Proving Godwins law in one post?

[P3nT4gR4m]

I have no idea how I'm going to say this without coming off as more right than hitler. This post is probably a very bad idea but, fuck it, I'ma stick my cock in the grinder and see what happens

So what I want to talk about is weak v's strong. Why do the strong survive? Why do the weak get shit on? The answer to this is simple. Firstly the strong survive because no one can fucking stop them. That's pretty much it. There's no mysterious force at play here, no divine fuckery stacking the deck. If you're strong enough to deal you deal. Conversely, the weak get shit on because they can't do anything to stop it and there isn't always a benevolent strong person nearby to hold their little handie. Sucks to be weak, I guess.

There's always someone bigger than you. You can't be the strongest but there's always someone weaker than you too. You don't have to be able to outrun the lion, just the fat guy next you. Truth be told you don't even have to run, the lion will go around you to get to fatty, just so long as you look like you'll make his lunch a bit harder to come by. Strength can be a deterrent, just as weakness can be an invitation.

Strength comes in many forms. There's physical strength, mental strength, emotional strength. There's probably another couple of basic types of strength that I haven't noticed or thought about and then there's subsets and amalgamations of these. Strength is a complicated business. Weakness is equally complex. Someone physically strong may be an emotional and intellectual cabbage. Stephen Hawking may be physically useless with a mind and a strength of character that could cut diamond.

As a race we tend to admire strength, albeit begrudgingly, with a dash of jealous in a lot of cases. No one, tho, to the best of my knowledge, admires weakness. Collectively however, we seem to do a fuckload to encourage it. Why is this? Why aren't the strong yelling at the weak - "stop being a fucking maggot and sort yourself out"?

You see strong aint necessarily something that you just get handed at birth. I've heard a lot about "privilege" on this board lately. Well let me tell you about privilege. Sure you might be born lucky, rich family, silver spoon and all the trimmings but that isn't the only way to gain privilege. Not by a long shot. Privilege can be earned. Privilege can be fought for. Privilege can be fucking taken.

Speaking as someone who used to be weak, I can attest to the fact that strength and privilege are things you can gain. Things you can change in yourself.

"But it's not as simple as that. It's really hard. I'm not the kind of person who can do that"

If I've heard this shit once, I've heard it a million times. It's something that is said exclusively by weak people and, every time I hear it, I just want to punch them in the face. Be careful with that shit, cos I've got the muscle to follow through on that.

1) It is as simple as that

2) It's probably even harder than you think it is - when did I say it was easy?

3) You become the kind of person who can do it only after you get off your lazy weak ass and get the fucking thing done

Strong people complain in a slightly different manner - "This is doing my fucking head in. I will not be beaten. I don't give a fuck how long it takes, I'm not leaving here until I've kicked it's ass"

So here's the deal. Fuck the weak. I can't help feeling sorry for them but, at the end of the day, the only one that can do anything about their situation is themselves. That might not be strictly true, strong people can help but why should they bother if the weak aint going to? Weak is lazy that way. Weak is self defeating. Weak is whining about it "not being fair" and insisting that the solution is the whole world changes.

I used to be that person. Somewhere along the line I figured out that, regardless about how loudly I whined like a bitch, I couldn't change the world. I did manage to change myself, tho and you know what? From a position of privilege, the world aint all that bad the way it is. It's the weak who are having a tough time of it.

Fuck 'em!

[The Johnny]

In theory this sounds alright, the problem would be who gets designated as "weak", thats when shit can get crazy pretty fast.

"wer der untermenschen?"

This whole explanation you propose can very well used to justify why people are in bad situations "Well, THEY'RE weak, they DESERVE it", which is a posture i cannot emphatize with.

The decks are stacked, people can be "weak" because of the context, the history, and the institutionalized privileges.

Im not accusing you of anything, but if you provide concrete examples of who is "weak", we can get this ball rolling.

In my perspective, for people to be "strong" they need support to nurture it, 'cause one will not oppose an imposition if he knows for sure hes going into the meatgrinder.

[The Johnny]

Also: is might equal to right?

I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I agree to a point. There's some things I don't know what to make of, though.

Rush Limbaugh is weak. He's got a weak obese body and a weak pill-addled brain. But if he made a public appearance and somebody stronger gave him enough shit, they'd be tackled by goons and dragged off to the gulag. So Rush has strength in goons, but who put him in that position? That's where the strength is. The combined effect of millions of screaming yahoos and some media execs and maybe a think tank or something.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Also: is might equal to right?

I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.

Depends on what you mean my right. Personally I'm of the opinion that there is very little (if any) empirical right or wrongness. A lot more of it is opinion than we might first assume. For this reason I try not to think in terms of right and wrong. Whether you refuse to legitimize it or not, it's the way things are and that's what you have to deal with. You're either playing the game according to the way it works or you're screaming "no fair". Right and wrong, in this sense, are irrelevant.

As for what constitutes a weak person? Off the top of my head I'd say the two biggest red flags for me are an ineffectiveness in most situations and a fuckton of excuses for why this is the case. This warrants further investigation, tho. Good question!

[The Johnny]

Rush is kind of the battle flag that the redneck army carries on its march; prolocutor.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I agree to a point. There's some things I don't know what to make of, though.

Rush Limbaugh is weak. He's got a weak obese body and a weak pill-addled brain. But if he made a public appearance and somebody stronger gave him enough shit, they'd be tackled by goons and dragged off to the gulag. So Rush has strength in goons, but who put him in that position? That's where the strength is. The combined effect of millions of screaming yahoos and some media execs and maybe a think tank or something.

I think you've just highlighted one of those types of strength that I mentioned not having thought of - strength in numbers? Tactical superiority? Economically fortified defensive position/ offensive platform?

[The Johnny]

Also: is might equal to right?

I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.

Depends on what you mean my right. Personally I'm of the opinion that there is very little (if any) empirical right or wrongness. A lot more of it is opinion than we might first assume. For this reason I try not to think in terms of right and wrong. Whether you refuse to legitimize it or not, it's the way things are and that's what you have to deal with. You're either playing the game according to the way it works or you're screaming "no fair". Right and wrong, in this sense, are irrelevant.

As for what constitutes a weak person? Off the top of my head I'd say the two biggest red flags for me are an ineffectiveness in most situations and a fuckton of excuses for why this is the case. This warrants further investigation, tho. Good question!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right

Its basicly an argument for social darwinism; this use of "right" alludes to "law", not morality.

And its not just screaming about it if you are opposed to this worldview, groups and individuals can actually oppose, just so it seems so far, not too efficiently. There is a huge difference between acknowledging what is happening and thinking it should be that way.

And well, you did not provide examples, so its hard to examine the practical applications of what you are saying and its implications.

[The Johnny]

Pent, i would really recommend you read those wikipedia articles i linked, im not sure you want to be associated with those ideas.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Also: is might equal to right?

I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.

Depends on what you mean my right. Personally I'm of the opinion that there is very little (if any) empirical right or wrongness. A lot more of it is opinion than we might first assume. For this reason I try not to think in terms of right and wrong. Whether you refuse to legitimize it or not, it's the way things are and that's what you have to deal with. You're either playing the game according to the way it works or you're screaming "no fair". Right and wrong, in this sense, are irrelevant.

As for what constitutes a weak person? Off the top of my head I'd say the two biggest red flags for me are an ineffectiveness in most situations and a fuckton of excuses for why this is the case. This warrants further investigation, tho. Good question!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right

Its basicly an argument for social darwinism; this use of "right" alludes to "law", not morality.

And its not just screaming about it if you are opposed to this worldview, groups and individuals can actually oppose, just so it seems so far, not too efficiently. There is a huge difference between acknowledging what is happening and thinking it should be that way.

And well, you did not provide examples, so its hard to examine the practical applications of what you are saying and its implications.

I get this. The point I'm making isn't about right and wrong. I have morality. I will step in and prevent a weak person being persecuted by a strong one but morality needs strength to succeed, the weak guy, unless the strong guy steps in is going to get beaten up and his lunch money taken.

What I'm getting at is the sort of underlying physics of the game, not the rules, if that makes any sense? Regardless of what your opinion is of how things should be, unless you have the strength to make it so, there's a fair chance it'll be the opposite. This is not right and it isn't wrong, it's the just the way it is.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Right/wrong and strong/weak might end up looking like one of those political compass grids.

[The Johnny]

I get this. The point I'm making isn't about right and wrong. I have morality. I will step in and prevent a weak person being persecuted by a strong one but morality needs strength to succeed, the weak guy, unless the strong guy steps in is going to get beaten up and his lunch money taken.

What I'm getting at is the sort of underlying physics of the game, not the rules, if that makes any sense? Regardless of what your opinion is of how things should be, unless you have the strength to make it so, there's a fair chance it'll be the opposite. This is not right and it isn't wrong, it's the just the way it is.

So in other words what you are saying is:

"Opression is bad and im against it, but to fight opression one needs strenght (power)." ?

[The Johnny]

I agree with that statement im interpreting you are making, just id choose "power" instead of "strenght" because "strenght" connotes physical strenght, and thats not what it comes down to always.

And by power i mean the capability to influence a circumstance.

For example, if representations guide practices and actions, undermining/critiquing/deconstructing those representations will have an effect in deligitimizing the practices/actions to a sector of the population. And thats pure words, thinking and communicating.

Power manifests itself in very different ways.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I agree with that statement im interpreting you are making, just id choose "power" instead of "strenght" because "strenght" connotes physical strenght, and thats not what it comes down to always.

And by power i mean the capability to influence a circumstance.

For example, if representations guide practices and actions, undermining/critiquing/deconstructing those representations will have an effect in deligitimizing the practices/actions to a sector of the population. And thats pure words, thinking and communicating.

Power manifests itself in very different ways.

Heh,  I chose "strength" as opposed to "power" solely because I carry many more negative connotations of power but, yeah, terminology aside I think we're talking about the same thing.

What I criticise as weakness or lack of power isn't necessarily the weakness or lack of power in and of itself (everybody has to start somewhere) it's wilfully hanging onto that state and insisting that you shouldn't have to change, the world should be a different way, that  pisses me off. That's where you cross the line into "deserves it" as far as my sympathy for you is concerned.

[The Johnny]

So being a passive "dreamer" hippie type is what you condemn? I can get down with that.

What i dont accept is the notion of "deserving it"; surely passivity can throw me into a rage-froth, but i know there's a reason behind it, and with a wide enough perspective and understanding of the situation one can see the reason which isnt so apparent.