Shame vs guilt isn't a west vs East thing (and the East is much healthier provided they did not emulate the west).
It's a female vs man thing. After all, a man fundamentally responds to a problem by solving it, and a female by seething about it. They might or might not succeed in either case, but that's what they're trying. And so the problem can be simplified further - men solve problems and females seek them.
Shame, like any other form of manipulation requires both sides have something the other wants. As females no longer even pretend they have value, this is not the case, so you can completely ignore their yapping and do what you want.
If you foolishly engage with them and then get falsely accused of wrongdoing, the real and tangible consequences of that, aka simpanzees swarming you matter, but the shame doesn't. In other words, they need leverage, so the real attack is do what I want or I'll harm you and the details are less important, especially since they are using words as magic spells.
The only objective "problem" as it were is that if you obviate shame long enough, you also obviate guilt. But given the specific manners this manifests, I don't see it as a real problem. Oh, some corporation is anti White, so you steal from it? Stealing from your enemies is based and there is neither guilt nor shame in doing so.
The feminine is weakest against itself so you throw the shaming right back at them? No problem here.
Yes, it results in plenty of emasculated soycattle, but it also results in a much smaller number of based men who are fully immunized against their subversion.
Yes, fair points there. I make a loose parallel of shaming and the East because Easter cultures are intensely matriarchal and hyper-feminized; yes, even Islamic ones. More so Islamic ones. Will publish a piece on that soon. Shame is caring what others think of you, which is a female complex. The West, at least when it achieved things, was more principle-based. Guilt is caring what your inner voice tells you, which is a more noble than shame. I can't wait to receive your comments and criticism on the next few pieces I'll be publishing. They are all on this subject. I anticipate you'll add valuable insight.
All caricatures of cultures are matriarchies. Usually they're honest, occasionally they're shadow. That said, it's clearly not that effective, as men started checking out of soyciety in the East first, because they face more pressure there. In the west, as long as you avoid the marriage meme you can take it easy. In the East, you are still burdened by existing family.
Most don't get that the Middle East is a matriarchy, glad you do.
But anything that is essentially appearances vs substance is females vs men, and this is no exception.
>If any ideal is to be worth a damn, it must be freely adopted without abuse, coercion, guilt, fear, threat, violence, shame. Otherwise, we are no different from the immoral degenerates we pretend to scorn - we, just like them, respond to shame. Our behavior is dictated by shame-based coercion, not freely chosen meaning.
There's a problem with this: the Q of understanding why some things are held to be ideal, which understanding only emerges from compliance and practice and not ab initio. And maturing makes you understand that there is no way on earth you'd have "got it" unless you actually did what was expected. And reflected on your original position VS where you might be now be with a bit of experience.
I think you're being unclear on a few things...
E.g.
>But taking someone who hasn’t publicly displayed undesirable behavior, and then shaming him/her on the merit of what he/she is, is initiation of aggression on your part. This makes YOU the villain, YOU the person demonstrating the vilest undesirable degenerate behavior: the violation of the non-aggression principle (a first principle).
How about when someone has interpersonally breached boundaries or is refusing to respect boundaries or failiing to honour their end of your contract or understanding or is persistently acting in contravention to good faith. 'Don't you feel any shame for what you're doing (to me/us) despite the tolerance or allowances made in good faith so far?" - is a shaming Q.
I think it's pretty shameful in and of itself to attempt to shame someone for being gay or lesbian or "kinky" (which knowledge may have become public NOT necessarily due to that someone advertising it or broadcasting it). But I don't think most people (especially since the 90s) have very many issues with these behaviors or identities in any case. Some still do, but then - to use your argument - you can't shame them into compliance.
>You can refuse to associate. People will get it, and they will create their own little bubbles with the understanding that it is not in their best interest to provoke and disconnect from the free market when there are consequences (not punishments).
A free market is a utopian ideal. Not only does it not exist but also that it cannot exist - due to a number of reasons, including power differentials, influence dynamics, historical asymmetries and so on. It's great as a theoretical argument or a basis setup - but it does not really hold. Especially when consequence and secondary/tertiary affects as also legacy are considered - which occur across the dimension of time.
You lost me at "A free market is a utopian ideal." I won't waste any more time with you as I did responding to your deceptively long comment under Part 2. You are a deceiver, a bamboozler, a worm-tongue. I tirelessly write articles on how to promote empathy and mental health, only for people like you to keep promoting evil abusive shaming to promote their brand of ideals. And then you have the gall to call my ideas utopian?
I don't quite think you should be promoting empathy or mental health. I felt I picked up what I am intimately familiar with - in a subset of Cl B's. And the structure of this reaction sort of affirms it.
Could also be that you're very young and have been told that 'you're very smart', which is a common enough affliction at such age.
You deliberately straw-man my arguments by simply repeating the points I addressed, and you have the audacity to cry “ad hominem.” Here’s an ad hominem fact for you: you are a veteran, AKA piece of shit merc scum you kills children for money. You are also an academic parasite, of theoretical physics no less, the king of bullshit pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, leeching taxpayers’ money to conjure up impressive unprovable unfalsifiable nonsense. I’ve wasted enough time on parasites like you.
I thought homo meant “same” and sexualis” relating to sex. Where can I find more on the Ancient Greek meaning or find a source for “the Ancient Greek word for homosexual literally translates to “he who provokes shame”
I looked it up and found nothing that says the word homosexual means “he who provokes shame.” ChatGPT tells me “n Ancient Greek society, where concepts of honor (τιμή, timē) and shame (αἰσχύνη, aischynē) were central to social interactions and identity, someone described as "ὁ αἰσχύνην φέρων" would be seen as an agent of dishonor—someone who disrupts the social and moral order by provoking disgrace. This could apply in personal, familial, or civic contexts.
The phrase carries a deeply moral and social connotation, reflecting the collective values of Ancient Greek society, where shame was both a personal and communal concern.” So how does that translate to the word homosexual? Are you saying that in Ancient Greece homosexuals were called “he who brings shame?” Because I don’t see how you can say it means homosexual unless it’s clear they were called that and even them it doesn’t translate to that’s what the word MEANS. I realize it’s ChatGPT and can be wrong so pushed for accurate info.
Thanks for letting me know. ChatGPT's training is extremely deficient when it comes to Greek, let alone Ancient Greek. The Ancient Greek term for male homosexual is "κίναιδος," the etymology of which is "κινώ" (move, or in this case meaning provoke) and "αἰδώς," (shame, modesty). This shows that, despite it being socially accepted, it wasn't considered to be an ideal, nor something to be proud about.
Let me respond to your first point: yes, if provocative displays of degeneracy are initiated against you, then yes, shame can be a valid morally justifiable response. Apparently I didn't communicate it well in my initial post.
Thank you for your comprehensive comment. Let me try to address your points:
1. You claim that a book promoting degenerate behaviour is "aggression against society." Is it? Isn't that the price we need to pay if we want free speech? By all means show disapproval and leave a negative review, but singling out the readers/writers of said books and publicly humiliating them shows a lack of conviction. Again, I make this point abundantly clear: if your ideals are so fragile as to be threatened by books, then they don't deserve to survive.
2. "Shunning people is only effective as far as communities go." I don't agree. Again, the problem with prevailing degeneracy is not the internet but the "elite" class hijacking state powers and using their massive resources to push all this. You not shaming is not the problem. You tolerating government is.
3. You point out that I engage in shaming too. Yes, ONLY as self-defense. Shaming is emotional violence. If you initiate it then you violate the non-aggression principle. Therefore, I can respond in kind (reciprocal violence) without violating the NAP. I make this clear numerous times.
4. Again you make a point about force. I have to keep repeating myself because people have a hard time understanding that NOT INITIATING force is not the same as NEVER USING force. In self-defense, I can use any level of violence necessary to defend myself. But the aggression or threat needs to be real and objective. You characterise me as subjectivist but your interpretations of what constitute aggression are subject to interpretation. In a stateless society, peaceful incentive-driven decentralised initiatives can form regulatory frameworks (much like how insurances were formed). No one ever claimed that free societies would not maintain their right for EXTREME defensive violence against anyone initiating aggression. But this is beyond what the human species is capable in its current evolutionary stage. I have such a hard time explaining these simple principles to people and they still choose not to understand them. Humans are more like bees than tigers, socialists to the core. And I think it's improbable for it to survive the next 2 centuries.
To recap: I am objective about what constitutes aggression. It is the other camp that subjectively defines what may or may not constitute aggression so as to dub their aggression as preemptive/defensive aggression. We all know how this plays out. I'll say it again: there is nothing more degenerate than initiating aggression. If your ideals are based on that then they aren't worth having, even if they are good.
Shame vs guilt isn't a west vs East thing (and the East is much healthier provided they did not emulate the west).
It's a female vs man thing. After all, a man fundamentally responds to a problem by solving it, and a female by seething about it. They might or might not succeed in either case, but that's what they're trying. And so the problem can be simplified further - men solve problems and females seek them.
Shame, like any other form of manipulation requires both sides have something the other wants. As females no longer even pretend they have value, this is not the case, so you can completely ignore their yapping and do what you want.
If you foolishly engage with them and then get falsely accused of wrongdoing, the real and tangible consequences of that, aka simpanzees swarming you matter, but the shame doesn't. In other words, they need leverage, so the real attack is do what I want or I'll harm you and the details are less important, especially since they are using words as magic spells.
The only objective "problem" as it were is that if you obviate shame long enough, you also obviate guilt. But given the specific manners this manifests, I don't see it as a real problem. Oh, some corporation is anti White, so you steal from it? Stealing from your enemies is based and there is neither guilt nor shame in doing so.
The feminine is weakest against itself so you throw the shaming right back at them? No problem here.
Yes, it results in plenty of emasculated soycattle, but it also results in a much smaller number of based men who are fully immunized against their subversion.
Yes, fair points there. I make a loose parallel of shaming and the East because Easter cultures are intensely matriarchal and hyper-feminized; yes, even Islamic ones. More so Islamic ones. Will publish a piece on that soon. Shame is caring what others think of you, which is a female complex. The West, at least when it achieved things, was more principle-based. Guilt is caring what your inner voice tells you, which is a more noble than shame. I can't wait to receive your comments and criticism on the next few pieces I'll be publishing. They are all on this subject. I anticipate you'll add valuable insight.
All caricatures of cultures are matriarchies. Usually they're honest, occasionally they're shadow. That said, it's clearly not that effective, as men started checking out of soyciety in the East first, because they face more pressure there. In the west, as long as you avoid the marriage meme you can take it easy. In the East, you are still burdened by existing family.
Most don't get that the Middle East is a matriarchy, glad you do.
But anything that is essentially appearances vs substance is females vs men, and this is no exception.
"appearances vs substance is females vs men". Agreed
Just discovered you and this is so up my alley… brilliant work.
Thank you, Kate. I'm glad we see eye to eye. It's rare.
Maybe the best essay I've read, on here. Really good stuff.
Truly, thank you. If you know anyone who is shame-based and suffering because of internalised shame, please share.
>If any ideal is to be worth a damn, it must be freely adopted without abuse, coercion, guilt, fear, threat, violence, shame. Otherwise, we are no different from the immoral degenerates we pretend to scorn - we, just like them, respond to shame. Our behavior is dictated by shame-based coercion, not freely chosen meaning.
There's a problem with this: the Q of understanding why some things are held to be ideal, which understanding only emerges from compliance and practice and not ab initio. And maturing makes you understand that there is no way on earth you'd have "got it" unless you actually did what was expected. And reflected on your original position VS where you might be now be with a bit of experience.
I think you're being unclear on a few things...
E.g.
>But taking someone who hasn’t publicly displayed undesirable behavior, and then shaming him/her on the merit of what he/she is, is initiation of aggression on your part. This makes YOU the villain, YOU the person demonstrating the vilest undesirable degenerate behavior: the violation of the non-aggression principle (a first principle).
How about when someone has interpersonally breached boundaries or is refusing to respect boundaries or failiing to honour their end of your contract or understanding or is persistently acting in contravention to good faith. 'Don't you feel any shame for what you're doing (to me/us) despite the tolerance or allowances made in good faith so far?" - is a shaming Q.
I think it's pretty shameful in and of itself to attempt to shame someone for being gay or lesbian or "kinky" (which knowledge may have become public NOT necessarily due to that someone advertising it or broadcasting it). But I don't think most people (especially since the 90s) have very many issues with these behaviors or identities in any case. Some still do, but then - to use your argument - you can't shame them into compliance.
>You can refuse to associate. People will get it, and they will create their own little bubbles with the understanding that it is not in their best interest to provoke and disconnect from the free market when there are consequences (not punishments).
A free market is a utopian ideal. Not only does it not exist but also that it cannot exist - due to a number of reasons, including power differentials, influence dynamics, historical asymmetries and so on. It's great as a theoretical argument or a basis setup - but it does not really hold. Especially when consequence and secondary/tertiary affects as also legacy are considered - which occur across the dimension of time.
You lost me at "A free market is a utopian ideal." I won't waste any more time with you as I did responding to your deceptively long comment under Part 2. You are a deceiver, a bamboozler, a worm-tongue. I tirelessly write articles on how to promote empathy and mental health, only for people like you to keep promoting evil abusive shaming to promote their brand of ideals. And then you have the gall to call my ideas utopian?
:)
The Ad Hominem.
I don't quite think you should be promoting empathy or mental health. I felt I picked up what I am intimately familiar with - in a subset of Cl B's. And the structure of this reaction sort of affirms it.
Could also be that you're very young and have been told that 'you're very smart', which is a common enough affliction at such age.
You deliberately straw-man my arguments by simply repeating the points I addressed, and you have the audacity to cry “ad hominem.” Here’s an ad hominem fact for you: you are a veteran, AKA piece of shit merc scum you kills children for money. You are also an academic parasite, of theoretical physics no less, the king of bullshit pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, leeching taxpayers’ money to conjure up impressive unprovable unfalsifiable nonsense. I’ve wasted enough time on parasites like you.
I thought homo meant “same” and sexualis” relating to sex. Where can I find more on the Ancient Greek meaning or find a source for “the Ancient Greek word for homosexual literally translates to “he who provokes shame”
I looked it up and found nothing that says the word homosexual means “he who provokes shame.” ChatGPT tells me “n Ancient Greek society, where concepts of honor (τιμή, timē) and shame (αἰσχύνη, aischynē) were central to social interactions and identity, someone described as "ὁ αἰσχύνην φέρων" would be seen as an agent of dishonor—someone who disrupts the social and moral order by provoking disgrace. This could apply in personal, familial, or civic contexts.
The phrase carries a deeply moral and social connotation, reflecting the collective values of Ancient Greek society, where shame was both a personal and communal concern.” So how does that translate to the word homosexual? Are you saying that in Ancient Greece homosexuals were called “he who brings shame?” Because I don’t see how you can say it means homosexual unless it’s clear they were called that and even them it doesn’t translate to that’s what the word MEANS. I realize it’s ChatGPT and can be wrong so pushed for accurate info.
Thanks for letting me know. ChatGPT's training is extremely deficient when it comes to Greek, let alone Ancient Greek. The Ancient Greek term for male homosexual is "κίναιδος," the etymology of which is "κινώ" (move, or in this case meaning provoke) and "αἰδώς," (shame, modesty). This shows that, despite it being socially accepted, it wasn't considered to be an ideal, nor something to be proud about.
Yes. Plus, shaming is a way for those with internalised shame to vent their shame onto others.
Thank you again for your comment.
Let me respond to your first point: yes, if provocative displays of degeneracy are initiated against you, then yes, shame can be a valid morally justifiable response. Apparently I didn't communicate it well in my initial post.
Thank you for your comprehensive comment. Let me try to address your points:
1. You claim that a book promoting degenerate behaviour is "aggression against society." Is it? Isn't that the price we need to pay if we want free speech? By all means show disapproval and leave a negative review, but singling out the readers/writers of said books and publicly humiliating them shows a lack of conviction. Again, I make this point abundantly clear: if your ideals are so fragile as to be threatened by books, then they don't deserve to survive.
2. "Shunning people is only effective as far as communities go." I don't agree. Again, the problem with prevailing degeneracy is not the internet but the "elite" class hijacking state powers and using their massive resources to push all this. You not shaming is not the problem. You tolerating government is.
3. You point out that I engage in shaming too. Yes, ONLY as self-defense. Shaming is emotional violence. If you initiate it then you violate the non-aggression principle. Therefore, I can respond in kind (reciprocal violence) without violating the NAP. I make this clear numerous times.
4. Again you make a point about force. I have to keep repeating myself because people have a hard time understanding that NOT INITIATING force is not the same as NEVER USING force. In self-defense, I can use any level of violence necessary to defend myself. But the aggression or threat needs to be real and objective. You characterise me as subjectivist but your interpretations of what constitute aggression are subject to interpretation. In a stateless society, peaceful incentive-driven decentralised initiatives can form regulatory frameworks (much like how insurances were formed). No one ever claimed that free societies would not maintain their right for EXTREME defensive violence against anyone initiating aggression. But this is beyond what the human species is capable in its current evolutionary stage. I have such a hard time explaining these simple principles to people and they still choose not to understand them. Humans are more like bees than tigers, socialists to the core. And I think it's improbable for it to survive the next 2 centuries.
To recap: I am objective about what constitutes aggression. It is the other camp that subjectively defines what may or may not constitute aggression so as to dub their aggression as preemptive/defensive aggression. We all know how this plays out. I'll say it again: there is nothing more degenerate than initiating aggression. If your ideals are based on that then they aren't worth having, even if they are good.
Thank you. If anything, I aim to provoke ;)