Social Suicide: The Growing Plight of Middle-Aged White Men

[Harmonica]

Why would you assume those with power are wrong?

Wouldn't there be a reason they are in power, and not the slaves?

The sheep hate the thought of their masters being able to do as they please with them. That's why they label them bad and evil while still clinging to them. It's the ultimate irony.

 

[Denter]

The sheep hate the thought of their masters being able to do as they please with them. That's why they label them bad and evil while still clinging to them. It's the ultimate irony.

I'm actually less cynical and less Nietzschean about the whole thing, and I do believe in real virtue and that hierarchies can become dead and corrupted.

But its always an interesting rhetorical question to ask, because much of the justification of the current political system has to do with either its success in war or its success in capitalizing on an entire continent's worth of resources and available land.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Yeah, that "slaves were better off than blacks in Africa" stuff is straight White Nationalist stuff.

And arguing that they lived better than SOME whites is even more absurd. Yeah, the ones that survived the Middle Passage, got separated from their families, survived beatings, were passive enough to not attempt to run away, and were lucky enough to live in a big, rich plantation with an extremely generous master may have better living conditions than some of the poorest whites.

But human freedom is THE most important value, so nothing else matters. Ask those poor whites if they'd rather tough it out free or become property for the rest of their lives and their children's lives and their children's lives. It's a complete no-brainer.

But again, this is from the liberal perspective upon which Western civilization has been built on since the Enlightenment. Not everyone is going to agree with it.

That's a bizarre thing for you to say, as I'd consider you one of the farthest left regular posters and that sentence smacks of Libertarianism.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Ironically, those poor whites you talked about were likely descended from people who literally made that bargain to come to America in the first place.

Obviously I disagree that freedom is the most important thing or even a primary good in society, but I'm mobile atm and can post more on that later.

The perpetuity and racial aspect of slavery is the most non-functional aspect of it, imo. Not allowing children to have a chance at glory and imposing perpetual slavery on an entire biological ethnicity is exactly the wrong way to do slavery. No argument from me there.

No, there was no race-based chattel slavery in 17th century England.

And yeah, the racial aspect is a GIGANTIC part of why Western hemispheric slavery is still such a huge part of today's race relations. I mean, slave societies existed in every part of the planet for centuries upon centuries so in a very technical way, the vast majority of us are probably descendants of slaves.

But since it wasn't race based it has zero bearing on your current life. So if you're an American white guy with Eastern European roots, the fact that some of your ancestors were slaves matters absolutely zero because there is no way to differentiate between masters and slaves. Same with a Mexican guy that cannot tell if he descended from the ruling Aztecs or one of the tribes they enslaved.

But when you throw in race, you absolutely can. You look at an American black guy and you know for certain he's a descendant of slaves.

This is the obvious point that idiots miss when they go on with their "The whole world is full of conquest! Why are you picking on me??"

 

[Possum Jenkins]

That's a bizarre thing for you to say, as I'd consider you one of the farthest left regular posters and that sentence smacks of Libertarianism.

Yeah, that sentence by itself with no context is used by Libertarians all the time. For them, liberty is doing away with the government and letting corporations do as they please. But in this scenario, the average person is still under private tyranny. They better work and do exactly as their employer tells them because if not, they starve. That's their "liberty."

I'm a left libertarian (aka, the real kind) so I believe in complete liberty. From both the state and especially private power (aka corporations). So everything's collectively owned and agreed upon. No bosses, no masters. Right libertarians absolutely believe in bosses, they just want it to be them.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Yeah, that sentence by itself with no context is used by Libertarians all the time. For them, liberty is doing away with the government and letting corporations do as they please. But in this scenario, the average person is still under private tyranny. They better work and do exactly as their employer tells them because if not, they starve. That's their "liberty."

I'm a left libertarian (aka, the real kind) so I believe in complete liberty. From both the state and especially private power (aka corporations). So everything's collectively owned and agreed upon. No bosses, no masters. Right libertarians absolutely believe in bosses, they just want it to be them.

I tend to think freedom is as much a question of power as choice, so I'm mostly on the same page with you.

 

[Denter]

No, there was no race-based chattel slavery in 17th century England.

And yeah, the racial aspect is a GIGANTIC part of why Western hemispheric slavery is still such a huge part of today's race relations. I mean, slave societies existed in every part of the planet for centuries upon centuries so in a very technical way, the vast majority of us are probably descendants of slaves.

But since it wasn't race based it has zero bearing on your current life. So if you're an American white guy with Eastern European roots, the fact that some of your ancestors were slaves matters absolutely zero because there is no way to differentiate between masters and slaves. Same with a Mexican guy that cannot tell if he descended from the ruling Aztecs or one of the tribes they enslaved.

But when you throw in race, you absolutely can. You look at an American black guy and you know for certain he's a descendant of slaves.

This is the obvious point that idiots miss when they go on with their "The whole world is full of conquest! Why are you picking on me??"

What I was referencing was voluntary indenture (and involuntary in Ireland), but I see you understood that.

Yeah I basically agree, and that's what made racial slavery really nasty.

Were historical slaves in many societies treated worse- often dramatically so- than American black slaves? Yes, absolutely.

But that kind of misses the point- when those people were manumitted, they could and did blend back into the population. With the ethnic part, it puts a "badge of slavery" on you rather permanently.

However, I don't think that goes far enough in explaining race relations, but it is a good point.

 

[Denter]

Yeah, that sentence by itself with no context is used by Libertarians all the time. For them, liberty is doing away with the government and letting corporations do as they please. But in this scenario, the average person is still under private tyranny. They better work and do exactly as their employer tells them because if not, they starve. That's their "liberty."

I'm a left libertarian (aka, the real kind) so I believe in complete liberty. From both the state and especially private power (aka corporations). So everything's collectively owned and agreed upon. No bosses, no masters. Right libertarians absolutely believe in bosses, they just want it to be them.

What you see as tyranny, I see as society. And I prefer to live in a society.

 

[AviatorShades]

If I were constantly de-gendered by the society my own ancestors built and told to shut up every time I had an opinion because I have the wrong skin color I would probably retaliate violently rather than just kill myself.

But these guys are probably liberals so they don't know how to fight. They prefer to shrivel up and die.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, that sentence by itself with no context is used by Libertarians all the time. For them, liberty is doing away with the government and letting corporations do as they please. But in this scenario, the average person is still under private tyranny. They better work and do exactly as their employer tells them because if not, they starve. That's their "liberty."

I'm a left libertarian (aka, the real kind) so I believe in complete liberty. From both the state and especially private power (aka corporations). So everything's collectively owned and agreed upon. No bosses, no masters. Right libertarians absolutely believe in bosses, they just want it to be them.

It's a testament to the success of right-wing propagandists that even some poorly informed, self-identified liberals think that only right-wing "libertarians" hold freedom to be the highest value and that it is "bizarre" for a lefty to express a pretty standard lefty view.

It seems to me that right-wing "libertarians" define freedom as "the right of the powerful to exercise their power without constraint."

 

[AviatorShades]

It's a testament to the success of right-wing propagandists that even some poorly informed, self-identified liberals think that only right-wing "libertarians" hold freedom to be the highest value and that it is "bizarre" for a lefty to express a pretty standard lefty view.

It seems to me that right-wing "libertarians" define freedom as "the right of the powerful to exercise their power without constraint."

Only dumbasses talk about "freedom".

There is power and lack of power.

Liberals and libertarians are both famous for being dumbasses though so it makes sense. Good luck changing the world with your cardboard protest signs. Haha!

 

[Possum Jenkins]

What you see as tyranny, I see as society. And I prefer to live in a society.

Yeah, you prefer to live in a "society"... provided you're the master, or part of the master class.

Obviously we're speaking in two different languages here because we disagree so widely, but all I can add is that it's a testament to humans' innate desire for liberty that basically everyone wants to either A) Live as a master- because they're the free ones, or B) Live in a society where there are no classes and everyone's free (everyone says this is a pipe dream, but they all agree it'd be a good idea)

Very, very few people just say "Yeah, it'd be great to live my life as a servant!"

It's a testament to the success of right-wing propagandists that even some poorly informed, self-identified liberals think that only right-wing "libertarians" hold freedom to be the highest value and that it is "bizarre" for a lefty to express a pretty standard lefty view.

It seems to me that right-wing "libertarians" define freedom as "the right of the powerful to exercise their power without constraint."

They've definitely taken that term and ran with it.

The problem is that the standard left liberal has a hard time expressing this because yeah, they're usually in favor of more state interference in business. And since the state apparatus is son un-democratic and un-responsive to the public, it does seem like it's "tyranny" from some outside force.

The solution is to make the state more democratic.

 

[Denter]

It seems to me that right-wing "libertarians" define freedom as "the right of the powerful to exercise their power without constraint."

Its like raw Nietzscheanism, except if Nietzsche only cared about money.

 

[Hallelujah]

America is dead. Don't kill yourselves brothers. Move north to the frozen tundra they'll never follow us there.

 

[Space]

It's just what the Cultural Marxists want, for white people to kill themselves.

 

[MacDuffle]

This thread is foaming at the mouth.

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

The solution to the white male suicide problem, more feminism and males sharing their feelings.


Discuss.

Drop the feminism part for a second. How is sharing ones feelings (ostensibly in therapy) not one of the best ways to deal with mental issues?

 

[Rod1]

Drop the feminism part for a second. How is sharing ones feelings (ostensibly in therapy) not one of the best ways to deal with mental issues?

Because men are idiots.

 

[Denter]

Drop the feminism part for a second. How is sharing ones feelings (ostensibly in therapy) not one of the best ways to deal with mental issues?

I don't know if it has been studied, but I would suspect in cultures with more, ahem, expressive male behavior, there might be fewer suicides.

Because #1 is still Japan, and those people are often really shut down emotionally.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Drop the feminism part for a second. How is sharing ones feelings (ostensibly in therapy) not one of the best ways to deal with mental issues?

There is nothing wrong with sharing how one feels. Humans are emotional beings and it is important, during appropriate times, to acknowledge and express our emotions. The problem is the obsessive hyper-focus on one's feelings that is encouraged by therapists. These days everyone is traumatized by the tiniest micro-aggression and feelings are more important than the truth. The biggest crime now is offending someone and hurting their feelings.