Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Black Lives Matter and "Black Lives Matter" Are Two Different Things" video.

@Siren Drake No one is complaining about the US constitution except the far-right, and far-left. But everyone is talking about being gyped in the long-run. And it isn't Marxists doing it. PS: Hegel's philosophy is German Idealism. All of it is highfalutin Germanicism.
2
@Siren Drake So you're claiming that only extremists No. But you can quote me where you think I eluded to that...I'm sure it's when I said "Marx". Well, Marx abjured his communist manifesto, this is in evidence [just read, or don't, I don't care, I've read it in his documentations], and even still, it was an emancipatory tract more than a call for insurrection. I am anti-insurrection, and certainly most Marxist, nowadays, are more apt to incrementalism. And on the constitution: I am pro-constitution, when it comes to the American constitution. But it's there for everyone...not just "the right-wing". Anarchists are not excluded. They every right in the democracy of representation to an opinion to share. You are also have the right to not only protest, but to revolution: it's right there in the declaration of independence. The US constitution is great legal writ ever conceived, up to a point: however: you have it in even Adam Smith [cf. Wealth Of Nations] that with extreme division of labor a nation becomes atomised. And the US already has a separation of church and state...holy moly, it's almost Communist, already. It just hasn't moralised itself, though. Branches of government began stripping citizens of their rights in exchange for the pretense of a little security Capitalists and liberals did that. Not socialists.
2
They don't know who he is A can tell you that they know. They don't him personally, but here is how easy it is to know about him and what he represents: "who's George Floyd?" - "That black guy who got choked and killed by the police". - There, done. Styx, you are doing terribly, here. But your gromless audience will eat it up.
1
Ms. Elite Who cares about his "criminal past"? It's besides the point...you know what "missing the point" means, right? Even Styx did a video the day after calling for a response to George Floyd's death...by cop...you can go and see it for yourself, on his channel. Where is the disagreement? oh I know, you want to make excuses for the cop in question so you can use this event as a political cudgel, just like the left does! WOW! Amazing. PS: I knew all of this shit before, didn't need to research it, it's all over on Gab, it's not really "hidden" but...it is besides the point. Cops murdering people is a fault, not a "merit". See Styx's video on George Floyd, dumbfuck.
1
PS: Also, the two events are disconnected. His rap sheet isn't in question here...he can't serve time, he's dead...he died at the hands of a cop arresting him. That's negligence, criminal negligence, at least. Deal with it.
1
Ms. Elite BLM = feminist? Gee, sounds almost emancipatory and postmodern. Scary. But now, really, his rap sheet isn't pertinent. Unless, that is, if you have committed a crime in the past you are then allowed to get crushed by domination. In that case, I say you're gonna have some structural issues.
1
Ms. Elite What "scared". Point to where you see me "scared", you idiot [hint: you can't. I said, "Gee, sounds almost emancipatory and postmodern. Scary" - that was in reference to your being scared of their program of their agenda. Not myself.
1
@Marcara081 Like Christians did by introducing the "word of God"? Surely, you won't want to talk about that. But yeah, "Hegelian dialectic" is just logic. Hasn't anything to do with language, per se.
1
@Siren Drake Capitalists brought us here; they brought everyone here. Slaves. Trade. Business. Businesses left. Globalisation expanded. Capital grew. It was inevitable. If you can't gather that, then what can you do? you can even attribute this to socialists or communists. Capitalists, for example, created civil society [hence, the upkeep]. They create maritime law [well, royalty did, but the upper classes kept to it]. They brought people of all kinds here, to work. What more can be said? socialists were prominent in the 1930s a boom time all the way up until the 60s.
1
@Siren Drake It's good that you quoted Standford and I like the insertion, there, nice phrasing. But it's not exactly, and totally, accurate. But only because Standford has oversimplified the example of Marx...Marx did say "Hegel stood on his head", and so he "inverted" him back to upstanding: Marx is still teleological; most of common history is- I mean, Aristotle is, and that's most of common histories logic, and well, Christianity had it's triadic dialectic [father-son-holy spirit] and well, it was an eschatology, but so was Marx...Marx was eschatological, and at once, teleological. Nothing changed the fact of histories' "movement" thru time. All Hegel did was posit that the objectivity of the world at large [all things] is what people experience as alienation and the highest form of the sublime, and when that was experienced one would understand their alienation and transcend it. And all Marx did was say, now, there's only so much truth in that, because there is a social reality that Hegel is ignoring and places within 'the State'.
1
@Siren Drake PPS: No one likes fascism, especially Marxists [hence, his not praising Hegel but for more than inspiring him]. But socialists are Marxists'[non-insurrectionist/non-crude communist proponents, that is] are emancipatory agents, nothing more.
1
@Siren Drake PPS: Erm, wrong. Read Marx, first, then you can speak. Marx never said anything about perfection. He was anti-utopian [his main thesis before Das Capital was to critique the social democrats of his era]. So...another thing you are just wrong about. But alas, Plato's formula of the Good is just affirmed in Marx [and Hegel, for that matter]. So...whoops!
1
@Siren Drake I don't think you do. Want laissez-faire capitalism? do it. Socialists would love that.
1
@Siren Drake They haven't "already been implement", they were THERE FROM IT'S INCEPTION. That is what you seem to be missing. Would abjure Lenin for disbarring church from state? The US did it first. Now. About Marx and "suffering". Marx didn't endorse such things...you should be less of a...fool...and read. Leninism is orthodox to Classical Marxism. It's not the same thing.
1
@Siren Drake It's particularly the nasty parts of fascism that separate it from socialism, and there is obviously a lack of comprehension here, from you. Read about ideograms..."socialism" means a ton of different things...so does "capitalism" [I' ma rich Kock brother, I don't care about the white man at-bottom, but I will pretend to! give me money - See? not what YOU call "capitalism", is it? but they do call it that]. There are three main types of socialism [the beginnings of which, and the latest of which, are outside of the common Marxist dialectics]: 1: the beginnings of socialist talk mainly of the "social" in a culture and era which has not defined capitalism, 2: Marxist socialism, and the dialectic, and 3: self-managed socialism [which was endorsed in various ways, like orthodox versions of communist thought, like Lenin/Maoist as a top-down lite-socialism to acceleration their production and dispersal as communist forces, and is even the ascribed to version of Hitler and Mussolini, whom turned fascist, that is to say, they took the "self-management" aspect of socialism and extrapolated it to the race and the state respectively of their particular positions]. Self-managed socialism is basically the lead up to socialism-lite-actual. It's bound to happen because of the means of production [capitalism] centralises and falls into smaller and smaller hands [consolidation] (cf. synarchy). Of course, the capitalists will use any and all sources of opposition to their own advantage, by trying to turn the tables on opposition and de-limit them. It is shown that races and groups [apart from race] socialise when given the ample opportunity (cf. Chile and the contributions of the libertarian think-tank group, the Mont Pelerin Society).
1
PS: No. It's actually that capitalists are making the world look into a mirror, and as people atomise, they fascisize eventually, which is why the "right-wing" of America is so heated over things that they can't withstand without actually taking on capitalism, and they are so egregious that they can't even do that. Thy can't even recognise it.
1
PS: Effectively, this "leftism" you speak so lowly of is a reaction to virulent political activism done on the "right". They just are giving back the same efforts, in that case. And BLM is just a representative of that "leftism", I suppose. Not it's all-encompassing functionary.
1
@Siren Drake I'm not going to read the rest of your post, but "socialism = fascism" is not a real comprehension. Socialism is an idea. It has several proponents, in history, before fascism. I am the guy who went around telling you fucking idiots that Mussolini was a socialist [which he was...ta-da!]. LOL! But that doesn't mean fascism is socialism. Hahahahah! I have even the comprehension of a "national" socialism, but it's rather ingrained in reactionary thought, in theory, and can just be simply called "small nationalism" turned "radical" [in various ways].
1
@Siren Drake You just confirmed what I have already said. Except, what you fail to comprehend is what socialism is.
1
Well whatddaya mean You mean to do the same thing you're warning to watch out for...linguistic propaganda.
1
They aren't fighting nasis They aren't going to allow it drudge itself up through co-option, renegades who need to rile up his base for elections, or anything else.
1
People innately organise There will always be a state of some sort, yes. Anarchists don't really believe that this doesn't occur, because when they refer to "statelessness" they aren't talking about a naturally embodied "state" of organisation, what they mean [and every "right-winger" who talks about state powers reduction] is a GOVERNMENTAL state-apparatus. Also, there are cases like Makhnovia, for example. But still...Styx you are again just leaving your audience riddled in retarded gormlessness.
1
Ms. Elite LOL, who cares about that? I wasn't a part of that. Besides, tmz's [temporary autonomous zones] are just that...temporary. It's in the name, dumbo. Now, care to actually respond to the comment I made without strawmanning it, shithead? lol, O course not.
1
Ms. Elite PS: I was agreeing with Styx but you, a moron, won't have anything to respond to, regarding what has been said...cause you're too dumb to follow. LOL! So quick insult "CHOP" lol, like I give a fuck.
1
@Stan Marsh No. But I'd love for you to point out what you think he "pwnd' me with.
1
Ms. Elite What? Dude...let america crash and burn..."fascism is leftism", durr herrr.
1
@Stan Marsh bawks
1
ANTIFA doesn't fight fascism Yeah, they do. Sorry.
1
Ms. Elite They might "cause it" but only because it's there to be "caused".
1
Ms. Elite No. You are confusing correlation for causation.
1
Blah blah grift And the huge vocal minority doing speeches and videos and what ever have you to sway the "right-wing" into all of these racial wedge issues, and calling them [blacks] everything from traitor to simply put, inferior. And this is why things are getting political...maybe if there were THESE GRIFTERS on the right, there wouldn't be so much political long-games by the DNC to use these forces to their own advantage. But you won't talk about that, Styx. You would prefer to give your dumb audience JUUUUUST enough to rile them up, but not enough of a nuance to clarify the actual instances of what is occurring and why. And what's more, why certain groups are attempted to be co-opted by others, and why others will unsympathetically but ecologically speaking, allow it for a trade.
1
Blah blah grift And the huge vocal minority doing speeches and videos and what ever have you to sway the "right-wing" into all of these racial wedge issues, and calling them [Blacks] everything from traitor to simply put, inferior. And this is why things are getting political...maybe if there were THESE GRIFTERS on the right, there wouldn't be so much political long-games by the DNC to use these forces to their own advantage. But you won't talk about that, Styx. You would prefer to give your dumb audience JUUUUUST enough to rile them up, but not enough of a nuance to clarify the actual instances of what is occurring and why. And what's more, why certain groups are attempt to be co-opted by others, and why others will unsympathetically but ecologically speaking, allow it for a trade.
1