Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Would you rape Jess Phillips

  • Total voters
    2,409
Maniacal Foreigner said:
What's old is new again...
Click to expand...
What's his problem with liberalism anyway? As far as I can tell most people in the US/UK like liberalism, even if they claim not to. Most people don't apply it consistently to other people, but they don't generally want to be told they can't do something. There's relatively strong arguments from the necessity of preventative policing and maintaining culture in its current state, and in theory he should have gotten that from his degree, but I've not heard it from him.
 
Vecr said:
What's his problem with liberalism anyway? As far as I can tell most people in the US/UK like liberalism, even if they claim not to. Most people don't apply it consistently to other people, but they don't generally want to be told they can't do something. There's relatively strong arguments from the necessity of preventative policing and maintaining culture in its current state, and in theory he should have gotten that from his degree, but I've not heard it from him.
Click to expand...
The general theme seems to be that liberalism cannot stand against (organized) attack, whether on a philosophical level of liberalism vs. intersectional critical theory, or on a group level of liberals vs. the woke.

Breaking that video apart, his thesis is that: liberals agree diversity is good, the woke say "OK we're going to force diversity through active discrimination", and the liberal response is a weak "how about we do nothing instead?" His implied solution is a coherent ideology that stands *for* something (though he does not specify anything).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scarface1, DJ10 and Vecr
Looking back it's funny to see how much hate this thread received. So many people defending this complete buffoon who fumbled his political careers so badly that he's now considered a national joke in his homeland. This is the power of GamerGate grifters.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Scarface1 and Teghern
archive regret said:
The general theme seems to be that liberalism cannot stand against (organized) attack, whether on a philosophical level of liberalism vs. intersectional critical theory, or on a group level of liberals vs. the woke.

Breaking that video apart, his thesis is that: liberals agree diversity is good, the woke say "OK we're going to force diversity through active discrimination", and the liberal response is a weak "how about we do nothing instead?" His implied solution is a coherent ideology that stands *for* something (though he does not specify anything).
Click to expand...
I'd argue that it's not that liberalism can't stand against organised attack; but rather, it can be subverted by bad actors easier, due to it's inherent focus on the freedom of the individual and that it does not really prescribe any moral system itself (outside of a general "everyone has freedom till it steps on someone else's freedom, and everyone is equal under the law"), which means people have to define and defend their individual moral systems themselves. In such a case, it stands to the individual to go "No, that's fucking retarded" to these attackers, and it's hard for an individual to stand up to an organized group; especially if the individual doesn't know much about the topic the group is pushing (which is how these woke fuckers got their foothold in the first place; most people being ignorant about all the feminism, race and LGBT bullshit they were peddling and thus letting them get away with shit that that's contradictory or straight up BS from the get-go.)
It's the whole "night watchman state" critique Mussolini and other fascists had of liberalism. It's also kinda why liberalism fails in terms of catastrophic SHTF situations (think natural disasters or such). Because even in an ideal situation, gathering everyone knowledgeable on the situation to formulate a solution will take too much time and leave too many dead.
These kinda situations are one of the reasons why the whole "eternal vigilance" thing becomes a requirement for any and all forms of liberal systems; but because humans are only human and can't always be completely knowledgeable on every topic or give time to study in every subject, they will inevitably fall and give way to some or the other ideology that will subvert or attack liberalism and liberal systems.

The issue I have with Carl's defining and critiquing of such issues is just how he's framing them and being retarded about their axioms, definitions, etc (see what I've previously said about the "State of Nature".) as well as basically holding all liberal ideals under one umbrella, when even within liberalism, you had all the different strains, from Locke to Rousseau to Hobbes to Mills to Smith to Jefferson to de Tocqueville and so on and so on. At the same time, his defense of his beliefs also comes across from a "it sounds/feels good." than actual focus on whether it is true or principally correct, for example, his most recent vid on justice.

Though, as I also always say, much of the reason for this is Carl living in the fifth-world country that is Britain. If he lived in a country which was slightly more rational and normal and didn't spread it's asscheeks up to woke ideology to the point of tearing, I imagine he's be slightly more levelheaded about this stuff.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: not william stenchever, archive regret, Drag-on Knight 91873 and 2 others
The Pulverizer said:
Bri'ish people know him for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
As somebody who was unfortunate enough to have been born here, I'm sure that nobody really remembers that one UKIP guy who said some dumb shit (there's a lot of them) and that nobody outside of the politically obsessed or far right circles would even recognise the name.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Dambusters' Dog II, "Not" Count Dankula, Wednezday and 2 others
The Pulverizer said:
I think that's only because he's fallen into obscurity. Paul Joseph Watson is probably still talked about because he's actually relevant.
Click to expand...
He isn't either, these people aren't even close to being in the public consciousness. Unless you're actively on the mainstream media circuit you're not going to be known by people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back