Oh, I didn't realize that debate authors are public now, so you can no longer just plop a debate topic there and forget about paying child support. :)
I just phrased the debate in the way that sounded most natural to me, a non-reactionary; that, and the fact that there was not much room for even longer titles. The point is, are NRx factual claims realistic? Too cynical? Too idealistic and bleeding-heart? (Seriously?) Is their doom-and-gloom vision of modernity and its future a mere result of a good, honest look at naked reality, bereft of any distorting influence of degeneracy-tinted glasses and personal mild dislike for the groups it wants restored to their inferior historical status?
It's an important question for anyone who wants maximal accuracy. Generally people's opinions are biased by wishful thinking. Neoreaction is just the farthest thing from that (if you're not a rich white manly male). If they're right, I guess one just has to bite the bullet and find ways to cope with their own disillusionment. If they're not, and just biased by an equal and opposite drive... the search for truth merrily goes on, with new-found assurance that there might be no second-class citizens in utopia. |
