SavageHippie Episode 18 B – Jim Goad: There Are No Good Guys!

me_ann_david_jim_class_of_1984

What perfect timing to get blocked from Facebook for three days!  What was my crime?  I hurt a woman’s vanity.  What happened was, after I saw another of a gazillion posts attacking Trump and our alleged “rape culture” come through my Facebook feed and seeing as this was meant for everyone to comment and give their two cents, I posted, “there is no rape culture”; which there isn’t, but there will be if Clinton gets elected allows the United States to import 100,000 Syrian “refugees.”  Hell, look what’s happened to Sweden!

Some woman with enormous breasts, but unfortunately enormous everything else, responded by saying, “I would be scared to run into you in a dark ally.”  In other words, she called me a rapist.  To this I said something to the effect of, “even though you are pretty busty, you otherwise have NOTHING to worry about”, and she reported me to the Facebook police, who deemed my comment inappropriate.  Think about that; she reported me for telling her that I, nor anyone, would ever rape her.  She was upset because someone said she isn’t attractive enough to be raped.

Anyway, if you didn’t already, I would suggests listening to Episode 18 A, the first part of our nearly three hour conversation that David, Ann and I had with Jim Goad, before this one.  However, if you prefer watching the sequel before the original, we get really heavy into what constitutes morality, if there is any in the first place and how morality is simply contingent on who is the judge of it.  I really felt like a fly on the wall listening to David and Jim talk about how they got railroaded by people who were virtue signalling their so called moral righteousness, but were really just acting out of malice.

Oh, and David and Ann belittle me a lot.

The closing is once again “The Diet Has Failed” by the Yesticles, and the artwork that was recycled from Episode 18 A is from Clayton V.

12 thoughts on “SavageHippie Episode 18 B – Jim Goad: There Are No Good Guys!

  1. Pingback: Savage Hippie Episode 18 B – Jim Goad: There Are No Good Guys! « Attack the System
  2. I just started listening to this podcast, and it’s pretty good. I have little interest in music or movies in general, and tend to just skip that stuff off the bat as irrelevant,unless it involves Cole’s Inside Baseball stories, which I would much rather listen to them actual music. Maybe it’s because I have had high speed internet access and video games since my teens, but that shit (music and films) is just too passive for me to get into. I used to like music a lot more, but after listening to hundreds of random bands at zero cost my hunger has been saturated into oblivion. I also would rather read a book than go to a concert, and not actually like socializing with people that aren’t nerds, so that probably plays a role.
    Regarding what Jim Goad said about the myth of morality, I agree entirely with his central nihilistic premise, and would argue that people have evolved in such backward environments that many of their emotional responses and moral intuitions are totally haywire and worse than useless from almost any consequentialist perspective, that is regardless of what got wasn’t to accomplish very little will be accomplished by moralizing. It’s all great with no light. From a perspective that is partisan but amoral, morality seems like nothing but a coordination mechanism for people too stupid to work out cooperation as an effective strategy. In that case it is useful only to stupid people, who ought to be gassed anyway.
    With regard to very morally indignant persons, it’s probably because they’re engaged in signaling, showing off their high status and tribal affiliation, which means that social pressure and conformist habits motivate them, not consequences or genuine ideological convictions. Anyone that concerned with the opinions of other people is invariably a tool.

  3. more superb trolling by you folks:
    “there is no rape culture… but there will be if Clinton gets elected allows the United States to import 100,000 Syrian refugees.”
    ha! please post more trolling, &/or publish those gems in a book! all your trolling are belong to us.

  4. I’m listening to this moral argument and Jim keeps saying that the moral people are the least ethical, which means that he has his own concept of what is or isn’t ethical. So, I’m thinking I must not know what the hell the difference is between those two words. Ethical is imposed externally, and moral individually. If I take him literally he’s arguing that a universal code of ethics supersedes individual morality, which is more subjective. Then he says it’s ALL subjective, and then goes on and on articulating his individual code or morality with examples of what is and isn’t right. For example, he argues it is immoral to put someone in a cage for two years for punching someone in self-defense. Thus, while denouncing morality Jim makes an argument for a higher moral standard. This is the typical moralizing of Victor Hugo in Les Miserables. It’s like the moral code of good literature.

    But, point is, while saying that morals are complete subjective fluff, he was articulating his own moral argument. Even when he says, “most people would rather kill than die” he’s making an argument to not judge someone who kills without looking into the circumstances. In a kill or be killed situation, things are not clear cut.

    I’m with the dude about “Do onto others …” Think of it as just bothering to use yourself as a reference to test something against as whether it’s right or not before doing it. It’s a really good guide for kids. “Should I bounce a rock off the back of Jimmy’s head. Hyuck, hyuck. Hmm. What would that feel like if it happened to me. Yikes!”

    • Thanks for the comment. I’m the dude who said “do unto others…” I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees that as a universal truth, rather than acting as though morals are thoroughly subjective. I also said “we all bleed red”, and Jim Goad mocked me for it, saying, “okay, Shylock”. Then I get the Answer Me! re-print, and he says “we all bleed red” or something to that effect in the forward! And then David goes on to say it in another episode! First they make fun of me, then they steal my ideas, fml!

      • Yeah, I thought they rejected your sentiment way to fast, and maybe that’s because it’s something we all learned as kids: the golden rule. We also learned not to judge a book by its cover, and actions speak louder than words. If people just lived by those three very simple ideas, with I think I’d mastered by the time I was 6-7 years old, there’d be a lot less crap going on with elaborate bullshit justifications. So, maybe those thinkers thought the children’s book of obvious morality wasn’t sophisticated or cynical enough, so knee-jerk poo-pooed it as naive, and then, as I pointed out, after saying “nature is amoral”, Jim laid out his own code of morality.

        The reason this topic interests me right now is that there are some major cases of censorship going on in the art world, and, for what it’s worth, this time it’s the radical left doing the censoring under the guise of morality. One tactic to counter this would be to say that morals are bullshit and the protesters are being hypocritical, and another would be to appeal to a higher moral argument, which can rather easily be done with a little thought. I think David does that all the time in his writing, or at least he points out the hypocrisy and immorality of various people. How can David or Jim point out the immorality of anything without reciprocally appealing to a higher morality?

        Jim said nature is amoral, and the implicit argument is that therefore humans are as well or should be. The counter is that nature isn’t conscious, doesn’t have abstract reasoning or language, and thus is incapable of morals to begin with. Should people ditch language and reasoning along with morality because spiders don’t have it?

        In short, if people want to defeat the claims of, for example, the more virulent strain or SJWs, than making a stronger moral argument may be much more effective than just saying morality is bullshit, which plays right into their hands (while also allowing them to get away with being immoral and justifying with bankrupt moral arguments).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s