Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: christianbethel
« on: July 27, 2025, 07:31:54 pm »

Both, based purely on observation.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 24, 2025, 05:37:55 pm »

What will they do when no more new games come out? Will they stick to the last popular new game that came out? Or will they look at what old games are popular and play whichever is the most popular at any given time?
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: July 24, 2025, 10:11:05 am »

'As for addictive personalities, let's use video game addiction as an example. I am not too worried about those who have to play the same video game every day. I am far more worried about those who eventually get bored with every game they try, and hence keep seeking out new games. The latter I would definitely prohibit from reproducing.'

What about people who play only one game everyday but always switch to a new game that comes out based on the new game's popularity?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 25, 2025, 06:03:25 pm »

"I was wondering if True Leftists criticize drug addicts (especially those that are trying to recover but are unsuccessful) for lack of willpower or other inner qualities."

I would only be worried if addicts are trying to pass themselves off as non-addicts when they are not, thereby deceiving others. The system I proposed above would make it easy to check.

"I'm approaching this especially with regards to state-controlled reproduction concerning drug addicts or individuals with addictive personalities."

In my vision of state-controlled reproduction, who gets to reproduce is decided during early childhood, specifically before they are aware that they are being selected, in order to prevent those with a stronger desire to reproduce (hence inferior) from using effort to increase the chances of themselves being selected. Drug use should not yet be an issue at that stage. However, if between selection and reproduction the selected individual becomes a drug user, the additional consideration arises of whether or not the drugs could be producing negative heritable consequences. This will depend on the particular drug etc.. It is also not theoretically impossible that some drugs could produce positive heritable consequences. Therefore I cannot answer generally. If we wanted to err on the side of caution, we could exclude all drug users. But once again, this policy must not be known by those under selection, lest those with a stronger desire to reproduce (hence inferior) deliberately refrain from drug use in order to not be excluded.

As for addictive personalities, let's use video game addiction as an example. I am not too worried about those who have to play the same video game every day. I am far more worried about those who eventually get bored with every game they try, and hence keep seeking out new games. The latter I would definitely prohibit from reproducing. See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg13288/?topicseen#msg13288
Posted by: ReproductivePotential
« on: June 25, 2025, 01:58:48 pm »

Thank you for your insight 90sRF, do you also have an opinion on the following?

Quote
I was wondering if True Leftists criticize drug addicts (especially those that are trying to recover but are unsuccessful) for lack of willpower or other inner qualities.

I'm approaching this especially with regards to state-controlled reproduction concerning drug addicts or individuals with addictive personalities.
Posted by: IranMissiles
« on: June 15, 2025, 10:57:10 pm »

If a drug addict came along tomorrow and ended the yearly slaughter of 1.2 trillion non-humans then perhaps everyone would be better off being a drug addict and the world would actually be a better place because of it? Perhaps the only admirable quality of **** drug addicts is the fact that they really do not care about their human life, and most likely do not care about all life in general? If true, then at least drug addicts aren't hypocrites like westerners are? Westerners claim to care about life but are part of, and help maintain, a system that results in the murder and slaughter of 1.2 trillion innocent non-humans every year!

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 11, 2025, 04:09:17 pm »

The most immediate problem with drugs being illegal is that they give power to drug cartels which could undermine the power of the state. The correct countermeasure to this is for the state to not only legalize selling of all drugs but itself sell them at a far lower price, thereby driving the cartels out of business.

Drugs may be unhealthy, but individuals should be allowed to damage their own health if they wish to do so. A state which prohibits individuals from damaging their own health is treating such individuals as slaves, not as citizens. The duty of the state is to ensure that non-drug-users are never negatively affected by the choices of drug users. This can be accomplished in two steps:

1) By limiting legal consumption of drugs to state-run drug hotels (which can also be where the drugs are legally sold) where drug users are quarantined from the rest of the population (and from one another to whatever extent is preferred by each individual) for the duration of the effects of the drugs.

2) By excluding drug users* from all public healthcare services, thereby ensuring non-drug users never have to pay for health problems experienced by drug users. Drug users should still be able to access private healthcare services.

(* This exclusion should also apply to those who participate in dangerous sports etc..)

I academically agree with rightist speculation that, other factors being equal, a country A with more drug users is likely to be less machinist than a country B with fewer drug users. But whereas rightists hence prefer B, I hence prefer A.

With that said, we should not be satisfied with relying on drugs to slow down machinism. We really need to end and reverse machinism by eliminating machinist potential from the gene pool. To the extent that drugs make machinist potential harder for us to spot, this is the true danger of drugs from our perspective.
Posted by: Gambatte
« on: June 11, 2025, 10:20:55 am »

What is the True Leftist opinion about addiction to hard drugs and drug addicts in general? I noticed that drug harm reduction principles are much more popular in left-leaning circles than with rightists:

Quote
Harm reduction is exactly what it sounds like: reducing the harm associated with using drugs through a variety of public health interventions. But the concept relies on more than these tools and begins, at the most fundamental level, with recognizing that all people deserve safety and dignity. It does not treat drug use as a moral failing.

(Of course, I don't think everyone deserves safety and dignity.)

I know that True Leftists are against the War on Drugs, but I was wondering if True Leftists criticize drug addicts (especially those that are trying to recover but are unsuccessful) for lack of willpower or other inner qualities.