wrote:
Though I am the living embodiment of the "Aryan Ideal", Norse-Germanic
by ethnicity and appearance, I abhor Fascism and all racist ideologies.
Do you also abhor racist practices, such as living in the ethnically
cleansed communities typical of the U.S. (made possible by
reliance on terrorist-supporting automobiles, our motorized
ethnic cleansers), and driving your SUV instead of riding on
public transportation with the homies?
On those occasions when I ride the bus, often mine is the only
white face on board. I look out the window and see lots of white
faces whizzing by in their single-passenger gaswasters.
I would imagine many of them would also hypocritically denounce
the explicit espousal of racist ideologies. With racism, you don't
say it, you just do it.
It is humiliating to me that such a narrow ideal of beauty has been so
narrowly focused.
Poor baby! If you live long enough, you'll no longer have that cross to
bear.
But I'm curious---what do you find "humiliating" about the fact that
men from all races want to bang you? Isn't it pretty much up to them
to decide what they consider bang-worthy?
From a man's point of view, I don't consider it "humiliating" that
women
from all races want to bang rich, successful guys. I find it merely
curious (and a good reason to build sex robots, so average guys can
enjoy the same pleasures as rich guys). Latest example: did you
catch Howard Stern's interview on (US TV show) 60 Minutes? They
showed a picture of Howard's ex-wife (divorced a few years ago
after 20 years of marriage), and then they interviewed Howard and
his new fashion-model girlfriend. Who, I should say, exemplifies
the Aryan ideal of beauty in spades (to mix metaphors a bit).
If the world's most beautiful women want to be gold-diggers, that's
their right. It doesn't "humiliate" me. It merely establishes what I
would have to obtain (namely, wealth and fame) if I wanted to
bang some of those women. The actual women, that is. Technology
may provide an easier alternative. And a more intellectually
satisfying alternative too.
It's interesting to consider which gender's ideal can be realized
first with technology. It should be a lot easier for technology to
simulate Howard Stern's girlfriend (for the satisfaction of men)
than for technology to simulate Howard Stern (for the satisfaction
of women). With Howard Stern, the salient feature is the success,
and the *relative* status. If every man had a $500 million satellite
radio contract, they would all be merely average again in the eyes
of women. (Consider that the average US working stiff is fantastically
wealthy in Medieval terms, but modern US women have simply
raised their materialistic requirements commensurately.)
With Howard Stern's girlfriend, the salient features
are *absolute*: her looks and her receptive behavior.
If every woman looked similarly good, and behaved as adoringly
toward the average working stiff, they would still look good.
(A man can test this hypothesis by viewing photographs of
thousands of attractive women. Even after massive, pervasive
exposure, they still look good. In fact, pornography can be
understood as an attempt by men to democratize the experience
of enjoying beautiful women. So far, technology hasn't been
up to the task---actual beautiful women are still better---but
technology will keep improving.)
I think it is technologically possible for all men to be satisfied, but
satisfying all women would be much harder, because satisfaction
for women depends more on out-competing other women for some
tiny percentage of men who are judged to be the most successful
by the criteria du jour. That is, maximum satisfaction for a woman
is not just a function of what she has, but of what she can prevent
other women from having. That is what the stereotypical female
lust to monopolize successful men represents. It's not necessarily
a woman's conscious plan to thwart her competitors, but her
emotional brain is wired up to drive her to do exactly that.
True, a man might derive *some* pleasure by twitting loserguys
with his trophy woman, but I think most guys would be happy to
lose that small pleasure in exchange for not having to deal with
any more competition. Consider: when men look at porn, they
rarely try to prevent other men from looking at more *copies* of
it. The fact that simulacra are copyable means we can make the
pie bigger. A LOT bigger.
And as a socialist,
As a socialist you should support efforts to level the sexual playing
field (for men, anyway) with sex robots. From each according to
his technical ability, to each according to his sexual need.
I can only applaud the Red Army's
victory over one of the most evil regimes in all history.
If Hitler had won, he also would have scored a victory over one
of the most evil regimes in all of history. By the way, Hitler
was a socialist too.
It was fortunate for the democracies of the world that two
of the most evil socialist regimes in all of history were considerate
enough to decimate each other. 70% of German casualties
in WWII occurred on the Eastern Front. The "Greatest
Generation" is fortunate indeed that it merely faced less
than a third of the full might of Nazi Germany.
(No, I am not
approving of that butcher Stalin. He betrayed communism.)
Would you say George W. Bush betrays Republicanism, or
would you instead say George W. Bush illustrates the
inevitable results of Republicanism?
Would you say Islamic suicide bombers betray Islam, or are
they the inevitable products of Islamic ideology?
Would you say abortion-clinic bombers betray Christianity,
or are they the inevitable products of Bible thumping?
Would you say pedophile Roman Catholic priests are
merely individual sinners, or do they reflect some systemic
flaw in Roman Catholic ideology?
Would you say library masturbaters are merely pervs, or are
they the products of Ilyadology?
In general, when partisans of one ideology attack another ideology,
they consider the sins of the rival ideology's followers as indicating
fundamental flaws in the ideology. That is, _ad hominem_ arguments
seem perfectly valid when applied to the opponent.
While on the other hand, most ideologues excuse the sins of
their fellow ideologues as being nothing more than anomalous
deviations from their ideology. The offenders are not "true"
Christians, or "true" Communists, or "true" whatever they
claim to be.
Can you judge the results of every ideology fairly?
Indeed, do you have any concept of the ideology of fairness?
We know people are flawed. We know flawed people will
take advantage of whatever ideology is handy to do what
they want. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold every ideology
accountable for the safeguards it has built in---if any---against
the inevitable abuses which will occur when flawed people
get hold of it. That is, does an ideology acknowledge the
reality that some people will try to misuse it, and does the
ideology have any built-in defenses against this inevitability?
Or does the ideology instead try to pretend that all people
are good?
And does an ideology learn from its mistakes? Or does it
simply make excuses and apply double standards like
you do?
Communism, Catholicism, Islam, Republicanism, etc., each
repeatedly have given rise to their respective types of abuses.
Only the proponents of an ideology could blind themselves
sufficiently to ignore its obvious flaws.
An analogy might help. Suppose a company builds very fine
cutting torches, which are reliable and safe in the hands of
properly trained users. Would handing out these torches to
young boys be a good idea? Because torches are material
objects, it's possible to control who gets hold of them. Ideas,
on the other hand, cannot be so controlled. An idea
which spreads can spread to every type of people, including
the worst type of people. The proper way to judge an ideology
is to see how the worst people handle it.
If an ideology is unsafe for flawed humans to handle, it's a flawed
ideology. And that would be just about every ideology, to date.
Democracy has a better track record than most because of
its notion of division of powers. The problem with absolutist
doctrines such as Islam, Catholicism, Communism, and
evangelical Christianity is that each allows ultimate authority
to rest with one man. Obviously, that attracts men who have
the strongest lust for power. And very often those turn out to
be the worst men.
Democracy, on the other hand, attempts to limit the scope of
evil to the population average. The average person is not as
evil as the average despot. But the average person is still
pretty evil, and it's only a representative form of government
anyway, so democracy cannot be "perfect."
-- the Danimal
.
|
