/liberty/ - Liberty

do you give a fuck about civilization? it is not individualistic

>>98916

Thanks. Can a non-nigger answer my question now?

>>98915

The experiment itself is already the redpill. We see similar effects in urban centers, albeit they are not as pronounced, as humans aren't mice. That said, humans obviously aren't mice and we should be careful to make inferrences one way or the other. With this experiment, we can, because of what I said earlier. The mouse poulation saw senseless violence, rejection of offspring, and mice withdrawing from all social interaction. Same as what we see in humans, in cities. However, unlike mice, actively finding meaning in the world is something we can do, even if far from everyone is successful with it.

My thoughts here are a bit jumbled, but hopefully coherent.

>>98923

"Meaning in the world" is more or less a personal matter, a fabricated filter through which one perceives the world. I would say that a surprisingly high number of people rely on someone or something else to give their world meaning, which makes them just as prone to becoming one of those "Beautiful Ones" from the experiment as anyone else.

Human society (especially in the West and in Japan) is basically in its early death throes. It will not recover. The best option is to put comfortable distance between yourself and society-at-large, and watch it burn down so you know when it's time to step in and rebuild.

>>98915

the death of liberty

>>98921

said 52% creatura

>>98944

Get fucked, Christcuck. You're one of the reasons we're in this position in the first place.

>>98969

If the fact that something was said by someone else a long time ago invalidates an idea, I think you've created a serious problem for yourself.

>>98983

>If the fact that something was said by someone else a long time ago invalidates an idea

You're right, it doesn't. The problem is that the same arguments are repeated since the time of Voltaire, yet few people give him credit for it, and most pretend that their particular argument is totally new and exciting. It really isn't.

The fundamental difference between Christianity and atheism in this regard is that Christianity is traditional, but atheism strives rather for the opposite. This mirrors how libertarianism compares to socialism. Socialists regularly declare all their theories from more than twenty years ago null and void. They excuse all shortcomings in these theories with the fact that socialism has moved on, yet they don't learn anything from the criticisms of said theories. They basically retcon everything that has ever been said against them in debates, every idea of theirs that was refuted or disproven. Libertarians are different, we still believe, after almost a hundred years, that von Mises has disproven socialism for good, and we still treat Rothbard as the prime authority on anarchocapitalism.

This is one of the primary reasons why libertarians and socialists do not get along and tend to talk past each other. Socialists happily make arguments that, to them, sound new and exciting, while libertarians will be annoyed that they are hearing arguments that have been disproven for a hundred years. The flipside is that libertarians would be in serious trouble if von Mises or Rothbard were refuted, while socialists can - and do - laugh off even the most devastating criticisms of Marx, Engels, or Bebel. To them, these guys are old and overhauled.

Christians are more like libertarians in this regard. If you refuted one of our primary apologists, we would be alarmed, not to mention if you refuted the Holy Scripture. Meanwhile, atheists laugh you off when you tell them that Epicur, Celsus, Diderot or Voltaire were wrong, because, after all, these guys were old, their ideas are old, and surely, science has moved on since their days. Meanwhile, Christians are frustrated that they don't hear anything new, while atheists are ignorant of the fact that their worldview hasn't changed since Epicur.

>>99046

>appealing to traditionalism

Saying "we Christians are good, moral traditionalists", and "you atheists are just degenerates who chase after everything that looks cool and new" is exactly like hearing the arguments communists in socialist/ex-socialist shitholes make about how socialism is moral, tradtional, and it's part of your history and culture, and everyone who isn't a socialist is just some edgy young motherfucker who hates his own country and people.

The Bible, just like leftist movements and ideologies, is purposefully ambiguous to allow for many interpretations and many different sects with their own independent functions. So even though Christianity is also another version of utopian pseudo-socialism, it is like a hydra with many head, you get some churches placing a greater emphasis on spreading the religion at all costs, some putting an emphasis on harvesting wealth and cultivating the loyalty of what followers they have, and others on a having their own cool niches for you to conveniently choose from and say "everything else is not real Christianity".