Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Sargon of Akkad's "Takedown" of David is Absurd" video.

+bevilhive He has read most of socialist and communist literature years ago. In fact he keeps giving citations of them and their authors every now and then. However you don't know what socialism is.
2
Prove that he has censored you. And what makes you think he got you suspended. This sounds like crazy talk.
2
+Gouki4563 That's funny because Hillary is more right wing than Trump. " trump said lets kill the family members of terrorist and lets torture, " Left wing has never been about peace, historically speaking. Did you already forget what the original left wing did in france to the nobels and their families? Nice way to cut the heads of those who never did anything bad to you. "no left leaning person is in favor of those things which are war crimes." Historically false. Literally most left leaning people advocate for violence.
1
David... He criticizes left because, left has abandoned it's principles and has become something which it should've never been. What used to be left? It wasn't about giving special privileges, it was about having equal rights. It was about having freedom of speech. Now? Left is nothing more than people who wish that Orwell's dystopia would be reality. For them it's utopia. That includes you David. One should criticize the group he is part of, in order to make sure that it never falls and becomes corrupted. Let's put it this way... You hate Stalin, but if you would've been left winger of that time. You would have called everyone who criticizes stalin as right wing facists. That is the true you. Now this whole video from David is nothing more than ad hominem. Trying to dismiss his opinions and videos by stating "oh this is just new format to make lot of money" or "he never analyzes policies (which he actually has done multiple times)". Tax code, climate change... None of that has to do anything with you trying to pretend that Stalin is was right winger. He didn't attempt to refute. He did refute. He is popular only because he actually shows intellectual honesty. Unlike you. Now let's address your retarded argument. 5,29: It's not about disagreement on some stances. Left and right spectrum doesn't actually tell what you stand for. Left winger can like some right wing ideas as some right wingers can like some left wing ideas. However, you made STANCE that EVERYTHING IN LEFT IS GOOD, AND EVERYTHING IN RIGHT IS BAD. This is extremist way of thinking. You're not even considering the possibility that you might be wrong, and the moment someone points out flaws in your tribal group (aka left wing), that is the moment when you say "oh no... That wasn't the true left wing... That was right wing". Got it? This isn't simply having stance in issue X. This is you ignoring the flaws of your tribe and blaming it on something else. This is what sargon was talking about. And now you start circling around and not actually addressing his point. You're doing sophism. You said that Stalin is right wing... Okay to be more accurate. YOU mentioned that these right wingers, while posting picture of stalin and few other monster in your video. That is dishonest to do unless you viewed stalin as right winger. Scholars don't think he is right wing. Only some sects of communists. For communists you are right winger btw. Stalin was archetype of leftists. Violent revolution, forcing people to live exactly like he forces them to do, believed in big government, He did advocate egalitarianism and workers right, environmentalism? That is a new thing. It never was part of left expect in modern era when people actually understood consequences of industrialization, anti-foreign interventionism? Since when that was left policy? That became their policy only when bush was as a president. Left loved when soviets were invading countries. Left loved when obama was bombing middle-east. Left even wanted to have war with russia because of syria, anti-nationalism... Well he was anti-nationalist.. etc... In fact... Killing opposition is the most archtype action of the left. The very first people who were labeled as left, caused violent revolution and purged everyone who wasn't violent thug like them. Already forgot france revolution and what happened after it? Implemented socialism in inherently right wing? You don't even know what left and right wing are. You simply used buzzwords which your brain cannot comprehend. Most leftist on the planet did worship him at the time. A lot still do. He didn't do anything that was inherently right wing. Was very different from marxism? NO, IT WAS EXACTLY MARXISM. HAve you even read communists manifesto? They followed it by the book. MARX BELIEVED THAT STATE NEEDED TO BE BIG IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE COMMUNISM. HE believed that only way to for communism to appear is by violence and force. You are literally too stupid to understand how the disolvement of the government would happen according to marx and angels. They believed that it will naturally wither down, when the all people think and act exactly the same. Because for them STATE was force of coercion, and there is no need to coerce someone to do something if everyone agrees. This means... That it was states job to murder, brainwash, exile, persecuted everyone who didn't think exactly the same. Until everyone thinks exactly the same. Stalin followed marx by the book. So you're saying... now that Stalin wasn't left wing, because he failed to bring communism to about. But here is what you fail to comprehend... Communism is unachievable. MARX WAS WRONG, marx was an idiot who didn't understand psychology, history nor economics. His whole book was just trying to justify him being lazy (which he was). It's idiotic to think that government will disolve when giving more power to it. He assume that those who come from proletarian classes will stay proletarian after they gain power. HE failed to comprehend... That what we call as a class is purely social construct. There is no classes, not even in today's world. We simply categorize people into classes on various basis. Anything that is different is a class in people's eyes. And new classes can be created anytime. Which is exactly what happened in soviets and in every socialist state on the planet that has ever existed. New political class will be created. Politicians don't feel any tribal need to care about the people. They view themselves as superior regardless do they belong to the "same class". So they start to distinct themselves from rest of the people. Nothing that they did was right wing. Also here is where your stupidity comes in. You think that right wing is totalitarianism. But you fail to understand... totalitarianism is different thing in political spectrum. There is left wing and right wing totalitarianism. Also Bolshevist weren't right wingers in any shape or form. It's not an objective fact and you even fail to demonstrate it. You simply call everything totalitarian as right wing. According to political compass test... Stalin is left wing. Left and right isn't about authority. Left advocates COLLECTIVISM AND TRIBALISM. Aka group over individual. While right wing advocates individuals rights. You can see this even in modern left vs right. Right stands for rights of individuals, while left demands that people should be treated as collective groups. So I can stop at 9 by now. Also marx, lenin, engels. They all believed in dictatorship of the proletarians. Go and figure that one out.. You're so fucking stupid... They all believed that proletarians should be totalitarians until all class distinctions would've have been purged from the world. Stalin did exactly that.
1
+Biscotti You are just one of those idiots who don't know what word liberal means. You think that being socialist/communist makes you a liberal. But liberalism is about individual rights. SJW are against individual rights.
1
Was great? David doesn't even understand left and right spectrum. He is literally so fucking idiot that he thinks that right wing is authoritarianism while left wing is not. Left wing is collectivism while right wing is individualism. In the polar side of right wing you can find anarchists and libertarians who actually don't give a shit about authority. Well according to you idiots, I must be LEFT WING for wanting to have limited and small government. Can't you see the idiotic contradiction in your views. Modern left wing advocates bigger government. ESPECIALLY DAVID. In his fucked up view... Literally most of the people who identify themselves as right wing... Are left wing. While left wing is right wing. That is how fucking stupid he is because he doesn't understand political compass.
1
+Zucchinna the useful idiot. Sooo anarcho capitalist are authoritarians or left wing? You make no fucking sense whatsoever. Right wing is for individuals, left wing is for collectivist sheeps. That is why you people are obsessed over identity politics.
1
He literally talks about policy and economics allmost all the time.
1
+Man the dude 1. It was not goal post shifting. I were addressing specific video you referred.. You made red herring argument. Since my argument was that he talks about policies and politics all the time. In which you repose that there was video where he didn't talk about labours policies but their politicians. "I haven't seen a single example of POLICY discussion" That is why because you don't follow him. " He's a rhetorical hack." literally you. 2. Maggot? Seems like someone got triggered. You do realize that the system you advocate for, would actually kill you? Making it more ironic... That very same system would actually give power for people like me to do it.
1
+Man The dude "All you had to do was prove me wrong by showing a single instance of policy discussion." Let me ask you a question... Why do you think that has he made videos about policies or not. Is somehow relevant to how david humiliated himself of his lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism is? You do realize that David commited ad hominem fallacy? Of course not... Commies aren't able to think.
1
+htwon11465 Nope, not different at all. Stalin did follow communits manifesto by the book. Maybe you should actually read the manifesto and be shocked to realize how fucking stupid you have been.
1
+Nathan Drake So manifesto... Made by Marx... Isn't marxism? Oh shit... This sounds like leninism... where socialist were claiming that leninism was peaceful revolution. Even though lenin did say that such thing is impossible. " It is a political program for the time in which it was written, nearly a hundred years before Stalin came to power." Political program which Stalin did follow by the book. Go back to your commune commie.
1
+htwon11465 This is where you useful idiots fail to understand anything over communism or socialism. MARX advocated big and centralized state. Why do you think this is? Do you even undestand what they mean with "withering away" and how they argued for it? They all believed that STATE WILL NATURALLY wither away, once everyone thinks the same. They argued that state is simply defined by power of coercion. Once everyone thinks the same, then there is no need for state. This is literally what they had stated. So... How to make everyone think like the same? By killing, persecuting, exiling, brainwashing and slavering those who don't think like them. This is exactly why every socialist regime ended up committing mass murders in scales never seen in human history. They weren't naive enough to think that anarchism would exists in world where people disagree among themselves. They wanted to create people who think and act exactly the same. Mindless drones. Stalin believed in marx and realized things that you didn't. Which was... The only way to reach communism is simply giving state power to do these things. You are what soviets would've called as useful idiot. You advocate system that would kill you.
1
+Nathan Drake "The Communist Manifesto was a party platform written in 1848 for the Communist League, before there even was an International." What ever... You're still not refuting my point. Which is that marx and every other commie and socialist on planet wanted to implement things mentioned in that manifesto. ". It's cute when normies think that the manifesto is the definitive statement on communism," Sure... IT's you who got it all right. YOU the magnificence, who is only bright and genius enough to figure it all out. Maybe one day you figure out that you're no better than Stalin, pol pot or mao. In fact, you're more likely worse than them. You see, one would assume that people who coined communism and started the revolution... Would be the ones who define what it's.
1
+htown11465 Stalin followed communists manifesto to the by the book. If marxism is suppose to be simply method to analysis something. Then they don't disclose each others. Meaning... One can be marxists and stalinist in that case. Whatever... I know that you commies cannot conduct honest debate. Hence rely on semantics.
1
+Nathan Drake Marxism The political, economic and sociali principles and policies advocated by marx; especially : a theory and practice of socailism including the labor value theory, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of classless society. As far as I'm concerned. By dictionary definition... Stalin was marxists. " If you actually read the Manifesto instead of the cliff notes version you would know that Marx spends a whole section criticizing rival socialist movements like the Proudhonists." I actually had read manifesto couple weeks ago. From marxists site I might add. Aka one of the first syou find with google search. " I hate to repeat myself but I am in an extraordinarily patient mood today" That is rare for a socialist. Usually you all simply spit drool over your mouth like a dog who has rabies. "e Manifesto was written in 1848 when welfare and basic social protections didn't even exist" Doesn't matter. " which is why a progressive income and banning child labor are on the list of specific demands." None of this is relevant to what I had stated. "Neither of those are communism, obviously." Aha... So marx philosophical attitude... Isn't marxism simply because in past there was no welfare. Are you capable of comprehending how idiotic you sound now? " So what is the relevance of the Communist Manifesto to Stalin's USSR," Banning family unit. Aka taking children away from family. Which Marx was advocating. Then following things that Marx did advocate in his manifesto. 1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the sate. 7.Extension of fatories and instruments of production owned by the sate; The bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in it's present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Btw... These were direct quotation from manifesto. And Stalins soviet did follow these pretty precisely. In fact they took it even further with brain washing and mass murdering in order to ensure that there would be only one class of sheeps in future. ""Lol are so lacking in imagination that you have to steal quotes from youtube psuedo-intellectuals to make a point?" First of all... I didn't steal quote from anyone. Pseudo-intellectuals? Ah let me guess... Anyone who you disagree is pseudo-intellectual? Do you even understand what it means? "Btw Jordan Peterson is an idiot who doesn't understand Canadian law. Or socialism. Or postmodernism. " Guy has studied socialism and postmodernism almost his whole life. Doesn't understand Canadian law? Are you sure that it's not you who is not understanding it? Ah let me guess... This relates to the transgender thing? Where you are literally too stupid to comprehend the implications of government deciding what speech is right and wrong. "Yes. They would tell you that the Communist manifesto is a political platform for an infant communist party in the mid-nineteenth century and not a description of Marxism or communism." False. They would state that communists manifesto is marxism and communism. It would be idiotic to say that him posting his political and economical stance over issues and trying to spread it all over the globe. Isn't part of his own ideology.
1
+Nathan Drake Another commie destroyed :)
1
+Blackearl7891 Lenin wasn't relevant to marx when he wrote it. "however, mutualist, anarcho communist, followed different philosophers in how to implement them. " Never said that there can't be different types of communists. They all are idiots though. "Bordiga advocated that a revolution would naturally occur without any interjection, concluding it was the final goal" That is oxymoron if you understand word revolution. If you imply that it would be gradual and peaceful. "They were also democratic socialist who wanted to implement socialism in democratic process" So were stalin and lenin. And look what happened. Democratic socialism is pretty fast way to achieve dictatorship. Heck Hitler did the same. Or did you forgot how long democratic socialist were in power in germany before hitler? All he did was to use all that power that socialist centralized. "They were many leftist who hated Lenin," While they who hated him were called as facists. Ironic isn't it. "Honestly, are you oblivious to the various theories or, want to spout nonsense hoping they don't understand what you are talking about?" Were talking about marxism and stalinism. And I were talking about how Stalin followed Marxs words by the book. Not talking about are there different sort of communist. Is this best that commies can do?
1
+Nihilo Zero Pretty much all dictionaries agree with webster's. Tell me... Which one is more likely to get it wrong. All the encyclopedias and dictionaries, that people use to define words. Or you.
1
+Blackpearl7891 " none actually, social democrats were in power. " Yes, they were in power. "Democratic socialist having a small amount, and hitler tricking his gullible allies both conservatives, and social democrats which were within his party, and using fear of commies helped him obtained power. " He didn't increase power of state before he actually achieved dictatorship. Which wouldn't be possible to achieve without the centralization that democratic socialist helped to create in the first place. Also fear of commies was rightful. They were terrorizing all over the europe and wanted to spill blood. What hitler offered was alternative which both conservatives and workers would prefer over. "No, actually. The term fascist wasn't easily thrown around in 1920, like some stupid liberals or stupid conservatives do. They were viewed as puppets to capitalist, and western power. " Actually it was as easily thrown around... Read orwell's article about facism. Words is so vague that it can be applied to pretty much anyone who wants any sort of collective power. "Stalin did not follow Marxs word to the book," He did. Everything in communist manifesto was applied by Stalin. " as Marx had advocated for revolution in industrialized society not a semi feudalistic system" False. Marx advocated highly centralized government in order to achieve stateless society in future. I doubt you understand this since you haven't read his books. Marx, Engels and both Lenin believed and wrote clearly. That state will naturally "wither away" after everyone are exactly the same. After individuality has been stripped. After families separated and kids brainwashed by the public programs. And after everyone who disagrees being killed. Since they believed that state is defined by coercion and force. And once everyone agreed with one another, then state would no longer need to exists. Which means there is no need to use force if people naturally do exactly the same. All three of them including stalin. Believed that this can only be achieved through highly centralized and tyrannical government. What they all failed to understand due their stupidity. That they will simply end up creating new feudal class when government is highly centralized. Because they were too stupid to realize that how easily can one or few cunning men take over system like that. They thought that people voting for representatives would naturally prevent this. But that is like giving gun to guy who wants to murder you and expect that he won't kill you with it. Simply put... The amount of power they have, allows them to bypass all so called "safe measures". "Neither did he follow Lenins for that matter, as Lenin distrusted him and named Trotsky as his successor." Only thing they disagreed with each others. Was their stance on global domination. Stalin believed more into nationalizing the country. Aka strengthen the soviet Russia instead of trying to conquest the planet. While Trotsky was advocating world domination. All three believed in highly centralized government and got hard on killing people who disagreed with them.
1
+Nathan Drake Nice wall of text. Are you trying to bore me to death by showing your lack of capability to create segments? "..."Appeal to dictionary is a logical fallacy because dictionary definitions are nothing more than one limited understanding of a word that may or may not reflect a word's current usage and conflict with other understandings. " There is no such fallacy. First of all, dictionaries are used to describe what words means. Your definition of the word is not based on anything but your own personal opinion. Dictionaries are how people as collective define them. IT doesn't matter if you call it limited when the fact states... That even the limited version is total opposite of what you had said. "Learn it well young padawan." star wars fan... No wonder you're braindead. ". If Stalin was a Marxist he wasn't a very good one. " Followed marx manifesto by the book. " He admitted that the Soviet Union still had commodity production in "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" whilst claiming that it had achieved socialism." So according to your idiotic definition. Socialism cannot have problems? "Read it again " I did and I think I already posted here exactly what marx claimed to socialist state to be, which seeks to become communists. "I said that they weren't *communism*, not that they aren't Marxism (which they aren't either)." You do realize that all marxist are communists? " Marxism, again, is the method of socio-economic analysis formulated by Marx. " literally stated by no source on the planet. Not a single dictionary or enclypedia. Only you. "Communism, in Marxist theory, is the stage in society after capitalism in which means of production are commonly owned and the state and class hierarchy are abolished. " And marxism is about how to reach that state. "Neither a progressive income tax or the abolition of child labor are descriptions of communism or Marxism. " no you idiot... They are descriptions of socialist society that is gradually suppose to become communists. Read the manifesto. Nice strawman btw. "Again, it's not a description of communism" I never made such claim. "LOL wtf are you getting this from? " From his manifesto. Where he literally states that he will abolish family. "First of all when talks about "abolishing the family" he's talking specifically about the bourgeoisie nuclear family and socio-economic aspects surrounding it. " Nope. According to him, what we consider as family. Is bourgeoise creation. He stated that proletarians DON'T HAVE FAMILIES and that is because they don't have time to be with their family, teach them or have anything to give them as inheritance. He even stated that parents should have no right to teach their kids, but should be done by collective. IT was all about children being continuity of their parents. This is what he wanted to abolish. Therefore this can be only achieved by separating child from parents. There is a reason why this happened in soviets. The reason is exactly what I stated. "Lenin did all of those things, not Stalin " Stalin did as well. As I said, their only problem among themselves was foreign politics. "hat would be silly, because it wasn't written for the USSR." It doesn't need to be written for USSR in order to be followed by USSR. "It's a paraphrase of one of the most moronic things Jordan Peterson has said" How is it moronic thing to point out that you're not perfect being and most likely you would commit same actions as all the other communists and socialist before you? We have history acting as our evidence. You have what? Your ego. "Last time I checked the dude is a shitty evo-psych professor," You do realize that you can spend your free time studying other stuff? He was always interested in psychology and mind of dictators and what lead people to wanting to have them. He was far better view of human mind than you have. In fact this is common among psych students and professsors. They all are interested in learning the minds of those who are most twisted and fucked up. So studying history of those people is part of it. "not a political scientist or philosopher." And marx wasn't economists. Nor political scientists nor philosopher. He was a lawyer by his education. May I add... Lawyer from time when people had harder time to access to information than now. Not only that, but he never did any work. So from these grounds... According to your own stantards. Marx had no clue what he was talking about. Neither Lenin or stalin or Engels. ". I guarantee you that anyone in the latter two fields will tell you that he has no idea what he is talking about. "" That's funny because I know people from those fields. And they all agree with me. ""Which isn't what Bill C 16 says at all. It merely extends anti-discrimination protections to trans people. It doesn't say that you will go to jail for misgendering someone."" False. You fail to understand symbolism since you're literally incapable of thinking in abstracts. Which is typical of socialist. First of all.. Trans people didn't even want it. It was advocated by small minority of college students with mental issues. Also it does jail you for misgendering someone. What would be point of law if there is no punishment? Fucking idiot. You fail to understand. That now it's literally legal and acceptable to ban ANY SPEECH in canada. Oh wait... I'm talking with an idiot who doesn't understand history or political science. "I guarantee you that they wouldn't because I watch a lot of socialist youtubers online." So socialist youtubers are bigger authority than actual political scientists and philosophers? And dictionaries, historians and enclypedias. Wow... Then you give link to one of the biggest clown in youtube. Guy who literally praises mass murders of soviet union.
1
+Nihilo zero " Communist Manifesto a couple weeks ago doesn't mean you're an expert on the subject." So you need to be expert to understand manifesto which whole purpose was to address people who haven't read his books.... Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound? You do realize that manifestos are basically way to simplify and give clear indication of what you're getting at. Instead of writing book with thousands pages. Manifesto explains everything in 1-2 pages.
1
+Nihilo Zero "I didn't say you needed to be an expert to understand the Communist Manifesto." Expect then your whole point of "you're not expert" is meaningless. "." Just because someone reads something doesn't mean that they are an expert on the text " Correct, but same time. You haven't done anything to disprove my claims of that text. In fact... Lot of communists like Lenin, did interpret the text exactly the same way as I did. He had a book about it where he goes in details over it. "unlikely that they'll be able to present a cogent analysis of Marx or his work." So far you have been done nothing but throwing ad hominem attacks. Instead of refuting any argument of mine. Are you incapable of creating intelligent argument?
1