/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15659070]

Atheists, does the religious nature of BLM and leftism make you doubtful about the plausibility of a truly secular society? Is Jordan Peterson right when he says that humans cannot function without a religious structure of some form in their lives?

[Anonymous No.15659099]

>>15659070
Lol, you pray to idols like Jewsus.
I pray to real men, like BLACK BVLLS
How does it feel you're getting cucked by a Jew...
while I am being a cucked by a big black man.
Bit your jealous of my wife, huh, Christcuck. ;)

[Anonymous No.15659272]

>traditional religious society
>shit
>leftist quasireligious movement
>shit
It proves that society religious in any way is shit, and we will either get rid of it, or will drown.

[Anonymous No.15659283]

>>15659070
Jordan Peterson is a brainlet, but this is the one thing he gets right. If only he took the next step and actually joined a religious tradition instead of resting in the comfort of whatever psychoanalytic pseudo-Christianity he believes, maybe that would mediate some of his autism.

[Anonymous No.15659291]

>Being against police brutality is a religious thing
Feck off

[Anonymous No.15659294]

>>15659099
Why are you here?

[Anonymous No.15659316]

>>15659294
To fight against the white patriarchy and make a difference in this world! i am a beacon of light. Butterfly is my wife, and she loves being fucked by black trannies. It is the Greek spirit. grow up and find the real god of sexual liberation, you privileged white male chauvinist pig.

[Anonymous No.15659335]

>>15659272
>centrist religious homeostasis
>???

[Anonymous No.15659350]

OP here. Guy's i'm making a very specific argument, I think you're missing it. The far left today is religious obviously. If you are a nonbeliever you are punished, regardless of your race. If you go against the dogma you can be beat, doxed, ect. Trump has become a satanic representation of all evil, and they view themselves as virtuous saints cleansing society from his evil influence. If you disagree with my assessment, disagree with a leftist publicly and see what happens. My question is this..

>Can humans achieve a secular society, or are we doomed to be religious in nature?

[Anonymous No.15659354]

>>15659070
>>15659099
>>15659272
>>15659283
>>15659291
>>15659294
>>15659316
>>15659335
>>15659350
This is a board for discussing literature.

[Anonymous No.15659364]

>>15659070
No, in fact I enjoy it. I think we should dissolve civilization once for all and live in nature like the animals that we in fact are, without any oppression. Civilization ruins our natural gift of equality. Black Lives Matter more than your buildings and statues.

[Anonymous No.15659369]

>>15659070
they don't have a religious nature and no

[Anonymous No.15659372]

>>15659350
If you will disobey government or gangsters, you will suffer. Does that make country or gang a religion? If no, apply the same to your example, if yes, then you use words in such a wide sense that they lose all meaning.

[Anonymous No.15659384]

>>15659369
>they don't have a religious nature

[Anonymous No.15659386]

>>15659291

It is very religious when you just swallow what ever the media, the twitter mob academics tell you to think.

[Anonymous No.15659387]

>>15659372
You are conflating disobey with disagree. I can disagree with my government and be fine, this is how you know there is a seperation of church and state. Disagree with BLM. Go ahead. See what happens.

[Anonymous No.15659434]

>>15659070
>>15659384
You can call this "religious nature" only if you equate "religious" with "unreasonable", in the way that they act according to groundless belief instead of reason. But, if you did that, then the faith of philosophers in God would be atheism, as it is neither groundless nor unreasonable. And it is unclear to me how clear cognition of God can ever be called atheism.

[Anonymous No.15659459]

>>15659364

>>>/Twitter/

[Anonymous No.15659470]

>>15659434

Prove that there is "systemic racism" that isn't just cherry picking or conflating the fact that blacks commit more crimes correlating that with "racism".

[Anonymous No.15659480]

>>15659470
>commit more crimes
They get arrested for more crimes. Why is /lit/ so bad at empiricism?

[Anonymous No.15659484]

>>15659434

>he thinks Twitter isn't groundless beliefs: the playground

[Anonymous No.15659493]

>>15659480

Ok but that still doen't prove any "racism" is happening at all.

[Anonymous No.15659527]

>>15659470
>>15659484
Did you read my post? I said that they held unreasonable beliefs, and that they are not religious because religion cannot be equated to mere unreasonable belief, and that is obvious because it would make the reasonable belief of philosophers in God into the opposite of religion, which is silly. Religion is necessarily connected to belief in God (whether the predominant unreasonable belief or the rarer and more precious reasonable belief) and cannot be taken to mean "unreasonable belief" in general. Hence, the left wing, despite holding many unreasonable beliefs with great conviction, is nonetheless not religious in any manner, because religion is not the same thing as unreasonable belief.

[Anonymous No.15659532]

>>15659434
they're unironically baptizing people at the place he died

[Anonymous No.15659541]

>>15659070
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

[Anonymous No.15659618]

>>15659532
Yes. They are demonstrating the strength of common conviction, which is taken to be one of the causes of the strength of any active body of men. And, yes, it was and is common among religious people as well, to demonstrate strength of conviction as a poorly concieved substitute to substantial reasoning and grounding. They are similar to that extent to which they are both unreasonable. But they differ in their beliefs, on which ground one can be called a religion and the other cannot.

[Anonymous No.15659631]

>>15659618
the equality of humans counts as a religious belief

[Anonymous No.15659678]

>>15659631
How? It does not in any way pertain to God. You could call it unreasonable belief, but not religious belief. If you equated those two, it would be proper to say that you act on religious grounds when you choose to trust a person who had previously lied to you and defend your action with some degree of conviction. It is mindless to do this sort of word-play. That which does not pertain to God cannot be said to be properly religious. There is reasonable religious belief as well as unreasonable unreligious belief.

[Anonymous No.15659694]

>>15659070
>Atheists,
A person's atheism does not, or at least should not have any bearing on how they answer this question. I'm an atheist but I'm doubtful a secular society (a) can exist at all (b) exist without constantly being afflicted by dysfunctions. I don't see how these views alone could possibly cause me to start believing in God, however, when I previously did not.

[Anonymous No.15659716]

>>15659070
Religion requires a supernatural entity. Otherwise we're talking about ideology/ philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15659729]

>>15659694
It does have a bearing. If a person is an atheist, it should not be controversial to take that to mean that the person's position is that the falsity of religion can be properly known and properly demonstrated. If what I say is true, and the person is not an epistemic nihilist (in which case he cannot be said to be properly atheist, indeed, he cannot be said to be properly anything and hold any position other than epistemic nihilism), then it should follow that this truth can also be demonstrated to other persons and that they can hold it. If this is true, then such a collection of related persons in interaction, society, in which every person holds this belief, is also concievable.
OP's mistake is in, for one, considering religious belief and unreasonable belief to mean the same, and, for the other, an epistemic nihilism by which he seems to claim that it is necessary that people will always hold unreasonable beliefs.

[Anonymous No.15659779]

>>15659729
>can also be demonstrated to other persons and that they can hold it
Not them but I'd argue that "can" doesn't entail being in any way optimistic about the viability of this. People's neurological quirks come into play, and additionally I don't see that as a weakness of humanity, categorically speaking.

[Anonymous No.15659856]

>>15659729
>epistemic nihilists cannot be atheists
Most atheists do not think that the existence of god is impossible. It is just that the belief in one is not justified with the empiric evidence (or lack therof) present.

[Anonymous No.15660180]

>>15659070
Read Monnerot's Sociology of Communism.

[Anonymous No.15660210]

>>15659856
Yes, but that differentiates them from epistemic nihilists. An epistemic nihilist cannot consider proof, to him, nothing has any relation to truth but an accidental relation, that is, truth cannot be known. It can happen that I say something that is true, but I cannot know it to be true and I did not arrive at it by reasoning, but by blind chance, and, if I have arrived at it, I nonetheless cannot know that I did arrive at it. An atheist pronounces judgement and thinks it true, that the belief in the existence of God is unjustified belief because he considers that which he gives as evidence to have a relation to the truth. That is, he considers that we can differentiate justified and unjustiffied beliefs according to evidence (which is knowledge, that is, it is in relation to the truth) and reasoning. An epistemic nihilist can only concieve unjustified beliefs, and, for that reason, it is improper to call him an atheist because, to him, the statement "there is no God" is just as unjustified as the statement "there is God", neither has any knowable connection to the truth.

[Anonymous No.15660286]

>>15659350
You're retarded

[Anonymous No.15660303]

>>15659291
You're against the police, not just police brutality. You've already got innocent cops killed and you're still not happy. You are a niggerloving cultist

[Anonymous No.15660321]

>>15660286
You're retarded and love niggers, BLM cuck cultist. Don't you have a BVLL to milk to account for 1000 centuries of genocide and White racism, faggot?

[Anonymous No.15660422]

>>15660321
you watched too much cuckold porn, my man

[Anonymous No.15660440]

>>15659350
That's not what religious means you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.15660467]

>>15659070
>Jordan Peterson right when he says that humans cannot function without a religious structure of some form in their lives?
yes and no. the emotions you put into religion can be shifted to the state,family or a hobby.
>BLM and leftism make you doubtful about the plausibility of a truly secular society?
Why would it? they are just temporary

[Anonymous No.15660471]

>>15659354
not anymore bucko, go back to r/literature

[Anonymous No.15660482]

>>15659291
The police really nothing do to with these conflict, at least beyond a superficial level. This is a white vs black thing. These people assume white people are evil so they hate them and they destroy what they identify as white, like cities and statues.

[Anonymous No.15660501]

>>15660482
the majority of protesters are white, the statues going down are those of slave owners

[Anonymous No.15660537]

>>15660482
>The police really nothing do to with these conflict
This is how you sound like after spending 4 years in an echo chamber

[Anonymous No.15660539]

>>15660501
Yes, these people are traitors. They're self hating whites and they're participating in the destruction of their own people. Think about what a nation or a people is, it's a group composed of a shared blood and a shared history. If your goal was to destroy a people, one half of the problem involves destroying its history. This is why when a nation is conquered by another the first thing that happens is their statues are taken down.

Right now this is done under the pretext of slavery but this is nothing but an excuse which is plausible for the unthinking masses. Even if their goals was actually benign and they're only trying to discourage racism against blacks, how the hell is tearing down statues or pretending Washington wasn't our first president going to change that? Nobody becomes racist because they see a statue of Ulysses S. Grant. Why stop with statues of slave owners when we ca rewrite murderers from the history books in an effort to discourage murder? Let's just change our history to make it seem like slavery never happened.

[Anonymous No.15660548]

>>15660537
If it was about police brutality they would be just as concerned when white people are killed by police, but instead they're in the treats chanting "fuck white people" because they assume without evidence that every single white person racist and oppressing them. "Systematic racism" is an anti-white prejudice.

[Anonymous No.15660571]

>>15660548
Not really, for example when you're homosexual and you're getting discriminated against, noone would bat an eye if you were to talk out against discrimination against homosexuals specifically. Same thing applies here.
>but instead they're in the treats chanting "fuck white people"
Nice pivot there, a couple of people expressing their anger towards white police officers in an hyperbolic manner does not equate to all BLM protestors hating white people.

[Anonymous No.15660573]

>the Bible:
Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.
>Also the Bible:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

It's strange to me that America is gun capital of the world, 79% of gun owners claiming it's for protection from intruders, while also being 65% Christian.
I know that not all gun owners are Christian, but there has to be a large enough crossover that it all seems a little hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.15660584]

>>15660501
In US most blacks are democratic voters, but whites are split approximately in half. So it's a white-white conflict with blacks being a supportive power.

[Anonymous No.15660601]

>>15660571
They're not chanting "fuck white police officers", they're chanting "fuck white people". Even if they were chanting "fuck white police officers", why white police officers specifically if the issue is police brutality in general? The answer is they do that because it's a black and white issue and not one of police brutality. You admit this when you say that this is about discrimination as if there's evidence for it. You are assuming that white people are discriminating against blacks simply because they are white and this is an anti-white prejudice.

[Anonymous No.15660613]

This is a bad way to frame this, anon. Coming from a Religious Socialist I'd say the best way to frame this would be: Atheists, what do you replace god with? Degeneracy, idol obsession, etc.; would you not, then, rather have a god than a fool or his vice(s)?

[Anonymous No.15660614]

>>15659070
>muh religious
>muh politics
>muh society
>no books
kys, faggot

[Anonymous No.15660635]

>>15660601
>as if there's evidence for it.
There is plenty of evidence, but your affiliation with white supremacy refuses to acknowledge said evidence as true.

[Anonymous No.15660656]

>>15660635
What is the evidence that police are systematically discriminating against black people? Statistical disparities in arrests don't work because they're perfectly in line disparities in crime committed by black people. When we control for crime, white people and black people are being killed at essentially the same rates. There's not even a great number of people being killed by police, and even then it's rare for it to be unjustified.

Am I white supremacist because I recognize it when non-white people hate whites?

[Anonymous No.15660710]

>>15659070
And right-wingers, nationalists, fascists, racists, etc. are in the same "religious". However, it is no deep inside regarding religious against secular but the realization that religion is subsumed in ideology and what appears is the ubiquitousness of ideology as such. Or a society as such has ideology within its notion.

>>15660539
They're not participating in the destruction of their own people because if it were themselves they're destroying it would be paradoxical. What they are dismantling is "being white" as the empty universal or pure negativity. You think the "left" is opposed to you and your people as the "right" but in actuality the process that is propelled by the tension of left and right results in what both on their own strive for. By negating "being white" as universal it can in return become a particular again.

[Anonymous No.15660718]

>>15660710
I don't know what you're saying. It's impossible for somebody to destroy one of their own group? They're not trying to destroy white people, they're only trying to "negate" white people? This is the confused thinking typical of BLM.

[Anonymous No.15660724]

>>15660656
>What is the evidence that police are systematically discriminating against black people?

>More than one in four people arrested for drug law violations in 2015 was black, although drug use rates do not differ substantially by race and ethnicity and drug users generally purchase drugs from people of the same race or ethnicity. For example, the ACLU found that blacks were 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in 2010, even though their rate of marijuana usage was comparable.
>The highest officials in New York City had “turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” Judge Shira A. Scheindlin concluded regarding the city’s stop-and-frisk tactic, declaring it unconstitutional in 2013.17 The policy, which broadly targeted male residents of neighborhoods populated by low-income people of color to uncover drugs and weapons, was shown to be ineffective, and this assessment was further validated when New York City continued its crime decline after scaling back Stop and Frisk. Yet other localities continue to deploy the practice.
>In recent years, black drivers have been somewhat more likely to be stopped than whites but have been far more likely to be searched and arrested.21 The causes and outcomes of these stops differ by race, and staggering racial disparities in rates of police stops persist in certain jurisdictions—pointing to unchecked racial bias, whether intentional or not, in officer discretion. A closer look at the causes of traffic stops reveals that police are more likely to stop black and Hispanic drivers for discretionary reasons—for “investigatory stops” (proactive stops used to investigate drivers deemed suspicious) rather than “traffic-safety stops” (reactive stops used to enforce traffic laws or vehicle codes).22 Nationwide surveys also reveal disparities in the outcomes of police stops. Once pulled over, black and Hispanic drivers were three times as likely as whites to be searched (6% and 7% versus 2%) and blacks were twice as likely as whites to be arrested.23 These patterns hold even though police officers generally have a lower “contraband hit rate” when they search black versus whitedrivers.
>The DOJ found that black residents’ disproportionate rate of police stops, searches, and arrests resulted from city officials’ growing reliance on municipal fines and fees which police officers and court officers were exhorted to deliver through aggressive enforcement of traffic violations and petty offenses. ArchCity Defenders, authors of an early and influential white paper on the troubled municipal court system, has demonstrated that many other St. Louis municipalities have similar or worse practices than Ferguson

[Anonymous No.15660734]

>>15660548
Have you ever been to one of these protests? No one is chanting "fuck white people."

[Anonymous No.15660735]

>>15660724
So you ignore my post and point to disparities in encounters as if it's not perfectly in line with disparities in crime committed. Good job.

[Anonymous No.15660744]

>>15660718
An analogy: It isn't the goal of an exorcism to kill the subject.

[Anonymous No.15660748]

>>15660735
You don't seem to be intelligent enough for the white ethnostate you're rooting for.

[Anonymous No.15660749]

>>15660744
You're not clarifying anything.

[Anonymous No.15660764]

>>15660749
Something is clouding your vision. Both our visions.

[Anonymous No.15660809]

>>15660718
It is not fought on an individual level (where it would indeed be possible) as you yourself said, they are destroying their "own people" as a group. But to destroy they "own group" they must be different from that group because who would be destroying it they are themselves what is destroyed. Being white is not an identity, no determination (at least at this specific moment in history) but the normality, the background for being of colour, the underlying pure negativity, nothing so to speak.
And that as in its character a universal is precisely what is under attack. The successful destruction is whence the determintate whiteness is allowed to arise again which is also what you want and actively propel by being the counterpart to the left.

[Anonymous No.15660819]

>>15660749
That was not me, I tried to clarify here: >>15660809

[Anonymous No.15660833]

>>15660749
>>15660764
>>15660819
That "something" is called fear.

[Anonymous No.15660873]

>>15660809
What is not fought on an individual level? You people are so bad at communicating. You're denying that white people are even a group so we can't even begin to have a conversation about whether or not a white person could work to undermine the white group. What even is this "whiteness" that's being negated if white people aren't a group?

What is the functional difference between a "negating" of a people and the "destruction" of a people? I don't think there is any. I think you're talking about fundamentally changing the character of white people (who are at the same time nonexistent) but how do you fundamentally change the character of something without destroying or discarding what was previous? There's just something very dishonest about the way you people talk about these things.

Stop using the word whence, you knob.

[Anonymous No.15660877]

>>15659283
good point

[Anonymous No.15661051]

>>15660873
No, you're bad at communicating because you don't realize that what you're saying isn't clear to others. You yourself said it's about whites as a group against white people as a group. If you were at the same time talking about the idividual people, or let's call them persons to distinguish them, that supposedly form the group, than you're equating them and say nothing. I don't think you would do that so I assumed you were talking about the former to save your point. But now when white people (as a group) act against white people (as a group) they are different from each other which is exactly the point here.

Negating and destroying is not the same as the latter leaves us with true nothing as a result while the former leaves us with something that is not its antecedent.

[Anonymous No.15661187]

>>15661051
I'm talking about white individuals who are acting as traitors to the white group, White people acting against the interest of white people in protesting because they hate white people. You are a dumb person and I don't say that lightly.

[Anonymous No.15661285]

>>15659434
Faith is logically groundless, idiot... That's the whole point of it — a final redoubt when neither logic nor empiricism can support your belief. The faith of a philosopher is no more credible than that of anyone. Actual lines of reasoning for the existence of god are highly contested, and there is no broad philosophical acceptance.

All that said, I think painting all religion as entirely 'unreasonable' is too broad a stroke. Religion can be quasi-reasonable when it serves as a pragmatic vehicle for things like moral guidance and community building. This does not qualify, however... It's a bullshit anti-white, anti-decency narrative. Equalism is a -failed- religion, and we can see that even the victim classes don't believe it (they don't want contrition of their alleged 'oppressors', they want their complete surrender and extinction).

Now go die in a fire.

[Anonymous No.15661286]

>>15659678
The belief in equality literally has its origin in religion

[Anonymous No.15661435]

>>15660735
Why do illiterate people browse /lit/?

[Anonymous No.15661457]

>>15659070
>Is Jordan Peterson right when he says that humans cannot function without a religious structure of some form in their lives?
Lobster boy doesn't mean explicit religion exactly. You could be atheist and still believe everything Peterson says.

[Anonymous No.15661468]

This is obviously a bait thread. Why do people reply to this. As soon as jordan peterson is name dropped in a thread about religion and BLM, it is obviously bait. People on this board are so mind boggling stupid

[Anonymous No.15661505]

>>15660735
Of course, because actual systemic racism does not exist and the people replying to you know they can't provide evidence for something that isn't there.

[Anonymous No.15661547]

>>15661468
>This is obviously a bait thread. Why do people reply to this.
Because we see it fit to do so, despite the void of intellectual content on this board we all always come back here to talk to absolutely nobody about absolutely fuckall, and we enjoy grandstanding about these mountains of nothing. You too saw it fit to reply, as if it were to do anything but feed into the delusion that your reply could do anything about the state of the board or spark seethe&cope amongst your fellow nothing-spitters.

[Anonymous No.15661617]

>>15661505
How is blacks being priority targets of police searches not systematic racism?

[Anonymous No.15661642]

>>15659070
See: China

[Anonymous No.15661667]

>>15659291
Black Lies Matter is an anti-white communist lesbian Terrorist organization. “Police Brutality” is a thin disguise. Their own mission statement is explicitly communist
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

[Anonymous No.15661675]

>>15659070
Political parties and movements are religions in denial, we've known this for two hundred years at this point.

[Anonymous No.15661693]

>>15661617
Blacks are not being targeted because they're black, it's because they commit more crime. The police aren't searching Asian people less often because they love Asian people, it's because Asian people commit less crime. It's the same thing with traffic stops. They're not pulling over blacks for no reason, it's because they disproportionally commit traffic offenses and this is confirmed with speed camera data. These cameras aren't racist because they catch black drivers speeding at higher rates so it makes no sense to say the police are racist just because they pull over black people for speeding at disproportionate rates.

[Anonymous No.15661698]

>>15661693
You just shifted goalposts really fucking hard. Even if racism is justified, it is still racism.

[Anonymous No.15661763]

>>15661698
I literally just answered your question about why blacks are targeted more often by police, so how am I moving goalposts? I feel like that's a phrase you have in your head but don't really understand. You may not like the answer but that doesn't mean I'm changing the subject or throwing out red herrings.

The police target white people more than they target Asian people, is this evidence that they're racist against whites? I hope you can see the fallacy in this but I doubt you will. You're reasoning in a circle, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. The cops target blacks more often because they're racist, therefore cops are racist.

[Anonymous No.15661765]

>>15661698
It’s not racism, you fucking retard. It’s enforcement of laws.

[Anonymous No.15661793]

>>15661763
>I literally just answered your question about why blacks are targeted more often by police
So if we take 50 drivers. 25 of them are black, while 25 of them are white.
How is it not systemic racism when only 5 white people are searched, but also 20 black people?

[Anonymous No.15661932]

>>15661793
These numbers are silly and don't reflect reality in any way, but whatever. This is an economics question because police stations have limited resources to expend on patrolling and stopping crime. Efficiency demands that if you have an area of the city which has a higher rate of crime, you're going to put resources into patrolling that area. This means more police officers patrolling those particular streets. For whatever reason, black people commit a very high rate of crime so black neighborhoods tend to be patrolled more often by more police officers. This puts them in a position to have more contact with police officers and it's why they get searched more often and it's why they get arrested more often.

When we control for crime rates, meaning when we play with the math and assume every race commits the exact same amount of crime, we find that police essentially search and arrest people at the same rate. The racism is not there unless you assume it to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15661946]

>>15660710
Your thoughts on whiteness as an empty universal and its relationship with ethnic particularism betrays the most extreme Eurocentric thinking. Whiteness is not a universal negative from which all ethnic groups derive their sense of identity. This is a real phenomenon but it's something that only occurs in America and to a lesser degree Americanized nations in Europe. That you see white identity as an utter non-concept given your premise is only possible if you consider lands outside Ur-America to not *really* exist. Majoritarian identity myopia occurs everywhere. You're pointing to the potentially contingent status of a normative social dynamic (white is normative and thus a "negative identity") to say that self-reinforcing social norms are either immoral or lack validity. But the normative status of a majority community is only problematized when it is brought into contact with a politically significant Other group, and this is, again, a real but not universal dynamic. You're extrapolating a definition of identity from the particular social circumstances of places in the "West" over the last 150 years or so. Or, in fewer words, you're saying that the only "real groups" are minority groups in the West, but, critically, this definition presupposes the universality of the social conditions of the West.

You could also easily come to understand this by viewing other societies that do not have politically significant minority groups. To follow our colorized thinking, surely normative blackness and tan-ness exists in parts of the world? Black normativity in Uganda, for example, would only be politicized as in "open for criticism" if visible minority communities popped up there. But not everywhere has visible minority communities. For white Westerners the existence of minority communities has become a fact of life, but those white Westerners should not then assume the universal applicability of their "negative identity".

By the way, this can all be significantly confused by bringing up the existence of actually foreign Others. For the discussion here however, we are talking about the domestic Other, which is a fairly recent phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.15661971]

>>15659291
>NOOOOOOOOO I NEED TO FEEL AND INCULCATE MORAL SPOOKS ABOUT "BRUTALITY" IM NOTHING AT ALL LIKE THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. LET ME WASTE MY LIFE PREACHING ABOUT AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT ISNT GOING TO AFFECT ME NOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.15661992]

>>15661793
>>15661932
I developed a concept called "phantom crime" to understand liberal thinking on this topic. The idea of overpolicing relies on the possibility that the overpoliced community is actually not more criminal, which relies on the possibility that underpoliced communities are equally or more criminal. With this, underpoliced white communities in America must be (or potentially be) committing phantom crimes if their lower rates of criminality can only be explained by the police not seeing their crimes due to underpolicing. It's either that or the crimes of the overpoliced community are actually not happening. I see what that guy was saying with car searches and that might have some validity, but it doesn't extend to the actually-happening violent crimes that could not reasonably be swept under the rug in "underpoliced" white communities

[Anonymous No.15662033]

>>15659070
>Is Jordan Peterson right when he says that humans cannot function without a religious structure of some form in their lives?
Probably not in the sense which he intends. I think many people are reading this as, "Everyone worships," which is more along DFW's lines. What Peterson means is a stricter claim, like "if you don't have religion we'll be bunkmates in rehab." Personally no, I don't buy it. But you can see what solitary confinement does to a person, so everyone needs some amount of social structure, sure.

>the religious nature of BLM and leftism
Yeah, nah. Social things are not a subgroup of the religious; religion is a subset of the social.

[Anonymous No.15662037]

>>15659272
Can't get rid of it retard, you can only try to replace it.

[Anonymous No.15662181]

>>15661946
I'd say I do agree with you (I was somewhat imprecise for the sake of briefness) so I'm not sure if I get your point. Do you disagree with me in regard to my wording or in that you agree with the person I was replying to?

[Anonymous No.15662308]

>>15661932
Do you at least agree that the resulted overpolicing equates to a worse state in black communities?

[Anonymous No.15662340]

>>15662308
No I won't agree with that. I think the solution to black criminality is a much more aggressive policing and I use the example of Rudy Giuliani turning around New York City. Their culture which glorifies violence and other anti-social behaviors needs to drastically change and this can only start by crushing criminals, by making criminal behavior in the black community wildly unprofitable. I want them to be afraid of committing the pettiest crime.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15662370]

>>15660303
>innocent cops
Hahahha.
>>15660482
The cops caused the riots (and did their share of looting) these were the cop riots of 2020, set off by a cop murder and instigated by their vandalism and agent provocateurs
>>15661971
>Being beaten and murdered is a spoook
You’re not good at this, nufag

[Anonymous No.15662384]

>>15661932
Beautifully put. You might redpill a few anons on the myth of systematic racism if you keep being this reasonable and precise.

[Anonymous No.15662396]

>>15662370
>The cops caused the riots (and did their share of looting) these were the cop riots of 2020, set off by a cop murder and instigated by their vandalism and agent provocateurs
actual schizo

[Anonymous No.15662539]

>>15662181
The person you're replying to. I'm pointing out that your argument against the validity of whiteness as an identity presupposes social conditions that are neither inevitable nor universal. I don't have a problem with Eurocentrism in itself, I was just pointing out that extrapolation of liberal metanarratives is Eurocentric and thus ultimately contingent

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15662550]

>>15662396
There’s photographic evidence of all that.

[Anonymous No.15662585]

>>15662396
Yeah I don't know how you can reconcile this with so much video evidence to the contrary. The media gave up the "cops and white supremacists did the riots and looting" angle weeks ago and just say rioting is justified. Sounds like that dude is lagging behind the narrative

[Anonymous No.15662673]

>>15659070
OP, your line of questioning implies religion must be theism. Unfortunately for you, the depersonified numen has returned and people worship conceptions of power without assigning them to a figure. To participate in Blackness is to be blessed by all the brothers and sisters who struggled against oppression, and to transcend the wickedness of the colonizer. You too are called to participate in Blackness as a servant of this great power of authenticity.

[Anonymous No.15662711]

>>15659070
decent bait 6/10

just remember it was everyone's favorite fascist Carl Schmitt who said that what we call "the state" was nothing more than a secularized God

the Left is the only place where this fact is even marginally discussed, whereas liberals and reactionaries still hold positions that were hopelessly outdated even in the 19th century

read Sloterdijk

[Anonymous No.15662914]

>>15661547
No, I did not see it fit to reply. I am not replying to the topic of the thread, I saged the thread, and I am calling out everyone else for being stupid and engaging with this. I am not discussing the thread's topic

[Anonymous No.15663187]

>>15659291
Being unable to question established doctrine is, however.

[Anonymous No.15663199]

>>15659070
Religion died with the end of burnt offerings. Without live sacrifice, you're just being a hippie.

[Anonymous No.15663256]

>>15662370
>beaten and murdered
not my problem and yes, the concept of murder is a spook.