1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe
A: Hindu. I was raised with some weird mixture of Smarta rituals, carvaka lifestyle, Shakta morality and a distinctly western scientific philosophy of life. Growing up there was never a right or wrong way of thinking, if only you could articulate and justify your beliefs(we love heated debates over abstract ideas in our family). Recently I am leaning toward Kashmiri Shaivism more and more, just because it is a highly virile and yet sophisticated conception of the world.
I know more mythological and folk stories from the most diverse possible backgrounds than almost anyone I have ever met, because I believe in the power of archetypes (I believe that Jung’s archetype theory should be considered part of the Hindu philosophical tradition, because that’s where it fits in the most organic way) as if they were lesser deities, and because they are usually a compressed character-study of different peoples and situations. A story or myth is a philosophical shorthand for shared understanding that we really should appreciate and use more often. But for any story to have religious significance, it has to be morally dipolar in that it has to capture a whole being and not just a one-sided aspect of it.
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
A: It is mostly intuition-based at this point, but I think that you need to have seen and actually digested enough of life(independent of your age) to have a good and robust intuition about these things. I still change my mind on the rights and wrongs of plenty of things based on newer experiences but the fundamentals have solidified into a mosaic of different, sometimes contradictory, ethical frameworks that is hard to properly articulate outside of test-cases.
In a broadly Hindu(or just pagan?) context, every locality has its own character and a particular deus that has dominion over it, while there is a whole hierarchy of deities all the way up to the unviverse. This is how I like to see ethical or moral systems- certain highly abstracted universals that can incarnate in highly local and even personal ways based on the phenomenological environment. The incarnations are known to contradict and “war” with each other in the Hindu Mythos and so I believe that ethical systems must do too. But I think I have learned to move across different ethical systems without losing integrity.
This can sometimes look like I have no sense of right and wrong to people that are trying to follow only one ethical system, but it’s not true- I agonize over the right and wrong of things a lot more than the average person. I do sympathize with people that can stay within one internally consistent ethical system all their lives, but it tends to set you up to be blindsided if and when contradictory reality hits you so only very few “lucky” people can get away with it.
I think that any ethical system that doesn’t leave room for evolution has an expiration date and should be actively gotten rid of when it starts throwing contradictions against the natural, observable order of the world. People tend to try to manipulate reality to fit their ethical vision of it instead of changing their vision to fit reality. I think that that is the perfect recipe for disaster.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
A: Politics has always been more of an intellectual exercise for me than anything real but as I see more and more people’s vision of the world slipping away from reality I am forced to take a more concrete stance on things. I’ve learned to say “libertarian right” based on most of the policy stuff I agree with but, honestly not sure. I strongly believe in individual causes like both the FRM and MRM, certain environmental movements(when I can actually see them doing real useful things) etc. Walt Right is sorta my first real political project though.
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
A: I think I can negotiate some kind of temporary shared understanding with almost anyone who is willing to engage with me openly, even when I don’t particularly like them. But a long term and stable collaboration should be based on at least some degree of real friendship because purely transactional relationships are too fragile. Of course, I don’t have any political experience but I think that who you can ally or collaborate with can vary quite a lot based on the task at hand.
I’ve observed that everyone has deeply personal reasons for engaging in politics so I categorically do not trust people that project an entirely altruistic persona. “I am doing all this only because I care and want to help the world” is a mask that usually hides some pretty ugly things(Regan comes to mind, along with some of the EA crowd).
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
A: Any kind of totalitarianism and political fetishism, even the covert kinds. If you think *everyone* should be a certain way or should do certain things, that goes against my foundational worldview. And the fetishists are usually just overgrown children that never learned to channel their natural impulses in a healthy way, they should be kept out of politics for their own sake.
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
A: Neither, and I think the US elections have stopped mattering to anyone, it’s just a circus.
1. Lapsed Eastern Orthodox. I think philosophic matters are intractable, and you can dedicate your entire career to disputing one premise of one argument for the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore, I think people should just choose whether or not to believe and run with it
2. Human nature entails a level of dignity that confers a basic right not to be treated as a means involuntarily. This is my basic starting point, and virtues and vices should shape us within the bounds of what human nature confers
3. Conservative in the sense of opposing radicalism and accepting the limitations of reality. Classical liberal in the sense of viewing knowledge as individually dispersed and consequently favoring decentralized decision-making mechanisms, such as free markets and federalism, over centralized bodies such as the UN or presidency
4. Whether the person prioritizes the same issues in the current political moment. Coalitions form and fracture since politics is dynamic, so alliances should be based on what's the paramount issue now. if the person is so optically poisonous that it stops my coalition from expanding or becomes a PR liability, I believe in disassociating from them
5. Anything whose optics are so repulsive to every vehicle for mass political action that anyone associated with it would be reputationally stained. If every organization with the ability to affect public policy and elections finds a certain idea (or someone associated with it) to be cancelable, it's a waste of political capital to try shoving it into the Overton window and will only lead to ghetto-ization. I also think any political cause that isn't tempered by humaneness must be actively opposed. As noted above, human dignity is the basis of my ethics
6. Getting Trump back in is hugely important because he'll end the Russo-Ukrainian War and appoint better people to the judge-ocracy. The world's currently on fire (Russo-Ukrainian War, Iran-Israel, record number of DPRK provocations), and the Philippines and China seem to have become a tinder box that's dangerously close to being lit. Furthermore, most of the institutionalized wokeness can be undone via executive action, and Trump is highly likely to do so if he's back in since he began to do so at the end of his first administration. That'll enable us to move on from this phase of the culture war
1. Atheist materialist sublimated by Greco-Roman pantheon idolatry.
2 As an atheist I can't subscribe to an objective or universal moral framework. My moral sense is derived largely from Northwest European culture and tradition as that is my ancestry and the normative cultural paradigm of my country (USA).
3. In a state of flux right now. Went from a normie Democrat when young (11-17) mostly colored by being involved in the New Atheism movement -> Alt-right (18-22) -> ???
4. If they have my back and can be trusted.
5. Anti-White haters, Pro-transitioning children, LGBT propagandists/pushers, Lunatics.
6. Neither, but if I had to choose, I guess Trump. I'm not voting, nor do I care about whoever wins.
>As an atheist I can't subscribe to an objective or universal moral framework. My moral sense is derived largely from Northwest European culture and tradition as that is my ancestry and the normative cultural paradigm of my country (USA).<
Would you say your moral sense is that things are right or wrong because your ancestors thought they were right/wrong? If so, how do you determine when and which ancestral beliefs need to be updated over time?
I view morality to be a function of culture which is derived from the genetic makeup of a group shaped by environmental pressures whether they be natural or artificial. I have the genetic predisposition towards Northwest European culture and was raised in a nation with that same cultural heritage. I view tradition as that which worked for those who came before. This should be held in high regard but must adapt as different environmental (and genetic for that matter) pressures come about -- this should generally be done slowly.
1. I am an agnostic. Atheists seem a little too certain about there not being a God. But I think it's very arrogant for any manmade religion to claim that IT, and not every one aside from them, is real. There are an infinite amount of religions that could be true, because we have no way of knowing. Everybody in the world is an atheist for at least all but one religion, I just include one more. Also, what even is 'God?'
2. I'm a moral and cultural relativist. I don't believe there is any objective moral truth. So my morality is ultimately just my preference and opinion. I think, 'within reason', treat others how you would like to be treated, though that principle fails if you're a judge and you're sentencing for a crime, who do you side with, the victim/victim's family or the criminal? I think you should put people who are closest to you, both people you know personally and those of your country and 'group', above some random people in Africa. On the policymaking level, I'm a 'national utilitarian'.
3. Right-Wing Progressive/Anglofuturist. I believe humanity can progress to greater things, but I also think hierarchy and inequality are inevitable parts of life, and we should be honest about that, making me progressive and right-wing. On economics I'm centre-right, believing redistribution generally doesn't work but clearly the very desperate should be helped when there is nobody else to help them, and support Georgism. On cultural issues, aside from drugs and Civil Rights Law (which is the foundation of affirmative action, disparate impact, and Wokeism), I'm a '1990s moderate liberal who actually means it'.
4. They've got to be anti-Woke, Wokeism I define as being a system that believes that traditional Western society is thoroughly and intersectionally oppressive to all who aren't non-trans straight White men, and that deconstruction, activism, and usually state-imposed social levelling is required to dismantle these hierarchies and establish 'equity'.
They've also got to not be conspiracy theorists and schitzos (anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etcetera), not behave in a publicly embarrassing manner, and not be 'speed limit liberals', which I define as still believing in ideals of egalitarianism, civil rights law, and usually, 'natural rights'.
5. On a political level, the above. On a personal level, I wouldn't want to be friends with anybody who supported transgenderism.
6. Trump, because Biden supports transgenderism completely and fully endorses the mutilation of children. Trump is almost certainly a criminal individually, but the Democrat's entire LGBT agenda is criminal.
I coined the term "right-wing progressivism" independently of UBERSOY to refer to third positionism but he's doing something much more interesting with it!
1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
I am a spiritual agnostic. I believe there's probably something greater than us, but I don't know what it is, and feel drawn to find out. I'm a yoga teacher now and that seems like an appropriate path.
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
While I've always been somewhat obsessed with the idea of subscribing to a particular ethical or religious system, and declared myself an adherent to a couple from time to time, I don't think that I can trace my general beliefs of right and wrong to any of them. I am not sure I actually know from where my sense of right and wrong are derived. I don't think it's as simple as what I learned growing up. I'm pretty sure I've learned to think more critically since then. I just feel it intrinsically. Good question. That's going to bother me.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
After much wavering over the years from republican to radical anarchist, liberal probably fits best now. I've always been left of center with a handful of defiant beliefs that fall right sometimes.
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
I have no idea. I've just always liked the challenge of trying to find common ground with seeming enemies. So I guess they just have to be game
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
I doubt I would agree to collaborate on a specific project that included restricting or banning abortion, even if it included other things I agree with. But collaborating on something unrelated with a person who happens to be be against abortion isn't necessarily a problem.
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
No, and very little. I'll likely vote for Biden, though, because I live in a purple state and think another Trump term would destroy the country just by our collective reactions alone. I'm no accelerationist
1. Atheistic but open to the possibility of the universe having a creator (I suppose that is technically atheist about particular religions but agnostic in a broader sense). I think we should collectively seek to maximize knowledge in the universe and on an individual level I am motivated by my own desire for greatness and self-actualizing my personal potential.
2. I think the NAP is mostly a suitable ethical foundation and other ethical rules can be committed to on an individual level. I am also partial to Nietzchian master morality and the idea that one should make moral judgements based on their own convictions, but I think most people are not sufficiently logical and agentic to operate that way.
3. Techno-optimist libertarian but with a neoreactionary flavor, supportive of distributed corporate governance over traditional nation-states. I am anti-democratic but relatively liberal on most social issues with the exception of HBD related stuff since higher cognition is what maintains civilization and we cannot allow dysgenic collapse.
4. A mix of how much I believe their goals would benefit me personally and if it would allow for a revitalization of the west and a better future overall.
5. Obviously any leftist ones go without saying but also support for conscription and advocacy of aggressive militarism, drug bans, supporting things that I view as against the NAP (say executing homosexuals), extreme antisemitism, having a primitivist agenda, supporting authoritarian control over the free market (ie national socialism, third positionism, etc), opposition to religious freedom or promoting religion-based law
6. Neither but I prefer Biden over Trump, I don't think either of them are good leaders but it's possible Trump could destabilize the American regime.
How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
Practicing Mormon. Acknowledge that Anthropomorphic God that cares about us is unlikely. My world view is essentially, that there are a couple internally consistent world views that I use that are contradictory and that I flip between them based on what I am doing.
From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
Mostly utilitarian - but with an assumption that unless otherwise obvious, traditional practices and beliefs have utilitarian basis that i may not understand.
How would you describe your current political beliefs?
Liberal - but I get upset with people who are too confident in their beliefs. I do believe in our inflationary environment that we need to hold spending and slightly increase taxes. I have more of a scarcity mindset than most liberals that limit what I believe government can accomplish. With the courts I think we were at a good set of constitutional rights about ten years ago and I oppose conservative efforts to roll them back. On the other hand, I don't think we need an expansion of those rights.
How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
Does their worldview match mine in every detail. Any impurities in worldviews are unacceptable.
Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
Pedophilia below the age of 16. Overemphasis of race differences. Packing the courts with more judges that will roll back liberal rulings.
Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
Tepid Biden supporter. I think there is a 10% chance Trump goes right wing dictator route and that is too high a risk for me.
>My world view is essentially, that there are a couple internally consistent world views that I use that are contradictory and that I flip between them based on what I am doing.
That's called Relativism, the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
- Un-ironically Shinto would be the closest although that is technically not a religion but a cultural practice. Mix a little Zen/Taoism in there for the bigger picture (think Alan Watts). In my view the cosmos is intelligent or latently intelligent (it takes aeons of chemical reactions for rocks to become life that "thinks" yet it's all part of the bigger process). AI: "Machine" intelligence will pull through, fitting the exponential curve first followed by evolutionary intelligence (instinct) and then by the transmission of culture (every exponential curve is just a series of "S" curves). Souls exist everywhere and in everything and in actuality we are all "one" being played out through the holographic cosmic metafunction yet playing our parts as separate (this is necessary to the process: we still have to believe in the "bit", the show must go on!)
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
- Beauty, Truth and Order are shared aspects of an underlying principle that increases stability and complexity. To deny this; to oppose them, regresses us into chaos.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
- Anything that works toward the above principles. By contrast Parasitism, Bureaucracy, Gatekeeping, Dishonesty and Unaccountability are all insults heaped upon us by the current ruling structures. It got to a point where I could no longer tolerate an apolitical outlook. Of course this has landed me with strange bedfellows over the years. *Insert Stonetoss Tug of War panel*
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
- If they respect my beliefs enough to work together. The problem often being "low agreeability" is double edged
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
- T"X"D, etc: being egregiously edgy or espousing extreme unrealistic solutions (i.e. reinstate segregation, repeal the 19th). When this sort of thing is ironically peddled its not too long until people join up who are very sincere and they sink the whole ship for the rest of us. I think you know what I am talking about. Secession type movements such as the breakaway of Eastern OR/WA into Idaho are probably on the edge of what I'd say are realistic. Giving back autonomy to states and regions from centralized control, deportation of illegal residents, etc are on the safe edge of my overton window. We can still claim the moral high ground while respecting the law of the land.
tl;dr Basically I'd need evidence that they can think like an adult and aren't edgeposting to be sensational
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
Trump: this was the first time we collectively said "fuck you" to the powers that be and derailed their plans. Our Xerxes moment. Personally I think he's a goofball but he is funny - the system needs to collapse and he is our wrench in their machinery
2. I derive my morality from Christ's teachings, the Ten Commandments, and Catholic Social Teaching.
3. My politics are broadly right-wing. I have a mix of beliefs taken from Federalists and Anti-Federalists as well as Catholic Social Teaching.
4. If we share certain beliefs like being a Christian, supporting localism, and they recognize that the current demographic/immigration crisis is a problem. etc. then I'll call them an ally.
5. If they support Abortion or hold the belief that children should be able to transition. Also, if they're Anti-Christian that's another no from me.
6. I'm voting for Trump, but nothing is going to change probably, but he triggers the left, so that's something.
1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
A: I'm not religious. I take the Alvin Plantinga and Dan Dennett stance. We have to be against the supernatural, but take power from the possibility of it.
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
A: I subscribe to the concept of virtue ethics, but I am also critical of Platonism. In fact, there is a cult of Plato that has ruined everything. I do enjoy when David Benatar makes an argument for "better off not existing" to sail the point that people justify their own genocide as moral. This should be the concern. What cannot exist, or wants to, is our struggle. Solipism in politics is irrational.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
A: I written 200,000 words on the topic in a book: Suicidal, Asian, and Promiscuous. I can sum it up as anti-liberalism with leanings to psychoanalysis and critical theory. Neither left or right, but an advocate of all things natural, like race.
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
A: If that person is nice and reaches out to talk. This is actually quite hard for a stranger to do, especially on the internet which is a giant marketing parasocial scam. But I am also against any egalitarian canon that assumes we are all the same. I also hate libertarianism and it's normalization of divide. Decentralization is the enemy. It really boils down if someone understands the same art as you do. And someone has the right to attack back if they are Philistines.
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn't collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
A: All antinatalists are scum. Malthusianism, degrowth, stagnation, and privatization of capital is the enemy. They don't want to go to the moon or to colonize the stars. They just want to live and die as everything else burns. Our enemies want the same thing.
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
A: Trump. People of admixture European descent are having a midlife crisis, because they don't even know what they are anymore. They would rather be universal beings that advocate the transhumanist project, which is ironically "white" in all detail. Trump at least gives a sense of identity. It's popular anti-liberalism.
> If that person is nice and reaches out to talk. This is actually quite hard for a stranger to do, especially on the internet which is a giant marketing parasocial scam.
Quite (sadly) entertaining how many people think that friend and enemy are relatively static distinctions, when it is quite simple – though not easy – to convert an enemy into a friend, and vice-versa. There is no person/group/entity that can eternally be an existential threat (not to mention political threat), and it makes little sense to permanently treat any such person/group/entity that way. Also, most of life is punctuated by interactions with Grand Neutrals.
I'm suspect that one of the reasons for this sort of burgeoning existential absolutism is that an alarming number of people have no idea what actual friendship is (it is a participatory act, not a mental categorization nor emotional valence), and in their starvation for connection, have concocted all sorts of workarounds. Beings that are situated properly relationally, in a well-architected context, do not behave with such misgivings.
That, and also we seem to be steeped in an ontology – especially in America, but also globally – that says, "in order for my existence to grow, yours has to shrink," (both materially and non-materially).
2. Orthodox Christian Ethics have the highest "authority", so to speak. I'm also influenced by Hoppean ethics and am also naturally predisposed towards the wellbeing of my people.
3. Kind of a lolbertish NRx. My ideal world is a populated by covenant communities/private cities populated by my own people. Possibly monarchistic and with heavy Church influence.
4. Anyone sane on demographics. Now the core group should, as everyone familiar with the 20th century revolutions knows, a highly organized and radical minority. Those would probably be far more strict requisites.
5. Anyone functional to the Great Replacement, anyone militantly against Christianity. Any obvious ZOG assets like gay Protestant heretics or various pagan LARPers.
6. Trump. I don't care that much but I gotta support he who makes the demon worshippers mad.
1. I descend from the Hindu tradition, and I still enjoy the ritual of it. I grew up learning about the Ramayana (free movie on YT that I adore), Mahabaratha, and various tales about the gods (e.g., Satyanarayana vrata and Ganesha's origin story). We even read Tenali Rama stories/fables. That said, I'm not convinced there's a literal god. Rather, the many gods that we have distill particular facets of life/existence which we can pray to as a means of focusing our energies towards actualization of particular goals. I also think karma makes a lot more sense for convincing people to act good as opposed to "act good because Jesus loved you," which works primarily on morally upstanding people. The 4 purusharthas (i.e., duty, material fulfillment, pleasure/contentment, and self-actualization/salvation) are worth valuing, and I appreciate that Hinduism offers multiple optimal paths to the good life instead of just the one recommended by Christianity.
Right now, I am spiritual in that there is something wonderous and holy about what happens when people work together and feel goodwill towards each other. I love my friends and family dearly, even if the way we interact may not make that apparent, and I find both our differences and similarities to be beautiful. Conservatives go on and on about the "good" and "beautiful," and honestly this has always appealed to me because I'm pretty sure that I've experienced both. It just annoys me when they try to deny that my experiences of the transcendent are as such because it doesn't fit within what their book says is so. Honestly if you haven't had a proper psychedelic experience, I go back and forth about how much authority I should afford you in deciding what counts as transcendent.
Also I've come to acknowledge that my adherence to and resonance with libertarian principles makes me a proselytizer, so it's appropriate to mention that as part of my faith as I often situate new information within that context. Libertarianism is the bedrock upon which the rest of my views sit. Similarly, I view science as a field upon which physical/material truths can be determined as well as a means of generating things that we *can* do. That says nothing about what we *should* do, but I will privilege scientific epistemology over other epistemologies whenever there is a conflict. Finally, my overall outlook is "meta-modern," cf. post-modern. Here's a decent explanation of what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xEi8qg266g&t=4s&pp=ygUbdGhvbWFzIGZsaWdodCBtZXRhbW9kZXJuaXNt
2. I haven't read Huemer's "Ethical Intuitionism," but if it's what I think it is, that's probably where I'd fall on the question of morality. Yes it may seem like a cop out, but I really do think that the rudiments of our morality were crafted by evolution. I trust my own intuitions about what is right and wrong, and I think most people would find my sense of these to be more stringent than their own in some respects and more lax in some respects. That said, I've noticed a place a high premium on virtue, valor, vitality, humility, discipline, and competence. And although it's very easy to fall into naturalistic fallacies, I am often sympathetic to those things which are natural because spontaneous order has produced such vibrancy. Poignancy can even be found in the more gruesome parts of the natural world. That said, people should be vehemently opposed to utopias; the ends don't justify the means. As Kevin Flynn said in Tron: Legacy, "The thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time."
3. Staunch right libertarian, voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist all fit as broad labels, but even just moving in the direction of decentralization and pluralism is fine even if there are still states. I highly value diversity insofar as it delivers robust contributions in the industrial, academic, and cultural spheres. While people who come here should assimilate to our culture, and there's a certain beauty in being able to accept people who become some of our culture's most ardent defenders, there's also a certain travesty to the "melting pot" because by muddying cultural differences, it also tends to dilute the particularity of various cultural traditions which only developed through their separation from other cultures. Yes we produce cultural hybrids, but none of them are allowed to stand if they repudiate the "urban monoculture."
4. Are you willing to listen to me under the assumption of good faith? That's mostly it. I have a hard time collaborating with those who want a hardline theocratic state because their religiosity makes it hard for them to ever bend to the times, but if we agree on something, I will work with them. However if you're somebody I agree with most things on who nevertheless treats me with vitriol for the handful of things we disagree on, then I'll find others to ally with.
5. As mentioned before, hardline theocratic propositions are beyond the pale for me. Also criminalizing homosexuality is something I can't square with because that quite literally would be advocating for my own subjugation, and I *do* have a self-preservation instinct. Also Marxism is a cancer which has infested just about everything in subtle ways which are antithetical to liberty, so someone who wants to move further in that direction will automatically disagree with me on most things. Seeing as most of the cringe coming out of leftist "studies" consists of applying Marxism to various other dynamics within society, repudiating Marxism is one of the best ways to eliminate the excesses of leftism.
6. Well there's at least a chance, based on the concessions he made to libertarians, that Trump would appoint a libertarian to his cabinet and pardon Ross Ulbrecht. Plus, as we've discussed in the chats, Trump is basically barstool in disposition, so he's clearly preferable on that front. It would be cool if he actually went scorched Earth on the deep state, but we'll just need to see. I just can't stand to see Biden in there anymore, but I probably won't vote for Trump because I'm in a state that will almost certainly go to him anyway. I'll probably vote libertarian to help with ballot access in the future.
Strong belief in God. Belong to a church of the Magisterial Reformation with pietistic leanings. Also an idealist.
Natural law.
Skeptical of classical liberalism. Open to alternative ideas as long as they comport with classical Christian commitments.
I liked your 60% agreement rule.
I wouldn’t collaborate with anyone who wanted to promote degraded sexuality, abortion or infanticide, or coercive institutionalism (i.e., public schools).
Trump. Mostly because he broke the moratorium on talking about real things.
1. Basically Reformed Baptist -- though firmer on the "Reformed" than the "Baptist". I belong to a non-denom with a heavy Reformed emphasis.
2. I'm still dipping my toe in moral philosophy here and there, but in practice I basically subscribe to Divine Command Theory. I agree with the Westminster Confession that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, and that the Bible is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.
3. I'm very pragmatic about politics. Until Jesus returns, no man's ideal society will ever come to pass, and if it did, it would start decaying from its ideal state within 15 minutes. I'm basically a conservative who would rather be grilling. I'm shocked and dismayed at how the left has normalized utterly insane ideas, how slippery the slope has proved, and how thoroughly they've conquered our institutions and the minds of our elites. I want to defeat them and conserve some piece of our religious and civilizational inheritance for my progeny. I'm not a reactionary and not hostile to progress -- the only way out is through.
4. I'm not really doing much political work besides talking and voting. I see the left as extremely powerful and ever-increasingly anti-Christian, and I'm somewhat blackpilled about the very odds of defeating them (or at least their worst ideas) and restoring what they've damaged, so I'm in favor of a broad coalition of people on my left and my right who are willing to work towards that end.
5. My firmest line is that I can't work with someone who would persecute Christians or my friends and family, or who would hinder our autonomy to preach the Gospel. Otherwise, as I said, I'm pragmatic. I don't believe any ideas that are significantly to my right will ever be implemented, so I'll argue against them if asked, but I don't spend time worrying about them.
6. I've never voted for a Democrat, and my conscience wouldn't let me do so, but I strongly dislike Trump. I've voted against him in every Republican primary and voted third-party both times he was on the ticket (I live in a deep red state).
But Biden has proved to be far worse than I imagined, and he and his handlers thoroughly deserve to lose badly and to be punished for the way they've governed. So I lean towards voting Trump rather than third-party this time, but I'm not fully decided.
1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe
A: Hindu. I was raised with some weird mixture of Smarta rituals, carvaka lifestyle, Shakta morality and a distinctly western scientific philosophy of life. Growing up there was never a right or wrong way of thinking, if only you could articulate and justify your beliefs(we love heated debates over abstract ideas in our family). Recently I am leaning toward Kashmiri Shaivism more and more, just because it is a highly virile and yet sophisticated conception of the world.
I know more mythological and folk stories from the most diverse possible backgrounds than almost anyone I have ever met, because I believe in the power of archetypes (I believe that Jung’s archetype theory should be considered part of the Hindu philosophical tradition, because that’s where it fits in the most organic way) as if they were lesser deities, and because they are usually a compressed character-study of different peoples and situations. A story or myth is a philosophical shorthand for shared understanding that we really should appreciate and use more often. But for any story to have religious significance, it has to be morally dipolar in that it has to capture a whole being and not just a one-sided aspect of it.
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
A: It is mostly intuition-based at this point, but I think that you need to have seen and actually digested enough of life(independent of your age) to have a good and robust intuition about these things. I still change my mind on the rights and wrongs of plenty of things based on newer experiences but the fundamentals have solidified into a mosaic of different, sometimes contradictory, ethical frameworks that is hard to properly articulate outside of test-cases.
In a broadly Hindu(or just pagan?) context, every locality has its own character and a particular deus that has dominion over it, while there is a whole hierarchy of deities all the way up to the unviverse. This is how I like to see ethical or moral systems- certain highly abstracted universals that can incarnate in highly local and even personal ways based on the phenomenological environment. The incarnations are known to contradict and “war” with each other in the Hindu Mythos and so I believe that ethical systems must do too. But I think I have learned to move across different ethical systems without losing integrity.
This can sometimes look like I have no sense of right and wrong to people that are trying to follow only one ethical system, but it’s not true- I agonize over the right and wrong of things a lot more than the average person. I do sympathize with people that can stay within one internally consistent ethical system all their lives, but it tends to set you up to be blindsided if and when contradictory reality hits you so only very few “lucky” people can get away with it.
I think that any ethical system that doesn’t leave room for evolution has an expiration date and should be actively gotten rid of when it starts throwing contradictions against the natural, observable order of the world. People tend to try to manipulate reality to fit their ethical vision of it instead of changing their vision to fit reality. I think that that is the perfect recipe for disaster.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
A: Politics has always been more of an intellectual exercise for me than anything real but as I see more and more people’s vision of the world slipping away from reality I am forced to take a more concrete stance on things. I’ve learned to say “libertarian right” based on most of the policy stuff I agree with but, honestly not sure. I strongly believe in individual causes like both the FRM and MRM, certain environmental movements(when I can actually see them doing real useful things) etc. Walt Right is sorta my first real political project though.
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
A: I think I can negotiate some kind of temporary shared understanding with almost anyone who is willing to engage with me openly, even when I don’t particularly like them. But a long term and stable collaboration should be based on at least some degree of real friendship because purely transactional relationships are too fragile. Of course, I don’t have any political experience but I think that who you can ally or collaborate with can vary quite a lot based on the task at hand.
I’ve observed that everyone has deeply personal reasons for engaging in politics so I categorically do not trust people that project an entirely altruistic persona. “I am doing all this only because I care and want to help the world” is a mask that usually hides some pretty ugly things(Regan comes to mind, along with some of the EA crowd).
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
A: Any kind of totalitarianism and political fetishism, even the covert kinds. If you think *everyone* should be a certain way or should do certain things, that goes against my foundational worldview. And the fetishists are usually just overgrown children that never learned to channel their natural impulses in a healthy way, they should be kept out of politics for their own sake.
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
A: Neither, and I think the US elections have stopped mattering to anyone, it’s just a circus.
1. Lapsed Eastern Orthodox. I think philosophic matters are intractable, and you can dedicate your entire career to disputing one premise of one argument for the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore, I think people should just choose whether or not to believe and run with it
2. Human nature entails a level of dignity that confers a basic right not to be treated as a means involuntarily. This is my basic starting point, and virtues and vices should shape us within the bounds of what human nature confers
3. Conservative in the sense of opposing radicalism and accepting the limitations of reality. Classical liberal in the sense of viewing knowledge as individually dispersed and consequently favoring decentralized decision-making mechanisms, such as free markets and federalism, over centralized bodies such as the UN or presidency
4. Whether the person prioritizes the same issues in the current political moment. Coalitions form and fracture since politics is dynamic, so alliances should be based on what's the paramount issue now. if the person is so optically poisonous that it stops my coalition from expanding or becomes a PR liability, I believe in disassociating from them
5. Anything whose optics are so repulsive to every vehicle for mass political action that anyone associated with it would be reputationally stained. If every organization with the ability to affect public policy and elections finds a certain idea (or someone associated with it) to be cancelable, it's a waste of political capital to try shoving it into the Overton window and will only lead to ghetto-ization. I also think any political cause that isn't tempered by humaneness must be actively opposed. As noted above, human dignity is the basis of my ethics
6. Getting Trump back in is hugely important because he'll end the Russo-Ukrainian War and appoint better people to the judge-ocracy. The world's currently on fire (Russo-Ukrainian War, Iran-Israel, record number of DPRK provocations), and the Philippines and China seem to have become a tinder box that's dangerously close to being lit. Furthermore, most of the institutionalized wokeness can be undone via executive action, and Trump is highly likely to do so if he's back in since he began to do so at the end of his first administration. That'll enable us to move on from this phase of the culture war
Man, you may have just convinced to vote for good ol’ Donald this November. My county is anyway deep, deep red, though.
1. Atheist materialist sublimated by Greco-Roman pantheon idolatry.
2 As an atheist I can't subscribe to an objective or universal moral framework. My moral sense is derived largely from Northwest European culture and tradition as that is my ancestry and the normative cultural paradigm of my country (USA).
3. In a state of flux right now. Went from a normie Democrat when young (11-17) mostly colored by being involved in the New Atheism movement -> Alt-right (18-22) -> ???
4. If they have my back and can be trusted.
5. Anti-White haters, Pro-transitioning children, LGBT propagandists/pushers, Lunatics.
6. Neither, but if I had to choose, I guess Trump. I'm not voting, nor do I care about whoever wins.
>As an atheist I can't subscribe to an objective or universal moral framework. My moral sense is derived largely from Northwest European culture and tradition as that is my ancestry and the normative cultural paradigm of my country (USA).<
Would you say your moral sense is that things are right or wrong because your ancestors thought they were right/wrong? If so, how do you determine when and which ancestral beliefs need to be updated over time?
I view morality to be a function of culture which is derived from the genetic makeup of a group shaped by environmental pressures whether they be natural or artificial. I have the genetic predisposition towards Northwest European culture and was raised in a nation with that same cultural heritage. I view tradition as that which worked for those who came before. This should be held in high regard but must adapt as different environmental (and genetic for that matter) pressures come about -- this should generally be done slowly.
Thought the mic was a gun for a second. I’m disappointed
1. I am an agnostic. Atheists seem a little too certain about there not being a God. But I think it's very arrogant for any manmade religion to claim that IT, and not every one aside from them, is real. There are an infinite amount of religions that could be true, because we have no way of knowing. Everybody in the world is an atheist for at least all but one religion, I just include one more. Also, what even is 'God?'
2. I'm a moral and cultural relativist. I don't believe there is any objective moral truth. So my morality is ultimately just my preference and opinion. I think, 'within reason', treat others how you would like to be treated, though that principle fails if you're a judge and you're sentencing for a crime, who do you side with, the victim/victim's family or the criminal? I think you should put people who are closest to you, both people you know personally and those of your country and 'group', above some random people in Africa. On the policymaking level, I'm a 'national utilitarian'.
3. Right-Wing Progressive/Anglofuturist. I believe humanity can progress to greater things, but I also think hierarchy and inequality are inevitable parts of life, and we should be honest about that, making me progressive and right-wing. On economics I'm centre-right, believing redistribution generally doesn't work but clearly the very desperate should be helped when there is nobody else to help them, and support Georgism. On cultural issues, aside from drugs and Civil Rights Law (which is the foundation of affirmative action, disparate impact, and Wokeism), I'm a '1990s moderate liberal who actually means it'.
4. They've got to be anti-Woke, Wokeism I define as being a system that believes that traditional Western society is thoroughly and intersectionally oppressive to all who aren't non-trans straight White men, and that deconstruction, activism, and usually state-imposed social levelling is required to dismantle these hierarchies and establish 'equity'.
They've also got to not be conspiracy theorists and schitzos (anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etcetera), not behave in a publicly embarrassing manner, and not be 'speed limit liberals', which I define as still believing in ideals of egalitarianism, civil rights law, and usually, 'natural rights'.
5. On a political level, the above. On a personal level, I wouldn't want to be friends with anybody who supported transgenderism.
6. Trump, because Biden supports transgenderism completely and fully endorses the mutilation of children. Trump is almost certainly a criminal individually, but the Democrat's entire LGBT agenda is criminal.
On your question: "What even is God?"
He is the unmoved mover/ the creator of all.
I coined the term "right-wing progressivism" independently of UBERSOY to refer to third positionism but he's doing something much more interesting with it!
1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
I am a spiritual agnostic. I believe there's probably something greater than us, but I don't know what it is, and feel drawn to find out. I'm a yoga teacher now and that seems like an appropriate path.
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
While I've always been somewhat obsessed with the idea of subscribing to a particular ethical or religious system, and declared myself an adherent to a couple from time to time, I don't think that I can trace my general beliefs of right and wrong to any of them. I am not sure I actually know from where my sense of right and wrong are derived. I don't think it's as simple as what I learned growing up. I'm pretty sure I've learned to think more critically since then. I just feel it intrinsically. Good question. That's going to bother me.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
After much wavering over the years from republican to radical anarchist, liberal probably fits best now. I've always been left of center with a handful of defiant beliefs that fall right sometimes.
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
I have no idea. I've just always liked the challenge of trying to find common ground with seeming enemies. So I guess they just have to be game
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
I doubt I would agree to collaborate on a specific project that included restricting or banning abortion, even if it included other things I agree with. But collaborating on something unrelated with a person who happens to be be against abortion isn't necessarily a problem.
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
No, and very little. I'll likely vote for Biden, though, because I live in a purple state and think another Trump term would destroy the country just by our collective reactions alone. I'm no accelerationist
1. Atheistic but open to the possibility of the universe having a creator (I suppose that is technically atheist about particular religions but agnostic in a broader sense). I think we should collectively seek to maximize knowledge in the universe and on an individual level I am motivated by my own desire for greatness and self-actualizing my personal potential.
2. I think the NAP is mostly a suitable ethical foundation and other ethical rules can be committed to on an individual level. I am also partial to Nietzchian master morality and the idea that one should make moral judgements based on their own convictions, but I think most people are not sufficiently logical and agentic to operate that way.
3. Techno-optimist libertarian but with a neoreactionary flavor, supportive of distributed corporate governance over traditional nation-states. I am anti-democratic but relatively liberal on most social issues with the exception of HBD related stuff since higher cognition is what maintains civilization and we cannot allow dysgenic collapse.
4. A mix of how much I believe their goals would benefit me personally and if it would allow for a revitalization of the west and a better future overall.
5. Obviously any leftist ones go without saying but also support for conscription and advocacy of aggressive militarism, drug bans, supporting things that I view as against the NAP (say executing homosexuals), extreme antisemitism, having a primitivist agenda, supporting authoritarian control over the free market (ie national socialism, third positionism, etc), opposition to religious freedom or promoting religion-based law
6. Neither but I prefer Biden over Trump, I don't think either of them are good leaders but it's possible Trump could destabilize the American regime.
How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
Practicing Mormon. Acknowledge that Anthropomorphic God that cares about us is unlikely. My world view is essentially, that there are a couple internally consistent world views that I use that are contradictory and that I flip between them based on what I am doing.
From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
Mostly utilitarian - but with an assumption that unless otherwise obvious, traditional practices and beliefs have utilitarian basis that i may not understand.
How would you describe your current political beliefs?
Liberal - but I get upset with people who are too confident in their beliefs. I do believe in our inflationary environment that we need to hold spending and slightly increase taxes. I have more of a scarcity mindset than most liberals that limit what I believe government can accomplish. With the courts I think we were at a good set of constitutional rights about ten years ago and I oppose conservative efforts to roll them back. On the other hand, I don't think we need an expansion of those rights.
How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
Does their worldview match mine in every detail. Any impurities in worldviews are unacceptable.
Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
Pedophilia below the age of 16. Overemphasis of race differences. Packing the courts with more judges that will roll back liberal rulings.
Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
Tepid Biden supporter. I think there is a 10% chance Trump goes right wing dictator route and that is too high a risk for me.
>My world view is essentially, that there are a couple internally consistent world views that I use that are contradictory and that I flip between them based on what I am doing.
That's called Relativism, the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
- Un-ironically Shinto would be the closest although that is technically not a religion but a cultural practice. Mix a little Zen/Taoism in there for the bigger picture (think Alan Watts). In my view the cosmos is intelligent or latently intelligent (it takes aeons of chemical reactions for rocks to become life that "thinks" yet it's all part of the bigger process). AI: "Machine" intelligence will pull through, fitting the exponential curve first followed by evolutionary intelligence (instinct) and then by the transmission of culture (every exponential curve is just a series of "S" curves). Souls exist everywhere and in everything and in actuality we are all "one" being played out through the holographic cosmic metafunction yet playing our parts as separate (this is necessary to the process: we still have to believe in the "bit", the show must go on!)
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
- Beauty, Truth and Order are shared aspects of an underlying principle that increases stability and complexity. To deny this; to oppose them, regresses us into chaos.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
- Anything that works toward the above principles. By contrast Parasitism, Bureaucracy, Gatekeeping, Dishonesty and Unaccountability are all insults heaped upon us by the current ruling structures. It got to a point where I could no longer tolerate an apolitical outlook. Of course this has landed me with strange bedfellows over the years. *Insert Stonetoss Tug of War panel*
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
- If they respect my beliefs enough to work together. The problem often being "low agreeability" is double edged
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn’t collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
- T"X"D, etc: being egregiously edgy or espousing extreme unrealistic solutions (i.e. reinstate segregation, repeal the 19th). When this sort of thing is ironically peddled its not too long until people join up who are very sincere and they sink the whole ship for the rest of us. I think you know what I am talking about. Secession type movements such as the breakaway of Eastern OR/WA into Idaho are probably on the edge of what I'd say are realistic. Giving back autonomy to states and regions from centralized control, deportation of illegal residents, etc are on the safe edge of my overton window. We can still claim the moral high ground while respecting the law of the land.
tl;dr Basically I'd need evidence that they can think like an adult and aren't edgeposting to be sensational
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
Trump: this was the first time we collectively said "fuck you" to the powers that be and derailed their plans. Our Xerxes moment. Personally I think he's a goofball but he is funny - the system needs to collapse and he is our wrench in their machinery
1. Catholic.
2. I derive my morality from Christ's teachings, the Ten Commandments, and Catholic Social Teaching.
3. My politics are broadly right-wing. I have a mix of beliefs taken from Federalists and Anti-Federalists as well as Catholic Social Teaching.
4. If we share certain beliefs like being a Christian, supporting localism, and they recognize that the current demographic/immigration crisis is a problem. etc. then I'll call them an ally.
5. If they support Abortion or hold the belief that children should be able to transition. Also, if they're Anti-Christian that's another no from me.
6. I'm voting for Trump, but nothing is going to change probably, but he triggers the left, so that's something.
1. How would you describe your current religious worldview? If nonreligious, describe the metaphysical / epistemic principles to which you subscribe.
A: I'm not religious. I take the Alvin Plantinga and Dan Dennett stance. We have to be against the supernatural, but take power from the possibility of it.
2. From where do you derive your sense of right and wrong? Do you subscribe to any particular ethical or meta-ethical system?
A: I subscribe to the concept of virtue ethics, but I am also critical of Platonism. In fact, there is a cult of Plato that has ruined everything. I do enjoy when David Benatar makes an argument for "better off not existing" to sail the point that people justify their own genocide as moral. This should be the concern. What cannot exist, or wants to, is our struggle. Solipism in politics is irrational.
3. How would you describe your current political beliefs?
A: I written 200,000 words on the topic in a book: Suicidal, Asian, and Promiscuous. I can sum it up as anti-liberalism with leanings to psychoanalysis and critical theory. Neither left or right, but an advocate of all things natural, like race.
4. How do you determine who is an ally you can collaborate with politically?
A: If that person is nice and reaches out to talk. This is actually quite hard for a stranger to do, especially on the internet which is a giant marketing parasocial scam. But I am also against any egalitarian canon that assumes we are all the same. I also hate libertarianism and it's normalization of divide. Decentralization is the enemy. It really boils down if someone understands the same art as you do. And someone has the right to attack back if they are Philistines.
5. Which political propositions are outside your personal Overton Window, such that you couldn't collaborate with someone who held such beliefs?
A: All antinatalists are scum. Malthusianism, degrowth, stagnation, and privatization of capital is the enemy. They don't want to go to the moon or to colonize the stars. They just want to live and die as everything else burns. Our enemies want the same thing.
6. Do you support Biden or Trump and why? How much do you care about the election?
A: Trump. People of admixture European descent are having a midlife crisis, because they don't even know what they are anymore. They would rather be universal beings that advocate the transhumanist project, which is ironically "white" in all detail. Trump at least gives a sense of identity. It's popular anti-liberalism.
> If that person is nice and reaches out to talk. This is actually quite hard for a stranger to do, especially on the internet which is a giant marketing parasocial scam.
Quite (sadly) entertaining how many people think that friend and enemy are relatively static distinctions, when it is quite simple – though not easy – to convert an enemy into a friend, and vice-versa. There is no person/group/entity that can eternally be an existential threat (not to mention political threat), and it makes little sense to permanently treat any such person/group/entity that way. Also, most of life is punctuated by interactions with Grand Neutrals.
I'm suspect that one of the reasons for this sort of burgeoning existential absolutism is that an alarming number of people have no idea what actual friendship is (it is a participatory act, not a mental categorization nor emotional valence), and in their starvation for connection, have concocted all sorts of workarounds. Beings that are situated properly relationally, in a well-architected context, do not behave with such misgivings.
That, and also we seem to be steeped in an ontology – especially in America, but also globally – that says, "in order for my existence to grow, yours has to shrink," (both materially and non-materially).
1. Orthodox Christian.
2. Orthodox Christian Ethics have the highest "authority", so to speak. I'm also influenced by Hoppean ethics and am also naturally predisposed towards the wellbeing of my people.
3. Kind of a lolbertish NRx. My ideal world is a populated by covenant communities/private cities populated by my own people. Possibly monarchistic and with heavy Church influence.
4. Anyone sane on demographics. Now the core group should, as everyone familiar with the 20th century revolutions knows, a highly organized and radical minority. Those would probably be far more strict requisites.
5. Anyone functional to the Great Replacement, anyone militantly against Christianity. Any obvious ZOG assets like gay Protestant heretics or various pagan LARPers.
6. Trump. I don't care that much but I gotta support he who makes the demon worshippers mad.
1. I descend from the Hindu tradition, and I still enjoy the ritual of it. I grew up learning about the Ramayana (free movie on YT that I adore), Mahabaratha, and various tales about the gods (e.g., Satyanarayana vrata and Ganesha's origin story). We even read Tenali Rama stories/fables. That said, I'm not convinced there's a literal god. Rather, the many gods that we have distill particular facets of life/existence which we can pray to as a means of focusing our energies towards actualization of particular goals. I also think karma makes a lot more sense for convincing people to act good as opposed to "act good because Jesus loved you," which works primarily on morally upstanding people. The 4 purusharthas (i.e., duty, material fulfillment, pleasure/contentment, and self-actualization/salvation) are worth valuing, and I appreciate that Hinduism offers multiple optimal paths to the good life instead of just the one recommended by Christianity.
Right now, I am spiritual in that there is something wonderous and holy about what happens when people work together and feel goodwill towards each other. I love my friends and family dearly, even if the way we interact may not make that apparent, and I find both our differences and similarities to be beautiful. Conservatives go on and on about the "good" and "beautiful," and honestly this has always appealed to me because I'm pretty sure that I've experienced both. It just annoys me when they try to deny that my experiences of the transcendent are as such because it doesn't fit within what their book says is so. Honestly if you haven't had a proper psychedelic experience, I go back and forth about how much authority I should afford you in deciding what counts as transcendent.
Also I've come to acknowledge that my adherence to and resonance with libertarian principles makes me a proselytizer, so it's appropriate to mention that as part of my faith as I often situate new information within that context. Libertarianism is the bedrock upon which the rest of my views sit. Similarly, I view science as a field upon which physical/material truths can be determined as well as a means of generating things that we *can* do. That says nothing about what we *should* do, but I will privilege scientific epistemology over other epistemologies whenever there is a conflict. Finally, my overall outlook is "meta-modern," cf. post-modern. Here's a decent explanation of what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xEi8qg266g&t=4s&pp=ygUbdGhvbWFzIGZsaWdodCBtZXRhbW9kZXJuaXNt
2. I haven't read Huemer's "Ethical Intuitionism," but if it's what I think it is, that's probably where I'd fall on the question of morality. Yes it may seem like a cop out, but I really do think that the rudiments of our morality were crafted by evolution. I trust my own intuitions about what is right and wrong, and I think most people would find my sense of these to be more stringent than their own in some respects and more lax in some respects. That said, I've noticed a place a high premium on virtue, valor, vitality, humility, discipline, and competence. And although it's very easy to fall into naturalistic fallacies, I am often sympathetic to those things which are natural because spontaneous order has produced such vibrancy. Poignancy can even be found in the more gruesome parts of the natural world. That said, people should be vehemently opposed to utopias; the ends don't justify the means. As Kevin Flynn said in Tron: Legacy, "The thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time."
3. Staunch right libertarian, voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist all fit as broad labels, but even just moving in the direction of decentralization and pluralism is fine even if there are still states. I highly value diversity insofar as it delivers robust contributions in the industrial, academic, and cultural spheres. While people who come here should assimilate to our culture, and there's a certain beauty in being able to accept people who become some of our culture's most ardent defenders, there's also a certain travesty to the "melting pot" because by muddying cultural differences, it also tends to dilute the particularity of various cultural traditions which only developed through their separation from other cultures. Yes we produce cultural hybrids, but none of them are allowed to stand if they repudiate the "urban monoculture."
4. Are you willing to listen to me under the assumption of good faith? That's mostly it. I have a hard time collaborating with those who want a hardline theocratic state because their religiosity makes it hard for them to ever bend to the times, but if we agree on something, I will work with them. However if you're somebody I agree with most things on who nevertheless treats me with vitriol for the handful of things we disagree on, then I'll find others to ally with.
5. As mentioned before, hardline theocratic propositions are beyond the pale for me. Also criminalizing homosexuality is something I can't square with because that quite literally would be advocating for my own subjugation, and I *do* have a self-preservation instinct. Also Marxism is a cancer which has infested just about everything in subtle ways which are antithetical to liberty, so someone who wants to move further in that direction will automatically disagree with me on most things. Seeing as most of the cringe coming out of leftist "studies" consists of applying Marxism to various other dynamics within society, repudiating Marxism is one of the best ways to eliminate the excesses of leftism.
6. Well there's at least a chance, based on the concessions he made to libertarians, that Trump would appoint a libertarian to his cabinet and pardon Ross Ulbrecht. Plus, as we've discussed in the chats, Trump is basically barstool in disposition, so he's clearly preferable on that front. It would be cool if he actually went scorched Earth on the deep state, but we'll just need to see. I just can't stand to see Biden in there anymore, but I probably won't vote for Trump because I'm in a state that will almost certainly go to him anyway. I'll probably vote libertarian to help with ballot access in the future.
1. Traditional protestant
2. Divine moral law, partially reflected in natural law
3. Magisterial Protestant in theory, pragmatic and open-ended in practice, but definitely on the right
4. Depends on what context, but anyone who is more socially conservative than the norm could be a useful ally
5. Pro-LGBT groomers, anyone who wants to suppress Christianity
6. Trump, but I don't care much whether he wins (I'm British anyway - I'll be voting Reform UK)
Strong belief in God. Belong to a church of the Magisterial Reformation with pietistic leanings. Also an idealist.
Natural law.
Skeptical of classical liberalism. Open to alternative ideas as long as they comport with classical Christian commitments.
I liked your 60% agreement rule.
I wouldn’t collaborate with anyone who wanted to promote degraded sexuality, abortion or infanticide, or coercive institutionalism (i.e., public schools).
Trump. Mostly because he broke the moratorium on talking about real things.
1. Basically Reformed Baptist -- though firmer on the "Reformed" than the "Baptist". I belong to a non-denom with a heavy Reformed emphasis.
2. I'm still dipping my toe in moral philosophy here and there, but in practice I basically subscribe to Divine Command Theory. I agree with the Westminster Confession that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, and that the Bible is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.
3. I'm very pragmatic about politics. Until Jesus returns, no man's ideal society will ever come to pass, and if it did, it would start decaying from its ideal state within 15 minutes. I'm basically a conservative who would rather be grilling. I'm shocked and dismayed at how the left has normalized utterly insane ideas, how slippery the slope has proved, and how thoroughly they've conquered our institutions and the minds of our elites. I want to defeat them and conserve some piece of our religious and civilizational inheritance for my progeny. I'm not a reactionary and not hostile to progress -- the only way out is through.
4. I'm not really doing much political work besides talking and voting. I see the left as extremely powerful and ever-increasingly anti-Christian, and I'm somewhat blackpilled about the very odds of defeating them (or at least their worst ideas) and restoring what they've damaged, so I'm in favor of a broad coalition of people on my left and my right who are willing to work towards that end.
5. My firmest line is that I can't work with someone who would persecute Christians or my friends and family, or who would hinder our autonomy to preach the Gospel. Otherwise, as I said, I'm pragmatic. I don't believe any ideas that are significantly to my right will ever be implemented, so I'll argue against them if asked, but I don't spend time worrying about them.
6. I've never voted for a Democrat, and my conscience wouldn't let me do so, but I strongly dislike Trump. I've voted against him in every Republican primary and voted third-party both times he was on the ticket (I live in a deep red state).
But Biden has proved to be far worse than I imagined, and he and his handlers thoroughly deserve to lose badly and to be punished for the way they've governed. So I lean towards voting Trump rather than third-party this time, but I'm not fully decided.