White nationalists go wild for Tucker Carlson's "great replacement" theory

[Alizia Tyler]

Conservatism?

Conservatism is based on ideas or grounds itself within ideas.

Liberalism is based on the notion that 'I may not accept this but I must tolerate it'.

Hyper-Liberal perversion of essential first principles begins to make a radically new assertion: that the perversions or deviations, which were recognized by strong and defined idea-structures including those of Liberal thinkers, are actually a form of 'good'.

I say that perversions and deviations must be seen for what they are and tolerated, but not encouraged. This my position is essentially that of classic Liberalism, but a Liberalism that holds to the basic foundations.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Conservatism is based on ideas or grounds itself within ideas.

Liberalism is based on the notion that 'I may not accept this but I must tolerate it'.

Hyper-Liberal perversion of essential first principles begins to make a radically new assertion: that the perversions or deviations, which were recognized by strong and defined idea-structures including those of Liberal thinkers, are actually a form of 'good'.

I say that perversions and deviations must be seen for what they are and tolerated, but not encouraged. This my position is essentially that of classic Liberalism, but a Liberalism that holds to the basic foundations.

You just took a joke way too seriously.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You have to tolerate it because you have no choice. We forced you to.

Yes, this is very true: through processes of transvaluation of values. And through weakening of *idea* in all the senses I constantly discuss.

There is no end to what you will succeed in 'forcing' culture to accept. And that is why you should not be granted decisive power.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You just took a joke way too seriously.

But it is not a joke. I do understand that instead of answering 'the insane' you foxily replaced it with 'Conservative', but it is only a conservative-minded person today that has an argument similar to mine. And may of them are more intolerant.

 

[Master Debator]

My arguments in the whole are based on ideas that you are incapable of understanding, or that you have set your will not to understand, and the difference is there.

Said like someone who's ideas can't withstand criticism.

It is true though that given your predicates and first principles that all conclusions that flow out of my ideas -- and the ideas of those I reference -- appear to you, and you are genuine in this, as irrational ramblings. This flows directly from your first principles.

It stems from your inability to prove that which rests at the foundation of your argument. If you can't prove your foundation is sturdy enough to hold up your claim and balk and shy away from any insinuation that your claim may be faulty then how strong could your argument really be?

 

[Slartibartfast]

But it is not a joke. I do understand that instead of answering 'the insane' you foxily replaced it with 'Conservative', but it is only a conservative-minded person today that has an argument similar to mine. And may of them are more intolerant.

A better reply would have been "you mean liberals?"

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Said like someone who's ideas can't withstand criticism.

Your only criticism is essential denial and negation.

But if you mean that I am opposed to your efforts to critique my ideas I say not at all! You are doing a poor job but at least you are trying, and that has great worth to me. You are actually somewhat capable of dealing, in your limited way, with an 'edifice of ideas'.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

A better reply would have been "you mean liberals?"

Only a bona fide hyper-liberal could fetishize the taco . . .

 

[Slartibartfast]

Only a bona fide hyper-liberal could fetishize the taco . . .

Man, you just discounted a bunch of conservative latino people!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Said like someone who's ideas can't withstand criticism.

You have encouraged me to develop stronger intellectual ideas in support of my views -- those views I have which I have not felt inclined to concretize. I am responding as best I can and would of course value your critique.

When you get through with me Heaven only knows what I'll be capable of!

 

[Master Debator]

Yes, this is very true: through processes of transvaluation of values. And through weakening of *idea* in all the senses I constantly discuss.

No, through actual force. The rights of homosexuals are protected by law. You're free to have bigoted views about gays all you like but you have no power to force others to live by those bigoted views because you and yours are too weak and sapsy.

There is no end to what you will succeed in 'forcing' culture to accept. And that is why you should not be granted decisive power.

The people give us power because they believe in the decency of homosexuality and they reject you and yours.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It stems from your inability to prove that which rests at the foundation of your argument.

It is not possible to *prove* the existence of metaphysical categories, just as one could not prove that a thought or an idea has *independent existence*. Thoughts and ideas are known through their effects.

Ideas -- that is metaphysics in one aspect -- do indeed create vast effects. For that reason *ideas have consequences*.

I do not have to prove this to a person who has substantial grounding within rational categories. Since you don't it is all unintelligible and you stumble over all of it.

Similarly, what I refer to as 'the metaphysical' cannot be proved by reference to physical forms or existent, material objects, but only through their effects in this our world.

 

[Master Debator]

It is not possible to *prove* the existence of metaphysical categories, just as one could not prove that a thought or an idea has *independent existence*.

No need to put it in quotes, metaphysical categories can not be objectively proven. Good. Glad we've established that the foundation for all your arguments are based on supposition.

Thoughts and ideas are known through their effects.

But their effects aren't universal which makes them entirely subjective. Different people view ideas differently. Take homosexuality which you have implied as wrong, there are many who see nothing wrong with it at all so it what is your basis for proclaiming objectively that it is? The effect homosexuality has on you? Why should anyone give more validity to its effects on you than its affects on themselves?

Ideas -- that is metaphysics in one aspect -- do indeed create vast effects. For that reason *ideas have consequences*.

Ideas give way to actions that have consequences but action and reaction are properties of physics, whether any action or reaction is good or bad is a subjective property relative to the Observer.

I do not have to prove this to a person who has substantial grounding within rational categories. Since you don't it is all unintelligible and you stumble over all of it.

You and your compatriots inability to prove anything that comes out of your mouths is why you find yourselves in the predicament you're in, with waning power and a rush to grasp on to any conspiracy theory that assuages your doubt.

Similarly, what I refer to as 'the metaphysical' cannot be proved by reference to physical forms or existent, material objects, but only through their effects in this our world.

And the effect of homosexuality on millions and millions of people is to bring joy and pleasure so what of your metaphysical principles there?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No need to put it in quotes, metaphysical categories can not be objectively proven. Good. Glad we've established that the foundation for all your arguments are based on supposition.

Your method of 'taking possession of an argument' and declaring that what I said is what you are saying ... is absolutely fallacious.

Metaphysical categories are by definition non-material and ideational. And yet it is non-material ideation that constructs our human world. I can only suggest that you devote some time and thought to this issue so that you understand it better. But if that is not your cup of tea it still might be for others.

However, you won't. I suggest it might be because your will is set not to see, not to understand. I assume this is so because you have constructed an entire Weltanschauung based on the ideas you insist on. But to be fair I must say that all that you say must appear true to you and therefore you are certainly not lying to yourself or to me.

But their effects aren't universal which makes them entirely subjective. Different people view ideas differently. Take homosexuality which you have implied as wrong, there are many who see nothing wrong with it at all so it what is your basis for proclaiming objectively that it is? The effect homosexuality has on you? Why should anyone give more validity to its effects on you than its affects on themselves?

It makes them subjective but not entirely subjective. And different people often agree in so many different areas that 'universality' becomes a considerable idea.

You and your compatriots inability to prove anything that comes out of your mouths is why you find yourselves in the predicament you're in, with waning power and a rush to grasp on to any conspiracy theory that assuages your doubt.

I suggest that there is a reason why this has come about. It is not so much *inability to prove* as it is in the rise of a mass of people so committed to 'mutable categories' and perhaps so swamped with noise and distracting images and information, that they have lost or had taken away from them the capacity to see.

Well, you know that this is my sense of things, I have said it so many different times. You do not disprove it and you do not move me away from understanding it. But I accept that you don't accept it.

 

[AmNat]

Leading white nationalist Nicholas Fuentes

I feel this excerpt, on its own, accurately summarizes the OP's level of intellectual rigor.

 

[Master Debator]

Metaphysical categories are by definition non-material and ideational. And yet it is non-material ideation that constructs our human world. I can only suggest that you devote some time and thought to this issue so that you understand it better. But if that is not your cup of tea it still might be for others.

I understand what a social construct is. Whether something Iike religion and government or money and capitalism, these are imaginary concepts made real and powerful by people's belief and acceptance in them. But those beliefs are subject to change and they, being dependent on shared beliefs, change with them. Money can be devalued simply by lost confidence in it and things like homosexuality can go from being seen as evil, to perfectly acceptable. If you want to live in the metaphysical you're going to have accept that those properties aren't just dependent on your believes but in others as well.

However, you won't.

Yuval Harari wrote an excellent book called Sapians that touches on this very subject.

It makes them subjective but not entirely subjective. And different people often agree in so many different areas that 'universality' becomes a considerable idea.

Explain how something is only sort of subjective.

I suggest that there is a reason why this has come about. It is not so much *inability to prove* as it is in the rise of a mass of people so committed to 'mutable categories' and perhaps so swamped with noise and distracting images and information, that they have lost or had taken away from them the capacity to see.

Or they've decided to eschew social constructs that have no benefit to their lives.

Well, you know that this is my sense of things, I have said it so many different times. You do not disprove it and you do not move me away from understanding it. But I accept that you don't accept it.

It's not up to me disprove your sense of things but to on you to prove your claim. How about starting with homosexuality being wrong.

 

[Nickyjo]

Nothing racist about it. You know Tucker's over the target once again when the mobs starts calling for him to be fired, with the usual allegation of racism.

Well, Tucker didn't exactly say, "Jews will not replace us," but really, his meaning was clear. No different than the Know-Nothing's concern about Irish immigrants replacing "real Americans" well over 100 years ago. Nothing new here. Deal with it, Tucks, the country's getting browner. Wake up and smell the falafel.