Another policy would be:

- Letting in a large group of unidentified people from some place else into your country, promising to feed, water and shelter them, while opening up your own population to greater risk of petty and violent crime as well as terriorism.

So the Mexicans backing NAFTA were cucks?

I thought I asked you about this. You said the "cuck" isn't losing anything in the experience. So "cuck" is analogous to political actions which have a net benefit to all parties with no resulting loss? Is that what you're trying to describe with the word? Are you really against actions which benefit all parties at no cost?

This is all premier league gobbledegook to me.

I'm not willing to go into specifics beyond this. You can draw your own conclusions, but at least now you are operating with clear and stable definitions and concepts.

Okay, but such a policy wouldn't be "cuck" by your definition if there were some other benefit--say lower prices for consumers--that outweighed the damage to one's own farmer's.

The cuck does lose a lot of things:

- dignity
- masculinity
- pride
- ego
- dominance
- reputation with wife
- reputation with lover
- reputation with anyone else who knows

I mean the cuck is giving up huge amounts, but his kink is that he gets pleasure from this humilation.

So there it is.

Altruism is cuckoldry?

Does that mean your parents are cucks for letting you live in the basement while you take your 17th consecutive gap year?

Well, the conclusion I draw is this... the Zapatistas, who took up arms against NAFTA, are the alpha uber alt-right.

To be honest though 'cuck' really isn't 'triggering' because like 'beta male', 'red pill', or whatever else the word only has a negative connotation within the norms of whatever insular group uses them. Like "oh you want to raise taxes on yourself to provide universal health care? What a cuck!" Nah man it's the most efficient system to provide for the worst off and everyone else.

Like even at the most denuded of racial overtones but still used in politics level that Lord is using it simply means raising selfishness to the highest ideal, which, yea, we know a lot of internet nerds think they're going to rule the upcoming race/conservative-liberal/anger bear war instead of being the first to be drained of blood for Thiel's youth machine so of course acting selfishly is morally right to them, but, in the real world, they're just endlessly whining about not being seen for the geniuses they think they are.

This just reads like a list of your insecurities. I'd guess for people into this stuff it's all good fun.

This trade deal would, then, presumably, benefit SOME aspect of your population. Like you make agriculture concessions for SOMETHING, lower prices for consumers, etc.

Lord that thing where you don't know **** about **** but have nevertheless convinced yourself that you're smart is a ****ing facade. Liberals read books, you watch Youtubes.


This doesn't describe any policy liberals support, there's not a big "pro-petty and violent crime" caucus, and I don't even know how you'd go about letting in criminals if the people are unidentified.

I believe in two key things:

- Human beings are fundamentally self-interested
- Social cohesion is really important to curb that nature

I have written at length about this elsewhere. Just some recent posts:

Incels are incredibly needy and jealous when they do eventually land a woman and are constantly scared she might leave them for a better option, so yeah, that makes sense why wife-swapping would be such a terrifying fetish for them. If you ran the world's worst lemonade stand having a one-day only deal where some artisanal handcrafted beverage cart got to post up on your corner would end your ****, you'd lose all your customers.

It's like 'statist' & the ACers back in the day. They imagined they were insulting folks. Instead, they were simply alerting folks that they were a buncha idiots.

Thought you considered liberty the most important moral foundation you ****ing idiot.

It's possible to do both, and listen to podcasts, and watch tv and films, and to read internets. All of these things are possible.

Information, knowledge, ideas, these things do not simply reside in books, and it is nothing but snobbery to insist that they do.

Pretty sure co-operation is equally justifiable as fundamental to humans. Not sure why people always miss that when they're doing their pseudo-philosophical musings on the state of nature.

I wasn't talking about moral foundations was I; I was talking about political and social organisation.

The means of achieving social cohesion comes by establishing a set of shared values, and the most important such value is liberty.

People need a sense of liberty to operate. They are most effective when they think they are free. This is key.

Authority is also important, but too much authority becomes oppression, and this is counter-productive. Authority works best when it is in league with liberty and also loyalty.

In order to achieve all of these things you need in-groups and out-groups. Human beings cannot function at the level of ALL of humanity. Our instincts are not towards the global but the tribal. So we must work with that, not against that.

The plus side is maybe it says something about social progress that these guys have gone from hating interracial and gay relationships to needing to find weird fetish porn to write reams about.

90% chimp, 10% bee

The 10% bee part is altruism towards members of an in-group held in check by authority and loyalty.

This is more charitable than the Dawkins thesis of being 100% selfish except in cases of reciprocal altruism.

We can be selfless in certain conditions beyond that, but almost always in situations where we are working towards the ends of some group, not in cases where we are working for "all of mankind".

The revolutionary formally know as prince was all over that c1902: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (full text here).

Besides, social cohesion == cooperation.

Don't be coy. I'm pretty sure you know exactly why that is.

Literally no part of this is advocated by maijstream liberals in the US.

So is that Ashton Kutcher a "______" or what? What does he get helping people out of slavery?

Jonas Salk must be one of the biggest "______" of them all. Not patenting vaccines? Who does that?

Yes, the well known leftist policy of signing trade deals that benefit farmers of other countries but not your own. A quintessential policy of the left, a grounding principal.

This is total spew.