Genuinely speaking, was he right?
Genuinely speaking, was he right?
Nathan Torres
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Henry Nelson
No
Aiden Bell
Are you fucking blind? Why is this even a question?
Nolan Adams
Anthony Reyes
Ted didn't account for the fact that biotech and genetic engineering could make it possible to abolish suffering entirely.
Angel Ward
No, not really
Asher Flores
He was 90% right, especially about leftists. Sadly, he was too blackpilled to see past the rough stages of technology and into the glorious future that waits us.
Jack Walker
Goodie finish Fuchs flicks giving vicinity boondocks honorifics coincidences endocrinology Hallandale something fisherman balconies endocrinologist so hardcore digital cockfight antisocial
Lucas Gray
no but he was more right than poltards
Joshua Moore
Some of his ideas were alright, like saving the environment. But he had some toxic ones too like killing politicians
Blake Watson
He would vote for climate change globohomo today.
Christian Morales
clearly. The only question that remains is how we act on his vision
David Moore
I am pretty sure that anything humans make is fallible and fucked and useless so yes he was right
Isaac Anderson
His initial analysis is ok but his solution to everything is on the level of a deluded manchild and his understanding of mankind is poor. Ultimately his worldview is leftist in its own way.
Noah Perez
Yes but his utopia is impossible because anyone who tries to live it will just be wiped out by states that still use technology
Dominic Perry
I disagree with his view on linear history because he doesn't consider that a cyclical perspective can have cycles within cycles, so his argument about continuity debunking cyclical time is dubious. I also think he should consider that the goal of the State should be to create a society encompassing system that gives everyone a goal and purpose and a goal to ascend to, like a constitutional RPG, a somewhat Hegelian idea. It's true that technology tends towards alienation, but this can be avoided in a society which places man above machine.
Liam Campbell
That was by far his best idea.
James Allen
Yes, very obviously: 1) technological power will outpace human wisdom with respect to how to properly use that power, 2) that power will be monopolized by the worst elements of society, namely, the power hungry, and 3) these psychopaths will use this power to commodify and domesticate the rest of the human race, a process currently underway.
Colton Green
>But he had some toxic ones too like killing politicians
KYS. That was a good idea too, faggot.
Benjamin Nelson
Liam Gray
Levi Robinson
read his book its short i read it in one sitting
Hunter Reyes
Uncle Teddy?
Oliver Smith
MKUltra sleepers activated
Michael Jones
No. If you're going to make the same assumptions as Ted, then there is no reason to adopt AnPrim as an ideology. Transhumanism is just as justified. This is unironically the decision Anglo elites made in the early 20th century (transhumanism over AnPrim). It was only later they realized that they would need the mind to be independent of the body for it to work and so there has been a concerted effort by that elite to prove a mind-body distinction in order to justify (to themselves) that "they" will still "exist" if they radically augment their body. I've been looking into this corner of elitism for a while now, and they actually put out some quality content, though I think they're becoming increasingly pessimistic about creating an artificial mind-receptor (the necessary component of transhumanism, from their POV).