Do you believe in punishment?

[Mouthwash]

What leads to you believe that the reaction of traumatised people represents "intuition"?

They feel (rather than philosophically reasoned) that those who wronged them deserve commensurate wrong done to them.

 

[Hygro]

Last night I was hanging with my friend at the bar he KJs at. No one was singing so it turned into straight DJing. I took over just before 1, just having fun picking tunes I like that the patrons would like. They thought they were shutting down at 1, stacking stools etc. Then somehow magically, these leaving, tired patrons stayed until closing. Just like that. I WONDER WHY.

So it's over and we're packing up, and the bar tender is like "I can't believe it, we cleared over $2300. I wasn't expecting over $1400. What a night"
and I laughed, happy for them, and was like "hmmm I wonder why"

My friend looked at me and understood, he laughed too, "yeah I wonder"

Bar tenders don't say a word. I push a little bit, gently. They don't say jack.

Okay now I'm like wtf, started to get just a little upset. So later I'm like, I'm going like, maybe they don't get it. So I got pretty explicit, came back to the bar. "Hey I have a theory for why tonight went so well"

"Yeah what's that?"

"Well, some of it was [x patrons who were cool and buying people drinks], but some of it, here let me show you" and I show them a vid of me djing from like 8 years ago to a few hundred people"

The dude deflects "hey that's not you [something somthing sideburns] (looks exactly like me)"

They deflect again. Like they thought I was trying to get their money and were Stonewalling?! I was just trying to get a goddamn single thank you for earning them dozens/hundreds of dollars personally.

But the guy was deflecting the girl was avoiding me.



I am honestly deeply offended. Like legitimately angry.


CFCOT: How should I punish them?

 

[Narz]

How do you know it doesn't serve some important purpose?

From what I've read shame is a weak motivator. If it was strong all fat people who beat themselves up over eating the whole cake would stop. People don't generally stop because of shame, they go underground.

Also personal experience. Plenty of stuff I feel bad about, I generally do it over & over anyway until I'm ready to stop.

I mean, men have an obvious biological reason for why they would want as many partners as they can get. Sure, people in modern societies might not derive happiness from it, but I think no modern person is as healthy or happy as a primitive nomadic warrior (who would presumably have another partner with every raid).

Running around seeing my buddies get killed and probably dying myself at 25... but at least I get to kidnapp some terrified women... somehow it's not a vision of joy for me.

I'd rather be the dude with the broken arm who got out of warrior duty chillin back at the ranch dicking down all the bored housewives left behind.

 

[Narz]

CFCOT: How should I punish them?

Play crappy music next time so everyone runs away and they get no tips?

 

[Patine]

We have the impulse for a reason, and I'm extremely suspicious of any type of evo-psych monocausal explanation that ties it up in a neat little bow - presumably as a relic of the barbaric time before Courts and Justice. We don't fully understand what it is or why we have it, even if a use we know it served appears obsolete. That's a good enough reason not to toss it out in the name of 'rationality'.

Vigilante, vendetta, and revenge systems, in truth, as glorified as they are in some circles, are in fact, far more often than not, themselves morally bankrupt and crimes in and of themselves, and lead to eternal cycles of violence like in the backhillls of Albania or the Hatfield-McCoy feud, among many others. A barbaric system with far more flaws - and lacks of any virtue whatsoever - than any redeeming qualities. Especially because of the lack of judicial arbiters of any sort.

Sure, nomadic warriors would have been, by necessity, in drastically better physical shape than modern people, on average.
Does not mean they were particularly "healthy" or happy though.

Though also had a lot shorter life spans and died of many ailments that don't have a very high death toll today - like dysentery. And that horrid scene from the first season of "Game of Thrones" were the guy got his leg below the know cut off by a heated blade right out of the fire while fully awake and conscious because of a foot infection happened all the time to such people too. So, I guess, happiness is all relative.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wait until the next time they're hopping, then horsehocky in the bathroom sink.

 

[caketastydelish]

Casual sex has never "been taboo" for men, rather it's been very widely celebrated throughout history. But of course you only mean for such restrictive taboos (to be punished with "public shaming and humiliation") to apply to about half the population.

Men are celebrated for getting an abundance of sex but shunned to still be virgins by a certain age so it's a double-edged sword.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

CFCOT: How should I punish them?

Can you re-explain what happened? I couldn't follow, sorry it's a pebcak error on my end

 

[Narz]

Men are celebrated for getting an abundance of sex but shunned to still be virgins by a certain age so it's a double-edged sword.

 

[Akka]

CFCOT: How should I punish them?

Don't do it again for free.

Vigilante, vendetta, and revenge systems, in truth, as glorified as they are in some circles, are in fact, far more often than not, themselves morally bankrupt and crimes in and of themselves, and lead to eternal cycles of violence like in the backhillls of Albania or the Hatfield-McCoy feud, among many others. A barbaric system with far more flaws - and lacks of any virtue whatsoever - than any redeeming qualities. Especially because of the lack of judicial arbiters of any sort.

And so :
=>

Not only do we need some form of punishment for even the most basic education, but we also need it to nourish our need for justice. Punishment is, psychologically speaking, some sort of "karma equalizer" : you did something bad, you receive something bad. It's required for most victims to feel that "justice has been served" and get on with their lives. It also allows the victim to defer their feelings of vengeance to society and avoid personal vendetta, and to enforce any sort of rule.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I'd rather be the dude with the broken arm who got out of warrior duty chillin back at the ranch dicking down all the bored housewives left behind.

that's exactly how I'd imagine you, and that's also exactly what I'd do in that situation. I'd be enough of an opportunist/coward to hurt myself, ngl

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I mean, men have an obvious biological reason for why they would want as many partners as they can get. Sure, people in modern societies might not derive happiness from it, but I think no modern person is as healthy or happy as a primitive nomadic warrior (who would presumably have another partner with every raid).

this is literally what your ideology boils down to. you want to be conan the barbarian, you want to be big, strong, and muscular, have women submit to you and impregnate anyone in your path. I'm not surprised at all that this is your power fantasy, I just think it's funny that you're being so open about it.

 

[Farm Boy]

The strongest and most accomplished women, actually, and the ones most out of reach. But not necessarily the richest or most powerful, age matters. If we're going to call it and go with it. It's not like it's an unusual power fantasy, almost like it's tied up in actual sexual impulse. Breaking it up is one of the lowest floors of civilization. Which is why there are things we call civilizations which aren't really, at all, in large swaths of their behavior. Probably good to talk about, rather than be surprised about, no?

 

[Truthy]

Because being in the same state doesn't force people to interact in a communal way. See: Ottoman millets.

(It's only liberalism that seems to make a virtue out of grinding cultures into one another until they dissipate.)

Which was a fractured, inconsistent, discriminatory, and corrupt legal system that stifled development. It contributed to the Ottomans falling behind the West and they reasonably wanted to jettison it by the 1800s. I'm not sure that's a great example of something that faired well against the pressures of cultural evolution.

I'm not saying these kinds of multicultural and imperial legal systems were never practical solutions. But that if you want to revert back to those, you're pushing back against 500 years of European history. But to be fair, I think that's been your goal all along? You want to return to an illiberal pre-Westphalian world. But my issue is that you've pointed out "tradition is smarter than you." Ok. Well, so is 500 years of European history.

Also, I don't think we even need to get into multiculturalism per se. The white American Christian population is huge and heterogeneous. What are we supposed to do, establish a legal system for each of the folkways in Albion's Seed? And then what do we do whenever there's a theological schism? And then there's the fact that individuals within any given religion or culture have super heterogenous moral intuitions and ideas about justice. I think you're circumventing this point by overstating the power of cultural conditioning to create uniformity.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The strongest and most accomplished women, actually, and the ones most out of reach. But not necessarily the richest or most powerful, age matters. If we're going to call it and go with it. It's not like it's an unusual power fantasy, almost like it's tied up in actual sexual impulse. Breaking it up is one of the lowest floors of civilization. Which is why there are things we call civilizations which aren't really, at all, in large swaths of their behavior. Probably good to talk about, rather than be surprised about, no?

I am all for openly discussing power fantasies, actually. I also don't think there's anything wrong with ridiculing people for it, all power fantasies are inherently ridiculous. I dislike how you universalize MWs specific fantasy, it's definitely not MY power fantasy, nor is it many other peoples', I'd reckon. his is decidedly anti-civilizational and conjures up an imaginary "natural order" that reveals itself as a wishful construct

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm going to call translation issue on "it's not like it's an unusual power fantasy" with "universalizing" it. Not what it means, like, at all! But lowest common(ish) sort of denominator stuff has a way of dragging things down when their controls are removed.

Though being frustrated with how things are, if you are not happy with how things are, seems normal enough. And that applies to diet or comfort or entertainment or company or respect or sexual interaction or control or any fribbin combination of the things.

 

[Mouthwash]

From what I've read shame is a weak motivator. If it was strong all fat people who beat themselves up over eating the whole cake would stop. People don't generally stop because of shame, they go underground.

This is not true. Being fat may be shameful, but there's no stigma attached to the action of eating. What would really help is making every meal communal, and making it taboo to ask for another bowl or something.

Men are celebrated for getting an abundance of sex but shunned to still be virgins by a certain age so it's a double-edged sword.

By feminists, for the purpose of shaming their male opponents.

this is literally what your ideology boils down to. you want to be conan the barbarian, you want to be big, strong, and muscular, have women submit to you and impregnate anyone in your path. I'm not surprised at all that this is your power fantasy, I just think it's funny that you're being so open about it.

While I'm in the process of arguing against casual sex, that's what you take from it?

My actual fantasy is to get married, ditch the internet, buy a farm somewhere to raise children, and never have to look at porn or licentious women again.

Which was a fractured, inconsistent, discriminatory, and corrupt legal system that stifled development. It contributed to the Ottomans falling behind the West and they reasonably wanted to jettison it by the 1800s. I'm not sure that's a great example of something that faired well against the pressures of cultural evolution.

It remains the only ethical form of multiculturalism.

I'm not saying these kinds of multicultural and imperial legal systems were never practical solutions. But that if you want to revert back to those, you're pushing back against 500 years of European history. But to be fair, I think that's been your goal all along? You want to return to an illiberal pre-Westphalian world. But my issue is that you've pointed out "tradition is smarter than you." Ok. Well, so is 500 years of European history.

Which can be resisted. From SSC:

"In New York, Orthodox Jews with business disputes still bring them before a tribunal of rabbis, who judge them based on Jewish law. In Pennsylvania, the Amish live their own lives in their own way pretty much completely disconnected from US government decisions (although they needed a decent lobby group, the Amish Steering Committee, to work out a few special exemptions like from the draft). Socialists occasionally set up worker-owned companies run for the good of the proletariat, and they make products and earn money just like everyone else.

If you don’t like the government, you’re out of luck. But if you and your whole community don’t like the government, you can organize your own internal relations however you want. You can’t override existing laws – you’ll still have to pay taxes, and you can’t set up a bomb-making factory in your backyard. But you can add as many new laws as you want, enforced by threat of ostracism from your community, plus any other clever commitment mechanisms you can think of. There’s nothing stopping communities – a broad term covering anything from villages to church congregations to cults to political organizations to online message boards – from creating internal welfare systems to help their poorer members, taking a say in when their members marry or divorce, making home schools that educated their members’ children, demanding their members in business treat their employees or business partners a certain way, et cetera.

Right now doctors’ services are super-bloated and expensive because if a patient sues them they can be held liable for not filling out any of seven zillion forms or following any of twenty zillion best practices. But if the doctor only saw patients in their own community, and everyone in the community had mutual arbitration methods that worked better than the courts, maybe they could charge a fraction of the current price. This might not be illegal, as long as the community wasn’t based on a protected group like race or religion. There just aren’t many existing communities strong enough to make it work.

But some small seeds are starting to sprout. Social justice communities have sexual harassment policies much stronger than those of the country at large, and enforce them by ostracism and public shaming. Christians are trying to build the Benedict Option, an embedded society that works on Christian norms and rules. And there’s always the seasteading movement, currently led by – oh, that’s interesting – David Friedman’s son.

Legal Systems Very Different From Ours hints that we could build something like Archipelago gradually, without anybody noticing. The Jews and Gypsies did something like it. So did the Amish."

Also, I don't think we even need to get into multiculturalism per se. The white American Christian population is huge and heterogeneous. What are we supposed to do, establish a legal system for each of the folkways in Albion's Seed? And then what do we do whenever there's a theological schism? And then there's the fact that individuals within any given religion or culture have super heterogenous moral intuitions and ideas about justice. I think you're circumventing this point by overstating the power of cultural conditioning to create uniformity.

How far do the cultural differences go between Baptists and Calvinists? In terms of society, they seem to be mirror images of one another. I don't think it'll be a problem dividing Americans into Protestant/Catholic.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

fribbin'

 

[Traitorfish]

They feel (rather than philosophically reasoned) that those who wronged them deserve commensurate wrong done to them.

What leads you to believe that this is an intuition, rather than just a feeling?

If I see a donut, I feel that I should eat it. Am I intuiting that I should eat a donut?

If so, is that intuition more reliable than the rational knowledge that I'm supposed to be on a diet?

And what if, say, I'm a practicing Catholic on a fast day; does this intuition outweigh the tradition that I abstain from eating? The convention that I uphold that tradition? The expectation of the community that I abide by convention?

What if it's somebody else's donut; does this intuition outweigh the conventional and legal obligation to respect their property? What if I eat the donut per my intuition, and the owner gets the intuition to punch me in the face? Do we regard this as two people upholding appropriate moral behaviour? What if I eat the donut, the owner punches me, and we are both taken to jail; is this an injustice, or would this depend on whether the judge intuits it to be an injustice?

If "intuition" is not rigorously defined, it is not clearly distinguished from whim. And how you can offer that rigorous definition, without some reference to "philosophical reasoning"?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

While I'm in the process of arguing against casual sex, that's what you take from it?

My actual fantasy is to get married, ditch the internet, buy a farm somewhere to raise children, and never have to look at porn or licentious women again.

that's your fantasy, not your power fantasy. that's not anyone's power fantasy, hopefully, it's boring as hell. I like the last sentence though, adds some spice "licentious women"..

it's not like I don't understand you or your problems. some of them we share. me being in a relationship and getting attention from other women feels really bad (,man) and sometimes I, too, would like to fade that out.

but nah, not really, feels like cheap escapism