Prove to me individualism is superior than collectivism

As far as Im concerned collective groups out compete individuals in terms of evolution. Therefore it is a moral imperative to be a collectivist before being an individualist

Put 100 individuals on an island, and another 20 people in a collective group. Its obvious who would win.

Much like ants have to live in anthills to survive, we need to live in a tribe to survive.

Individualism is only valuable when it allows people to be productive for the group. A great artist is totally useless if he has no one to admire his work. He is literally just pissing into the wind.

The burden of proof that individualism is superior is on the individualists.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/XbEs02-LjO4?t=75
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Prove to me that traps are the spice of life

I cant tell if your strawman individualism, straw manning the collectivist argument against individualism or just really not that bright.

I reject the possibility of troll, because im not out raged just confused.

Fite me, and bring yr boyfriend.

He's probably just retarded.

Im talking about the abstract moral value of individualism vs collectivism. Therefore my extreme examples stand.

Make an argument faggot

Individualism is only superior if you're a superior individual

Consciousness only manifests in the form of an individual

If the collective is not the whole of humanity the ideology is incomplete.

>The burden of proof that individualism is superior is on the individualists
So you're asking if capitalism is better than socialism?

A single superior individual will still lose to a collective of averages though.

A superior individual who leads a group will however benefit himself, and the people around him

>collective groups out compete individuals in terms of evolution. Therefore it is a moral imperative to be a collectivist before being an individualist
I don't think you understand what moral means
Evolutionwise, it would be advantageous to go out and rape hundreds of women. That doesn't make it moral.

That is self evident, traps are the greatest thing on Earth

The ultimate form of individualism is anarchy, not capitalism.

Capitalism can exist with some forms of collectivisation, just not with marxist-socialism

>Therefore it is a moral imperative to be a collectivist before being an individualist
I don't think you mean moral imperative, maybe pragmatic, survival or biological.

well you prove that individualism is superior by forming a collective of individualists, come on man its simple

Morals dont exist as absolutes outside of our own creation. Morals are literally our evolutionary way of enforcing group behaviours as to increase cohesion and competitiveness.

That crow he is eating must be tough to swallow.

It's individualism + you nazi.

As I said individualism is valuable as long as its done with the understanding that the individual is subservient to their community

There is a place for both. But only for collectivism in the very broad sense. Because you can set any parameters to define any collective, and can infinitely fractionate collectives into individuals through constraining parameters alone.

Moreover watch this: youtu.be/XbEs02-LjO4?t=75 1:15

>We hold these traps to be self evident, that not all men are created equal, that some are endowed by their Creator with a feminine benis...

To the sick the doctors wisely recommend a change of air and scenery. Thank Heaven, here is not all the world. The buckeye does not grow in New England, and the mockingbird is rarely heard here. The wild goose is more of a cosmopolite than we; he breaks his fast in Canada, takes a luncheon in the Ohio, and plumes himself for the night in a southern bayou. Even the bison, to some extent, keeps pace with the seasons cropping the pastures of the Colorado only till a greener and sweeter grass awaits him by the Yellowstone. Yet we think that if rail fences are pulled down, and stone walls piled up on our farms, bounds are henceforth set to our lives and our fates decided. If you are chosen town clerk, forsooth, you cannot go to Tierra del Fuego this summer: but you may go to the land of infernal fire nevertheless. The universe is wider than our views of it.

Yet we should oftener look over the tafferel of our craft, like curious passengers, and not make the voyage like stupid sailors picking oakum. The other side of the globe is but the home of our correspondent. Our voyaging is only great-circle sailing, and the doctors prescribe for diseases of the skin merely. One hastens to southern Africa to chase the giraffe; but surely that is not the game he would be after. How long, pray, would a man hunt giraffes if he could? Snipes and woodcocks also may afford rare sport; but I trust it would be nobler game to shoot one's self.--

"Direct your eye right inward, and you'll find
A thousand regions in your mind
Yet undiscovered. Travel them, and be
Expert in home-cosmography."

>caring about e-celebs
OP and those like him are faggots

Do you even know anything about evolutionary bio?

Do you know the difference between kin selection, group selection, and individual selection?

A meritocratic heirarchy requires individualism, only a brainlet collectivist thinks an individualist rejects heirarchy.

Thanks for the thread. The problem with individualists is that they often literally believe people should be atomized. This is not the classical liberal tradition.

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:

-Group action determined by government

-Group action determined by private citizens

The latter is still group action. The "individualists" of the classical liberal tradition (eg those who founded USA) believed voluntary group action was more flexible, more efficient and less capable of tyranny than government-imposed group action.

Never make the mistake of confusing "individualism" as it refers to government force and voluntary association. Even in an ethno State the most proficient form of government is voluntary association, not government force.

I agree, but at a certain level of collectivism you achieve high evolutionary group fitness. And maintaining that fitness is more important than the rights of any one individual. Therefore the group in this sense supersedes the individual

I just watch that video.

I have not seen something so cringy since I watched newgrounds animations in elementary school.

Except we don't live on deserted islands.
You can literally survive on your own with just trading 40% of your time on this Earth for it.

Individualism is like pacifism. They both a virtue. And they're both suicidal.

Traps add to the array of fetishes that exists in humans. Just make sure to pick them when they are young or they will spoil.

Individualism is an ideology which denies the existence of biological reality. You want to treat everyone as an individual without respect to the group, which leads to degeneration of the group.

Races exist, there are meaningful differences between races. People like Sargon don't care which race exists, only that his idealism is upheld. He refuses to identify people based on race, refuses to accept that white people exist.

Race mixing doesn't make the differences between races go away it just cuts the highest performers out, muddies the water and makes an 80 IQ group parent and 120 IQ group parent produce offspring which could on average produce in the 90-100 IQ assuming they breed with similar IQ mixes. So the highest IQ get weeded out over time and the average becomes lower over time.

Race mixing also produces people with new biological issues. Blood marrow transplants are for example very difficult for race mixed children to get. If there are more people who are mixed like you then it's not as big of a deal, but as more race mixing goes on it continues to fracture the bloodlines making more people less able to get donors.

Races of people will always prefer in group bias. Ideology can weaken one group's desire to self select, but if only one group (white people) have largely accepted this ideological conditioning, while other groups remain preferential to their own then that creates a disadvantage for the brain washed group (white people).

Jews for example are largely immune to this ideological self hate, they instead have counter ideology which makes their race a mini nation of itself. A Jew in the United States doesn't really see himself as a US citizen unless it is politically convenient, he sees himself as a Jew first and puts Jewish interests first.

This guy is high on his own smugness. Kinda funny

>>No.156149965

Individualism just means that individuals have rights which the group cannot overrule. That is: there is a certain degree of freedom afforded individuals within the society where actions the individuals actions must be negotiated on; not coerced through force.

Giving superior individuals this freedom leads them to be more productive than they would be if their actions were all dictated from the "king"... because those superior individuals can see some things better than the king can.

Yes, now please elaborate

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that groups aren't required for society to function - because of course they are. The problem is the recently emerging politics that seems to be trying to eliminate individualism in favour of collectivism, and the reason why you're seeing people oppose the notion of collectivism and praise the notion of individualism is because individualism is important, and people are attempting to curb it.

where actions the individuals take*

I was against Sargon when he was a Skeptic, but now he's a Liberalist I'm totally on his side.

Individualism isn't realistic because nobody lives in a bubble. All our actions have consequences on others, we can't just make safe spaces for everyone. Clearly demonstrated by the ancap memes.

I dont doubt its important, just that its not a founding principle upon which you can form a coherent ideology or understanding of human nature.

>Morals dont exist as absolutes outside of our own creation.
God would like a word with you
I think you may be on to something...

Also, I really liked your post, just wanted to add my own 2 cents.

It's the same with "victimless crimes" which usually has a long line of victims before and after.

...

>Race mixing doesn't make the differences between races go away it just cuts the highest performers out, muddies the water and makes an 80 IQ group parent and 120 IQ group parent produce offspring which could on average produce in the 90-100 IQ assuming they breed with similar IQ mixes. So the highest IQ get weeded out over time and the average becomes lower over time.
>Race mixing also produces people with new biological issues. Blood marrow transplants are for example very difficult for race mixed children to get. If there are more people who are mixed like you then it's not as big of a deal, but as more race mixing goes on it continues to fracture the bloodlines making more people less able to get donors.

Nigga your retarded.

First off, IQ of 100 is literally an average of the group. So both groups would have IQ of 100.

And ignoring that what stops the same situation from happening within a single population?

Complete random matching of people would result in a seemingly unexplained drop of 10 IQ relative to the previous population. Explain yourself.

sargons dad waiting for his dad

Good point

People don't realise that both of their arguments were shit and love to jerk off their favourite.

If an individual is developed and evolved as in emotionaly and mentaly then they can be a successful part of a group and the group can thrive.

If an individual or few who are not mentaly or emotinaly evolved are introduced to a group they can cause damage, disorder and the group will be negativly affected meaning i stead of being productive the group at least will have to direct attention to del with a problematic member individual. And in a worst case scenario the group can not only pause its development but regrese.

In order for a group hive in sync society to function it must be constructed of productive members who understand their privilige and above all responsibility. This would be a balanced individual development and a group role development.

So ultimetley individual development is always a property and the outcome of it is harmonic group development and it cannot succede in vice versa scenario!

Now there are ways to acheave this and unify our people, nations... But it is a narrow road, not for the faint of heart because it is not all peaches and cream!

Which do you believe humans operate under?

I thought it was funny for exactly that reason.
Newgrounds in the late 90s and early 2000s probably shaped my humor as a kid and naturally lead me to Sup Forums.

>Prove to me individualism is superior than collectivism

Max Stirner / Ernst Junger > Adolf Hitler / Stalin

You're welcome. Although somewhat of a false dichotomy, a true individualist may see something that serves his interest within the collective, including racialism. Individualism is about knowing that there's sometimes safety in numbers, but not in bending the knee to the mob.

tl:dr Read Stirner.

>First off, IQ of 100 is literally an average of the group. So both groups would have IQ of 100.
Uh, that's not how IQ works. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to compare different groups at all.

The individual willing to better his position will find advantages in mutual cooperation with other likely minded individual. Thus, two individuals, working for themselves, might improve their odds working together, but really, they do it for themselves, and not the other.

Collectivist on the other hand will try to improve the group. Not every member of the group will work with such purpose, thus the work might be lost. It might work for a time, but there are too many slackers not worth lifting your little finger for.

Trust no one but yourself. If you happen to walk the same way as an other, you may share the load. But you should not try to have other walk with you when all they really want to is sit, or even worst, walk the opposite way. You working for them is not gonna help anyone. It slows you down, it rewards parasite.

>people who wrote books > national leaders

Hmmm.

Collectivism means many different things, it can range from a small family to a Marxist type of collectivism where every single person must submit to the state. Let's say that individualism is a collective of 1 person.

On a number scale, the furthest left would be individualism, the furthermost right would be Marxism (i.e. entirety of humanity submitting to a global state).

If you argue that collectivism is superior to individualism, if you don't specify how big the collective is then all you really claim is that the largest collective is the most superior. However, is that truly the case here? How big a collective are the collectivists talking about here?

My guess is that they really don't know, they're not pro-collectivist.
They are just anti-individualist.
All they do is keep beating the same strawman of a selfish individualist for no discernible reason.

>Uh, that's not how IQ works. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to compare different groups at all.
Now you're getting it. You would have to combine the population and then sort the individuals based on categories.

You try to force me and people like me into your collective.

I rip your guts out slowly in front of your children, then pull your kids guts out through their assholes with your eyelids cut off as I force you to watch.
Then leave your mangled bodies as a warning to others about the price of foolishness.
We Individualist would rather die than be yor slaves. You weak, pathetic collectivists do not know such resolve and determination. You are but niggers who need all of your "boys" to try anything. And you'll STILL fuck it up.

The argument of collectivism vs. Individualism will never be settled in words. It as always is decided in blood, where we rule and you faggots cower in terror and your own filth.

Sleep well, sheep.

I already have read Stirner and I even bought into it for some time. It's just not realistic. The world isn't full of autists who can create some perfectly balanced society by adhering to some abstract principles. The world is messy and full of idiots who will club you to death because you look funny.

You're confusing individualism with autism. People naturally group together. Individualism is not some abstract notion that individuality is morally superior to community (fucking what). It's the notion that groups are for the sake of the individuals comprising it rather than vice-versa, and that groups should therefore demand no more from its members than what it needs to function correctly.

a collective is only as effective as its composition, and how their team dynamics are, a collective isn't effective because of its mere existence the individuals that make it up are more important than the group itself.

for instance if you have a group of highly professional engineers if they hate each other aren't going to accomplish jack shit when compared to a group of engineers not as qualified but are more bonded and have respect for each other and work well as a group.
being an individual in the group is also important because your unique perspective and personal experience is also very important to a collective.

You can have your individualism back when we're not under attack as an atomised collective. Nothing is forever.

The family is not an "individual" but it is more important than the individual. Do you deny this? Most parents would give their life to protect their children.

Also, abortion and divorce are immoral because they put the "happiness" of one person over the many.

Morals largely derive from what is evolutionary good for us. If not, it would not have perdured this long.

In this line of thought :
>Evolutionwise, it would be advantageous to go out and rape hundreds of women.
It's not. These women have fathers, brothers and husbands, who are going to come seeking revenge. And the other tribes, learning what you did, will preemptively come and fuck your shit up to protect their women. Raping women out in the open is not a good evolutionary strategy, which is why we do not do it, and consider it immoral. Most of what "feels" immoral does because it puts the individual that partakes in such action at an evolutionary disadvantage.

That's also why hitting yourself in the nuts feels terrible.

Put 100 black individuals on an island, and another 20 Japanese people in a collective group. Now tell me who wins.

Oh gosh a new entry in my copypasta folder. thanks amerifriend

>you can have your free-will back as soon as you choose to take it

That is so dumb is profound.

Whites need to collectivise to survive, because no other group acts in the same hyper individual manner we do. We'll be overtaken if we don't act in our race's interest and that's all there is to it.

20 Japanese aren't really gonna last to feed a hundred niggers.

Really, this is the only pragmatic option. If we aim for libertarianism now, there will be no white race left. We are dying out because of "individualism". Women are are slutting it up until 30 because of "individualism", men are becoming weak and effeminate degenerates because of "individualism".

Our people are sick and just as you don't hand a suicidal person a gun, our people are not fit for the freedom they have. Responsibility is earned and the vast majority of our people just don't deserve it... because look what they are doing.

>These women have fathers, brothers and husbands, who are going to come seeking revenge. And the other tribes, learning what you did, will preemptively come and fuck your shit up to protect their women.
Not before you're impregnated dozens of women, ensuring your lineage far more than any other way

That's a cold soulless utilitarian proposition that very few would subscribe to

>Prove to me individualism is superior than collectivism

They both have their place. Use the best tools for the job.

Tell me about fascism. Prove to me it ends up bettering the country.

Tell me about communism, which countries who have taken the policies to an extreme have benefited overall from it?

Is there a survey somewhere that shows the occupation and marital status of alt righters and antifa? I'm willing to bet the stats aren't so rosy for either.

you see this a special kind of bait for a special kind of autist like me.

>Implying plant-based abortion has not been a thing for a long time
>Implying the "sullied" women won't be abandonned and die in childbirth
>Implying the women will not be left behind but the babies will be killed at birth
>Implying the babies will not be killed at birth but won't have many ressources allocated to them in order to favor non rape babies
>Implying the baby will be raised normally but won't be allowed to take a wife in the tribe because he's impure

There are many ways to circumvent that.

Germany had one of the biggest economic miracles of all time before the banks declared war on them.

People have historically starved to death by the millions under communism.

The statistics show that conservative and religious couples have more successful marriages. Antifa are a bunch of virgin beta male feminists and slutty women who do porn.

There you go.