The left pissing off commuters on freeways or stopping them to interrogate potential Nazi beliefs doesn't seem very conflict-averse or "domesticated" to me
Indeed, and that's the milder end of the spectrum. Many are outright sadistic toward their political opponents to the point of endorsing or comitting murder over disagreements and have no empathy even for incidental victims who are politically inconvenient ie Rotherham or Iryna. They're extraordinarily aggressive and intolerant and seem animated by a deep, vengeful hatred, and gloat about the destruction they have wrought.
Maybe these are outliers and the domestication is in the broader population that has cowered before them. I recall there's been some evidence that dark triad traits cluster to the left, probably because much more power, particularly social power, is centralized to the left currently.
I don't understand. Are you saying the alleged 'racially charged police brutality' is a thing of the left? If you are saying that, I disagree. If you're not, then I have no idea what you mean.
I’m saying that’s common from the right (obviously also a generalization). The original commenter was saying that leftists stops commuters to interrogate them.
The original commenter said the left's actions are often not very domesticated i.e. he was taking issue with the author's claim.
You then replied saying the right isn't very domesticated either, which no one, neither the original commenter nor the author, disagreed with. You were simply agreeing with everyone.
Modern Western man is a fat and happy zoo animal, blinded to the bars of his cage by sugary snacks, TikToks, binge-watching and PornHub, happy to spend his days lounging in plush safety and perplexed that anyone might want anything different. He looks out at the few remaining wild humans—people or peoples who still fight, die and kill in order to live and thrive—with both fear and contempt, confusing caloric security with moral advancement.
But Nietzsche hit it first!
From "Zarathrustra":
Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Behold, I show you the Last Man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" -- so asks the Last Man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.
"We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him; for one needs warmth.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse.
"We have discovered happiness," say the Last Men, and they blink.
And let's not forget the Last Man's reading habits:
"Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves."
That crazy German genius not only foresaw the bloody European wars of the 20th century, he also saw what would follow: the reign of mediocrity, the warm egalitarian herd smothering everyone and everything vital, humans turned into passive consumers and permanent patients, with each of us patient and doctor, buyer and seller, in one.
A summary is that humanity is shifting from physical dominance to cognitive dominance. It seems to me that a mix of left–right ideology is the best course. Individualism must survive, as it is admirable when it produces great advancements in science, engineering, math, art, architecture, medicine, and quality of life. But when individualism destroys societal cohesion, it is pathetic.
My working theory (complementary to this one) is that below a certain point morality is the chief binding mechanism for society, but above that point it's ideology.
Thus the right (in low-density areas) is mainly moral whereas the left is mainly ideological.
Put these two ideas together and we get a theory of human divergence based upon the density of living area (i.e. Paul Kingsnorth's "machine" in other wording)
Would you say that you agree with Ted Kaczynski's oversocialization theory the most, out of each of the different theories of Wokism that I have listed on this page (https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/wokism)?
I’ve always suspected that the momentous social changes of the 1960s / 1970s (and to a lesser extent the 1920s / 1930s) were too dramatic to be anything other than epigenetic. Each possibly precipitated by the horrors of the previous world war. And the epigenetic mechanism for “domestication” might be as simple as an increase in feminization - as the two map fairly closely to each other.
At one pont in the interview Williamson tells of the observation of a younger male friend who found that young men are now so conditioned to not express 'dominant' male behaviour like approaching women, that they also don't 'approach' each other anymore. In the sense that unwanted male behaviour (vs women for instance) is not - harshly - punished / called out anymore by other men like they did in the past.
Honestly, left then seems to be more distant from our wild animal heritage, therefore more "civilized"? Is that not right wing blog🙂? However this is consistent with right wing critique, that left goes against "human nature"... which however seems to be adaptable, fluid....responsive to domestication?
My problem with lefty empathy is that it's impossible (also goofy and dumb) to have genuine empathy with people or categories of people you don't really know and understand or with situations you only read about. This is how empathy becomes hypocritical and morphs in virtue signalling.
Many people confuse "empathy" with "what I would think or feel if such-and-such happened to me". When the other people refuse to follow the script they don't pause and think, hmmm, I was wrong about that. They double down on feeling 'empathetic' about what people ought to have thought, felt or believed. It's a covert sort of selfishness.
As a leftist, I agree. I think far too often leftists act paternalistically in ways that are unhelpful. However, I think that many of the broad goals of leftist policies do seek to help people collectively in ways that are impactful and positive—equal distribution of public school funding exemplifies this.
The left pissing off commuters on freeways or stopping them to interrogate potential Nazi beliefs doesn't seem very conflict-averse or "domesticated" to me
Indeed, and that's the milder end of the spectrum. Many are outright sadistic toward their political opponents to the point of endorsing or comitting murder over disagreements and have no empathy even for incidental victims who are politically inconvenient ie Rotherham or Iryna. They're extraordinarily aggressive and intolerant and seem animated by a deep, vengeful hatred, and gloat about the destruction they have wrought.
Maybe these are outliers and the domestication is in the broader population that has cowered before them. I recall there's been some evidence that dark triad traits cluster to the left, probably because much more power, particularly social power, is centralized to the left currently.
I don't understand. Are you saying the alleged 'racially charged police brutality' is a thing of the left? If you are saying that, I disagree. If you're not, then I have no idea what you mean.
I’m saying that’s common from the right (obviously also a generalization). The original commenter was saying that leftists stops commuters to interrogate them.
The original commenter said the left's actions are often not very domesticated i.e. he was taking issue with the author's claim.
You then replied saying the right isn't very domesticated either, which no one, neither the original commenter nor the author, disagreed with. You were simply agreeing with everyone.
Modern Western man is a fat and happy zoo animal, blinded to the bars of his cage by sugary snacks, TikToks, binge-watching and PornHub, happy to spend his days lounging in plush safety and perplexed that anyone might want anything different. He looks out at the few remaining wild humans—people or peoples who still fight, die and kill in order to live and thrive—with both fear and contempt, confusing caloric security with moral advancement.
But Nietzsche hit it first!
From "Zarathrustra":
Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Behold, I show you the Last Man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" -- so asks the Last Man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.
"We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him; for one needs warmth.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse.
"We have discovered happiness," say the Last Men, and they blink.
And let's not forget the Last Man's reading habits:
"Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves."
That crazy German genius not only foresaw the bloody European wars of the 20th century, he also saw what would follow: the reign of mediocrity, the warm egalitarian herd smothering everyone and everything vital, humans turned into passive consumers and permanent patients, with each of us patient and doctor, buyer and seller, in one.
Nietzsche knew!
What is all this talk about 'blinking'?
This is an interesting take on it:
https://www.thelivingphilosophy.com/p/nietzsche-the-last-man
'Blink' can mean anything from incomprehension to herd mentality to nihilism to exhaustion.
Infinite interpretations is part of what makes Nietzsche fun.
Excellent analysis.
A summary is that humanity is shifting from physical dominance to cognitive dominance. It seems to me that a mix of left–right ideology is the best course. Individualism must survive, as it is admirable when it produces great advancements in science, engineering, math, art, architecture, medicine, and quality of life. But when individualism destroys societal cohesion, it is pathetic.
My working theory (complementary to this one) is that below a certain point morality is the chief binding mechanism for society, but above that point it's ideology.
Thus the right (in low-density areas) is mainly moral whereas the left is mainly ideological.
Put these two ideas together and we get a theory of human divergence based upon the density of living area (i.e. Paul Kingsnorth's "machine" in other wording)
Fascinating post.
Would you say that you agree with Ted Kaczynski's oversocialization theory the most, out of each of the different theories of Wokism that I have listed on this page (https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/wokism)?
The notion of bonobos being less aggressive is no longer current. https://www.science.org/content/article/bonobos-hippie-chimps-might-not-be-so-mellow-after-all
I’ve always suspected that the momentous social changes of the 1960s / 1970s (and to a lesser extent the 1920s / 1930s) were too dramatic to be anything other than epigenetic. Each possibly precipitated by the horrors of the previous world war. And the epigenetic mechanism for “domestication” might be as simple as an increase in feminization - as the two map fairly closely to each other.
More evolution: The Brutal Tactics of Female Sexual Competition - Dr Dani Sulikowski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsy41uI1dmY
At one pont in the interview Williamson tells of the observation of a younger male friend who found that young men are now so conditioned to not express 'dominant' male behaviour like approaching women, that they also don't 'approach' each other anymore. In the sense that unwanted male behaviour (vs women for instance) is not - harshly - punished / called out anymore by other men like they did in the past.
Honestly, left then seems to be more distant from our wild animal heritage, therefore more "civilized"? Is that not right wing blog🙂? However this is consistent with right wing critique, that left goes against "human nature"... which however seems to be adaptable, fluid....responsive to domestication?
Theodore Dalrymple did describe socialism as a "revolt against human nature".
—NC
Heh, almost the exact title of a Murray Rothbard book
And overlaps quite well with sowell, a conflict of visions. Where the unconstrained (vs constrained) view of human nature is infinitely malleable.
“Declining testosterone levels in men.“
Wasn’t that one deboonked and was due to the instrument measuring changing over time?
My problem with lefty empathy is that it's impossible (also goofy and dumb) to have genuine empathy with people or categories of people you don't really know and understand or with situations you only read about. This is how empathy becomes hypocritical and morphs in virtue signalling.
Many people confuse "empathy" with "what I would think or feel if such-and-such happened to me". When the other people refuse to follow the script they don't pause and think, hmmm, I was wrong about that. They double down on feeling 'empathetic' about what people ought to have thought, felt or believed. It's a covert sort of selfishness.
As a leftist, I agree. I think far too often leftists act paternalistically in ways that are unhelpful. However, I think that many of the broad goals of leftist policies do seek to help people collectively in ways that are impactful and positive—equal distribution of public school funding exemplifies this.
All of this only applies to the followers, not to those who are reeling them in for their own ends.