Why does everyone think their own political views are "correct" or "moral"...

Why does everyone think their own political views are "correct" or "moral"? Doesn't anyone realize it's wholly subjective?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ48w1PNfU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

What if you are wrong?

No. You're wrong and I'm right.

some opinions are just wrong, man.

>implying all white men were, in fact, not born to be natzis

That's just your opinion.

I'm not saying my political vires are "correct", that's retarded
my political views are the best though

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the minds of man.

Yes yes morals are entirely subjective Goy. Fap to animu, while your wife bears sons for Jamal, and always vote commie to prevent anuuda shoah

People like grandstanding. It's human nature. The true solution to human problems is genetic engineering until then we will live with pain and everybody thinks their pain is greater than anyone elses.

They are though. Unless you are religious. even then you can't actually prove it you just take it on faith.

People think too highly of themselves. They think they're pretty smart, so when they come to a conclusion, hey, it must be the correct one! After all, they came up with it -- and they're pretty smart!

Okay, when your family is sexually assaulted and murdered by socialists or any other kind of statists you can let "morality is subjective" be your mantra.

And? The whole reason politics isn't "oh yeah that makes perfect sense. We all agree" is subjectivity. It's subjecting a subjective populace to subjective laws that subjectively protect the most people.

>One post by this ID.
OP is such a fag he won't even participate in his discussion.

/thread

Not an argument.

When individuals and cultures around the globe have historically arrived at the same basic morals 'no murder, no theft, no envy, no lust, etc" you can surmise that there is something beyond subjectivity to them

All morality is subjective, idiot.

its not

relativist scum plz go

I believe in God of Abraham, who's only son Jesus Christ died for me. The law of God is 100% objective you Pagan shit

Maybe they are just the most efficient. Or they evolved into us. Most cultures originally arrived at the idea that marital rape was fine along with pedophilia. Is that ok?

Relativism does not necessarily mean subjective.

This is a fallacy.
Leftist philosophy is fundamentally incorrect because it assumes races have equal intelligence. It's a factual matter that affects almost the entirety of political thought and consequently, any political thought which ignores it or claims the opposite of the truth will be WRONG.
Politics isn't a difference of opinion, it's a difference of one's understanding of nature. This is why right wing atheists//hard determinists are the elite.

I mostly base my political view by practical evidence.

>I believe in God of Juden, who's only wife's son Jewsus Christcuck died for me. The law of God is 100% interest bearing you Pagan shit

ftfy

Sounds like an objective observation

>Politics isn't a difference of opinion, it's a difference of one's understanding of nature. This is why right wing atheists//hard determinists are the elite.
If you are a hard determinism nothing matters. That's the ultimate black-pill desu.

>everyone says this.

I shall cast not pearls before swine. The god of America is money, America is the great dragon upon which its master, the whore of Babylon Israel rides.

wtf im a nihilist now

Sounds like you think you're pretty smart.

>anyone who uses the word "subjective" or tries to make an overarching political observation is a pot-smoking nihilistic teenager

your belief that everything is subjective is wrong

Ok, then:
I base it on what Hitler said about the international jew and the way they want to run the world, and compare it to the stuff I see today and realize he was right.

/thread

I agree with this actually.

>everyone says something using this same basic structure.

thats a crack pipe kiddo

and your threads shit

>Moral
>Wholly subjective

So a guy murdering someone else is ok if the murderer himself thinks that killing is morally acceptable?

Some worldviews are just not tolerable. Period. Why are we even discussing this?
If you base your worldviews and your morals on facts, reason and logic, you have every right to claim they are the truth.

would you prefer another "average nigger IQ" thread?

If they are the most efficient, they are objectively right.

The only person who's thoughts you truly understand are your own.
Therefore, you must live and act under the assumption that you are correct.

Ok then:

Give examples.

That's only if you assume what is most efficient is correct.

why dont you make a
>the ocean is wet
thread instead

as long as people make the generalization of "this entire political party is x", threads like this are worth posting

I base it on what Dr. King said about the racism and the way they subjugate blacks, and compare it to the stuff I see today and realize he was right.

I base it on what Bin-laden said about the imperialists and the way they want to run the world, and compare it to the stuff I see today and realize he was right.

I base it on what Netanyahu said about the muslims and goyim and the way they want to run the world, and compare it to the stuff I see today and realize he was right.

I base it on what Washingtonsaid about the the monarchists and the way they want to run the world, and compare it to the stuff I see today and realize he was right.

its like degeneracy

Blacks are just violent homos and that's why they are always running into the law.

Bin laden was right.

Netanyahu I don't know much about.

Washington was right.

You're judging their subjective views based on the standard of your own subjective views.

Bin laden was right, washington was right, black people are generally retarded....

This stuff isn't subjective. There's even scientific evidence on the nigger IQ

There are no facts, only interpretations

Nothing matters intrinsically but it's not incorrect to act like things matter as long as you know they don't.

IQ might be objective, but making judgement on it is subjective because those are value judgement.

>Nothing matters intrinsically but it's not incorrect to act like things matter as long as you know they don't.
I mean you can't chose how you act or don't. You just do according to hard-determinism.

You're not even arguing. All you're doing is attempting to deconstruct facts.

That's absolutely false. Objectivity in political views can be measured as to what produces a civilization capable of outperforming neighboring civilizations, and exterminating/assimilating their enemies.

The greatest empires in history, have all supported traditional/conservative roles on marriage/sexual relationships, been completely against moral/sexual degeneracy, and have relatively little government influence on the economy.

This is cross-culturally, and spanning thousands of years of history. You can think of the Roman Republic/Empire at its height, British Empire, Arab Empire, Assyria/Egypt, etc.

Enough of your relativistic bullshit. There are objective ways to measure shit like this. Look into your past, into what values/politics sustained ages of greatness, and what values/politics lead to degeneracy and downfall. Read Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb.

If anyone does not think that "no murder, no theft, no envy" aren#t good values and morally right, that person lacks common sense and reason. Therefore, his evaluation is worthless.

you are stupid as fuck m8. you're a disgrace to the white race and you lost the argument.

"Right and wrong are subjective." - person who is wrong

Another subversive shill

>Objectivity in political views can be measured as to what
so your own definition that you think people should agree with becomes the absolute metric of objectivity. you arent god fag you cant know every aspect of something that can be perceived an infinite amount of ways. you can't know that your one way of seeing it is the actual objective way.

I don't. I'm glad to finally find someone that embraces the grey.

>le ebic moral relativism xD so postmodern maymay

reddit pls

7 posts by this id

kek. kys you autist

There is nothing "subjective" about being a National Socialist. It's the end game of political philosophies.

Hail victory comrades.

Well if society is supposed to work towards ensuring every person a pleasurable life, then the only solution to that is white nationalism so yes only my political views are the solution to creating a utopian society

epic pepe

lol you're trying to be like us now

All that matters is maximizing your own personal existence. That said, what that means is up to you and whatever state you happen to be in that moment. You are incapable of doing anything that isn't in your own self-interest. Altruism is an illusion, people act in such a way because they are compelled to do so by their own minds and emotions. Even self-destructive or suicidal behaviors pass this simple truth. OP is correct of course, but in reality it doesn't matter because everyone is 'correct'.

People should absolutely agree on it because they derive their entire survival and standards of living on the civilization cycle society is in. It's like applying natural selection to societies and seeing what works to ensure optimum living conditions/prospects for advancement.

You can argue objectivity all you want. Go live in a nigger-infested slum in Nairobi, or the decaying West where the very soul of my country is being sucked out from its back end by multiculturalism.

>Why does everyone think their own political views are "correct" or "moral"? Doesn't anyone realize it's wholly subjective?


Fuck political views. Politics is for faggots and cucks. It's all bullshit anyway.

>You are incapable of doing anything that isn't in your own self-interest.
i don't share this assumption with you so the rest of your argument can't follow anymore

youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ48w1PNfU
First quote.

things that people [reddit] should [/reddit] agree on aren't really facts anymore fag. facts are something you have to agree with because they can be demonstrated to be true inside a constructed axiom reddit system

>he says on a board dedicated to shitposting about politics

It might not be genetic engineering just self-mastery, honest acceptance of our own natures and a resolve to overcome them.

The chances are slim but I firmly believe it's possible.

I don't think it's so much a matter of "is" or "isn't", just will it make everyone fall in line, and most people can't attack without hatred or support without love, they can't knowingly speak lies or support things factually incorrect, even if their life's goals and works hinge on it.

90% of us need that philosophy to Do what we do and we feel the need to reinforce it to keep everyone in else in line for the sake of our own skins.

That magical top 10%, however, they can support their enemies, Misdirect their allies, do whatever is necessary to achieve their ultimate goals. The rest of humanity is destined to focus on inconsequential nonsense, though.

You are welcome to agree with the statement or not, the latter is probably the more common reaction. People tend to reject it instantly as some sore of nihilism, but in reality it is a more complicate question of determinism. Does choice actually exist? If the experience of this existence affects the outcome of the neurons in our brains, are we actually capable of acting in a way contrary to that outcome?
I think that we are not, most think that we are.
Either way, food for thought, eh?

God damn, I hate you pseudo-philosophers. How fucking deep down the rabbit hole do we need to go to get to you? Yes, morals and politics are subjective, but so is fucking everything else, depending on the person. There are schizophrenics out there that live in a world of their own imagination, and to them, it isn't any less real that the one the rest of us live in. The difference is that the rest of society can see they are just out of their fucking mind.

Same with morals. Whatever the general consensus is among society would be the "correct" set of morals.

meant to quote

So it's really just the same matter of pragmatism and expediency, but on a societal level, not just personal.

learn the difference between morals and ethics you fucking retard.

learn the difference between morals and ethics you fucking retard.

because human beings are emotional animals and the most effective way to argue anything is muh feels

leme tell ya OP you huge faggot

your running maybe a 110 iq. smarter than nogs that cannot criticize their own beliefs, unable to think abstractly or without admitting their own flaws.

people with an iq lower than 85 won't understand you at a very foundational level.

people above 130 will sound weird to you. it's the way of the bell curve and self reflection.

Why does anyone think 2+2=4 or 2+2=5? It's all subjective and based on your point of view.

Ok, fine, it's subjective, so stop resisting my views. You dumb fuck.

>implying there is a difference
Shut up with this morality is a spook meme. The English language and all abstract thoughts are fucking spooks. Society is a spook. Just cause it is spooky don't mean you need to be afraid.

With societies it actually is. If saying 2+2=5 wins us a war or creates a utopia, we should obviously say it, but that's not enough for most people, they cling to details and principle that serves no purpose, so they must be made to believe that it equals five.

From my point of view it's not subjective. You can't refute this.

Your no better than the Jews. Rig 9/11 to give people a motive to fight terror. Shut up bush and your utilitarian bullshit.

I mean, it's pretty obvious that there are many people that are very opportunistic, and if placed in a situation without some sort of authority, will prey on weaker/more passive people.

The problem is that this, over-all does not work to progress a society. It only satiates the needs of the violent and opportunistic. But even fucking cavemen realized that banding together makes accomplishing tasks a hell of a lot easier. When everyone agrees on a set of morals, everyone can advance and prosper.

In every society, this has basically meant, don't fuck with other people or other people's belongings. It's pretty easy to see why. It doesn't benefit anyone except the perpetrator, and it hinders growth.

Yes, and I'm alright with that. Now, if you want to argue the moral aspect, you could say that it's that same ad hoc and pragmatic logic, but applied on a societal level, that makes something "good" or "right". For the good of the hive would be right, but for the good of the bee would be that Bush-era perfidy you were referring to.

This

right is what's good for the hive, greed is what's good for the bee, yes. It all still relies on situational factors. Out group altruism is pointless, unless you
Have some other angle to it.

Aren't you doing the same thing?