NeilBru

@NeilBru@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Are most people here left-wing?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

  There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

  There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

  Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

  There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

  There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

  For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

  As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

  So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

  Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

  No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

  The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

  • Frank Wilhoit
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨LinkedIn’s cofounder Reid Hoffman says seeking work-life balance is a red flag that you’re ‘not committed to winning’⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  “Hail corporate!”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do people still eat beef when we know it's terrible for Earth?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I eat beef (occasionally) due to its excellent flavor, versatility in cuisine, and high complex protein density.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is it in people that makes them want to sabotage people who are doing well? I get it stems from jealousy but is that proof human nature is to be isolated rather than tribal? tribal?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Thanks for the kind compliment, but my title for my response is my opinion. The rest of the text is taken from a Wikipedia article about “Crabs in a Bucket Mentality” and was pasted in a way to support my first statement.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is it in people that makes them want to sabotage people who are doing well? I get it stems from jealousy but is that proof human nature is to be isolated rather than tribal? tribal?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Most Many people are complete dicks.

  Self-evaluation maintenance theory

  Tesser’s self-evaluation maintenance theory (SEM) suggests that individuals engage in self-evaluation not only through introspection but also through comparison to others, especially those within their close social circles. When someone close to an individual excels in areas they value, they may feel threatened and act in ways that downplay their achievements. This mechanism can partly explain why individuals may attempt to pull down those who achieve more than themselves as a way to protect their own self-esteem and social standing. Emotions such as envy may be generated when individuals feel threatened during self-evaluation. This can lead to a desire to diminish the well-being of others, particularly when their success highlights the individual’s own failures or inadequacies.

  Relative deprivation theory

  Relative deprivation theory proposes that feelings of dissatisfaction and injustice arise when people compare their situation unfavorably with others’ situations. This sense of inequality, rooted in subjective perceptions rather than objective measures, can deeply influence social behavior, including the phenomenon of crab mentality. When individuals see their peers achieving success or receiving the recognition they feel is undeserved or unattainable for themselves, it can trigger actions aimed at undermining these peers’ accomplishments. The concept emerged from a study of American soldiers by Stouffer. Soldiers in units with more promotions were paradoxically less satisfied, feeling left out if not promoted themselves, despite better odds of advancement. This reflects how relative deprivation fuels dissatisfaction by comparing one’s situation to others. By “dragging” others down to a similar level, individuals might feel a sense of satisfaction. Thus, crab mentality can be viewed as a response to perceived social inequality, where pulling others down becomes a strategy to cope with feelings of inadequacy or injustice.

  Zero-sum bias

  Zero-sum bias, where individuals perceive that they can only gain at the expense of others, may contribute to crab mentality. This bias is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of success and resource distribution, leading to the incorrect belief that success and resources are limited and one person’s gain is necessarily another’s loss. Such a worldview fosters competitive rather than collaborative social interactions, encouraging behaviors that aim at hindering others’ achievements to protect one’s perceived share of limited resources, like crabs in a bucket. In Daniel V. Meegan’s study, researchers found that students expected lower grades for peers after seeing many high grades already awarded, despite being in a system where high grades are unlimited. This illustrates how people often view success as a limited resource. Thus, when they see their peers successfully “climbing out of the bucket”, they may try to hinder their progress to ensure their own chances of success remain unchanged.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I moved to the Netherlands from the U.S. in July of 2022.

  My opinion now? There are morons everywhere. I think more, per capita, back in the U.S. of A.

  The world is a circus, but in the U.S., you have front row seats.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  ACH, beat me to it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is currently holding us back from mining in space?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Surface-to-intrasolar-space propulsion technology in its to reach escape velocity is prohibitively expensive.

  Currently, we use combustion. My instincts tell me that an “electro-gravitic” paradigm in propulsion is next.

  Before that, we must have a revolutionary breakthrough or discovery in our fundamental understanding of physics.

  Basically, we’re not smart enough and too low on the Kardashev scale to get a decent ROI on such an endeavour.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Why do women avoid men so much?

  They perceive men to be threats, nuisances, duplicitous, and generally contemptible, so its primarily out of fear.

  The opinion on whether it’s justified, conditioned, misplaced, or outright misandry is hotly debated, but it’s my opinion that the roots of the fear of men is a very human epigenetic, prehistoric, and primal fear of the “other”; in this case, the “other” is a man.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it possible to have a "free speech" platform that simultaneously stops "hate speech"?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Short answer: no. But one should define terms, especially with legal implications.

  “Hate Speech” always sounded a bit Orwellian to me. Just like “Homeland Security”. People should be allowed to speak about what they hate, even if it’s bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. if free thought and inquiry are valuable human rights.

  In general, I believe the jurisprudence of free speech in our country (USA) essentially says beyond, libel, slander, inciting violence, or sedition, the government can’t imprison you for expression or forcibly silence you in a public forum.

  Private organizations and companies can regulate speech within their domains and property to the extent that they don’t violate other laws or rights of other parties within and without their said domains and property.

  I think that’s pretty fair.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Ubisoft launches NFT game with figures costing up to $63K⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Is there any public record of anyone actually buying that tripe?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What does this emoji mean? Is this a British thumbs up?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Hang loose, brah.