Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "Tom Nicholas"
channel.
-
65
-
48
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
29
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
14
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@josef10101010 "Etymology says it literally does tho, no matter what you think, lol."
Etymology just shows you where words come from, doesn't have any bearing on their initial or current definition. Wrong again.
"Elaborate"
No. You've already conceded.
"How is that a contradiction? Both can be true, can't they"
You can't seem to decide which is actually true though, can you? Shame we're not using any historical examples, or we could look back and see how each socialist nation came to be.
"and the fact that all of the Socialist countries end up the same way, in violent revolution"
This isn't possible to prove without an exhaustive list of historical examples, so I look forward to you walking back your "no facts from history" policy real soon :)
Oh, and you're still wrong on this one.
"Not an argument"
Hey you actually got this one right! Wow good job! It's not an argument!
Yeah, it's actually not a debate. You just genuinely struggle to understand what words mean. There's no 'debate' to be had here. You're just stomping your feet and insisting that your own personal definition is the real one. Can't argue with that! I can only hope when you turn 18 you learn to admit fault.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Xairos84 You sound old so I'll type slowly, try and keep up yeah?
" income on YouTube is non-existent and works essentially the same as the stock market: you create something that works for you in perpetuity all while earning revenue along the way"
Absolutely false. You made that up. You have no idea how money on youtube is earned. It's not remotely like the stock market.
"If a person really wanted to properly critique a system they were forced to use, they would advocate for some adjustments, they wouldn't just slam it wholesale"
Prove this claim. Show me why it's true.
"Here ya go: "I'm a content creator and my income threshold is 50k a year, anything beyond that goes back to the people. Take that capitalism" that is wild."
You have no idea what a youtube creator earns and what they spend their money on.
"Under his framework, he could make millions, buy a mansion and just tout the tired phrase "capitalism sucks, but like favorite and subscribe so I can pay my bills uwu" and you'd lap it up...."
So like, did you think you could just invent a scenario in your head and nobody would notice? Because I noticed. What you described isn't the reality. He hasn't done this. So why are you bringing it up?
You call others lazy, yet you've done absolutely zero work here. Worse, anybody who does do the work earns your derision. I think I can safely say what's really happening here.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joetheperformer "However, left wing politics is largely responsible for the Venezuelan humanitarian crisis. The left can go too far."
You can't just point to a random country that elected a socialist party into power and claim "the left" is responsible for the ills in said nation.
There is ONE nation south of Texas that hasn't been invaded or otherwise destabalised by the USA. (It's Chile, and only because the USA helped put a fascist into power.
If a right-wing country blockades a smaller one and people start dying as a result (for example), is the fault of the left for angering the USA? Or the fault of the right for sabotaging smaller countries?
What I'm getting at here is that the USA has way more influence, and therefore should take way more blame for what it does in the world.
"People should protest against neo-nazis. That’s ingrained into us the moment we attend grade school"
Uh well actually the media/police try their best to make those who protest against nazis seem like the bad guys, so idk where you got that idea
The police even stand back to allow neo-nazis to attack protestors unprovoked, let's not pretend its the left going "too far" here.
"You presented the weakest arguments you can throw at a genuine criticism."
Refute them, if they are so weak.
"All I am saying is, the cancel culture is inherently left-wing"
All I'm saying is that the right-wing is equally eager to 'cancel' people, but because it has institutional power behind it those people simply die, instead of getting bullied on twitter.
"Also, Have you read her actual 4000-word blog post that got her heat from Twitter? It’s not that radical. She merely supported someone who lost their job for believing in biological sex characteristics"
This didn't happen. Don't believe her, she is lying. Because she hates trans people. She stopped trying to hide it a while ago.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@josef10101010 "WRONG! Fascism isn't Capitalism, someone lied to you badly, bruv."
No, incorrect.
"Fascism is a from of Socialism, not Capitalism"
False.
" that's the definition given by Benito Mussolini himself"
Let's make one thing absolutely clear: I do not care what fascists think. Fascists are monsters who do not deserve any recognition of their cognitive activity. You might as well ask the opinion of a locust.
"Therefore, it is a methodology for achieving Socialism."
Elaborate. What do corporations have to do with socialism? There's no socialist theory I'm aware of that makes this connection.
"Captitalism is individual ownership and the right to own capital under the spirit of the pursuit for free enterprise, thus it's name."
No, this is incorrect. I highly recommend looking long words up before you use them.
Capitalism is when ownership of the means of production is owned by capitalists, a class of people who employ workers. Hence its name.
Your definition would mean that all civilisation from 2000BC onwards was 'capitalist'. That our economic system hasn't changed once in thousands of years. Do you want me to explain why that's wrong too?
"I fail to see how Fascism = Capitalism."
You've made that much clear, yes. I will explain.
Capitalist nations always enter into economic crisis eventually. Over the past 200 years capitalism has been bit with an eternal cycle of boom-and-bust, there's always a recession on the horizon. This puts a lot of pressure on capital to protect itself. It starts by rolling back worker's rights, trade unions and democratic rights. As the crisis goes on more and more desperate measures are taken, until capitalism has been replaced fully with fascism.
This is the blueprint that every fascist nation has followed. It's always a reaction to the panic of capitalists.
Ask yourself: Why would so many nations that were the enemy of socialist countries like PRC, USSR and Cuba etc ally themselves with fascist countries if they were the same? Isn't it odd that Pinochet was a friend of the UK and USA despite being much more brutal than Castro?
"Answer me this, what does your Aunt and Uncle's actual independent mom and pop shop (actual Capitalism) have to do with Facebook and Pfizer"
Okay, here is the answer:
All big companies were small companies, once. McDonald's used to be a mom and pop restaraunt, just one. If you made all the giant corporations disappear tomorrow, they would be replaced by small companies growing into the space left behind.
What did you think? It's not capitalism when companies get big? It's not capitalism when companies influence the state? Bro??? This is a capitalist state! Of course capitalists are using it to their advantage!
What do you think an economic system that allows the hoarding of wealth is designed to do? This is literally why capitalism was invented!
Even if you took the government away, made it much weaker, do you think big companies wouldn't still have a massive advantage?
Because if you weaken the state, the big companies become the strongest force in the nation! This actually happened in some countries and they went to absolute shit!
"Neither are Corporatism or a Corporatocracy, these are merely stepping stones to corrupt Capitalism towards Fascism"
Sounds like you're just trying to cope with the fact your favourite economic system sucks ass my dude. The fact is there's nothing you can do to stop capitalists from doing these things. The only thing to ever stop them historically has been abandoning capitalism.
" Socialism (which is in itself just a modern form of Feudalism)."
You're genuinely just saying words at this point, not even getting into what feudalism actually is. You don't care.
2
-
@josef10101010 "So you just conveniently block out the literal true definition of Fascism"
I'm just saying that you fail to understand what fascism is, because you listen to what fascists think. What you need to understand about fascists is that half of them are liars, and the other half don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about. Their opinion is worthless.
"Lol, nope. Capitalism is from"
How about we just skip to the part where you look it up? Literally just type in "define capitalism" into google, there you go. Done. Not up for debate.
"you'd have to have gone to college to say something that stupid, only a Marxist fake-professor could've indoctrinated you with drivel like that, XD"
I didn't go to college, do they only have dictionaries in college where you live?
"Although it was mostly marred by Feudalism, Slavery and the Ruling of Royalty over the majority of people"
We did not have feudalism in 2000BC.
" People didn't have the same level of human rights and freedoms we have today, the main one being CAPITAL, you know being allowed to actually OWN your property, your business etc"
People owned property thousands of years ago, too. See, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
History lesson over, I'm right and you're wrong.
"All of those faults you listed there have got absolutely nothing to with Capitalism but with Fascist Corporations and Corrupt Government Officials"
Weird how capitalist countries keep having that problem over and over again huh? Almost like there's a link between capitalism and being unable to maintain itself.
"No it's the Blueprint that every Socialist/Communist nation follows as it corrupts Capitalism from the inside, slowly turning it and subverting it"
Name a single socialist nation that 'slowly turned' capitalism. You can't. They all established themselves via sudden revolution and conflict.
" As for why they allied with the Fascists, because it was beneficial at the time as they had closer to a "Hardcore" stance against Capitalism"
I see, so the UK and USA allied with facist Chile to fight capitalism? Big, if true.
" Try to stick to the actual argument, Capitalism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism etc, the actual ideologies not people and nations that can be corrupted by rotten ideologies."
Ah, so you don't want me to prove you wrong with historical example. Let me think about it.
"You aren't even addressing the actual difference in the comparison, all of those huge Fascistic companies are there because of conflict-of-interest policies made by lobbied and/or corrupt members of the government, not ONLY because they kept "working hard"."
Wow, so you're saying capitalism just lets that happen and has no defense against people with lots of capital spending that capital to make their businesses grow?
Sounds like you just admitted to what I've been saying! Thanks for playing kid, glad you learned something.
2
-
@josef10101010 "Lol ok, here is the contextual definition of the word Capital "
I don't care, this is not what you were told to look up.
"Here is the definition of Capitalism for you:
a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government"
Nice, so you admit that my definition of capitalism is correct and yours is wrong. Congratulations, we're getting somewhere.
Incidentally, do you know who popularised the term capitalism? It was Marx!
"Nah, the royalty owned property, and allowed occupancy, but the people didn't own their property to the point that they actually have recourse to protect it fairly in a just court of law."
Legal systems did exist in ancient times, we know this because they're literally in religious texts from the era. This is basic stuff you're fucking up here, and for what? It's not even important!
"Lol, that's cute, you think you can pout, fold your arms and then just claim success, hahaha, XD."
I mean feel free to prove me wrong on anything I say, if you think otherwise.
"You yourself said Capitalism eventually get CORRUPTED into Fascism and agreed that Fascism is the centralized control of power under a small group of people, well that is what Socialism is"
Okay, so now I have to explain to you what socialism is too? Because it's literally the opposite. There's over a hundred years of books written about just this one concept.
Socialism is not "when government runs things". Socialism is when the working class run things. Hence the name!
"None, because that's how messed up Socialism is"
Cool, so now you're contradicting...yourself? You reading your own posts there son? Or are the hot tears blurring it out?
How about you just pretend you were trolling the whole time? That would be much less embarassing for you.
2
-
@josef10101010 "Well you should care, if you care about definitions cause its the word that capitalism is based on"
No lol, it literally doesn't matter
" which literally lines up with the definition you just gave"
Wow, whole lot of words just to admit I was right all along! Thanks, glad to see you no longer believe capitalism is when trade occurs.
"Nope, wrong again, that's the propaganda definition Socialists feed to the people so that they can just come into power."
You say this, and then contradict yourself later. Are socialists tricking people or forcing their way into power? Pick one lmao
"Socialism is literally all property and means of productions exclusively falling under ownership of the State"
Nope, wrong again.
"If you had any common sense or actually lived under and survived an actual Socialist country you would know that this is the biggest con-job in existence"
What happened to not talking about countries and historical examples? Wow, you abandoned that idea pretty quickly. Interesting how you don't want me to talk about what actually happened, but you want to abide by a different rule?
"You were the one who just asked me out of the blue which Socialist countries slowly turned to Capitalism and then stated that they all break out of Socialism through violent revolution, before immediately changing to Capitalism"
Is English your second or third language? The biggest barrier here is that you genuinely can't parse anything you read.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@epicduckrex994 If you think fascism and communism are even comparable, let alone equatable, you're mistaken.
Fascists have written a lot of theory? Yeah, so have Star Wars fans. Whatever you think about Marx, he clearly took what he was doing seriously and wrote critiques of his own past works because he saw what he was doing as a science.
Fascists on the other hand only write for reasons of propaganda, they'll say that they want to preserve X, or that Y is how they'll do it, but what you need to understand when analysing fascism is that they are all, to a man, liars.
That's why they always contradict themselves, that's why nothing they do makes sense. It's not meant to. It's at its core nothing more than a death cult.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@KRev1775 "And yet despite all your complaints of the government "terrorizing" you; you aren't in a Re-Education camp, a concentration camp, you haven't been arrested for your beliefs"
Interesting how you pivoted from 'the government doesn't do any of that stuff' to 'the government hasn't done any of that stuff to you personally, yet". That's a concession, by the way. You've implicitly accepted what I had to say.
And no, obviously I haven't been shot or I wouldn't be here to tell you any of this. The government has had people shot though, your 'democratic capitalist' faves do routinely murder people. That's not even up for debate.
Again, you think you get to set the goalposts where you wish, that if the state hasn't executed my family by firing squad I have no right to complain. What about other types of murder? If my family die because the government enforced austerity policies, don't I have a right to be angry about it? If the government sabotage the health service and my family die as a result, shouldn't I blame them?
If the government see a virus spreading over the world and decide it would be best to side with the virus over people, isn't that still murder? If a private business did any of that the CEO could expect to go to jail. If you give the government a pass on any of the above, what stops anybody from doing the same to the USSR or Nazi Germany?
"why exactly should myself or the Government even care about your complaints?"
This question reveals more about what you are than you realise. This isn't a normal thing to say. Does a capitalist state have any obligation to its citizens? If not, why are you defending it? If so, why do you think that obligation ends with ideological dissidents? You and the fascists have more in common than you understand.
"You also act as if a Democratic Capitalist government can solve every issue by merely existing"
This is a lie, disregarding.
"Democratic Capitalism is flawed and always will be, "
I'm not asking for a perfect system, I'm demanding that the slaughter ends.
"Capitalism isn't perfect so let's replace the government because of my First World Problems!", meanwhile foreigners line up day and night just to live at the LOWEST ECHELON of our societies"
What's weird is that my last post saw me claim that capitalism has the highest death rate and murders people all over the world. And I know you read it...yet you think that's a first world problem? Huh? Murder is a first world problem? No really, explain that one back to me.
" you're likely conflating Monarchies and Absolute States within the Medieval Age and Age of Colonialism with Modern Capitalist Nations"
I'm only going by the past 200 years or so, pretty desperate stuff when you have to pretend that anti-capitalists think capitalism is when it's 1000AD and kings were warring. (Indicentally the people killed back then are a tiny fraction of the deaths caused by capitalism in the modern era so its a moot point anyway)
" In comparison the whole existence of Communism and Fascism have both brought Famines, Genocides, and Poverty"
That's capitalism. You're describing capitalism. Those three things are happening now, under capitalism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joetheperformer "However, can’t deny that a socialist party has ONCE AGAIN failed to create the ‘favorable’ environment people claim it can create if we left socialism to flourish. That to me is another incident in which socialism (by itself) is proved to be a failure."
This is fundamentally a sick and twisted thing to say. Are you going to blame the victim of a robbery for not being able to fight off a dozen attackers? Am I a failure because I can't take on an army by myself?
"Other incidences? Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba.."
There's a lot that we could go into in regards to the USSR/China and where they went right/wrong but...Cuba?
Cuba is a paradise compared to how it was under capitalism
"BOTH. Why can’t both sides commit sins?"
Because one side is responsible.
"But why does it seem like this higher standard comes with a strong anti-western sentiment?"
We're at the point where "please stop killing us" is now "anti-western". Listen to yourself. One country slaughters millions of people around the world, and you're worried that people in some of those countries might have a bit of an anti-west tone?
"1. What evidence do you have of this??"
Like, 99% of all mainstream media coverage of the issue?
"This has nothing to do with THE school system ingraining into children how BAD nazis are. Yet leave off the fact that Stalin did the same exact thing to the same degree of evil. Explain that to me please."
Because if you knew too much about what Stalin did, you'd know that the USSR also had some major successes. You're more anti-communist the more you DON'T get taught about Stalin.
"The right wing has MANY flaws. But a pro they have is that they value freedom of speech. "
No, absolutely not. The right wing despises the concept and this is why they have attacked, intimidated and sometimes murdered anybody who protests them.
They want free speech..for rightwingers. Nobody else.
Right wingers want to have a neo-nazi rally where they scream for the blood of innocent people, and the cops protect them.
Left wingers want a rally where they yell that murder is bad? The police attack them. Don't ever tell me the right want freedom of speech.
"Dude. The largest companies in the world are left-leaning"
Name a single one. You won't. You can't.
Tech companies? All owned and managed by right-wingers. No, letting gay people work for your company is not "left-wing".
Leftism is about the workers owning the means of production, not..whatever far-right lunatics tell you it is.
"How about inject diversity of thought into these massive multi billion dollar companies"
Oh believe me, I'd love that. I'd love some left-wingers to have influence on just a single board of directors.
"Slowly but surely, amendment by amendment, individual sovereignty is being shoved to the back seat,"
...by right-wing governments. Like, this is all on you guys.
"I believe the Left is VITAL and is necessary to balance the inclusion of people fro
different walks of life. However, the Right is also vital because it values Individual Sovereignty. And let’s not forget either of those. Don’t get polarized. Siding with one ‘party’ or whatever won’t fix anything."
The mistake you have made here is called the middle ground fallacy. You have two options, and you assume the truth is between them.
But that's not true, if you see a signpost with two roads, do you go down the middle between them?
The right-wing has enjoyed near-total dominance for generations, and still it complains that left-wingers are going too far. How many more have to die before we stop it?
2
-
@joetheperformer "Certain issues require dialogue between two different opposing views. Best way to tackle an issue."
And on some issues, no words will ever solve matters. For example, US aggression across the globe. There are no words that will justify it.
"Such as opening/closing borders, for example. Germany opened their borders so God damned wide, it literally destroyed the hemodynamics of their country. A good dialogue between the two sides would be important here, because there is no easy answer (left wanting to open the borders, the right wanting to close them)."
I'd like to remind you at this point that the German state is run by a conservative party, which has the word "conservative" in its name.
Additionally, the meme about German borders is a result of Germany taking in Syrian refugees caused by the civil war, a direct result of US foreign policy. It is otherwise not that easy to gain German residence/citizenship.
"However, you can’t open your borders too wide because it would bleed your country and introduce too many unknown variables."
I genuinely have no idea what "too many unknown variables" means. We know what people are, they aren't unknown factors. As for bleeding..like, public spending you mean? Weird how that argument is only used on saving foreigners, but never killing them.
" I’m genuinely curious. Open or Close? What would you answer?"
You wrote all this mess to attempt to distract from the fact that you are employing logical fallacies. It failed. You're still stuck on this idea that the truth must lie between two positions. Not even two extremes, just two random positions you've heard people take.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joetheperformer "How many people did the USSR kill? (Not including Maoist China, Cuba, Venezuela)
“...no fewer than 20 million Soviet citizens were put to death by the regime or died as a direct result of its repressive policies. This does not include the millions who died in the wars, epidemics and famines that were predictable consequences of Bolshevik policies, if not directly caused by them.”
Source: wsj"
Still less than capitalism, and still less than the "hundreds of millions" you claimed earlier.
"Give me hard evidence that a modern Capitalist country committed the same degree of blatant human genocide in under a century. Go ahead."
I mean the UK killed well over double that in India, then another couple of million in the Bengal famine, then ANOTHER couple of million during the partition. That's just one country, don't get me started on what happened in Africa.
"Angela Merkel’s centrist stance and her left-wing favoritism:
“During 11 years of her chancellorship, the conservative politician became a champion of liberal values, winning over more left-wing Germans but alienating some of her more traditional supporters.”
Source: washingtonpost"
Going to have to do better than 'some yank with zero credibility thinks not killing people is left-wing', sorry. WaPo thinks the Democrats are left-wing, lmao
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Julie-qr9ow "You cant use the word you're defining in the definition of itself. "
This is a lie.
"First of all women have fought very hard to be free from gender roles"
They fought to have a bit more choice in which roles each individual adopts, is what you mean to say.
"Second, gender roles for women vary by culture, what's womanly in one culture may not be in another, and by this logic whether or not a woman is a woman can vary merely by her location"
That's correct, and falls neatly in line with my definition.
"Third, there are masculine women who exist, youre definition would exclude them because they don't fit the traditional gender roles of how a woman is supposed to be."
I made no reference to traditional roles, you are simply lying.
"Fourth, in order to know what the gender roles of a woman are, you'd have to define what a woman is."
Incorrect, I am dismissing this.
1
-
@Julie-qr9ow " 1. Explain to me how my first point is a lie"
No. This is how it works: You make the claim, you provide the evidence. You prove to me that I'm not allowed to include a word in a definition.
"As a woman, I can tell you that we fought for the choice to choose our roles and be free from gender roles"
You might want to sit down for this but...that hasn't actually happened, yet. We're still in a gendered society.
" You can agree with that point, but it's borderline ethnocentrist, racist, and unrealistic"
If I agree with you, I'm racist? What exactly are you trying to confess to, here?
"By your logic, a masculine woman in America would be a man in Sudan, or a tribal Nigerian woman of a certain tribe would be a man in the U.S. See the problem"
Yes, the problem is that you are making things up. You are lying. This isn't how Sudanese or Nigerian concepts of gender work. Stop trying to misrepresent cultures.
"What gender roles were you referring to then"
All of them. This proves that I'm not excluding masculine women. That was just something you made up, you decided to lie.
"Can you elaborate instead of just being dismissive? You can be dismissive all you want but it wont disprove my point"
How about you elaborate? You think you can just write any stupid nonsense and I have to waste time slowly explaining why you're wrong? I don't feel like it.
You can carry on being wrong if you want, I don't care. But you've presented no argument supporting your claim, so there's nothing for me to disprove.
But you're clearly out of your depth, so here's something for you to mull over:
I don't need to be able to define say, an engine to understand what the role of an engine is, do I?
I don't need to be able to define a medicine to know what it's supposed to treat, do I?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PaxTubeChannel You use the phrase "by definition" to try and argue that these people are not refugees, but the 1951 Refugee Convention makes it very clear what a refugee is. Sorry but I don't care what you personally consider these people to be when we have an explicit legal definition. Cry about it.
"Why wouldn't they be safe in one of the dozens of other countries between Iraq and the UK"
...you realise Turkey has the highest refugee population, right? They're pretty obviously trying closer nations first.
Oh, did you know that most refugees have been refugees for more than 5 years? So like, doesn't the fact they show up at the UK years after the fact sort of imply that they have, actually, been trying to find places to live elsewhere? Because they clearly haven't been bouncing off the cliffs of Dover for 5 years in a row.
" I HIGHLY doubt they applied in all others"
There is zero obligation to apply for asylum in a particular order. Again, cry about it.
"That'd be a more reasonable system than "let everyone in who says they're a refugee"."
lmao the UK won't even let the people it granted permanent residence to stay in the UK, you seem to think it is far more lenient than it is.
The sheer impotent rage you have is incredible by the way. Imagine whining about people fleeing from the country your own government is bombing. "Arrgh how dare these people try to escape our gunships! They should be honoured our soldiers are using them as target practice!"
Like, dude, the call is coming from inside the house. Your country just needs to stop slaughtering people and they'll stop becoming refugees. That's the solution here. Some irony having "pax" in your name and not knowing this...
1
-
@PaxTubeChannel Uh so, Iraq is actually pretty violent it turns out, and there are all manner of persecutions occuring there. You're not going to seriously tell the average Iraqi there's nothing to worry about, are you?
"That has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim of the US "bombing" them."
Hey so the president pardoned a war criminal who murdered Iraqis just because he hated them. US air forces have been recorded murdering civilians for sport. It does not get any more textbook than this. In fact one day, this will be the go-to example of "when should you flee".
"but you can thank the Israeli lobby for keeping us there"
Okay one thing you need to understand is that Israel did not create a military-industrial-complex for the USA. The USA did that itself. The thing about lobbyists is that they aren't secret, all this was openly done by arms/mercanary companies. You can't blame the jews for everything, especially when the USA has been invading every country it can even before Israels foundation.
"They're obviously not trying closer nations enough if they're getting all the way to the UK so consistently."
Or maybe there are literally millions of refugees and they cannot all stay in one place :)
"but if it's true it's most likely due to the fact they never want to return home after they get used to the far higher quality of life in European countries"
Moot point since Iraq is still a warzone.
"what starts as a refugee can easily become an economic migrant"
Nope, the 1951 charter is very clear on this.
"Given that the US's actions in the Middle East are due to international terrorist groups"
You mean Al Queda? That terrorist group that the USA funded and armed?
"and Israel"
"Oh man you guys, we'd really like to stop slaughtering millions of Arabs but just..Israel keep paying us to do it, man!"
Sure, yeah ok whatever man
"But by the way, even if all wars stopped in the Middle East, they'd STILL be creating bogus asylum claims to try to hide the fact that they're economic migrants."
You're at the point where you're now invented pretend scenarios in your head so you can get mad at imaginary refugees from imaginary versions of Iraq where there is no war. Genuinely, seek help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vitre69 "Maybe they won't be filthy rich given where said community is located, but let me tell you what they would have: food. As it stands they don't have even that with proper sanitation."
I'd like to point out that capitalism is why they currently don't have food. Brazil is a major food producer and there is zero excuse for anybody in the nation going hungry, ever. Incidentally, capitalism necessitates that a number of people stay unemployed.
"By far our problems here aren't the companies. Like, not even close to being.
Circle that square for me."
If you think your problem is with the government, remember that you have a capitalist government.
"The number is correct, it's 800 million for the year of 2022, and that's following an annual steady decrease in world hunger since the industrial revolution."
This is like hand-writing a mathematical solution and smugly telling me that it's better than using a calculator. So you're telling me that we've slowly been improving since pre-industrial society? Cool! Still doesn't change the fact that hundreds of millions of people died when we had an actual solution we could have used.
As for 'extreme poverty', by carefully defining what is and isn't extreme you can play with numbers and get any result that you want. So more people earn $2 a day? And I'm supposed to accept that as a success, am I? Two dollars?
What's worse is that poverty and malnutrition are increasing in some of the richest nations on earth, how does the USA and UK explain a sharp increase in homeless and hungry people?
" but I never said those were the only times people were miserable there."
You don't want to play this game, I don't think I could fit the number of famines under capitalism in a single comment. Look at how many people died in India alone for example. Now add Bangladesh, Ireland, Yemen, Ethiopia, Kenya, etc etc
"Given that thanks to capitalism, world hunger is on a steady decline with some hick ups here and there, I much prefer this system over guaranteed social failure."
One small final point: The famines of the USSR and China were a result of there genuinely not being enough food. You can blame this on whatever you want. The famines of capitalism? Somehow occur even when there is surplus food.
Capitalism is the only system where people starve as unimaginable quantities of food sail past them.
1
-
@vitre69 " it would be plainly obvious that we have major problems with distribution because we do it exclusively by roads, and said roads break down a lot due to the hot climate. Not to mention its 10x worse to do that in the middle of a rain forest. So no, you are just making blank accusations to try to substantiate your claims without proper knowledge of the circunstances"
Sorry but roads are what we call a 'solved problem' and you only believe they are some kind of insurmountable challenge because capitalists told you so. If we can get food into cut off cities after natural disasters, we can absolutely drive food past some potholes or landslides.
"And if capitalism necessitates that people stay poor, then we are doing a shit job at keeping them poor, as seen in this report"
You keep beinging up pre-industrial society as if I should care. Sorry but that was CENTURIES AGO. You might as well be telling me "Buuh, still better than the stone age!" You're aware I could make the same argument for socialism, right?
"Are you grasping straws here? Because you must be to completely disregard the clear trend of improving quality of life worldwide."
It's not improving in my country, or any of the countries near my country. Or any of the countries near those countries. Some nations, at the absolute rock-bottom, are seeing small improvements. But others are about to be near-uninhabitable.
"That I won't assume to know because its not a country I live in"
That's interesting, because you seem to have really strong opinions about China and the USSR. That's odd. I wonder why you refuse to talk about the USA and UK but not socialist countries?
"We are now ignoring the humanitarian calamities of genocide and antissemitism now. Ethical."
Oh, you mean the two calamities that are getting worse under capitalism?
You want to talk about genocide? Okay, let's talk about how capitalist nations are more than happy to sell weapons to enable the genocide of the Yemeni people. Or Palestine. Let's talk about what happened in Myanmar. And that's just recently! We can go back decades if you want!
Australia, the USA, Canada, Kenya, India..
Like I said before, you don't want to play this game. The death toll can't even be compared.
As for antisemitism, which side is shooting up the synagogues again? Because it isn't left-wingers.
"I mean, that's what I take from what you said. We don't have shortages under capitalism. And that's correct."
This is utterly inhuman. Not only are you unashamed that piles of food are left to rot while people die off in the millions, you actively celebrate it. You only care if the food is produced, not that people are fed.
And when called out on it, you dance around bleating "oh but it was worse 200 years ago! Suck it up, Somalians! You made $2.10 today! Lalala!"
Beyond redemption, honestly I don't even know what to say to you.
1
-
@vitre69 "It's a logistical problem so big in our country we actually have one of the highest costs for distribution of goods due to lack of efficiency"
Assuming there's just no way to deal with this from a civil engineering perspective, I know for a fact that there are entire classes of vehicle designed for exactly this. The technology exists, the science is done. What capitalism lacks is a profit incentive to actually do it.
"My brother in christ, that was a graph showing everything POST industrial rev up to modern day"
Missing the point, you're still coming at me with 19th century data.
"I come to you again asking for sources.
I bring you a whole lot of data from trusted sources and you wish me to take you seriously when you spit stuff because "trust me bro"?"
You want a source on...climate change? Nah. We're not doing that.
"Plus, weren't we talking about poor people? Since when do communists care for first world countries getting less rich"
Poor countries are poor BECAUSE of rich countries, and not even to the benefit of the citizens of rich countries. I know you want me to stick to my own nation only but that's not happening, this is a global thing.
"Do tell me, were any of those done by a market or a government?"
Hmm good question, let me check the stock values of weapon manufacturers over the past 20 years and OH WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW
"Capitalism is an economic system, its just a system to regulate the production of value and distribution of goods. Communism, on the other hand, is a political system"
I know this isn't your first language, but I also know this shit wouldn't fly in Portuguese either. You don't know what you're talking about.
"No country is just capitalist, but every communist country is just communist "
Double standard, I don't even need to respond to this.
"It was the religious fundamentalists of a theocratic country"
Idk if the USA is theocratic just yet
" There are more ideologies than just left or right."
The thing about a bimodal model is that by definition this can't be true.
"I am unashamed that said food pile is even possible to be produced and is feeding more and more people yearly."
This is pure cope on your part. You can't face up to the fact that we have the ability to feed people now, and we're not doing it. So long as the number of hungry people decreases, you call this a victory (apparently it doesn't matter if it decreases because they all died I guess)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Smilomaniac "Violence is action with the intent to damage someone"
It really sounds like you're making SG's case for them, they could use this reasoning to justify what they do. I'm sure some of their targets are "violent" in this sense.
"No, the point is for you to try to understand how serious this is. I wonder how shocked you'd be if a person you'd taken his job away from, would confront you in person.
I'm sure he'd happily nod along to all your inane arguing and just confess to his sins and repent that his kids can't eat because you thought his work was 'toxic'. Right?"
Wow that actually has me stumped, luckily you've already written a great explanation for me to use! If I felt that his work was 'violent', and was going to hurt somebody, this would still be better than letting people get hurt!
Remember: This is based on what you just said. You're not even contradicting me anymore.
"Your comparison is so stupid it doesn't deserve a response."
I was one more post away from remarking that you would never concede, I guess I was due to get something wrong eventually :D
"You're lucky though, because I don't believe anyone deserves any of this treatment and would never stoop to it. At best it's vigilantism and it's still illegal, for good reason.
If someone genuinely did touch their kids, CPS should be called."
Here's the thing: It's actually not illegal to draw attention to suspicious acts or persons. It's not even discouraged. The relevant authorities make the final descision and so stand between the accused and 'mob justice'. Sort of like how brands decide if their products are the right fit for a specific media outlet or not!
"You can look up the heckler's veto on your own, I've explained the gist of what's reasonable. Figure out the 'why' on your own."
Wow, for somebody with so many words it sure is interesting you'd run out right now, just when I was starting to understand!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seananglim5962 Look at what kinds of people supported Trump, Bolsonaro, Hitler, Mussolini, look at how Friedman influenced Pinochet. Weird how so many wealthy types think they stand to benefit from having leaders who put financial interests as top priority and who respond to dissent with maximum force, right?
And initially, they were right. The wealthy in society did get much richer off the back of rising fascism. Hungary kicked out migrant workers and imposed a form of legal slavery recently, you don't think the bosses are considering how much money they're saving when they offered their support to Orban?
Even if you were right to reduce it to pure economic downfall, that still puts capitalism as the root cause. Sure, every system has an economy, but only capitalism necessarily experiences regular economic recession. You cannot have both a stable economy and an economy based on limitless growth and growing debt. That's why the past 150 years have been one economic crash after another, only getting worse and worse as wealth consolidates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andreialexandrunichiforel "that is the same argument as saying the founding fathers of the US weren't important, or that their declaration of human rights was irrelevant because slavery wasn't abolished until much later on. What matters is that they set forth the idea which would motivate the eventual abolishment of slavery. "
Well, I'd be correct to say that. Slavery wasn't abolished because Americans had a sudden epiphany after reading a decades-old document. There were economic pressures that made slavery outdated. This is why there was a North-South divide on the issue - plantations in the South had more need of slavery. If it was just the concept of human rights that motivated abolition...why does slavery still exist within the private prison industry? It would be completely gone from all aspects of society had it been ideological motivations at work.
"All human organizations are at risk of being tyrannical, but Europe has a common history in holding values that strive to overcome this"
This is just too vague to really mean anything. It's like if I asked where you were born and you replied "in a hospital". Like...technically correct?
I'm not sure Europe ever stopped supporting tyranny, it only ever stopped supporting specific tyrants. If you want to tell me that certain European factions fought for liberty, cool. But to take their actions and say "The West" did that...well, actually most of the west fought to stop them. Even if you only take the past 100 years, or past 50 years, it's not looking great.
So if most Western nations fight against a value, and continue to do so..can we say it's a western value? Would you speak that way about an individual person?
"Also, bad analogy (the one with cats and horses) there is a clear line of succession in European thought all the way from ancient Greece to today"
I agree, but life on this planet all shares a single common ancestor so imo the analogy works (although I admit I could have done better)
"Judaism and Christianity are absolutely related to one another. Nobody claims they developed the exact same way, but many of the teachings of Christianity are derived from Judaism. The Old Testament is a hefty chunk of the Bible as you hopefully know"
All correct and agreed, however:
Judaism didn't stop with the Old Testament, there have been 2000 years more development since then. Judaism in any living form is unrecognisable from the religion made up by some shepards in the desert millenia ago. The differences between it and modern Christianity are stark, and you'll notice that people who practice Judaism don't use the term 'Judeo-Christian'.
"if you consider the British intervention in China as being capitalism then maybe bother to read some literature on what capitalism really is, i.e. voluntary exchange of goods and services"
Think about it: All markets have been based on that definition. But we wouldn't describe early civilisations bartering as 'capitalism'.
Capitalism is more specific: It is when the owners of capital own the means of production, and those who work the means of production own nothing and sell their labour instead.
Yes, it's a Marxist definition but since he popularised the term, I think this is fair.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taylankammer "What are the differences between the life experiences of a girl and a "trans boy" born and growing up in, say, Saudi Arabia, or Iran? In terms of female oppression, there is no difference, they will go through the same."
Interesting you would bring up oppressive patriarchies of the Middle East, considering that's the region where girls have been traditionally raised as boys in certain circumstances. But sure, it's all 'the same' or something.
"And even if you 100% transition, your past experiences from childhood (girlhood) will stick with you for a lifetime, having shaped part of your personality"
This isn't relevant to my point, which was that trans men do get to simply opt out of being treated like women.
" The whole point of patriarchy is it doesn't care about the human value of female-born people and that of course includes not caring about their gender identity."
And does patriarchy have some kind of method to decide who is who? If not, sounds like it relies on gender identity to determine who to oppress the most.
1
-
1
-
@taylankammer "For 99% of people you can immediately clock their sex based on secondary sex traits like shoulder to hip ratio, skin texture, facial structure, pitch of voice, and so on. That's why passing as the opposite sex is so difficult, sometimes even after tons of medical intervention."
Aha, there it is. The logic that causes you to misidentify any deviance from the 'ideal' as evidence of being trans. Ironically, it is cis women who are put at risk by this mad dogma.
"I've already explained extensively how transmen suffer the same treatment as all other female-born people. You seem to have straight up ignored it."
I'm going to dismiss what is patently ridiculous, yeah.
"I don't know what you are on about with Algeria. "
I'll admit, I made a mistake here. I was referring to Albania, where there was a longstanding tradition of trans men being given access to the same rights and responsibilities as men. Without hiding it, without 'pretending', simply informing everybody of his choice and everybody respecting it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@khuzaimakhan1894 With respect, this is incorrect. I put it in simple terms, but the fact you cannot find a single example to the contrary speaks for itself.
But you seem willing and able to deal with complex nuances, so why don't we examine those?
Liberals are fundamentally right-wing. They agree with the conservatives on almost everything. What kind of economy we should have, the role of the nation-state..I could write a book, but thankfully several have already been written on this very topic.
The only things you'll find a liberal disagreeing with a conservative on are minor points like tax rates or niche regulations, or perhaps at most "which humans get to have rights and which don't". (Although liberals will quickly adopt the conservative position on any of these if they think it'll win them an election)
Am I wrong? Then why do the liberals side with the fascists every time a Socialist movement is building? If they were centre-left, wouldn't it make more sense for them to side with other leftists?
You talk about extremes, but in western democracy only one extreme is presented as an option. We can vote for fascism if we choose, and our ruling classes and media will cheer us on, but the opposite end has been completely suppressed and is not represented outside of small niche parties with no support. Why do you think that is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Smookn "It seems that you are currently arguing for supressing the freedom of speech of your political opponents"
You can say that about anybody, even those who prioritise freedom of speech will forget about it when under pressure.
"I am also wondering what rights you are currently referring to. I hope you understand that many countries already have rights regarding bodily integrity (meaning you can have a sex change) and the right to legally change your gender"
Huge difference between something being legal and something being accessible. An example of this would be voting stations. In some places, voting stations are easy to get to. In others, its an hours-long journey. This means that people without means of transport or who have obligations they cannot leave unattented aren't going to vote. The same thing happens to trans people accessing healthcare.
Regardless, we've passed the point where hospitals who provide services to trans people are dealing with terrorists. Charities who offer support to trans people are being forcibly shut down. It is clear these rights are under threat, where they exist at all.
" Calling for the supression of this right, in combination with the creation of a firm opposition between us and them, seems to be something counter to this"
So does allowing particular demographics to be suppressed. The question isn't 'do you support freedom of speech' so much as it is 'whose freedom comes at the expense of yours?'
"To be honest, I would even argue that your statement could be interpreted as authoritarian or even fascist"
A question: What do we do with fascists? They have no motivation greater than murder, they cannot be placated, and you will lose all your freedoms if they ever win.
But taking away their freedoms runs counter to your notions of democracy. Is it moral to suppress them to protect everybody else? Or should we allow them to organise, knowing that it might kill democracy completely?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Smookn "As you can see I have referred to trans people or trans rights in practically every message. And reading back your messages it now becomes clear that you have just throwing random shit at me all the time"
Why didn't you read them until now you dope
I even clarified this before, so for you to only just now realise is honestly hilarious. Not my problem you chose not to read anything!
"Worst of all you now claim that deaths attributed to austerity are mass murder"
Am I wrong? Because there sure are a lot of dead people for something that isn't mass murder.
"My man, I thought we were having a academically informed debate here, not a Fox News or CNN level media pundits mudslinging contest"
Do you have a problem with the methodology of the study? Is there something wrong with the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health? I just gave you the Guardian for convenience, but they're just reporting somebody else's findings. So this actually isn't 'pundit mudslinging'. You'd know that if you read the article and not just the headline.
" First of all, I hope you understand that simple austerity measures are not mass murder (maybe if we are talking about the Holodomor yeah but otherwise no"
What's the difference? Death toll?
" How did these people die exactly? Can we infer a direct causal relationship between policy and deaths? Have you read the academic article on which the headline was based or did you just stuck to the headline itself"
This is especially rich coming from somebody who didn't even skim it ahahaha
"you have know idea how privileged and eurocentric you sound. I live in Colombia, a country just coming out of a conflicting in which right and leftwing militias massacred each other for decades"
Yes, this conflict is famous around the world. How did it start again? I seem to recall one side decided to start killing the other..which side was that again?
" Those groups committed mass murders"
Nobody has a monopoly on crime, I never said mass murder didn't happen in columbia, did I?
"provide some real damn academic sources as EVIDENCE! Shouldn't be difficult I think."
That's what I did, and you got even more furious. You were so adamant that I must be making it up, you can't handle the fact you were wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@28daysleitor "Well, true, there are some trans men who really do look masculine"
Let's be real here: You aren't able to consistently distinguish trans men from cis men. That's just a fact. You think that you can, and you're wrong.
"I've already mentioned the idea of separate spaces in this thread. That seems like a sensible option, given what a tiny minority were talking about"
So for every gendered space, there should be a second, trans version of the same space? So you just want to double the logistical cost of maintaining these spaces, for a tiny fraction of the population? That's sensible to you?
Rampant idiocy aside, how does this make anybody safer? Segregating people in this manner still means that somebody will have to be doing the segregating, and that means cis women are still going to have to subject themselves to some kind of 'proof of femininity' process. (Which will necessarily mean some cis women won't 'pass' and be excluded from the space they're supposed to be safe in).
And you suggest I need to spend more than five minutes thinking about this? How about you manage five seconds and get back to me, yeah? Because that's how long it took me to refute your mind-vomit.
1
-
@28daysleitor "another topic change"
This is a lie, I just responded to what you wrote.
"OK, well we had some neighbours who lived upstairs till last year, one of whom started to transition a few years after we moved in"
It's extremely funny that out of all the responses you could have chosen, you went with "What about a single individual who I knew prior to transition?"
Yes, when you watch somebody transition...you will know they are trans. Nice work Columbo, but stick with the day job.
"If you were talking about prisons, shelters, Olympic swimming teams or whatever, appearance doesn't matter"
Utter madness, you're completely delusional. You think a big muscled man with a beard and deep voice isn't going to cause a bit of concern when he shows up at the women's shelter? You think ovaries or an XX chromosome pairing will make everybody else there feel at ease?
"And that's where you need to start engaging your brain cells and designing good policies"
Yeah, you do, lol. Let me know when you come up with one.
Incidentally, it's extremely clear that this is the first time you've been asked about any of the above. Even terfs have a stock answer for this line. (Which to be clear is still a poor answer, but at least they are somewhat prepared)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wormwoodcocktail "Your side is quite literally murdering lesbians"
Hey dipshit, which side is the one shooting up gay clubs again? Oh, oh it's yours? I think you've exhausted this line of enquiry, and we both know there's not going to be an attempt from you to come back from this so I'll take the point, thanks.
"the abuse women like Lily Cade suffered"
It would be so, so easy for you not to cite women who demanded the lynching of trans people. You'd look so much more credible. And yet..you can't manage it! I wonder why!
Not really! I know why!
" I said it would be absurd to call a butch motorcycle mechanic"
Completely losing the plot, you don't even remember what you wrote.
"“if a woman does something it becomes feminine necessarily.” It’s the third comment in this thread."
It's actually the fourth lol
And what do you think you're even trying to dispute here? That there's nothing feminine about a subset of women?
"All human beings produce one gamete or the other. There are no exceptions"
This is, quite simply, a lie. You don't believe it.
" You’re making a pretty radical scientific claim with no citation"
Some people don't produce gametes, stay mad about it I guess lol
"Oh, and the smugness, unnecessary adversarial tone, and condescension isn’t alleviating my sense that your movement is made up of homophobes and sexists."
Get back to me when you're not part of a movement backed by the heritage foundation lmao
1
-
@wormwoodcocktail 1) Weird how you're not denying it was your side, you're just repeating a rumour about the main suspect. Actually no, it's not weird is it? You revel in this.
2) You haven't demonstrated why this is relevant, that's why lol
2 again for some reason) Demanding an entire group of people be killed because a couple of them are bad is completely unhinged, that you aren't able to comprehend this is evidence of how much of your humanity you've been forced to sacrifice.
3) You already acknowledged the terror attack lol, so why should I cite it again?
4) This isn't true, and you don't believe it. You know sterility is a condition.
5) "So no, my side (second wave feminists, radical feminists) are not supported by the Heritage Foundation"
History will remember you people as anti-feminists, probably because your hate groups have links to the Heritage Foundation. Deny it all day if you want, I don't give a fuck lol
6) "it wouldn’t change the fact that your political beliefs result in the battery of women"
Which side is going around doing the shootings again? See, you're back to this.
"and the medical mutilation of children"
Just wait until you see all the medical treatments kids won't be able to have access to if hormone blockers are banned, not that you care
"The fact you’re being a pedant over whether it was the third or fourth post shows that you’re not arguing in good faith"
Oooh, you didn't like that one huh?
" now you continue to call me stupid while backtracking on what you said"
I keep repeating that I'm right, I was right and that I stand by what I said. You call this 'backtracking'. You're not exactly passing the bar exam ahahahaha
"It’s extremely unbecoming and when combined with flippant disinterest in male violence against women (Dana Rivers, Karen White) it makes me think you’re not just sexist and homophobic, but upset."
The projection is tangible here. You keep making extremely basic errors in simple facts and reading comprehension, and they're getting worse. Oh yeah, one of us is definitely upset here lmaoo
1
-
@wormwoodcocktail 1) This isn't actually true, and it's the fault of conservatives because of your extremist conspiracy theories that led to these attacks
2) This is an implicit concession on your part, by the way. You've dropped it entirely. Another point for me I guess? I've already lost count.
2b) Your reading comprehension fails you yet again, you're unable to maintain a coherent conversation. I referred to somebody who demanded the lynching of trans people (who you chose to bring up) and your defence is "uhhh, you're a liar because I never said that myself". Again, a concession.
3) "You’re lying again. The nightclub shooter was not a radical feminist"
Nor are you, you stand against the rights of women. You're on the same side as conservatives. You're a conservative.
4) "Seriously, do you not even know what gametes are?"
At this point you could save yourself a lot of embarassment and look it up. Actually no, you couldn't. There is no way you're coming back from this one ahahahahahah
5) You're not a radical feminist
6) "Your side is doing the shootings"
This line actually says a lot about your broken mind. To you, any trans woman is on 'my side' regardless of their political position or activism. You're totally unable to see trans people as anything but a monolithic block. So in your head, I have to answer for any crime a trans person commits, but you get to avoid responsibility for everything.
7. You didn't look into this case, you have no idea what the lawsuit is about and you don't know what else Lupron was used for. So why did you bring it up? You don't know? You don't know. You're just bleating out the tired old memes without understanding the context.
1
-
@wormwoodcocktail 1. I'm going to weigh up one instance of a lawyer making this claim after the attack against literally everybody else, including family, using "he" in reference to the shooter. Seems pretty clear to me how they wanted to be known!
1B) Ahahaha, sorry but you don't get to pull that stunt after you started pulling out random crimes done by anybody who happened to be trans as some kinda 'gotcha'. You're wrong, by the way. We know what kind of political influence had reached the shooter.
3, 5) You're not, you know about as much of politics as you do anything else. That is to say you're completely malinformed.
6) This is a lie, you've resorted to flat out lies in a desperate attempt to deflect what I said. It didn't work, but I accept your concession.
7) You're ignoring the part where I pointed out that you didn't look up what the Lupron case was about, now you're trying to cover that you didn't know until now. Imagine that, trotting out a brand name without even googling it. I'm not sure what's worse, that you aren't able to do the diligence or that you thought I wouldn't notice. Either way, it speaks to your complete inability to engage with anything other than reactive bigotry.
I knew this was going to be a clownshow, but my god, how are you so bad at this? You did a good job of initially pretending to be literate, but I've never seen somebody fall apart so fast.
1
-
@wormwoodcocktail 1) "You keep misgendering the shooter, which is fine by me, but doesn’t your side argue that we should always use someone’s preferred pronouns?"
What pronouns did I use? You've already forgotten. You're absolutely not beating the 'stupid' allegations ahahahaha
1b) Yawn, we already know his internet history, this is tiresome
3, 5) I've already corrected you on this. You want trans men to be directed to use women's bathrooms and spaces. You want men who look, talk, and act like me to share spaces with women without asking them how they feel about it. They won't feel safer, but you don't care.
7) No, you haven't looked it up, that's not what the 800m case was about. You're covering, and doing a really shitty job of it.
It's also especially amusing that you keep trying to sign off by writing 'take care', yet you can't stop yourself from returning to get what few remaining points you thought you had ground into the dirt. You had a whole LIST a moment ago? What happened? Oh, your precious ego took a knock?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jansabela5291 "In capitalism you always have options. Idiot. You can always better your life through education and hard work"
So what, education and hard work are what Burkina Faso is missing? Add those and it would be a paradise? Come on.
" If you can't, theres a social safety net"
Oh you mean the one capitalism is dismantling? I'm in the EU, don't tell me that isn't happening.
" If that's not enough hopefully you have wide enough social circle to help as well (friends, family)."
All I can do is laugh at this one
"My country was fine before Communism"
Yeah I bet it had no problems, Europe was famously peaceful and prosperous for everybody before the USSR
"In capitalism you have options and you are free"
They literally just banned my right to protest where I live, in the USA they're about to take away bodily autonomy. In capitalist countries everywhere people are only getting poorer, only losing rights they used to have, and all the while thousands of them are being killed.
"Communism is fucked up: if everyone is equal , you have to suppress people who could do better."
You're describing capitalism.
"In capitalism we try to help people who lag too much behind"
Actually no, those people simply die.
"Than again most people just cant do bare minimum like plan for more than 2 weeks"
Wonder why?
Think that maybe the fact most of us don't even have two weeks of pay saved up? Because capitalism robbed us so badly?
The cost of living skyrocketed, and you're blaming our 'planning' for making us poor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hqcf " According to the various articles I read, Forstater lost her job over the transgender tweets."
After double-checking, I notice that the appeals court upheld this last summer, whereas I was informed by an earlier judgement that stated otherwise.
I suppose I'm correcting myself, then. Although I would still like to point out that this wasn't a dismissal, exactly.
"such as teachers affirming and socially transitioning children, often without the parents' knowledge,. This, to me, isn't hateful"
In many countries this is actually a hate crime, that's how bad it is. Effectively, Braverman wants teachers to be forced to use the wrong name and gendered language to refer to pupils. The only effect this has causing pupils distress, there are no advantages.
"and she made it clear it wasn't for the purpose of hate or discriminating against trans people"
She is, of course, a liar.
" protecting children from teachers who are breaching their impartiality and/or indoctrinating children into a contested view of gender. "
It's pretty interesting that Braverman was forced to invent a phenomenon which hasn't happened yet, don't you think? There are no cases of this occuring.
Given all of the things that are actually hurting children right now, it seems odd that somebody (who alleges they are not hateful, remember) is forced to simply lie about non-existent harm that isn't being done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1