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.
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