Maybe it's just me, but it feels as if our culture has become uncultured - as it were. The people we revere are the Kardashians and pop singers, and we read about their everyday occurrences in magazines and online. When we do climb the intellectual ladder, things are stifled by a STEM circlejerk and the suppression of things like aesthetics and passion.

The Enlightenment saw a burst of literature, the arts, philosophy - the humanities - which, it seems, has failed to bear any continuance. It seems that our culture is either emotionally mute or overly-rational.

What I meant was, how does that relate to values and how is that bad?

Compare, for instance, the tension between liberal and Islamic values in my own country. When you have two or more ideologies/philosophies/methodologies competing not just for political power, but moral authority too, then it's bound to get ugly.

Whats wrong with multiculturalism?

It can often lead to pluralism in the arena of values as opposed to just mere culture.

You can't have value pluralism like that in the general populace.

What's a tl;dr of nietzche and why should people follow his philosophy?

Nietzsche essentially argued that from the decline of religion as a result of the enlightenment, it would lead first to philosophical and political pluralism (which would lead to untold conflict in the 20th Century (bear in mind he died in 1900)), and then finally to nihilism which we'd have to face.

There's a lot of his philosophy, but it essentially revolves around three focal points. The first is that there exists a natural hierarchy among individuals (not races, or nationalities) which leads to there being "higher men" or Ubermensch who would form a new aristocracy to guide humanity. The second is the idea that our current iterations of morality - namely Judeo-Christian morality - are incredibly harmful to the human condition, and promoted behaviours and emotions which were detrimental to the flourishing of humans and, in particular, higher men. Thirdly, Nietzsche thought that the legacy of the Enlightenment was extra-rational, which removed emotion and passion from a position of importance in the human character and led us to reject our aesthetic sides; in essence, he thought high culture could replace religion, and serve to unite the community under this new aristocracy.

Are you ubermensch?

I try to be.

Thanks for proving my point; if the purpose of gun control was to prevent blacks for committing retributive then that means they were the ones acting people, but that wasn't the case. It was whites doing it and Gun control prevented blacks from protecting themselves

No, I didn't prove your point - I'm saying your point is irrelevant. There never would've been a black supremacy movement as substantial as the KKK purely because primal retribution will always be less organised than ideological fanaticism. I'm not saying the KKK didn't pursue racially-motivated gun control policies, I'm saying that doesn't detract from the fact that black people would've had an extraordinary capacity (which was somewhat justified) to commit violence themselves.

I'd support a graded cap based on various things such as socioeconomic status.

Of course, the most cultured people would be allowed to produce the most citizens.

People like to complain that people to fly the Confederate battle flag are racists, yet the first gun control laws was based on racism so therefore I should be able to draw conclusions that new gun control laws bring back the times of 19th and 20th century racism and discrimination

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Gun control prevents minorities from protecting themselves in areas of high crime, where they do tend to live

That's not racist, that's just unfortunate.

I'm not even that big on gun control; it's more of a cultural issue for America to me, and if I had my way I'd actually reverse the ban on assault weapons because you're essentially correct. Handguns are where the crime is, and even then they're most often illegally obtained.

But, please, for the love of God, don't play the fucking race card.

Gun control is not only racist

Is this type of weaponry really necessary?

Yes.

Everybody.

44pc.

Before I begin, would you please approximate where you think I'll land?

I'm talking from a social perspective, only.

I was reading some Nietzsche earlier, and he makes a good point about how - prior to the Reformation - the State and religion had been fundamentally intertwined. Religion had a very strong political function. Ceremonies like baptism would ensure religio-cultural homogeneity, and the State would derive its legitimacy from a religious authority to rule.

However, the Reformation obviously strained that. My country, England, actually weathered the Reformation fairly well, and we ended up with a weird episcopal church that was a mismatch of Calvinism and Lutheranism. Even after the Reformation, though, we see this fundamental link with religion. It was so great that even after Charles I's Personal Rule, his execution, the establishment of the Protectorate and the existence of a Republican Army, a Parliament still offered the Crown to Oliver Cromwell.

The fall in religious legitimacy for the State gives rise to religious pluralism and severs the authority the State has over the people, leading to a rise in majoritarianism, utilitarianism and - as we've seen - democracy.

Yet, with many things besides just religion, we've seen time and time again that humans are just bad at being individualistic. The fair few are capable of it; capable of living a solitary, ruthless and ambitious life - the Nietzscheans and the Randians among us. But in Europe we see pluralism leading to religious fundamentalism, nationalism, social conservatism and other forms of "us v. them" collectivism.

Pluralism, essentially, dangerous pluralism that undermines the authority of the governments which hang over us. My question is, given this tendency for pluralism to arise, and conflict with it - particularly in times of crisis - which necessarily leads to the State lacking legitimacy and thus power, is widespread libertarianism actually viable?

I'm not arguing we should end democracy (although that'd be nice) and I'm not arguing for oppressive governments. But ever since the fall of religion, and the rise of secularism/pluralism, it seems we can't afford to place liberty as the goal of politics.