It’s out

You're correct for the most part. I think a few examples of Philosophy youtubers who are political but that aren't ideologues are Cuck Philosophy and the Distributist.
Also, Survive the Jive didn't really reference his political ideology in the video other than to combat Olly's misrepresentation of it. Most of it was bringing up points about the text or scientific articles. All the material that was mentioned is clearly in STJ's wheelhouse and he explains what Olly got wrong/deliberately misrepresented pretty aptly.

"no u". Great retort.

>sargonite vs commie faggot
no

Attached: 6tzhtdtzj.jpg (432x371, 39K)

Survive the Jive is not a sargonite.

You reminded me of that video of the onions philosopher about "communities of vulnerability" and now I feel like punching him in the face.

I think whether or not someone is an idealogue can also come through target audience rather than explicit statement. Cuck Philosophy (who I do respect regardless) is someone who generally does videos on (and in some level of favor of) Marxist and post-modernist philosophy and the sympathies of his audience reflect that. Survive the Jive does videos on history and trad-philosophy but is obviously catering to a reactionary white-nationalist/"race realist" audience. I'd still call both of them idealogues. Even if they don't pass the theoretical "idealogue test" on their own.

I don't think having a political ideology is the same as being an ideologue. An ideologue can't compromise their dogmas and thus changes the "facts" to fit their pre-formed world view rather than engaging with them. I don't think you can say that Cuck Philosophy or Survive the Jive regularly do this and, when they have done it, they've both seemed open to criticism about it --- that's not something you could say about someone like Contrapoints, PhilosophyTube, Jordan Peterson, Sargon, Stephan Molynuex, etc who all constantly act dishonestly.
I think it's more to do with a search for truth vs a search for power.

>marxists good
>white guy bad
you can do better than that.

Yeah, that is fair. They are definitely better than the people you listed at the end in that they at least don't deliberately reconstruct other people's ideas into their ideological grounds.
I don't think being a white guy is bad but racial nationalism isn't my thing.

I don't understand how people like this can talk so confidently about other people they clearly haven't read. Be humble for fucks sake, it's okay not to know things. When you start talking about how Evola and Guenon wanted X when in reality they were explicitly against X it makes you look like an asshole.

I make it a point to remember when people do this so I know not to trust a single word they say going forward. It doesn't surprise me to learn that he's an atheist.

Attached: 12111.png (836x430, 368K)

The private bargain being that he already drinks cum because he's the only actual faggot on that list. Queer.

Are fans of these YouTube personalities (Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints, Cuck Philosophy, etc.) aware that they receive nothing but agenda - that is no sincere attempt at revealing truth - in viewing them?

Who doesn't have an agenda? Who doesn't have beliefs?
Look at this guy>It doesn't surprise me to learn that he's an atheist
He sounds like a 1950s housewife talking about "the neighbors." Impartiality doesn't exist.

They already approach philosophy with preconceptions so it's wasted on them.

Your post is not in any way a criticism of what the person you're responding to said.

His post isn't really a criticism of YouTube personalities or their fanbases so I guess that's fair.

The point of Channels like Philosophy Tube and Contrapoints is to make people feel more justified in their pre-exiting beliefs so that they will object less to the idea of using violence to defend the status quo.

I said "nothing but" agenda. There's working towards, and working away from first principles. The YouTubers I mentioned are firmly in the latter camp.

Who's interested in truth without having an agenda? I'm an atheist, so for me Christianity is all agenda and no truth, no matter how much the people believe in it. Saying that people are "all agenda, and no truth" is basically the same as disagreeing with them.

How is saying that those channels manipulate the narrative for an agenda not a criticism of them. I think he's wrong about the last one but for the first to I think it's pretty demonstrably true.

The personalities I speak of claim to have monopoly on revelation, those like the chap in the OP do not.

So this is the power of watching 45 minute videos on Youtube by guys with BAs in Philosophy instead of reading Philosophy....

>BAs in Philosophy
That's being optimistic, really. On the topic of them presenting philosophical text through a lens of ideology, that honestly is how these YouTubers themselves were exposed to philosophy. I'm skeptical as to whether most of these people have even read their primary sources.

To use the example of Christianity again, whether or not somebody is all agenda, or claims to be, how can you tell if they are "sincerely attempting to reveal truth?" I can't prove or disprove that any of these YouTubers actually believes what they're saying. I could do it just as well as I could prove that about any Christian, or Matthew and Mark for that matter.

I don't know they all seem like they just have their politics, and they promote them. I don't see the big deal about the fact that people who make videos have opinions and belief systems.

>how can you tell if they are "sincerely attempting to reveal truth?
You're an atheist. A materialist too I assume? I'm not taking the piss here; but you're simply not predisposed to understanding the answer to that question.

Lmao

I could say the same thing about you, presumably being a Christian. You see, accusing somebody of "manipulating the narrative to suit their agenda" in many cases just means disagreeing with them.

Is-? Is that Sargoy of Applebees and STJ? When and why did that pic happen?

Not a Christian.

academics have been rap beef since the days of the Greeks you uncultured swine
go read some Enlightenment or Reformation pamphlets, see how much shit gets thrown around by guys like John Milton and Thomas Hobbes

What then? You seemed to hold my atheism at a distance, so you've suggested you're religious, and a lot of people here are Christians, which is why I felt safe in the assumption.

Better yet, read Byron. Byron makes fun of every other Romantic poet except Shelley in the prelude to Don Juan.

the audio sucks

I've only watched his video about suicide and I expected an actual analysis of suicide but instead he just cried a lot. I don't think he actually attempted suicide desu.

i like three arrows

The pagan seems kind of disingenuous. At one point he goes on about how "I was just having tea with my friend the Golden One in my house and now this Philosophy Tube guy is making videos about me."

Don't you just hate it when you promote an ideology for a living and you film yourself hanging out with another guy who does the same thing and you talk politics together, and people treat it as though it weren't a regular private conversation.

>I felt safe in the assumption.
You fucking retard, why would you make an assumption like that? Are christposters living in your head rent-free?

>e-celeb thread

Attached: a7f44a29.jpg (853x682, 38K)

>why would you make an assumption like that?
There are a lot of Christians here, and the guy said he was religious. Would it have been safer to assume he was Muslim or Jewish? Not very likely that he'd be anything else and still be here.

thats not the point he made

Attached: 1550219949870.jpg (576x1024, 35K)

The point he made was specifically, "I don't keep sources on hand when I'm having tea with my friend."

Still suggesting that he expected not to be questioned on the grounds that it was a casual conversation, even though he was filming it and did upload it to public scrutiny

You're being disingenuous. The point he made was that the video was made spur of the moment and thus he didn't have a source on hand --- he then went on to present his source.

You leave out that he then responded to the questioning by providing a source. He talked about it not being a pre-planned video as an explanation for why it was not extensively sourced.

I just don't like that rhetorical trick. "I was just having tea with my friend. I didn't expect anyone to ask where I got my info." His suggestion was also that it's unreasonable to question him, because this was a casual interaction, even though it was a video consciously made to promote his political views.

cringe

How is this a rhetorical trick?

Talking about things you do for political reasons, like filming a conversation and uploading it for money, as though they were apolitical, neutral, and casual.

A political club on my college campus walked in another club's meeting once and said similar things in their defense. "We just happened to be hanging out in the same place" when it was obviously some kind of protest that they'd planned. That's how the pagan reads to me.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Yea Forums - YouTube Pseuds

No I'm not. In fact I'm a little irritated that you're not getting this. I think it's pretty obvious.

The exact line is "I don't carry scientific sources in my pocket when I go to have tea with a friend."

>He's a political commentator
>His friend is also a political commentator from another country
>They must have planned to cross borders in order to meet in the same room
So I don't believe him when he says "we were just hanging out and I turned the camera on." I think they planned to meet, so they could talk politics in front of a camera, because that is both of their profession.

The points he's making about Cheddar man are largely apolitical and have only been politicized by the left leaning media. That's one of his points in the video.

First off, the overwhelming majority of Survive the Jive's content is apolitical and educational in nature. Secondly, why do you feel the need to attribute malice to his actions? Is it really that hard to believe that he just didn't happen to have that particular source pertaining to that particular topic, which was only one of the topics in that conversation, at that time - especially given that he later provided the source that he was talking about?

Who said anything about malice?
I accused him of having political intentions and being dishonest about it.

He linked his lack of immediate sources to the fact that he was "just having tea with a friend," which, while it may be literally true, is also a convenient way to paper over one's political actions, which I think this was. I can't prove it. It just seems obvious that this was more than a casual interaction. I don't see why I have to defend myself this much just because I pointed out that him and the Golden One were doing business together.

>I don't see why I have to defend myself this much just because I pointed out that him and the Golden One were doing business together.
That's not what you pointed out though, is it? You claimed that he was disingenuous (I'm guessing because you saw everyone else calling PhilosophyTube disingenuous) and then went on to accuse him of "acting as if he was above criticism", despite the fact that he responded to the aforementioned criticism.

You're trying to make it look like both sides are bad actors when it's only Olly that's taking people out of context and deliberately distorting facts for political gain.

That's not a direct quote from me. I said "he acts as though it were unreasonable to question him" specifically about where he got his information, which is not the same as saying that he believes he's above criticism. I said he was dishonest about the fact that this video was always a business arrangement to promote politics.

Honestly, Olly, wrong and manipulative as he is, is deeply sincere and open about his unwavering belief in Marxist fantasies, whereas this pagan wants to pretend he's "just friends" with the Golden One, and has no political intentions whatsoever, which is not true of anyone.

You stupid fucking cunt what is so hard to understand? Tom filmed a discussion with his friend Marcus, they didn't know exactly what topics would come up so they couldn't source them in that particular video. When Philosophytube questioned his sources, Tom gave them in his response. He has the sources, he just didn't have them on hand at the specific time it came up in a particular discussion. What kind of autist walks around with the citations for every possible claim he might make in a chilled out discussion video? Tom is pretty fucking clear in his political beliefs and they weren't relevant to the discussion of the portrayal Cheddar Man.

>wants to pretend he's "just friends" with the Golden One, and has no political intentions whatsoever, which is not true of anyone.
You wanna give me a source for this you useless faggot? Prove that he's pretending he is "just friends" with Marcus.

Survive the Jive is just the English version of Varg.
Next.

The issue is not about whether or not he has sources. I am quoting him from his own video when he says that he and his friend were just having tea. They weren't, they were doing business and promoting political ideology together.

You or someone else was defending Survive the Jive earlier by stating that Survive the Jive calls himself apolitical, which is a lie when anyone says it.

>Tom is clear in his political beliefs and they weren't relevant to the discussion of Cheddar Man
If you believe this you're fucking brainwashed.

To clarify, my issue this entire time was not whether or not he had sources or was obliged to give them. My main grievance was with his characterization of himself as "someone who was just having tea with a friend" which obviously isn't true. He is a pundit in a professional capacity, doing business with another pundit on camera, and one of them crossed the ocean to do it.

They're both white guys.

Our boomer parents confuse politics for a soap opera or a sporting event. Your post says a lot about how our generation view it.

marxists are honorary niggers

You're the "honorary nigger."

I think its a slight improvement personally. My dad seems to think that politicians are all friends outside of politics, even when they have incompatible worldviews

First off, I want to clarify that I'm the guy you were talking to and this isn't me. He's right but his tone isn't conducive to a reasoned discussion --- not that you deserve a reasoned discussion since you're continuously being disingenuous.

>If you believe this you're fucking brainwashed.
Really? Can you want to back that up at all? How are his political opinions relevant to the discussion of the portrayal of Cheddar Man? Do you have evidence to contradict the opinions that Tom stated in the video?
P.S. It's very interesting how you left out the word "portrayal" from your green text, you sniveling little twit.

>The English
>White

Attached: ha ha ha mo.jpg (448x462, 118K)

>sniveling little twit

I didn't leave the word "portrayal" out. It's just that you guys won't admit that Tom is a political agent, and so the argument hasn't progressed enough for me to even talk about the Cheddar Man portrayal.

From what I can tell about the Cheddar Man rollout it was fairly uneventful and not super controversial, but Tom keeps characterizing it as a "fiasco" and a "media circus." He has opinions about the Cheddar Man rollout, they are political opinions, they have to do with race.

His peer who he made a video with is a self-described Nazi, and Tom maintains that he's totally apolitical. I'm not refuting any of his points, but I am calling him a liar, because he's a political pundit and he pretends he's not one, and that's despicable.

StJ is actually a historian tho

Probs just ran into each other

You're such a disingenuous little rat.

>vs fascists
Yikes

This entire argument was over ten seconds of a video.

How is that disingenuous? He didn't start an argument, he was having a discussion with a friend. He didn't bring along scientific papers to cite. But he proceeds to go on and show his evidence shortly after he says that in the video, did you even watch it? Or did you simply click away as soon as you saw something upsetting to angrily scrawl out this post?

Sure and Jimmy Fallon and Lady Gaga are also just friends having a discussion, especially when they do it on TV for money.

Ridiculous fallacy
Two nobodies on youtube filming themselves chatting about shit is in no way comparable to celebrities with massive followings having a discussion on national television funded by a massive media corporation.
Surely you're not this stupid.
And again, this is beside the point. You clearly didnt watch the video past that point, because he clarifies his position and provides the evidence.
Why does it feel like you're just looking for an excuse to be disagreeable?

They're totally comparable. Tom and The Golden One are both YouTube personalities who talk to people on camera for a living. They made a video together, and Tom wants to frame it as "two friends getting tea" that's my whole position. It hasn't changed. Why are you so eager to deny that a guy doing his job was doing his job?

Same guy. This is literally how they make money. They were going for crossover appeal. Maybe they like each other too. In fact they probably do. But the primary reason for their meeting in person was almost certainly work-related. Why is that hard for you to believe? Out of all the fucking things, why do I have to convince you of this?

>"two friends getting tea"
Thats exactly what it was. Go watch the video, they even say so at the beginning. He said he came into Marcus' house prepared for a cup of tea, and they decided to turn the camera on and record their conversation for their fans. He didn't come prepared for a debate with Philosophy Tube or to have his discussion with Marcus dissected.
That's all he was pointing out, because Philosophy Tube was making it appear like this guy is making broad statements in a debate without facts and evidence to back it up.
This isn't hard to understand. Stop being intentionally daft.
For the third time now, in the video he clarifies his position and provides the evidence that Philosophy Tube was asking for. So what is the problem? What is YOUR problem?

If any other two media personalities got in a room together, turned on the camera, and talked for a neat 20 minutes, I wouldn't think they were just friends. Just because the scope is different doesn't mean the circumstances are. YouTube is more like television than you think it is.

Thank you for confirming you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Did you think this board was a home for intelligent discussion?

I was just annoyed that nobody would even engage with the potential truth of my claim. You guys are strangely invested in maintaining that Tom and The Golden One are friends, and that Tom is totally open and truthful all the time about everything. Tom's apparently never done anything wrong in his life.

>Tom's apparently never done anything wrong in his life.
Nice passive aggressive misrepresentation you got there bucko.

Another fallacy
Just because I'm defending him doesn't mean I think he's the perfect man who has never done any wrong in his life. In the video in question he was objectively in the right and completely blew the fuck out of this other youtuber with facts and evidence. That's the only reason I'm defending him from you. I dont agree with Tom on many things and I dont agree with The Golden One on even more things. I certainly dont think he's never done anything wrong in his life. He used to be into drugs and made videos promoting drug use for instance.

how in the fuck are so many of you conversant on this subject

What I mean is, at no point did anyone say "so what if they aren't really friends? So what if they're just doing this to make money and promote their opinions?"

That would've slipped me up, but you were so focused on maintaining the total innocence of their meeting and the truth of everything Tom said in the video. At no point did any of you take a different tact. I was stubborn but you were collectively stubborn.

>He has opinions about the Cheddar Man rollout, they are political opinions, they have to do with race.
Yes and he showed where the people responsible for the study had a political bias of their own. Tom didn't say "Cheddar Man should be portrayed as a pure Aryan Hyperborean ubermensch" he just said that the skin tone they picked was at the furthest end of what was possible and well without of the range that is probable.
>His peer who he made a video with is a self-described Nazi
Source? I've never heard Marcus call himself a Nazi. Perhaps a National Socialist but not a Nazi. Why don't you stay in the depths of pedantry that you've dragged us down into?
>Tom maintains that he's totally apolitical.
Source? Tom has made political videos in the past and pretty obviously is not apolitical, his criticism of the portrayal of Cheddar Man does not hinge on his political leanings though. Anyone regardless of their political opinions who has a basic understanding of anthropology would agree that the most recent portrayal of Cheddar Man is so far from what is likely and probable that it obviously has a political agenda behind it.
> I'm not refuting any of his points
Good, he is right.
>but I am calling him a liar, because he's a political pundit and he pretends he's not one, and that's despicable
How is he a political pundit? He makes videos on history, on religion, particularly paganism, the odd video on philosophy and more recently refutations of the inaccurate portrayal of ancient Europeans. Compared to Marcus who makes explicitly nationalist videos all the time, and Philosophytube who has defences of antifa and refuses to read Heidegger because muh nazis, Tom really isn't a political pundit.

This whole discussion has been in such bad faith but I'm glad evryone can see what a useless stupid faggot you people are.

>Distributist
Thanks for sharing

YouTube capitalism rewards this behaviour

Confirmed living fossil?

Attached: brama.jpg (982x512, 87K)

can i get a quick rundown? i absolutely refuse to watch a single youtube video from any of these pseuds but as a fellow middlebrow pseud fully immersed in the spectacle i still have an interest in pointless e-drama and simply MUST know what this is about

>e-celeb trash
>Yea Forums
I'll take a tripfag over this any day

Attached: 1544963324352.png (267x270, 29K)

And socialism doesn't reward intellectual posturing?

ha, GAYYYY

tom is the only worthwhile youtube guy when it comes to this kind of thing. many of his videos are genuinely inspiring and informative. if you can watch anyones content its his

Actually based comment. When people cant actually understand the argument and mischaracterize stuff I feel I can dismiss them for being stupid. I in particular feel this about Bertrand Russell mischaracterization of christianity.

Their entire livelihood is based around telling their patrons what they want to hear, and they mostly want SJW GETS OWNED BY FACTS

Why are so many people shilling this survive the jive guy?

He's a rambling fool. He sounds like he's got some sort of mental disorder. He'll probably get the schizophrenia later on and go totally off the deep end

Hold on now, aren't most of their positions more or less against the standing order?

But the leftist is the one getting everything wrong and pretending to know what he's talking about.

>globohomo
>against the standing order
o i am laffin

Or GETTING ANTI-SJWS OWNED BY FACTS

That's only because you disliked them before watching since you pigeonholed them as "leftist", you have no interest in viewing the other party critically

>makes content with someone who believes in the value of racial purity

>is surprised when he is criticized for making videos with that person

You put this material out on the internet, and you get whatever backlash the public decides. The golden one is a fringe moron, and I have contempt for anyone who takes him seriously

>salty leftists

haha nigga what are on talking about. the lefty misrepresented Evola worse than all those Bannon articles from 2 years ago and you're saying the only reason someone could dislike them is because we pigeonholed them as "leftist"

Attached: 46a.png (645x729, 90K)

I don't spend a lot of time watching any Youtubers because it doesn't interest me but I did see some clips of him making some wild characterizations of what Evola and Guenon believed. Politics is irrelevant to the point being made PhilosophyTube acting as if he knows what he's talking about and misleading others on those their philosophy.

The only reason I brought up the fact that he was a leftist is because you presumably thought we were talking the other guy being wrong about Evola and Guenon.

I love how you fringe leftists comment on things you know nothing about

There's nothing they hate more than right wing intellectuals beating them at what they think is their own game

Attached: 28334626-muscular-shirtless-male-bodybuilder-reading-book-isolated-on-white-background.jpg (328x450, 12K)

>implying i tainted my mind wiith low brow youtube "philosophy"
my point was that only retards who want to be partisan watch this shitty drivel

>right wing intellectuals
isn't that an oxymoron?

no, theyre not aware of that.

Hilarious, but the history of thought is dominated by the right wing.

but all of the greatest conquerers in history were right wing

No
They watch it purely to have their already established baises pandered to, not to actually learn anything. Its funny how the only "philosophy" these faggots go on about is that which reaffirms their own positions. The whole point of philosophy is to challenge thought, not repeat things people already know.

Then you should say that instead of denigrating one side of the political spectrum, since doing so is contrary to your point. It's no good acting acting in a partisan way while criticizing partisanship.

>He thinks Tom Rowsell is a Sargonite

Attached: tumblr_nxid4mhYYS1qcxemno1_500.jpg (478x502, 56K)

>sargonite
Tom is literally the exact opposite of a classical liberal

>From what I can tell about the Cheddar Man rollout it was fairly uneventful and not super controversial

Then you didn't pay attention. People such as Afua Hirsch were openyl stating that black people were in Britain before the British were, and loads of normies gobbled it up.

>His peer who he made a video with is a self-described Nazi

No he isn't

>Tom maintains that he's totally apolitical

He openly says in the video that he's on the right and has never claimed otherwise.

Attached: Ascanius_Shooting_the_Stag_of_Sylvia_1682_Claude_Lorrain.jpg (1280x1018, 290K)

>Tom maintains that he's totally apolitical
Its so fucking funny to see you admit you didnt watch the video
Not only has he stated multiple times in other videos (including the channel trailer) that he is right wing, he says it twice in the video in the OP.

TGO also hasnt described himself as a Nazi, you fuckin newfag. Imagine not knowing who Latsbrah is

Why is this shit offtopic thread still up?

cuck philosophy is not one of the people you're describing

lol no

are you an idiot?

Just a man in search of easy (you)s

There’s no singular, homogenous standing order.

Survive the jibe looks respectful, English class, Saxon breed, is handsome, doesn't speak like most bongs. I like him if only for aesthetics reasons. Most bongs are fucking cosmopolitan bugmen or norf fc tier. Evola is brainlett tier though., he needs to read Eliade.

Never trust overweight white people

Never trust overweight people in general. It shows character flaws.

Anyone who subscribes to the anglo left-right dichotomy is an opposite of an intellectual.

>another yootoober thread

Yeah but he went full autistic with his degrees and got a master's in medieval history and bachelor's in philosophy or some shit.

>lit in 2019

Attached: no fun.jpg (677x631, 94K)

>Getting a Master's degree is autistic

Attached: German man in a dress.jpg (540x800, 101K)

GOTTEM

The blond guy at 5 minutes in looks like the chad from those chad vs. virgin comics.

Say that to my face.

Attached: stud.png (569x342, 171K)

Thats latsbrah from /fit/ also known as the golden one

I don't give a fuck about anything he has to say. Olly already BTFO him.

>not posting the superior version

Attached: complete jewish dumbass.png (680x488, 408K)

Attached: 1546743199967.gif (245x180, 674K)

more like honorary kikes desü

Who cares about this nobody. Olly's video has 300k views. This has 8k. Will you tell me again who got BTFO'd?

The guy using logical fallacies as an argument, much like yourself

and that's why Pewdiepie should be Dictator of Earth desu

A fascist should never have any power. (I know Pewdiepie isn't a fascist but he's dangerously close)

I can't believe I watched the entire thing. Okay. Maybe Olly could have been stricter in his research but honestly who the fuck cares about Evola? His point stands.

Describe what you think Fascism is

>lol who cares?
Olly, since he made a video specifically about him filled with strawmans and a terrible lack of research. He literally just read his wikipedia page (which is almost entirely hijacked by antifa groups). The absolute state of yt celeb cocksuckers

>His point stands.
? Throughout the whole video was either lying or strawmanning so hard he was almost lying.

So what? Maybe Evola isn't the caricature Olly made of him but he still has no place in modern discourse. If someone seriously like Evola in this day and age then he deserves to be ridiculed.

lol

Attached: whoosh.gif (1307x734, 804K)

Why?

Because his ideas are outdated and dangerous. He's the antithesis of progressivism. In a way he's even more dangerous than fascists because his philosophy has a base in real research even if it's faulty. It could lead naive and impressionable people into thinking he's right because they don't have the philosophical tools to understand why he's wrong.

>he still has no place in modern discourse
Why? Because it triggers your liberal sensibilities?

You didn't provide a single criticism of his work or ideas. Your comment is so laughable that I half way think you're a right winger trying to make progressives look dumb.

>ideas are outdated and dangerous
There is no such thing as an outdated idea. His entire body of work surrounds traditionalism, which is by definition perennial and exists outside of time. Its always relevant in any time period.
Evola was an essential member of the Traditionalist school and the knowledge of eastern religion and ancient traditions he provided us is invaluable.
You have very obviously never even attempted to read him beyond his wikipedia page and you're only doing yourself a disservice.
Keep telling yourself he's just a right wing crazy guy with dangerous radical ideas. Thats your problem.

Now you're just baiting

I won't pretend I'm deeply familiarized with his work because I'm not. If I attempt to criticize him most probably I will get a few details wrong and you will use that to undermine my entire point. I can't tell you precisely in which way Evola is wrong but you have to be disingenuous not to think his ideas about hierarchies are dangerous.

So, you're too ignorant to come up with a proper counter argument and thus you advocate for shunning, ridiculing, and banning of his ideas out of blind fear? You're unironically a bigot.

>If I attempt to criticize him most probably I will get a few details wrong and you will use that to undermine my entire point.
Cute. Literally childish thinking. Criticising him on his ideas is far better than saying "he's outdated and dangerous". You just know nothing about his ideas and are literally following the herd. Hating him out of principle instead of engaging with his ideas and criticising them.

>I can't tell you precisely in which way Evola is wrong but you have to be disingenuous not to think his ideas about hierarchies are dangerous.
Not an argument. How are his ideas about hierarchies "dangerous" when his ideas arent any different than anyone else prior to the 18th century? Or any different from what is practiced in India?

I'm all for an anthropology study of different cultures. I actually think it's a must. The problem is when you use that to justify systems of oppression as if they were good and natural.

Didnt mean to quote What the fuck are you even talking about
Thats the most vague and meaningless thing you could possibly say
On the same level as Olly saying "it matters who chooses the traditions"
Be more specific

Why is a "system of oppression" inherently "bad"?

I hope you feel the same way about Nietzsche

As far as I know we don't live in the 18th century anymore. We have left that kind of thinking behind for good reason.

Because no healthy human being wants to be oppressed.

This is a real post on Yea Forums

Why?

There is overwhelming evidence to suggest you are wrong
Milgram experiment

Following orders is not the same as being oppressed. Proving that people have a natural inclination to obey people dressed as doctors is not the same as proving that people enjoy being oppressed.

Define "oppression".

Merriam-Webster: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.

The Milgram experiment measured a participant's willingness to act as an oppressor, not to be oppressed themselves.

this we can't let pewdiepie get the nuclear codes!

First, Who get's to determine what is "just"?

Second, how do Evola's ideas necessitate oppression?

Lastly, please, name one ideology that does not include oppression.

Do you see what I'm saying?

you speak like an utilitarian yet wants the world to be overpopulated with blacks, fags, trannies which are the antithesis of a healthy and progressive society,

Between Quentin, Peterson, and these guys Yea Forums has started to feel like an eceleb board

Define justice

Attached: 1546281367176.gif (400x400, 147K)

Imagine taking Baron Julius "Super-fascist" Evola seriously.

I wasn't the other guy you were arguing with so no. I was just pointing out that the Milgram experiment does not prove that people enjoy being oppressed, which is what you were claiming just now.

Also
>How do Evola's ideas necessitate oppression
>name one ideology that does not include oppression
You suggest that all ideologies lead inevitably to oppression right after you claim that Evola's ideas don't. So you answer me, do Evola's ideas necessitate oppression just on the merits of being an ideology or don't they.

frozen water and that's it!

Imagine not understanding what Super-Fascist means

It means Julius Evola because his name is the first google search result

It literally means "above fascism"
Meaning he considered it beneath him
Retard

>I was just pointing out that the Milgram experiment does not prove that people enjoy being oppressed
I'm not the user that brought up the Milgram experiment.
>You suggest that all ideologies lead inevitably to oppression right after you claim that Evola's ideas don't.
I did not suggest that Evola's ideas either do or do not necessitate oppression. I did ask for the user here to defend his claim that Evola's ideas are bad because they normalize "systems of oppression".
>do Evola's ideas necessitate oppression
Based on the definition presented I'd say "oppression" is a meaningless word that only exists to emotionally charge people and deceive them into acting violently. I ask again, Who determines what is just?

Super-Fascist in the context that Evola was using it literally meant that he was above the ideology of Fascism not that he was more Fascist than the Fascists.

If you don't believe oppression is real, then you can't be convinced of anything else about it. It's like trying to argue the nature of God with an Atheist

>You don't understand, there's a trinity
>There is no trinity there is nothing
I was arguing with the Milgram experiment guy. I don't have a dog in this race, and you seem like a fruitless partner for discussion.

So I should be embarrassed for not knowing that? Fuck off

By your definition no. Julius Evola, nor anyone I can think of, supports injustice or cruelty.
Evola supported a religious society based on unbroken traditions with a very Platonic idea of hierarchy.

Since that was your criteria for not taking Evola seriously, yeah. You should be embarrassed.

>So I should be embarrassed for not knowing that?
You should be embarrassed for assuming that you did understand it and then talking out of your ass without reading the source material. You should be embarrassed for making a fool out of yourself.

It still is. Evola referring to himself as a "super-fascist" to insinuate that he's "above fascism" is still very silly sounding.

Also, why the hell would I be embarrassed on an anonymous image board?

So Nietzsche's Superman is also stupid?

Nietzsche never audaciously called himself a superman in public, so its at least not as stupid

Because you know that you were wrong and acted like an ass. It's not that you should be embarrassed it's that you are embarrassed. All of your responses are nothing but copes.

Compared to Kropotkin and Bakunin, his ideas are as safe as can be. The only reason there’s no concern about the danger inherent to their ideas is that the institions that govern the discourse are nothing more than think-tanks for leftist radicals.

You're insanely stupid. He said it in Italian. It makes perfect sense in the context he was asked about his involvement with the Fascist party. He was aquitted of charges of being a Fascist because of that statement.
Absolute idiot.

>You're already embarrassed
Ok whatever makes you feel good.

You're really mad about this.

lmao

Attached: I am fine mask.jpg (601x508, 31K)

t. triggered user because someone said his daddy Evola was silly

Your intentional stupidity annoys me
Stop being stupid

Says the moron defending the Baron Julius "Super-fascist" Evola. Your lack of self-awareness is hysterical.

What does it mean to be oppressed? The only conceptions it it I’ve ever heard expressed are disgustingly individualistic. The only body that matters is the body politic.

See & You're an idiot.

He's just baiting at this point

Why is StJ such a boomer when it comes to tech?
He really needs to learn how audio works

I think they already saw those. This is Yea Forums. If you're going to trot out your literary heroes here you should be prepared to hear that they suck forever by people who haven't read them

On the contrary, I think Contrapoints is especially targeted at people outside the leftist sphere.

Now that's a hot take. How so?

The edgy and self-effacing jokes appeal to the anarchic sense of humor that currently dominates the internet right more than the left, the videos are high on production value which brings people in who aren't necessarily there for the ideas to start with, she's known express empathy and understanding of the people she criticizes instead of just demonizing, and the tone is generally restrained rather than dogmatic (e.g. instead of "you must call trans people by their preferred pronouns and if you don't, fuck you!" it's "it would be rude of you not to call trans people by their preferred pronouns, so I hope you take that into consideration" or something. Not a huge difference in content, but the tone makes a difference in how it's received.)

>psychoanalysis
>she
yawn

I'd agree with you if this was back in 2017 but she's changed a lot with the completion of her transition. I think she's become extremely dogmatic and dumbed down over the past year.

>she
>her
>she

Attached: 1464104924334.gif (194x172, 495K)

You can politically disagree with someone and still use their pronouns as an indicator of respect. It doesn't really negatively effect me so I don't have a problem with doing it.

>politically disagree
Nothing political about it
Its a man, baby

Sure thing, budd.

I don't think lying to people is how you love them and it certainty isn't a sign of respect. If a friend is misconceiving reality, one of the most hateful things you could do is mislead them and tell them everything is okay.

Based Nietzschian poster

finally got a chance to watch this
just lmao at all the assblasted leftists itt

Unfortunately true

he spends his time on things more worthwhile, clearly

Olli looks like a boot-licker. StJ looks like he could stand in the infantry line without pissing himself. That's all I need.

Attached: neet the cav.jpg (398x700, 80K)

>people actually watch tranny points

Attached: B0D595E0-B6D9-4B96-9B9F-1D4F8897C78D.jpg (600x558, 49K)

>tranny points
Is that supposed to be funny?

t. tranny

>tranny points
LMAO. I'll start using that from now on.

Are people ITT really pretending Olly got BTFO by some literally who? Just compare their patreon for fuck's sake. Olly has more than two thousand. This guy doesn't even get to two hundred.

Evola was the Italian Heidegger whose offspring let to the birth of Christopher Lee. Sucking the life out of females sounds like vampirism was always there.

I'd love to see Olly talking about Bolsonaro in depth. He's probably not gonna finish his mandate and it's nice for the left to understand what happens then before it does. And for us, in the middle of the craziness, it becomes hard to analyze stuff seriously

>commie bragging about amassing capital

oh, yeah, that's a yikes from me

This, also why is Ollie so attractive.. this attractiveness is reaching transcendent proportions, Ollie is bound to become a Kantian category at this rate..

>guys with BAs in Philosophy
most youtube philosphers dropped out of high school

He should rename the channel to PhilosophyDaddy.

>This thread
The absolute state of /leftypol/.

Attached: 1446061876711.jpg (200x200, 8K)

Politicians don't have worldviews, outside of what benefits them and theirs whimsically. Your dad is right, they're all part of the same class and regularly engage in interparty plays.

Because unlike every other Youtuber he actually studies the topics he speaks about.

Haha pussy.

And still Olly BTFO him without even researching what he was talking about. LMAO

argumentum ad populum, not an argument

haha hahahehe LMAYOOOOOOOOOO xd