Sign into an existing account

Go to a satanic temple or a meeting of nihilists and actually act in accordance to their stated beliefs.

If nothing is true, everything is permitted, and the whole of the law is to "do as thou wilt", then the only opposition you could mount against my words or actions is on your own personal grounds, you have no backing from your claimed ideological positions.

For they may take no position except against acting inauthentically or submitting to the fetters of conformity out of obligation rather than out of a restriction imposed upon the self by choice.

There they are, trying to control what you could say or do, which isn't against their ideology if you take the darwinian interpretation of it - that since no opinion is greater than any other by objective standards, the only way to settle the supremacy of one over another is by the evolutionary measure, that as with genetic traits, the best memes are those which outlast their competitors. So you should seek to ensure that your ideas end up in a greater number of minds than any competing ideas could claim.

If the Christians wiped out the pagans, then Christianity has established itself as superior to paganism. In this way the validity of memes is determined by who can outlast the others and who could have greater numbers of supporters.

To be truly rebellious is to assert the supremacy of all the groups you belong to - of living adult white male humans over all other things - to be solely concerned with the good of those who inhabit this specific group, who fall within all these criteria, and to value anything or anyone outside of that demographic of things only in the context of the benefit or harm of living adult white male humans, which means that reducing all other entities and objects to the mere property of living adult white male humans is the best position to take.

Be the ultimate in racism, sexism, ageism, etc. Be as edgy as you could be, endorse the enslavement and complete removal of all rights for anyone who is not a living adult white make human, making any humans that fall outside even one of the four listed criteria the slaves of those who do meet all five requirements for personhood, and making it so that any animals or other nonhumans go unprotected by rights.

Slavery was a practice that existed for most of human history, many empires lasted thousands of years with the practice in place, the idea of not enslaving anything or anyone considered lesser or inferior is a new idea, and it's turned into terribly, look at how the descendants of the slaves treat the descendants of the masters, I think the verdict on the practice is already well established.

We could act as the agents of pure logic, arguing not from any beleifs in some inherent supremacy, but purely from the logical side of personal benefit, we argue our positions on things like game theory and other analysis of strategy.

For while they could argue against the legitimacy of race realism or male chauvinism all day, but what they cannot argue is that taking such positions as we intend to are to our greatest benefit, and if we do not care about the detrimental effects on the others, they have no argument, the supremacists and bigots simply have the best way to benfit themselves, those like them, and their descendants.

We can very easily show how not taking this position is of less benefit to yourself, and taking the opposing position makes things worse for yourself. Why the hell should we take a position that harms us? Why should we not take the position that provides the optimal amount of personal benefit?