- 28 Apr 2006 21:05
#861158
Collectivists, all over the spectrum, oppose free thought or free thought in combination with free association, or any generla form of expression. It stems from a quondam radical notion of reshaping the minds of individuals to fit a subjective and proper weltanschauung. The only bastion an individual has is their consciousness and currently there is no way to monitor this (although I can’t speak for the future). The only recourse of the thought-policing collectivist is actions or words that evinces the operational realities of consciousness.
The more traditionalist or culturally conservative collectivist seeks to prevent visual or auditory sexual stimulation by regulating pornography, or adult-adult/adult-multiple adult/adult-animal consensual sexual affairs. In the first case of pornography there are two modes of collectivist, anti-mass lubricious entertainment, thought.
I. Preemptive Putative- The sole purpose of pornography is to offer a means to and end (sexual stimulation) or to appeal to the scabrous mode of pleasure (not seeking direct sexual pleasure, but simply a preference to watch others for possible emotional/entertainment based reasons.).
These collectivists want to focus on punishing one who would seek such access, but as stated in the opening, the technology is not there to regulate consciousness, so they have to attack the market and the agents who would dare offer utility to individuals.
II. Descriptive sentinels- self assured, and usually insecure or unable to deal with the concept of Liberty, they want to punish the very act of sex for being public in any fashion, especially between individuals who have not spliced before clerical authority.
They both have a vested interest in regulating the personal/private sexual affairs of consenting adults, and both are propelled by their own great consternation that individual assertiveness and rational egoism are insalubrious in a functioning society; commonly this can be descried through such statements as “Marriage/tolerance is the foundation of society.†Or any other statement that takes “Action A†as pernicious, being axiomatic.
The traditionalist-culturally conservative collectivist also has a partner in the normative culturally liberal collectivist, who opposes the right of an individual to hate, or to freely operate based on their value system.
The Cultural liberal collectivist, just like the conservative collectivist, can’t get to the inner workings of consciousness yet; so they seek an external cognitive reshaping, which almost always leads to social engineering. Through the force of government or by means of coercion they prohibit an employer from freely associating with whom he/she wants. They mandate schools be “integrated†that a landlord can’t “discriminate†etc. These are all steps to force a cognitive, interpretive based change, and fail miserably as it does not take into account human volition and the value system acting as a subconscious arriere pensee, and forces the value-system into the individual forcefully.
As long as the collectivist seeks to regulate the conscious they will, ironically, lead the way to the degradation of values, and a fanciful assessment of society. As an example: before the internet pornography was seen as a much more fringe activity, an individual had to really be at the brink to go to a seedy theater, and typically one bought videos in shame, and local government had an easy time regulating such market activity. Fast forward to the rise of the internet, where pornography can be accessed for free or for a fee and we see the results of partial liberation (pornography is now a $14,000,000,000 dollar a year industry). Due to morals being anachronistic (pornography is wrong) and partial liberation (the erstwhile brink no longer being the demarcation for deviancy) leads to greater alienation and guilt, and now we see a rise in “pornography addiction†and a desensitization to sexual activity resulting from the Appollian and Dionysian struggle for cultural supremacy which leaves the lachrymose descriptive forces in power.
The same can be applied to the oppression of individuals who choose to be intolerant or to hate. As long as they don’t initiate aggression, fraud or coercion they should be left to alter their own values, it is their Liberty to hate and act in line with their subjective value system.
The more traditionalist or culturally conservative collectivist seeks to prevent visual or auditory sexual stimulation by regulating pornography, or adult-adult/adult-multiple adult/adult-animal consensual sexual affairs. In the first case of pornography there are two modes of collectivist, anti-mass lubricious entertainment, thought.
I. Preemptive Putative- The sole purpose of pornography is to offer a means to and end (sexual stimulation) or to appeal to the scabrous mode of pleasure (not seeking direct sexual pleasure, but simply a preference to watch others for possible emotional/entertainment based reasons.).
These collectivists want to focus on punishing one who would seek such access, but as stated in the opening, the technology is not there to regulate consciousness, so they have to attack the market and the agents who would dare offer utility to individuals.
II. Descriptive sentinels- self assured, and usually insecure or unable to deal with the concept of Liberty, they want to punish the very act of sex for being public in any fashion, especially between individuals who have not spliced before clerical authority.
They both have a vested interest in regulating the personal/private sexual affairs of consenting adults, and both are propelled by their own great consternation that individual assertiveness and rational egoism are insalubrious in a functioning society; commonly this can be descried through such statements as “Marriage/tolerance is the foundation of society.†Or any other statement that takes “Action A†as pernicious, being axiomatic.
The traditionalist-culturally conservative collectivist also has a partner in the normative culturally liberal collectivist, who opposes the right of an individual to hate, or to freely operate based on their value system.
The Cultural liberal collectivist, just like the conservative collectivist, can’t get to the inner workings of consciousness yet; so they seek an external cognitive reshaping, which almost always leads to social engineering. Through the force of government or by means of coercion they prohibit an employer from freely associating with whom he/she wants. They mandate schools be “integrated†that a landlord can’t “discriminate†etc. These are all steps to force a cognitive, interpretive based change, and fail miserably as it does not take into account human volition and the value system acting as a subconscious arriere pensee, and forces the value-system into the individual forcefully.
As long as the collectivist seeks to regulate the conscious they will, ironically, lead the way to the degradation of values, and a fanciful assessment of society. As an example: before the internet pornography was seen as a much more fringe activity, an individual had to really be at the brink to go to a seedy theater, and typically one bought videos in shame, and local government had an easy time regulating such market activity. Fast forward to the rise of the internet, where pornography can be accessed for free or for a fee and we see the results of partial liberation (pornography is now a $14,000,000,000 dollar a year industry). Due to morals being anachronistic (pornography is wrong) and partial liberation (the erstwhile brink no longer being the demarcation for deviancy) leads to greater alienation and guilt, and now we see a rise in “pornography addiction†and a desensitization to sexual activity resulting from the Appollian and Dionysian struggle for cultural supremacy which leaves the lachrymose descriptive forces in power.
The same can be applied to the oppression of individuals who choose to be intolerant or to hate. As long as they don’t initiate aggression, fraud or coercion they should be left to alter their own values, it is their Liberty to hate and act in line with their subjective value system.
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator
- By litwin