yes, repeatedly -
1) If the monarch has a goal of “maximise my countries’ power” then they want lots of trade to boost the economy, which probably implies some sort of (partially) open boarders to allow international trade.
2) If someone hates living in your country, and you don’t allow them to leave, they might try to organise a rebellion.
3) If someone hates your country, they are probably not going to be the most productive citizen.
4) If the monarch dislikes some minority group, then its best to let them leave rather than persecute them, which would be likely to bring UN peacekeepers down on your head.
5) They monarch might want to attract immigration, at least from people who they believe will benefit the country, and its a lot more easy to attract people if they have the option to leave should they change their minds.
6) The monarch might actually care about the well-being of their subjects, or even of humanity in general.
There have been benevolent monarchs. There have also been sadists. In the general case I don’t think monarchy is especially likely to be oppressive, but OTOH there is a single point of failure, which means that if it goes wrong it can go very, very wrong.
There is something worse than having a single point of failure, that’s having multiple points of failure in “series”, for lack of a better term.
Indeed, although whether this makes a single point of failure attractive depends on whether one is satisficing or maximising.
If the world does end up like your Pleasantville-utopia, newly awakened people will fight to bring such a regime down, and if I live to get there, I’ll support them.
help me understand, why is this downvoted to −6?
We have community norms against political discussion that are especially harsh towards comments that simply cheer for one side and/or boo another.
Makes sense, although the parent comment seems to be cheering NRx and booing feminism, is at only −2 in comparison.
The difference is that the parent is a relevant opinion to the discussion wrapped up in an NRx cheer, while polymathwannabe’s response has no underlying substance besides “boo NRx”.
Upvoted. I needed that clarification.
Neoreaction makes some people upset because it raises the possibility that since the Enlightenment, several generations of Westerners have existed with diminished and inauthentic lives somehow. Neoreaction pokes at the splinter in our minds.
But we might find Neoreactionary World more fulfilling of our natures, if we give it a chance.
1) It’s fascinating to see how you guys manage to take every conversation and make it all about your peculiar utopia.
2) Potential embarrassment is not the reason why we object to NRx. Just like a Christian who assumes atheists are just angry at God, you make a blanket assumption about all progressives, evidently without having bothered to actually listen to one. You cannot have a productive conversation with your ideological opponents if you keep willfully misrepresenting their motives.
3) How is humanity “diminished” by having more freedom and more equality?
4) “we might find Neoreactionary World more fulfilling of our natures” sounds like Naturalistic Fallacy had a love child with Appeal to Tradition. No good ideas can be born from that union.
Because these values come into obvious conflict. Freedom allows humans to sort themselves into organic hierarchies which demonstrate their inequality, as we can see in sports and in business. To enforce equality, you have to reduce the freedom of the more capable to show their excellence, and play this perverse game not to hurt the feelings of the less capable by reminding them of their inadequacies.
That’s not what equality strives for. “Anyone can run for President” is not the same as “Everyone gets to be President.”
cc