ConfettiEggnog wrote

Thank you

I had no idea of any of this research

Without doing any of the reading, I'd say from the ignorant point of view that

Above this size, the group will inevitably have to resort to coercive methods in order to maintain order.

it should be about organized police, as the small group does precisely that. And it can do it in far worse ways than police violence.

Reply to comment by /u/sudo in Do you support free speech? by /u/chaos


ConfettiEggnog wrote

In the 19th century, being a racist was a virtuous way of thinking. So a white man might have erotic fantasies with black men or women, but that was not his discourse. That was something to be discreet about.

In the 21st century, being a racist is unacceptable in most circles. So everything is cool. Whites even invented the term "color blind" to show off their coolness. They still have a very unnatural act in the presence of people of different skin colors, but nothing racist will part their lips - at least this is how they imagine things. Wait till "your daughter marries one of them".

You need the narrative of "a few". All this trendy racists are in their minds one of the few. This way you, and your dear ones, your mentors, are all exempt.

Also you are building a straw man. I write ALL in the sense that the two saints that aren't have two simultaneous qualities: 1. they are irrelevant compared with a few hundred millions only in the States and 2. they are not you.


ConfettiEggnog wrote

It's not about women. It's about humans. Than you see that equal rights makes some sense without the emotional crap.

Men should not die. Yet, as humans, they are going to die all. Only god is immortal. At least this is what some say.

Keep in mind the Y is obsolete anyway, so in a few generations it would be pointless to have any males of the specie.


ConfettiEggnog wrote

By losers I mean people who have a general inclination to lose. From losing the attention of the liked female - which lead to monogamy and strict rules to enforce marriage - to losing a job - which lead to all sort of social concepts and insurances.

In short: if you know you are going to lose, you are going to be a staunch egalitarian. Even the slightest hope of a chance to win, than the egalitarian stance starts to slowly fade away. As only the mentally disabled can be certain of something, each of us has at least some shade of egalitarianism inside, lurking around the corner.


ConfettiEggnog wrote

When the speaker is one vegan individual against 10 000 meat eaters and the government is conspiring with the farmers to grow national crops and raise national cattle with the taxpayer money, including the taxes took from the said vegan.

When the system changes to eliminate the subventions, and the people understand the abuse it is going to be 8 000 vegans against 60 disgusting farmers and some 20 sadists working at the slaughter house.


ConfettiEggnog wrote

So step one: stop the subventions.

That can't be achieved by talk alone. Because you get to stop say the subvention to corn, yet some other power group will start subventions for peanuts.

You do that by taking money away from the officials. Smaller budgets also means not enough money for any grandiose pyramid to entomb the glorious president.