General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Ryan Chapman
comments

Comments by "" (@josephcoon5809) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

Previous
2
Next
...
All

@rugbyguy59 😂 Corporate Media are socialist. They conditioned the Left the concentrate all government power into a centralized package. Those who constantly whine about the corruption of government are the same rocket surgeons that gift wrap it for them at the Federal level. 😂
3
@rugbyguy59 There is no “objective” part to CRT. It has based its foundation on “lived experience” with a tenable connection to the objective reality by focusing on a single variable: race.
3
@rugbyguy59 By the way, the relative regulatory burden discrepancy is amplified when applied at the national level as opposed to the state. Not only is it far easier to purchase political clout once at the federal level than fifty times at the state level, blanket regulations at the federal level create geographical pockets where they affect local businesses more than in others. Federal legislation strips individual states of their ability to fine tune their own economic environments. “One-size fits all” becomes more and more destructive the larger the population becomes. Even simple computer networking illustrates just how complicated mesh networks become the more nodes you have, and that’s just with a single dimension of physical connectivity.
3
@rugbyguy59 Let’s start with your usage of an oft misused term: progressive. There is nothing progressive about going back to a centralized oligarchy. These word games are what create such confusion in discourse. By claiming labels like “progressive,” intellectually dishonest people create the perception that their ideas actually progress society. Speaking of abusing language, let’s move on to your next usage of vaguely defined platitudes about monopoly and pollution. I have seen enough bills to know many have misleading titles that a score so much pork that does not even pertain to the title that it is no surprise that people champion 1,000+ page laws based solely on the title. I don’t know how many times I’ve been accused of not caring about the environment because I supported a president that rolled back regulations that had pretty names. Remember the polished turd allegory? I was mainly referring to laws that people support but have never read. You can tell that the politicians that vote on them didn’t even read them. Then you go on to explain how cooperation is great as if I haven’t been championing it this whole time. The problem is, it is NOT cooperation if you have to codify it. That is called coercion/slavery/tyranny. Then you make the vague claim of “development of life on Earth is much more complex than just a massive competition…”. How so? Name one example of natural selection that is not the consequence of competition. As for your assumption that “true libertarians” would be more than happy with “my” decentralized approach. It isn’t MY approach. It is literally how the country was designed. It is how the brain is designed. And the “true libertarians” don’t understand what I have explained any more than what you did as evidenced by your parenthetical note highlighting “anarchists.” Lastly, your claim of my supposed cockatoo. If corporation and corporatism illustrates just how poorly you are trying to understand the combination of words that I am using. I said that capitalism (corporations) + nationalized socialism (authoritarianism) = corporatism. I made no such conflation as you suggested. I said corporations that exert political power through government leads to corporatism. They even have the same roots. Corporatism is merely an oligarchy of corporations; an oligarchy made possible by the incessant push to centralized more power at the federal level by voting for complete strangers who are beholden to lobbyists that craft laws they they not you ever read. The same nebulous laws that you keep referring to with your vague language that you have no interest in explaining at any level of detail because you have no interest in reading any of them. Do you wanna add any details to your vague responses or would you like a better explanation of the things you obviously didn’t understand me saying?
3
@garyrolen8764 One among many. 🍻
3
So, the first thing you have to understand is that “liberalism” involves a specific state of freedom. Laws are the antithesis of freedom. Secondly, “conservatism” is a relative modifier. It requires a term to explicitly define what is to be conserved. You mentioned a couple, but a Constitutional Conservative seek to conserve the founding principles. Those founding principles were the progressive ideas in their time while the Tories were the conservatives because they wanted to conserve the supremacy of the Crown. Now, if it was PROGRESS to move away from a tyrannical centralized government, how is it progress to go BACK to one? A Constitutional Conservative seeks to conserve the Progress the Founders made by resisting the regression back to a centralized government. Centralization in a socioeconomic contexts is equivalent to tyranny. Everywhere else, it leads to instability, susceptibility to corruption, and exponentially increasing inefficiency. Centralization is regressive.
3
@HakWilliams Sure…as you whine on a platform, service, and device all brought to you by capitalism. 😂 That’s exactly what a useless person would say: “crapitalism.”
2
@TheCommonS3Nse The fundamental reason why GOVERNMENT regulations do not work on large scales is because you literally have to expend resources in opposition to those who resist those regulations. That overhead manifests in inefficient use of resources, corruption, and enforcement. With a more hierarchical organization of society, people living with those they agree with exhibit FAR LESS overhead. You do not need to “regulate” those who agree on a “regulation” because those people will do those things without coercion. There is far more harmony when groups of people have meaningful relationships and share a high degree of agreement with each other. When you ideologically intermingle people, you force them to fight over government power to force their neighbors for live like how they think their neighbors should live. That enforcement, NECESSARILY, requires law makers, law enforcement agents, a judicial system, and a prison system WHICH ALL REQUIRE RESOURCES to operate.
2
@TheCommonS3Nse “…but it can’t be resolved to one simple mathematical formula.” Who claimed it was simple or a single formula? Is this how you normally conduct a discussion; by insinuating the other person said something, then refuting what wasn’t said? “…but if you ignore the effects of wind through a tunnel…” You mean harmonic resonance which can be modeled with a MATHEMATICAL FORMULA? “You are abstracting out all of the nuances.” I have not. You’re inability to convert a nuance to a mathematical representation is your shortcoming, not mine. “They don’t dismiss them as noise…” Neither so accurate mathematical formulae. “…one size fits all equation.” Again, where did I ever say there was a “one size fits all equation”?
2
0:01 “What is Marxism?” A philosophy built on emotional rhetoric making it irrational at best and tyrannical at worst.
2
@hektor6766 What a stunning rebuttal. You must get far in life with your use of unsubstantiated claims. Would you like to try again and explain what ideas I have a problem with, son?
2
@ThePontificatingAHole THAT is absolutely correct. Collectivism is best on smaller scales while individualism between those collections is best maintained through a decentralized organizational structure. Every complex system follows this structure except one: modern human societies. The brain is 100 billion neurons exhibiting harmony in the most complex community humans have ever witnessed, but, instead of taking the brain as an example to follow, billions are fooled into thinking the exact opposite is better.
2
@someguy5438 “Run for office.” Negative, Ghostrider. Got different plans which lead to making government obsolete. You don’t need a bloody revolution to bring down tyranny. You just need to show The People how to think for themselves WITHOUT the Establishment realizing what you are doing.
2
@someguy5438 It is not akin to “anarchy.” Anarchy is no rules. People congregating based on similar ideologies still have rules, they just have no need to enforce them on those within their society. They are for those wishing to join their society: like house rules; or HOA by-laws; or a company employment policies. If you can’t abide, take a ride. Besides, you keep ignoring the most successful society known to humans, and it functions on libertarian principles: the brain. Perhaps you should expand your knowledge of history to include the billions of years before humans existed. Then you can try broadening your modern knowledge and point out ANY other system that incorporates centralization to the degree humans do within nation-building. Except you won’t because you can’t. Centralized systems are unstable and fall apart quickly. That’s why computer networks, road systems, root systems, tree branches, neurons, and even lightning striking are all decentralized processes to utilize the much greater advantages of parallel processing over serial processing. Imagine if evolution was a centralized serial process where every interaction had to be assessed before the next attempt was made instead of the decentralized parallel processing that actually occurred. Self-replicating proteins wouldn’t have even appeared yet…
2
@keithbell9348 Your personal stories have merit. However, have you ever stopped to consider why those things happened? A small dip into neuroscience reveals much about how people operate. That understanding also comes with the ability to manipulate people who do not understand such things. That is why CRT is so dangerous. It is crafted to mold how people perceive reality by creating “racism” out of thin air. When people prejudge you based on little to no interaction with others of your skin color, there’s really only one other explanation for that perception: Corporate News and Social Media. Even the perception of brutal cops is so far beyond reality that some people have horrible first encounters with an officer due totally by their conditioning by those who control public perception. I learned at an early age that words have no real power unless you give it to them. What was an inmate understanding as a child blossomed into a scientific understanding as an adult. Not only is it cruel to teach kids that “words have power,” it is also nefarious as it primes them to be controlled by words as an adult. As often as the Left likes to invoke the N-word… (the one that ends with AZI…), you would think it would be obvious that conditioning people to believe words have power is not a good thing. 😂 Words are processed in the cerebrum, but their “power” is processed in the medulla/limbic system. For a word to have “power,” that word would have to be connected to the limbic system. This is colloquially called “learning.” If you do not teach kids that “words have power,” then they will not be controllable by those who wield words as a weapon. The cure for this insane notion is called critical thinking which makes CRT even more ridiculous.
2
@viverntahl2541 Christ, dude. You read to respond instead of to understand, and it shows. 😂
2
@keithbell9348 I do not put people in boxes, sir. I leave them to do that to themselves. I prefer addressing people as a collection of ideas, each of which is to be taken individually on their own merits. I do not “consider the source” above considering the content. I have agreed with much of what you said with a slight disagreement in how you identify yourself. However, that is your choice to make as is it is your choice to base your decisions upon that identity.
2
@keithbell9348 As for “political parties”… That is just a $hit show to justify the one thing America was designed NOT to be: a centralized form of government easily controlled by nameless and faceless elites. If you wanted to control people, it would not make sense to do it out in the open. If you wanted to free people, you would not convince them to relinquish their right to think as individuals. “Socialists” do not understand what socialism is any more than “capitalists” do. If they did, they would understand that “capitalism” has been around for eons and that “socialism” is a subset of “capitalism.” They created this ridiculous argument by constructing a new term that creates definition without distinction. “Capital” and “Means of Production” are the exact same thing, but they needed a term to create a connotative distinction. Socialism has nothing to do with “capital.” It is entirely dependent on who controls it. America allows for socialism. What it does not allow for is codified socialism: National Socialism. The true dichotomy, pertaining to political discourse, is free markets versus centralized planning. America was designed to be the former, but manufactured outrages pushed us toward the latter.
2
@keithbell9348 I don’t blame you for assuming I was going to “place you in a box.” I blame society for allowing itself to degenerate to the point that that is standard operating procedures for meeting new people. I went to seven different elementary schools, and I learned some invaluable life lessons from that experience that is lacking in the general public that I have dealt with. I do commend you on your ability to suppress your cognitive biases in light of new information. That, too, is sorely lacking today. As far as I’m concerned, if more people engaged life with your perspective, we would see far more progress at a far quicker rate. Cheers, mate. 🍻
2
0:01 Because people grow up with safety nets that allow them to think things they wouldn’t otherwise put into practice. The best way to prove to someone whether their ideas are true or not is to let them realize their own ideas. In other words, restrict their ability to force their unproven ideas on people they’ll never meet. This will force people to find like-minded individuals who will work towards the same vision, and it will deprive them of the excuse of “well, government didn’t do it right.” 1:30 What Dawkins failed to realize was that genes merely encode ideas which are passed on through replication. An idea is just meaning applied to a physical pattern. As such, ideas can be represented by DNA, neuronal groups, magnetic particles, transistors, or even grooves on a vinyl disk. DNA is a very stable bit slow form of idea storage and execution. Neurons are a more chaotic form of idea storage and execution. Genetic evolution occurs over centuries, while ideological innovation can happen in the blink of an eye. Most psychological disorders are the consequence of slow genetic evolution engaging in rapid technological innovation. Our bodies and brains do not keep pace with the technologically rapid evolution of the environment. We have a sweet tooth because high calorie foods were “good” when food was scarce. Now that food is plentiful and life is less active, high calorie foods are “bad”. Our sweet tooth is a consequence of our genetically programmed biology coding for a food scarce environment we no longer exist in. 2:00 Genes code for ideas. The idea of a larger claw, or stronger legs, or faster wings, or longer beak all existed before we had brains to virtualize those ideas for rapid simulation and adaptation. 2:45 The Free Market has replaced the Natural Wild. Genetic patterns evolve in the latter, and neuronal patterns evolve in the former. GOVERNment is the antithesis of evolution because evolution requires natural SELECTION and the freedom to make a selection as those selections compete with one another. GOVERNment removes selection and the competition that drives evolution. 5:50 Mass mailing ballots to people who normally wouldn’t vote was the actual fraud. The idea that America is supposed to be a democracy was the justification. Not only should ballots NOT have been mailed, but people should not be resorting to voting their ideas into each other as a FIRST resort. Voting should be the LAST resort. 6:30 When somebody signs an affidavit, they are under threat of punishment for lying. So, when you have one group of people believing hundreds of signed affidavits, and another group of people believing “unnamed sources” that say President Trump called veterans “suckers and losers,” I think I’ll stick with the affidavits. We can also toss in the fact that Soros installed DAs are responsible for handling voter fraud cases… so, there’s that on top of the same DAs playing catch-and-release with violent criminals. So, yeah. There’s a bit more to the “memes” than you are presenting.
2
@pancakes3250 Who is presenting statistics to prove that “systemic racism” exists? Democrats. Who is calling for CRT to be taught? Democrats. Who ran the cities for decades where most of these issues occur? Democrats. Who thinks they have the correct plan for the whole country even though they created all the “systemic racism” in their own cities? Democrats. If Democrats can’t even get their cities right, what makes you think they can get the country right?
2
@Captain1nsaneo 😂 After all that, I forgot to mention what I was leading up to about the Tabula Rasa discussion. Regardless of the degree to which individuals are programmable after conception, our biggest issue is how programmable they are when in large incoherent groups. Sorry about the word salad and meandering topics, but it’s difficult to condense a multi-dimensional situation into a single-dimension stream of words. Cheers 🍻
2
It seems like you need to establish what “socialism” is next because there is a definite distinction between basic socialism and national socialism. In the former case, individuals have a far better opt-out option whereas the second case requires emigration to escape and a friendly nation to accept them. Moreover, capitalism is not the counter to socialism. Toying with the language to create terms with opposing connotations merely obscures the true issue: freedom versus authoritarianism. ‘Capital’ is the same thing as ‘means of production,’ and ‘profit’ is the same thing as ‘surplus.’ The only distinction between the two is whether private citizens do it or if the state does it.
2
@Cherrysmith2809 No. “Evaluating sources” is emotional rhetoric leading to ad hominem. An idea is true regardless of WHO speaks it, WHY they speak it, or WHY they speak it. What you are complaining about is what leads people to accept bad ideas from people they like and reject good ideas from people they dislike. The source NEVER matters in a rational discussion. However, when you need to make a snap decision, the source is generally a large consideration for heuristic considerations. It all comes down to how much time you have to make a decision.
2
@Cherrysmith2809 Pay attention, kid. If I am making a decision for myself, I will use heuristic methods like considering somebody’s credentials. When I am making a decision for the people around me (like voting), I will use pure reason which takes longer and is more thorough. So, yes. You can be a sycophantic zealot all you want, but it doesn’t make you rational in doing so. Just the fact that you considered a couple pages worth of text, “word salad” calls into question your ability to understand an academic paper anyways. I even used the most lay terms possible, and your eyes still glazed over. I can’t imagine you trying to read a paper with technical terms.
2
@caffeinator1849 Hard to address your question with very little context. Wanna try responding with more than a Twitter Tweet?
2
@stuckinthemud4352 Capitalism is the process of using resources (capital) to collect/produce more resources (revenue). It is a process that has gone on for billions of years before humans existed to slap a name on it. This process can be done individually or collectively; freely exercised or imposed. I reread my earlier posts. Where did you get the idea that I thought capitalism was “just about individual people working independently”? I see nothing remotely close to saying that in any of my posts. Failing to point out what comment you misinterpreted so you could win an argument I didn’t make, try reading to understand rather to respond next time.
2
@stuckinthemud4352 No. BOTH groups are NOT working independently. The group of 100 individuals are 100 individuals living in log cabins BY THEMSELVES. A private business is still a corporation. It is multiple INDIVIDUALS working towards the same goal. A co-op is ALSO a corporation. The only thing that you are arguing, and I’ve said this, is who owns the capital/means of production AND how that ownership was established. To collectively own something through AGREEMENT (voluntary socialism) is vastly different than collectively owning something through FORCE (nationalized socialism). The distinction between individual ownership of a corporation or a collective ownership of a corporation is moot. Most large companies are collectively owned anyhow…ever heard of the stock market? A majority of individually owned companies are small businesses. Then you continue to conflate ideas again… NATIONALIZED Socialism has no private property rights. LOCALIZED Socialism does…that’s what co-ops are. Co-ops can and do exist within FREE MARKETS. Capitalism is more accurately described as using resources (capital) to collect/produce more resources (revenue). Every economic framework uses this fundamental concept. The ONLY thing you are doing is using language established by people who run the system which only confuses you. The ONLY pertinent issue is whether a system is a free market or a centrally planned one.
2
@lauraly2712 Individuals decide what roles they pick up based on the demands they see. I have a well deserved haughtiness because my superiority isn’t in knowledge. It is in morality. VOLUNTARY socialism is good. NATIONAL socialism is not. I defend everybody’s right to PRACTICE what they preach, but I fight against those who IMPOSE what they preach. People who are for socialism tend to defend the national and/or democratic versions of it which is evil and morally bankrupt. Every individual ought to have the option of opting out of a system without being punished. So, you can take your emotional considerations about me and stuff them. Facts don’t care about your emotions, and neither do I.
2
@lauraly2712 “Historically there is no recorded evidence of the different trades (occupations) appearing as a result of some collective decision.” Neurologically, there is no evidence of the different cortical groups appearing as a result of some collective decision. Technologically, there is no recorded evidence of the different network devices connecting as a result of some collective decision. Gee…it’s almost as if we are saying the same thing: CENTRALIZED planning is inefficient, unstable, and easily corrupted. Maybe if you read to understand rather than to respond, it would not seem like “babbling” to you. However, by all means. TRY to offend me. It’s impossible because I understand how useless and detrimental being offended is. Furthermore, I understand the neurological underpinnings of “offense,” so I know how it train myself out of it. Study some philosophy and neuroscience. The more you understand how your mind works, the harder it is for other people to control it.
2
@ryebread3417 “A class of people does not preclude individuality in any way.” Never said it did. However, when one class codifies their belief systems into law, the individual has to relinquish parts of who they are if those part conflict with the law, lest they be punished.
2
@ryebread3417 If the “proletariat” decided that no individual can own a car, but one individual decides to own a car, does he not have to give up that bit of individual desire to be part of the collective? There is no room for individualism outside of the law, and as more laws are applied, the variety of individual possible necessarily decreases. With no laws, every individual is truly individual.
2
@ryebread3417 “Proletariat” is a concept that doesn’t exist materially like “society.” They are constructions used to obscure the individual. A person is not a concept, so applying rules to a concept means individuality loses meaning. When an individual wishes to express anything outside the constraints of the “proletariat” causing them to be ‘othered’ and punished. On a small scale, this is fine, and actually preferable. On a large scale, an individual has only one recourse for expressing their individuality: leaving the country. It’s just most states that get to that point don’t allow emigration. I haven’t really considered why, but my first guess would be to prevent the spread of a negative image. Considering asking most Cubans that LIVE in Cuba how they feel about Cuba, you don’t find many dissenting opinions. However, Cubans floating over to Florida on pieces of wood or any other floating material they can find speaks volumes. There’s a lot to be said about establishing rules about how to be and slowly evolving those rules over time so that the first generation of “proletariat” would not recognize proletariats five generations later and vice versa. That process of indoctrination is what precludes the diversity of thought requires to drive industry and innovation. That is why evolution is a decentralized parallel process instead of a centralized serial process.
2
@ryebread3417 So a rotary motor is capital of somebody owns it, but it’s a means of production if nobody owns it? If nobody owns it, then it can’t be stolen. What prevents somebody from just taking a “means of production”?
2
@clem.3894 No. What I describe is NOT democratic at all. Neurons in one cortex do not impose their existence upon the neurons in other cortices through the prefrontal cortex. Each cortex is a distinct, ideologically segregated entity that is highly integrated with all other cortices. What I described is a confederation of distinct local communities that cooperate on issues they agree upon while going their separate ways on issues they do not agree upon. There is VERY little democracy, if any, involved as democracy is predicated on the tyranny of forcing ideas from the majority on to the minority. The fundamental issue with human society is the lack of communal coherence. BECAUSE people do NOT live with the people they MOST agree with, they rely on forcing their ideals upon each other through government. A human society that more resembles a neuronal society would be ideologically segregated and organized in the same way. For example, everybody who believes in 90% income taxes should live together. This would eradicate that tax. Taxes are an imposition upon those that disagree with them, so if people made the RATIONAL choice of living with the people they agree with, those “taxes” become VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. Refusing to live with the people you are with the most = tyranny. Living with the people you agree with the most = liberty Marxist-Leninist theory is predicated on the ideal that INDIVIDUAL PERSON collectivism be forced upon everyone through the state (federal government). The rational and NATURAL option is ideological segregation such that all the Marxist-Leninists live together, the libertarians live together, the conservatives live together, the Christians live together, the Muslims live together, the White supremacists live together, the Black supremacists live together, etcetera, etcetera. You don’t force laws and taxes upon those who AGREE with you. Ultimately, it does NOT matter how well I understand Marxist-Leninist ideals, or any other ideal you can think of. The WHOLE POINT of SELF-governance is that everybody who agrees with any particular ideal LIVES together and manifests their shared ideal collectively. Furthermore, building your ideal society with the people you agree with will accelerate the manifestation of your ideal which will serve as the example that proves or disproves your ideals. Very few are convinced with words these days, leaving tangible examples as the only means by which convincing anybody is possible. If you have to force your ideas on others, they probably aren’t that good to begin with.
2
@mackmckinney5206 Try being black OUTSIDE of a Democrat controlled city or state.
2
@mackmckinney5206 CT is a general concept of which CRT is one of many subsets. Perhaps it’s because you don’t understand that “race” is one of many perceived CLASSifications by which bias is tied to.
2
@republitarian484 Why did you only mention Japan? Europe has less than a 2% Black population, yet America is the “racist” one. 😂
2
@republitarian484 “America is the “racist” one.” If that isn’t sarcasm, then you definitely have an issue considering multi-variate systems. Look where most of the oppression against Blacks occurs: Democrat run cities and states. If anybody is racist, it is, and always has been, Democrats; not America.
2
@otakumangastudios3617 Yes. I edited my comment to reflect my better understanding of what you said after a few more passes. My apologies. I have the same issue with the use of “liberal” and “conservative.”
2
@republitarian484 Most “progressives” APPROPRIATED a term that does not reflect who they really are. That’s why I correct people by explaining that they are actually REGRESSIVES. It is impossible to have rational discourse when improperly defined terms are used. If we went around calling the number “2” the number “3”, then more people would think CRT was rational. 😂 Besides, I have never met a Libertarian that understands Libertarianism the way I do. Many “libertarians” are just as tyrannical as people who force their ideas into others. What every “libertarian” that I have talked to gets wrong is the idea that they should be allowed to live WHEREVER they want, and that is just absolutely false. Loving, Texas is the least populated county in America. I believe that there are just a couple dozen people living there. If EVERY “libertarian” moved to such areas, then they would have a near absolute majority with which to vote for “no laws” within these counties. THEN, the County Sherif ceases to have the typical role of “law enforcement” leaving them ONLY their other primary role: protecting the county from State and Federal intrusion. Imagine a county of a million libertarians with a County Sherif that runs off any IRS agent… However, I only advocate for this IF they live on a border county that does not benefit from national defense. If they want to benefit from national defense, then they have to pay the federal taxes that go toward that. Living in the internal of America without contributing to national defense is tantamount to being an adult child in their parent’s basement. “Live with the people who agree with you” applies to “libertarians” as much as it does to any other ideological belief. Moving into a town with established laws to impose your idea of “no laws” is JUST as tyrannical as an authoritarian moving into a libertarian society and forcing laws on them.
2
@mackmckinney5206 I learned about evolution two decades ago. Don’t be upset that you can’t apply basic concepts in a rational discussion, boy.
2
@mackmckinney5206 “You have not evolved…” Boy, I was far left in my 20s; far right in my 30s; dead center a few years ago; and I am now a pure Libertarian. I was raised Catholic; became a militant atheist; did a stint as a Pentecostal; a staunch agnostic; and I am currently struggling as an agnostic. I went from embracing my emotions to blaming them for my problems to understanding them enabling me to control them. I flipped burgers for 7 years; was a fiber optic cable splicer for 15; and I am on the verge of quitting my job to pursue my first entrepreneurial venture including filing my first patent application last September. All you know about me is that I understand the flaws in CRT and the mindless conclusions people come up with based on such an irrational philosophy designed to convinced NPCs to relinquish their rights and responsibilities to their fellow citizens to a faceless government that CANNOT address every individual need for every individual. You may KNOW things, but it is obvious that you UNDERSTAND very little of it. Go play Minecraft.
2
@mackmckinney5206 Too many words or too many syllables per word? 😂 😂 😂
2
@bnjmnwst The most profound advancement I can see in human institutions is the ability of small groups of individuals to mask tyranny in things like democracy. Democracy killed Socrates and initiated The Holocaust. Yet, here we are with millions of people worried about the “attack on democracy.” “They are norms…” because shadow puppet masters have become sophisticated in their methods of keeping cave dwellers enchanted by illusions.
2
@sohrab_solheim Do you understand how stereoscopic vision works? Two eyes produce two DIFFERENT 2D images that the brain learns to reconcile into a 3D understanding. It literally takes two DIFFERENT truths at one dimensionality to produce truth at a higher dimensionality.
2
@tashfianhossain7218 How profound for the Twotter generation.
2
@spafon7799 It’s funny that you being up national democratic socialism. Hitler proved why it’s bad. So, yes. Understanding other cultures, even national democratic socialist cultures, is important important so that we don’t keep repeating those mistakes.
2
@rugbyguy59 My choice is to allow individuals the freedom to choose their destiny. I am against tyranny. In your promotion of individuality, what legislation are you a supporter of?
2
@rugbyguy59 I’m not reluctant at all. The whole point of CRT is to “examine the systems of oppressions.” That implies a next step of doing something about those perceived systems. Generally, that means legislation. I was cutting to the chase by asking you what legislative solutions you support. However, we can back track to the presumptions that there are “systemic/systematic” oppressions. As a primer, I would ask you whether you believe there is systemic or systematic oppression, then ask you for examples. I’m totally open for business. Speak your truth, and ask away…
2

Previous
2
Next
...
All