Youtube comments of CynicalBroadcast (@CynicalBastard).
-
385
-
230
-
160
-
152
-
137
-
107
-
82
-
74
-
72
-
70
-
58
-
55
-
55
-
52
-
46
-
45
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
They've already done studies where they would stimulate a certain region of the right-side of the brain, in the cerebellum, and people would indicate that they "could not help themselves from doing what was implied to do by the voice commanding them", thru such stimulation- ie, they were effectively brainwashed. If this can be targeted [especially enmasse, without effecting the perpetrator, obviously would be the goal], somehow in a coordinated fashion [say your TV, your phone, your computer, etc], you could effectively control the populace- tie this into AI, well, you've got the ultimate human robot scenario.
23
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
they may find it regressive. afterall those police were just doing their job and protecting the public...by rolling along side of a supposed gunmen, without taking any procedural tact, calling for backup, and even arriving on scene to try and control the situation, by parking their vehicles in the area...and instead rolling up, through a park lawn, towards the supposed gunman, with no tact, and just jumping out and charge him...i wonder if the gunman actually would have been a gunman, would their tactics be safety oriented? nah, probably not. but still...regressive. (no offence to Sargon or TLDR, they're almost always perfectly reasonable individuals, and i'm kinda just speculating here.)
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@literallyasuka2996 It's not really that disturbing, it's just that you're literally labeling it rape, and you think that that makes it rape. It's clearly not simulating rape...they have that on tube sites, you know, not Tiktok. I'm pretty sure that that video above is some colorful idiocy, but certainly not "rape romanticizing". If anything it's romanticizing exhibitionism. Here's the thing, Charlie and you people, his audience, probably don't comprehend the difference. You're not very "sex-positive" people, you like to kink shame, basically. lol
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Yeah, honestly, the world doesn't even suck. That's a misnomer. The world is GRAY. It's complete malleability. You either take the good with the bad, and work with them both, or you suffer. The world doesn't care. But the world isn't really so bad, especially now, with the various strains of complicity in the environment, and a lack of cohabitation- although this is also growing the populace into an extraneous modal outside of "society", and hence, an inversion is being witnessed, where the society isn't serving people's needs, but the reverse is happening, and the people are serving the society's needs.
10
-
10
-
10
-
2:29 -- This is called the Conflagration Of Misuse, Styx. It follows a pattern of: Ethics, Dialectics, Logic, Rhetoric, and then back again into Conflagration, as it grows. -- Rhetoric & dialectic & ethics are all more important factors than logic at this point in time, in common discourse, because everyone runs on emotion, and the over-emotional are the loudest and the squeaky wheel gets the oil. INEFFECTIVE RHETORIC: OVERUSE LEADS TO MORE CONFLAGRATION - PS: δύναμις, the Gorgias' concept, is a useful analogy to what I'm trying to communicate here, upon further inspection.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I never really thought about that before [Thanks Arjuna, I mean, erm, Muta]...in some places, under some, erm, companies, you can be, like, in the mountains, in the middle of nowhere, and get internet.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Yeah, it's called Virology. Viruses tend to mutate. They can also mutate in the direction [becoming more lethal]. Sky News is literally either retarded, or fear-mongering. Viruses still need to be addressed, and not IGNORED, because people will die...people have died. People have been taken out of their daily life and their jobs. DUE TO GETTING SICK. Now Sky News wants to tell their retard audience that they were right, this was never "an issue". All those people who died, were BOUND TO DIE, because who cares? that is what they want you to think, and this is what a lot of you morons actually think, out there, right? Disgusting "nationalists" [who don't care about the sons and daughters of their nation...so ostensibly "nationalists"].
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I haven't been Youtube videos for long. I just make music, mainly, and guess what...that shit ain't viable on Youtube. Not even (point being, when are some options going to be given to smaller channels like mine?). Just talk...and then real talk is censored, while fake bullshit which I STOPPED WATCHING TV AT ALL JUST TO AVOID now owns the website, and all they want people to have is the same old absolutely derivative, boring, maligning, lies (AND shit content, in general, lacking integrity, artistic value, truthful endeavor), from the big-wigs of corporate media.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Some youtube videos aren't exactly the most "reputable" sources. There are a million Youtube videos about how "Net Neutrality is the only things keeping the internet good!" and all of it just typical talking points about the subject, none of it is any refutation of any of the rationale for repealing Title 2 regulations, which revolves around the fact that ISPs are actually able to be reasoned with and can be reigned in with boycott or en masse complaint- while companies like Facebook have a CEO that's trying to become president, and track everyone's data, and scan your face to see if you're 'suicidal' (look it up), and Youtube is cracking down on content that has "swears" and that talk about anything from "queerness" to "Trump", and and AI that gives those videos points based on pointless shit, essentially bubble-wrapping content and silences people's voices, and all the while nothing gets done about anyone's complaints, and these companies like Twitter and Google run rough-shod over people's freedom of speech and expression, for the sake of advertising dollars- all which leads them to want to crack down even more and more in order to scratch back those ad-bucks- then comes the political element of most of the news media (a worry, nevertheless, regardless of Net Neutrality or no), which these companies are practically in collusion with, in order to make $$$ and to stultify the political process and stifle dissenting voices, in order to manipulate people into them surrendering more of their ability to use the internet as a FREE SPEECH PLATFORM...making a platform only for those who kowtow to partisan opinion, lest face the consequences of being run off the net. The ISPs are simply more so beholden to their customers, than the tech-firms vying for control of, what they see as "their" internet; these firms have to manipulate their user base to even hope to remain solvent AND please advertisers, because they are partisan hacks, in the business world. ISPs are not insolvent, like these tech-firms without "liberal conscience"- which is a farce. Proof is in the pudding. See: James Damore.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Socialism will abandon it's values for fascism as soon as they are fully installed as a superpower (muh superstructure) -- and that is to say, they will abandoned their "soft" values, for more enameled ones, as soon as ACTUAL power is introduced into their powerbase, by way of controls (limits in government action) -- of course, only a full on revolution would stop this, at that point, which is why fascism would be installed, then you can just forget the labels then, and just call it communism, because that's what it was always going to be, cause communism isn't a real thing, at least, not the idealized form of it.
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
-
@BenReillySpydr1962 Or it could be that people are literally so retarded as to not give a damn about the details. Which they don't. They want a: populism, b: meaning in their lives and direction towards the good life, c: someone to clear up the confusion in their minds, d: see thru to their country being more productive. They have no way to get to b, or c, or d, without a. They have no "honest" beliefs...Americans don't believe in much but goods and services, their position on the world-stage, and how much money is in their bank account. Easily manipulated. They will never get the socialism they want, the self-management they want, and will anachronistically confuse ideals for change and liberty with fascism and moral busy-bodying. Until the monism of religious thinking is annihilated, it'll always be a back and forth between those who are slightly more informed than idiotic, and the rest of the full-fledged idiots.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@-Zevin- CIA uses something called "advantage". You morons have to start learning about how things operate...outside of your deluded fantasies...the CIA takes ADVANTAGE of things that can be MOLDED to it's own use...like any particular thing [BLM, "wokeness", socialism (see: Fabian gradualism, for an instance of socialist-capitalism, imbibed by all major institutions, like the LSOE and US MET)], one can use it for good or ill: and to use it in an advantage themselves, they see two possibilities: a: this can get out of their hands/control, or b: this useful mindset, taken in a manner which is advantageous to us, given a certain direction; taking what is used (for some groups good, in a political sense), and molding it to their use and advantage; taking what is already a mindset geared towards inclusiveness, something that can easily abused - and making it the "hallmark" of your institutional backbone [while in secret, it's just manipulation]. You're leftists...and you still don't "get" this?
Holy fuck... facepalm
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
-
"Kekistan is blatantly a mockery of identity politics."
And yet, nevertheless, they partake in identitarian politics. So does the alt-right. It's all identitarianism. But you're also right, regardless....but your comment doesn't really address anything I said, beyond that main point, that point being: regardless of your stance on identitarian politics...Kekistan is identitarian politics, in a nutshell.
"It is now. http://kekrepublic.com/"
See above.
Plus, not to mention, it's a decentralized and easily co-opted meme, that's used (and mayhaps mistaken by some) to be a symbol of the alt-right (to many's dismay.)
PS: I love that Wikipedia now asserts that "identitarian" now means "white nationalism". Those fucking cucks. That's not even the definition of the word, yet searches only lead to pages on "Identitarian movement", ie "White nationalism". Those fucking liars.
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
-
Yeah, that was funny as fuck...probably the funniest thing i've seen in awhile...So what about all the other creators, who aren't black? um, we're all suffering here, as creators, literally everyone, even the biggest Youtubers, are suffering, and that includes black Youtubes (Some Black Guy, for example)- but nevermind, just DO IT cuz BLACKNESS is prevalent to us! - signed Twitter leftist retards DERP - PS: The Roses are red ect, and then just...do this cuz...I mean...WTF-- they could have at least mentioned Black History Month in their Tweet. =\
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think it's even more complicated than that. These people claiming to be even supporters of communism are just socialists. Plain and simple. But the complication is the idea of communism. I'll just tell you: clearly communists have gotten the idea wrong: and people who are "pro-free action" [and a property of work and labor that is their belonging] are clearly confused, as well. Anarchists [as Styx has alluded to in the near-past] have the closest thing to a truth concerning the matter [when looked at from his American Minarchist point of view- which he should talk more about]. But only in their "ethos", not their "pathos"; this "pathos" [even apathy, in some cases] is what lead to the attempted communist takeover [called 'crude communism' by Marx himself]: the only point of this explication here is to say that, clearly, 'Das Kapital' [which should be read after 'Grundrisse; Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy'] [and contrast to Grundrisse, which is an actual political essay in a more or less "practical" form], his principal work, The Capital, that is...it should be read as an eschatology. A far-reaching [into the future] eschatology. Marx was also wrong about a good number of things which also gave the Soviets regimes and regime of Mao and of Pol Pot some horrifically bad ideas. So has "progressivism" [which in it's heyday gave us racism in the pure form, and eugenics].
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The snake is just a part of the same God you worship, but can't identity. Evil has always existed, and the world is fallen (you see, you can't imagine how far-fetched it is to claim that it's both "fallen" for all mankind, if you're a Christian, and yet, there was a perfect Edenic world where no pain existed- you realize that's just Pure Land Buddism, pretty much), and by "fallen", I mean, it's spiritual nature is not "risen", and the snake or the "mind" sets us free- like a bubble in a flask, free to rise and fall, twist and turn- it opens humans, alike Gods, to the outside forces of reality-- the enslavement isn't in fallen things, that's just another driving force- like the Sun- no, enslavement is in ideas of truth , really. Outside of reality, is the real truth The truth will set you free. Iran = Eden -- Look at the original name of Iran. (PS: And it isn't just "suffering", we are aware of, but our own mortality, momentariness, minuteness, insignificance, nihilism, ect. -- that is the 'true' suffering- that and pain, too, of course.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
@systematic101 Point is, even if it was low, the "government" still wants you, even, to stay silent, why?, because you aren't allowed to make a choice anymore. Only take the medicine, and prove you can be exempted, by having a heart attack. The point is, it's treat merely as collateral damage. Military-medico-ethics...not public safety, but military standard operating procedure, foisted onto the public at large.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DctrBread My experience, as well. Standard education, and expectations, especially in schools belonging to the "lower rungs" of society [cf. elitism] suffer from a lack of sufficient interesting-building material: that is to say, it's overtly "standardised". But in a sense, within the sphere of education, everything [topical, social, etc.] is in an "overdetermined" space of particulars. Everything is interpenetrating, and in this sense, we come to the concept [and only after] to "rigor". [...]
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Eugenio Mollo Then why does the skit portray these people as complete strangers?
I'm presuming because of the format of Tiktok being fast, abnormally narrated with almost little to no narrative involved [basically, it's tantamount to a modern picture show]. That's why, I assume.
I don’t care how many fetishes you choose to interpret this as, because a skit where a stranger ties a woman up and has sex with her is obviously going to be interpreted by most as rape
And yet it's not, just because a bunch of people want it to be cause it upsets them.
If the skit wanted to portray any of these fantasies it should’ve been much more obvious, considering you’re the only one who interprets them this way
You're actually the one interpreting things here. I'm just deconstructing your biases, because clearly you are only seeing what you want to see to endorse this kind of judgement that such "skits" are wholly evil, cause it's "definitely rape" they are trying to get to "come across" here, but that's just it, it could be something other than that [the most extremely vile thing your mind could overlay onto the video's content], and you just don't care to make the differentiation, cause you're offended already. Offended at what is, essentially, a crude joke. Perhaps it is offensive...perhaps it's even more than enough to be upset about; too raunchy, too many implications towards the sex act being taken advantage of, and in your mind, illegally [even though, clearly no "rape" or "simulation of rape" is occurring in those videos...no one is being forced to do anything, hence, not rape]. "Rape" might be implied, to you, cause what occurs in one "skit" is that a bunch of guys go into a booth and come out having fucked the girl in the booth: but the audience isn't given anymore details than that, and you're left to invent the rest...you invented "rape". So did a lot of other prudish idiots. Gonna have unsub from Charlie if he's gonna amass such a large scrub audience of morons. lol
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It's a funny meme, but as soon as the left nabs it up, the resistance to it will go up (like a viral resistance) and it will soon be normalized. It has too much of a "Scary" premise behind it, to not be resisted, eventually. An effective meme, pseudo-forced. PS: Warning unheeded, Styx. No one listens. It's a meme with far too much a chance for repulsion, due to resistance. Combating it in the future will be interesting. Since it's self-destroying, it will have to amalgamate to a weaponized format, because it'll cause no rebounding otherwise. It's either going to be used in an inane fashion, by hardheads who really want to attempt to dehumanize, or will become useless and footnote-- albeit one with a lofty presence through meme History, due to it's self-conclusive nature.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am going to impart a lesson on Spoons, and Mugs: When people used to predominantly, in Europe, use sugar cubes, to make their teas with, they wouldn't have to worry about dribblets from the spoon's contact with the wet tea making a mess of the sugar, because it was cubed, with careful extrication of the spoon from the mug, and a slight tap after, on the lip of the mug, you can extract a cube with minimal drips, and thus any wetness distributed only absorbs harmlessly into the cubes at minimal amounts. Thusly people could avoid having to worry about such things, and thusly could save on time doing extra dishes, and thus they just reused the spoon at a whim for multiple cups of delicious tea- therefore you had to keep the spoon in the mug to avoid a mess, thusly why one holds the spoon in the mug with the forefinger around the cup's handle, and the thumb around the spoon, in conjunction with the cup, to avoid any clanking or spillage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
bwahahahaha, INTJ rules. (even though i don't really buy the online Myers Briggs Personality test. PS: are you sure you weren't influenced to use your right hand, Styx? apparently i was, i don't know how true that is, though, but i see no reason why not to believe what i've been told. apparently, i was left handed, and taught to use my right hand as a child, due to ridiculous fear. LOL PS: fuckin' scallops. yum. i fucking love avocado but i get the same tingly effect from that. though i still eat it though. rebel, yo. PPS: ahhahahaha young Styx as Hitler at school. yep.you win. and Grapes of Wrath at grade 5...wish my school had taught that, or at least insisted it. ahahaha...ahahaha, pls, make the slacken face again, Styx....AAHAHAHAHAHA PPS: i'm a fan of walking. cars annoy the shit out of me, mostly because i can't find the point in paying out the ass for one, and to drive one. not for me; pointless. i had not bike riding skills, either, up until my twenties, lol, cause i never learned, but i picked up fast enough, now it's a good time saver, if i need it, or to get some exercise outdoors (hiking is fun too, but, again, to save time....)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
the age factor is a non-factor. it's bullshit, essentially. a window from adulthood to 30, in order to allow some segue into motherhood, when she doesn't require nor request that window -- all of which causes her to either remain abstinent (which is a win for some people who are biased against women whom, at 21 [or younger] who decide not be mothers, ie the religious) or risk pregnancy, which a: she requests contraception against, and she requests the most efficacious kind, and b: is healthier for her well-being in the long, perhaps her finances, and thus, is also healthier the baby she might decide to adopt in the future.
so much for "age thing" making any sense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That's like saying modern abstract art isn't just a money laundering scheme
Who the fuck would waste their time with such "art" If not for more sinister purposes?
do you really need "art" explained to you? and modern curation is a money making scheme...modern curation and modern performance art. didn't you watch the video? abstract art? that...that isn't even the same thing as what we are discussing, we are discussing performance art, which mimics ritual (in some cases, but not always)...painting an abstract, or expressionist painting, although might not be apprehended by most people -- it's not the same thing as what this "spirit cooking" is. one is a laissez faire endeavor, which is perfectly righteous, such as what Styx does (though he does books -- only a slightly different endeavor than painting. but which is entirely different, altogether, than performance art.) performance art isn't a laissez faire concept, but more akin to a large theatre production or public sculpture. not necessary and generally a waste of uncritical art-lovers time...usually. and usually a part of a grander money making apparatus. conceptual art has always been critiqued as being anti-art. remember? anti-art -- not art. art is just when someone makes something they wish to make, which is more sensible than any amount of time wasting working for a corporate entity.)
3
-
"and you can't debate that, because it's muh opinion."
of course you can debate it. you can debate anything. we have set words for a reason you know, to communicate ideas. art communicates ideas. i don't need pedagogy or the education system to inform me of this fairly basic fact. and last i checked, in the US, it's a free country. the debate is on. i am just EXEMPLIFYING, and thus, giving and example of, the fact of art...it's just as if i said something contentious a conjecture as you can get like, we are all a mote in giant void in space, and that statement although completely meaningless in the objective measure; -- in and of itself however, it's an accurate and true statement of fact. this is the art of dialectic, the precursor to rhetoric. please make good use of it, and don't just berate the concepts but attack them with better ideas. Marxism is not art. and saying art is subjective is not Marxism. that idiotic slogan is a confused rhetorical idiom that really needs to die. how the fuck is art not subjective? you tell me wise guy. it's also got an objective measurement, A what it sells in the market place, and B it's intrinsic value -- for A, you have institutional critique that presents a bias in this mass media marketplace -- for B, it remains ever thus it was. because art is as old as man, and it's always been subjective...how the fuck is a fucking cave painting not a subjective work of fiction? they are priding themselves on the hunt, these dwellers...so explain to the class how that isn't subjectivity, to paint animals to hunt in the prospect of future hunts. go ahead now.
"Calling someone scared for trying to protect their country is ironically a scare tactic, a pretty useless one at that."
precisely, you're scared. which makes you foolish. everyone is already enacted. calm your fucking tits, and stop flipping out over "art" demonolatry. it's apolitical. you fucking gorm.
"I never said performance art is all satanic, just this particular instance of it, but from what I can tell, it's mostly psudeo-intellectual garbage."
exactly! so wtf are you prattling on about?
"I'll have you know, I'm about as far right as you can get, buddy."
right, you're a right-wing libtard, i know.
PS: i thought i was on a different video, honestly. but man you are an idiot. art is subjective as much as it is, in the critique and curation of art, objective. you need to impart subjectivity while doing art, otherwise there is not art. how do you know what art is objectively, if you do not take from your own imagination the very art you're aiming to make? you can't just take something OUTSIDE of the mind, and call it art- unless you're talking about anti-art. man you are stupid. sorry but you are. when i paint a still-life, am i not using the subjective notion of the color composition and perspective that I WANT to achieve? not what the world objectively denotes as the objects in my art, because those objects already exist independent of my painting said objects. man you are fucking dumb as FUCK. and full of mendacious shit, too. no one here is even arguing that modern art is even "good", subjectively...just that you can't escape the fact of it being subjective. facepalm
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
-
There is a reason modern architecture is "rootless" i.e. devoid of any cultural influence. Just like post-modernism in general, the goal is to destroy distinct cultures, and replace them with a nihilistic, globalist consumer society.
Only partially true. Modernism is that which you describe, which is intrinsically attached to Postmodernism. Postmodernism is simply a return to form, in the sense of the Architect having their own personal "spin" on the work, a la, Classical Architects, that is to say, the biggin's whom made the Great Works, like the Sistine Chapel, for example. But the thing is, the "personal spin" is no long engendered with the longing, for say...God...or some higher power. Now it's about "Art" (a fairly abstract concept that I think most people have a crack at but aren't very good at it...Postmodernist 'art' is mostly just..."Pop art & design" and then it's like "whoa conceptual" but it's more like just pretentious and not very woo'ing unless you're already either a simpleton or just a louse who WISHES they were an artists but could never be...) and it's about "making a statement", and it oft times is ugly- though corporate structures have always been the same, big and ugly, PoMo seems to make fun of that, in architecture, outside of corporate buildings, which is still ugly. But HOMES on the otherhand, can be quite nice...see there are distinctions there. Wright houses for example (modernist) are spectacular....but the corporate buildings...always ugly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@fellowtraveler2251 That's pretty well contentious on the face of it. Trotsky critiqued Stalin's leadership in the Soviet Union, quite rightly. So have other scholars of Marxism. Stalin was an aberrance, and even Lenin admitted it [cf. de-stalinisation and his letters]. Let's just say the Kulaks weren't given any leeway as proletarians. This is what I mean by "dictatorship over the proletariat". These,...exceptions. Marxism, in general, is very much Engels' own. Not much of Marx, alone, remains. And the difference even then between this classical Marxian theory [whether it's Marxist, or simply just Marx, sans the naive realism/materialism of Engels] or orthodox Marxism [Marxist-Leninism, et al.] is staggering. Marx even warned about this "crude communism" of the first "kind" or "sort" of revolutionary action [and some speculate, like Lukács, that this is a necessary contingent on the revolutionary set of values being implemented to correct or indemnify social relations and stultify/destroy categories which are bourgeois and liable to contradict the moral condemnation against capitalism and capitalists], this warning in his work "Private Property And Communism".
3
-
"The conduct of wars between nations is expensive, disadvantageous and irrational, while peaceful agreements can always solve problems more profitably, so it is necessary in international politics to move entirely to the economy and to abandon power methods of solving disputable situations;
No material gains should be put above human life, since there are no values more weighty than the life of the individual, the citizen, and he should not sacrifice it for any aims (this stems from strict individual identity and the absence of faith in forms of life other than individual, earthly existence);
Modern bourgeois states, based on a shared socio-political and economic logic, have more in common than they have differences and, according to the extent of their modernization and rationalization, should realize that for them integration and cooperation are an expression of a socio-historic fate.
Thus, pacifism cancels the main aspects of the nation, namely:
Nationalism and the extrapolation of the image of the enemy onto another nation ("anti-type");
The weight and significance of (artificial) collective identity (the nation as such) for the individual;
The self-identification of the nation as an independent, sovereign, formation, capable of defending the national model of society in its borders."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@michawkwalter4205 Well, wait now...there is some evidence for the notion in social science: what dude guy here is giving the class, offering it, as it were, is what is called a "pseudo-opinion" [look it up]. There is also something called "social-desirability bias". [I would wager there is probably some kind of "desire-elusiveness bias" one can concoct, as well.] But see the "hierarchical structure of the big five" [that is, the neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness (to experience)/intellect — Dr. Grande, anyone?] and "subordinate higher-order factors" (John Digman — et al). There are those propounding the "HEXACO model of personality structure" which contested these findings [so there is criticism here, and then some]. What these "higher-order" factors are provides that the orthogonality to a patterned derived from research and then that which is structured [and "aggregate factor of personality"] into this model. What Digman proposed was that this 'orthogonality' was not actual and only apparent and seeming, and whereby he provided that there are "meta-traits" [α & β] and this is what is being referred to, even if these findings are perhaps contentious [???] or at least disagreed upon, by critics. This "pseudo-opinion" has been put into a sort of online-discourse of metaphysics, placing a transcendental value on "alphamalehood" (forgoing the actual research which provides that "alpha and beta" are two sets of a dynamic interpolation derived from the "big five personality factors/traits", which has a lot more explanatory power, at least)...why? well, that's the end of the speculation. People are retards."The existence of a unitary aggregate personality factor appears to be problematic from an evolutionary perspective" is an agreed upon status which I think says pretty well what this concept is truly about. Trying to tackle complex systems [oh my] and evolutionary progression, online. lol
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Nah. I didn't find math interesting at all until I discovered WHY math operates the way it does. It did NOT help to "keep" solutions to ones' self, because that just left me feeling that math was useless to me, in the real world [which it totally can be, it depends on what one does, in the world, professionally, casually, etc.]. When I start to find out how e makes any sort of sense in contrast to i, or what these numbers are, their historical revelation and uses...when I start to think of the philosophy of mathematics, what numbers ARE [what number theory is]...that's what gets me invested.
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
-
4Chan is better for news, bar none. Pretty funny. Oh and nice calling out Windows 10. Yes, it's actually functional, because they used 7's internal structure, but then put this App bullcrap on it, and .... yeah, it's still shit, compared to 7. 10 years I ran 7, and it was excellent. Updates be damned! Now, it's less and less likely you can do such things, so alternatives are looking more and more palatable.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The truth was already on the way decades ago, long before Trump, or any of this malarky. People have been ditching cable and mainstream media for decades now. Like me. I don't even have a TV, and haven't for almost 8 years now. I've been mocking the mainstreams lack of culpability, ideas [their poor ability to define entertainment or make good creative works], the instance of not only their lies, but their conceits, and the instance of the industries of any type of entertainment, or any kind of industry at all, being made to be "safer" and more "limiting", as time goes on. You can see this trend even in the simple things like entertainment, but it is effecting most everything that people use to engender themselves with new ideas and information. School, work, home life...all is effected by deafening and blinding stupidity.
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
-
It stems from France and Germany and the UK. They ARE the deep state. They have interagent saboteurs, who consolidate with, you guessed it, the Dutch...see Brussels, for Historical Germany through Contemporary EU "re-structuring" for multiculturalism. And the Swiss banks store everything that isn't sorted out by the internationals like IMF and BIS, in off-shore accounts. They also do other "things" off-shore...Medicine is a huge amount of the interest for corporate and financial institutions, and monarchies, alike- gotta keep researching to make more drugs/substances to keep erm 'people' alive, you know. Plus, all that research is useful too. The education system is rife with abuse, but hey, that Prussian Public Education meets Common Core "Pedagogy of the Damned" (indeed), you know you've got huge human resources coming your way, ESPECIALLY in the US of A, the most prosperous Christian predominant nation in the freshly exploited West. Hehehe. The 'good people' in the Socialist Fabian Society, and the Freemasons, they keep to the Abrahamic tradition, and Aryan, tradition of culling and enslavement, though those principals have adapted over time to new power structures, given the amount of wealth that can be extracted from the populace. Marxism? Another mind virus perpetrated for the sake of enslavement. Human tribal nature tends to be competitive, and at best, bigoted, and even hate-filled. We work best when in competition and friendly diplomacy, but still, wars break out; why? Because of power brokers, that's why. Whether bankers, or tribal leaders, or kings. This game has been played for how long? People have extricated the rules in finite detail (see: Game Theory). Now enter the occult. This is the place where notions of the "quantum" can effect "the game", which is really, as it's discovered, are just a set of arbitrary rules, defined by "laws", and governed by those "laws", which are symbols (and language/communication), and also the finer laws of physics, which convolve and involutes (self-undulates vortically) within the finer details of mind, body, and "spirit" ("consciousness" to be more precise). The Muses of History and Astronomy (among others, of equal import) are of the nine spheres of the logos. These are effected by the same forces which promote these symbols/archetypes (memes) and their creation/laws/mechanics/movements -- said movements, again, self-undulate into the rest -- all effects are concocted into the cauldron of 'the finer things', the 'void', 'chaos' (although- these terms are generally about more specific things, they are not strictly interchangeable, that is; however- they do denote a particular premise here), and imbibed, this, into the wells of lower consciousness, to remain, until the search for quenching, the slaking of thirst, begins anew- and because everything is also always coming apart, indefinitely, even as you dream, and then, coming back together again (which is probably WHY you dream); as one is naught an observer, this can be speculated to theoretically be true, but I believe it is; because of this process of constant rebirth and death, that one can 'pierce the void' (the finer <void> now, that pertains to 'darkness'), and thus align themselves with the contexts of the times in which they live. They can understand how to create the world around them from a circumspect, circumambulated, and circumvallated, 'inner', point of view- that of 'self-will' or 'self-determination'. "Free will". This liberation of the mind from the predominant body 'soul' of the culture/civilization which the person finds themselves, creates a being "beyond good and evil", the natural state, that which religions have always tried to cover up, since the Sumerians, and even past them. Because of this great secret. Power struggle is only dominant within class structures, and that's only because there needs be a 'ground' for this 'charge' that is a sublet for the institutions to base their power structure on. Again, Marxism insidiously promotes toppling this structure with an abased materialist structure that couldn't possibly be any worse than the already promoted "secret structure". Here in lay the conundrum. The Aryans protect (the real ones) themselves by way of this knowledge and promote an "institutionalization" of cultures (reforms) as Imperium, a 'false liberation', attenuated of course to the natural course of things, as a subliminal 'crutch', because these forms of institution are natural bodies of man, but if they are corrupted, they become defunct. We all know this. The secret is in keeping the knowledge intact for only a sum few, that is, the knowledge that what is the 'goings-on' (happenings) of the world-stage (especially the world-island of Eurasia but also, particularly the Middle East (obviously) and it's spill throughout Europe into the contemporary "English Isles"; which had not come under full institution until later; or never, in the case of China (save INWARDLY) or some parts of the Middle East (Islam being a primary counter-repulsion of the Abrahamic tradition- a brilliant strategy, though equally as brutal, dictatorial, antique, and dangerous, for contemporary times; thus, all these are an enemy, contrarian to the power structure.... There are also those, who by way of connecting with these locales, through History (some of which eventually WERE institutionalized, begrudgingly) have spread the holes of infrastructure to define an "inward circumvallation", as a survival strategy (see: Anarchism/Sufism -- for a more motivated long game, see Marxism/Islam -- an attempt was made with the Thelemic off-shoots, though who's to say who commanded that....), which is just an off-shoot of the Christian (anagogical-strategy) and the Kabbalic system, which, admittedly, is a folk system; it has off-shoots which are "goodly", and then those which promote only elitism and serve their masters for the sake of said survival strategies (in the case of Jews, it's strictly religious- a Romanesque [not ironically] tactic, that works- lest you actually do what Rome did. Funny that, Israel promotes that counter-repulsion strategy as well; has anyone ever thought of this? Multiculturalism? sans Israel. But Israel is 'the body', remember. Not a nation- but the nation is a body to, SHH, don't tell anybody....) ---As long as there are secrets the power structure can fail, and simultaneously, can also best thrive. It's the greatest secret.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Benny Jet You aren't taking into account any sort of actual information, you're just basing your parroting off of other parrots and their squawks. Sweden 103,200 5,918 5.7%
One of the lowest...no. Average. Averaging along with the rest of countries that approximate in their national health. Economic life is still intact in all nations, for the most part. The economy didn't go anywhere. Back to normal? uhhh again, no. Not at all. Pandemic is still on and people are still getting sick [you do realise they have to take time off work, right? when they get sick...? of course you do]. Compare that to other countries in Europe? Why just Europe? Ok, France is lower. Netherlands is lower. Armenia, lower, much lower, actually supporting those who are not working right now. Interesting. Romania is lower. Switzerland is lower. Portugal, lower. Denmark, lower. Ukraine, lower. Germany, lower. Albania of all places, wow...LOWER. Belarus, Austria, Malta, Norway, Finland all lower. Fucking ESTONIA...lower. Need I go on? Singapore instituted masks right off the bat...0.0% case fatality rate. Just face it...you don't know what goes into all of this a: response, and b: data.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Kingy B You are a communist. "Crony capitalist"? Bernie? He's advocating socialism, dimwit. Because the actual crony capitalists are people like...the Kochs..."libertarian"...the people like the Fabian Society, and their ilk [Labor Party], who are eking into socialism-lite, as it is, and has it's always been, even since the early-industrial era [cf. Ricardo]...they are openly socialist-capitalist [can you imagine? see? you can't even fathom what you don't know, but hey, now you know...]. These are "crony capitalists", them, and the banker families and many other "black families" [ironical term, no?]. You know nothing. Sanders might be a shill...you certainly aren't proving it, though.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Understanding what Occultism actually is, leads to a rounding off of all subjects into an interesting light- if Art or Science didn't do it already, that is, but the Occult make all subjects an even wider subject. Styx, you can probably do anything with your channel, really. Even MRE's, on this channel, ties into it all (technically, in a future tense, but alas)- and by the by, to any audience, Styx, at face value, is usually right about everything, although one can't be right about "everything", but one can have seen the All. Alt-tech is more than just vaguely of import, though, unlike MRE's (which are just for fun, presumably). It's the occult, in a sense, literally in action. It is a battle that must be fought on all fronts. We all control our own destinies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Xavier Azhar I'm not being a weirdo just for refusing to attribute their video to "acts of simulating and romanticising rape" when that's just you're absurd presumption. And everyone else's, too. You are overlaying your own imaginings onto what is, less than it is "rape", more that it is such as if they were making a joke about sex in public [ie., exhibitionism]. You could assume it's got more nefarious undertones, but that's mostly, by what I can see, just you trying to insinuating that they are "endorsing rape" or some kind of attitude about rape that is unacceptable: when it's your perceptions that are overlaying that notion onto the video's content...when otherwise, the video just has some basic subtext: sex is good, some people want sex in place x, or place y, when it's "good". You think that's rape cause you assume the worst of everything you see in the video, and want to place the people in the video, in your own mind, as cast as the roles of evil-doers of society, because their video offends your sensibilities: you then attribute all the worst imaginings you have conceived about the video [because it does matter to you whether there is any subtext other than just "rape romanticising". This is what you [most of you] are doing. You're just inventing an enemy. You are prudes. Neo-puritanism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Round-Up was always risky and a terrible idea (supposed to help the environment, but hello sally, it's killing it instead)- plus, the name itself of the "product" is eerily telling. Silly, because, otherwise, GMO foods would be fine for consumption, if it wasn't for Round-Up. It's a bad idea to implement this in the genome. PS: Biochar works, obviously. We need to work on the agricultural portions of our communities. Agricultural democracy is the most remotely stable democracy. Solves alot of problems. But regarding Energy: Nuclear is the most effective. Coal is next best- we do need to make solid striving towards safety measures and improving output, using nuclear energy, so we can dismantle some of the older facilities, and relocate new ones to better and safer locales.
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
-
pedo elites who knowingly covered up the crimes of these people. And yes they worshiped Satan, deal with it
Not in evidence. It would appear the "evidence" would point the fact that catholic priests are the so-called Satanists. But then again, maybe the hole goes deeper, and yet, you have no means to really plumb the depths, without acknowledging your own "religious body" and their rapacious ways- and then, really, without much more evidence, it just comes down to 1: semantics, 2: leave it to "Satanists" to corrupt the entire catholic church from within, cause "muh religion is teh true religion" bullshit, which isn't much more than the same sort of claptrap.
3
-
3
-
@johnwilliams655 Should anyone even bother trying to elucidate something like that? No one wants to hear, or admit, that that could be the case, as described above. It's just...woman can do no wrong. Another stereotype that happens to play out pretty straight forward, on a regular basis, within society. [...] Literally, it's of no import, because even if it was true that something could be done to change things, for woman, for the better, it would effectively be denied that anything is even truly wrongheaded about what such girls actually do, and think, about such things. They either take it seriously only when it's a societal question, and not take it seriously for themselves, or they just take it like a joke, because for the most part, considering peoples' attitudes, it does come across like one.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
i like the shorter works, myself, for this kind of tract, it makes sense. personally, to me, i don't even really find Political Science as interesting as most things, but it still can be- though, i just like to keep up with the times, and i never really cared to read about the topic of communism, so much (never had to think about it- but it's so popular in the public consciousness right now- fuck it, it's interesting- i'll be buying this work, too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
that wasn't his point either^
his point was that they had those "great things" and they squandered it by now. -- implying that they are somehow inferior, in how they squandered their "great things" -- provided them, by the way, not acquired, hence, not even of their own agency did they have these "great things" -- and then comparing what they have now to what they had then, and saying what they had "then" "is better", even though, any moron who would ever come to this conclusion would have to be idiotically forgetting the fact of slavery, and the fact that they would probably kill themselves, or revolt, if they were ever enslaved themselves, because being a slave bullshit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
no. wrong. the officer first off didn't encounter any needles, he encountered earrings, fucking idiot...secondly, HIV doesn't survive outside the body for longer than even a few hours, even two hours, even one...so your stupidity doesn't hold up as anything but.
remember before you spout some more: A: not needles, earrings, which does not transmit blood unless the earring was used to freshly pierce the ear, and B: HIV would not have been "on" anything because it would be dead and gone before he ever touched any of the Earrings that was in her purse.
she was not obligated to tell the cop about anything, the cop is actually obligated to ask if there are any sharp objects BEFORE the search; and that's more a precaution for medical equipment, not earrings. again: the officer is required to ask THE ARRESTEE if there are sharp objects present, not the other way around.
people need to stop being stupid like that cop was; consider this your first step to becoming "not-stupid".
PS: i didn't say she should be awarded anything either. she just shouldn't have been subject to the cop's blatant idiocy.
2
-
2
-
Zimmerman supporters can't admit that he gamed the event. he saw he could "follow" a kid whom was black, so he profiled as criminal in action, so he had "reason" to "follow" him and to confront him, even though, he wouldn't...and then he could say, if was confronted with an attack, more or less, that look he attacked me, i had to shoot him, conveniently with the pistol he had...which he shouldn't, Watchmen in his state are prohibited from carrying guns on patrol, that is IF he was on patrol, which, people seem to assume he was (he wasn't), but that just further serves to justify his actions legally, WHILST at the same time making the actions he took to look like he was entirely profiling Trayvon with no evidence, or reasonable suspicion.
people who support him support vigilantism whilst doubling down on that support by saying that Trayvon Martin couldn't feel threatened enough by someone "following" him with gun, watching his every move, until he arrives at home (which then this gunmen can know where you live; possibly rob you, or worse break in and kill you), to try and defend HIS SELF, all while Zimmerman has been doing is essentially going on a illegitimate and unreasonable suspicion, that only ended in disaster, for anyone who values sense and reason and rationality. so hence, it's a win for the constitutionalist liberal conservative ie republican.
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
-
thing is it's still dirty business. people can be willing to do their own thing...why go through Fine Bros to establish yourself in such a ridiculous fashion (but that's besides the point) -- all i'm saying is, they're gonna OWN and make a KILLING off it all, if it went down, and people mostly get squat out of it, and they own it ALL. you have NO SAY in your content. sure that already happens on youtube, but that's again, not the point...the point is, they are not righteous, they aren't doing to "help" people get recognition, they just want the $ and the speculative business opportunities...and then think if they do sue people for something like that, then people who are WILLING can ONLY go through THEM.
and all over people "Reacting" to things.
i can tell you, if they were able to go through with this "world" thing, i don't think they'd have the legal standing either to try and claim that someone putting up a video of them reacting to teens reacting (let's say in school about something say a problem they have), and giving their reaction to it, on video, and calling it "Teen reacts to Teens reacting" is somehow illegal, unless they literally could copyright the word "react" -- which is part of their logo, which is what they're trying to claim, the whole "REACT" thing -- which is to them the goal, to stop being from being able to claim that this "thing" is "of the 'REACT' genre" (which it's not a genre -- there is no "REACT" genre of entertainment or art or media).
it's stupid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
well, the idea is that a Dyson sphere can harness the energy of a star...superstars, even (with better tech)...i wonder what could match that type of energy production? i am not an energy guy, it's not my forte, but i do think about the concept of a stage 1-3 civilization, ie, the Kardashev scale, ala, Sci-Fi Styx here, similarly. even though he seems much more lucid and elucidating on the subject, as usual. (oh and you're welcome. these subjects are entirely interesting, and yeah...it's good stuff, better than talking about grilled-cheese or something.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
um, slander is just that. slander, fuckwit. it doesn't have to be a legal position, it's all slander, it's only a legal issue when you sue someone for it, dumbass. but slander always means one thing -- to portray someone in a demeaning way. you can sue because you can be inaccurate. that's why i mentioned it, gormfuck. because it's hilarious...what is he gonna do? not sue? so nothing? so basically you're whining (or was Harris whining too?) about a name-calling event? and then Cenk took it down...and you're still like uber-mad? LOL Harris ass-suckers are hilarious. PS: Cenk also is not a denier, just because he may have once been a denier, or had been influenced to believe as such. just like if someone were to, i dunno, convert from Islam to Christianity,then maybe to Atheism. but you're small brain cannot comprehend such things. like people having free-thinking capabilities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hilalry is like Winnie from Hocus Pocus...a bitch. PS: Trump, a tycoon? why Styx...you and your filthy accurate vocabulary. yes, that is exactly what he is to so so many people, is a tycoon, a successful tycoon. exactly. PS on Trump: he might be a non-caring asshole for the most part...but if he takes his job as seriously as people seem to think, and what seems to be shown as his primary motivator (that he's a good business man, think Calvin Coolidge), then he'll be fine as, perhaps, an asshole, if that is indeed the case. good. it's only so long he can run for president; it's one of those great things about US politics. still though, i am all for people standing up to fight the man, no matter the traffic jam. fuck it. that rhymed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Nobody is asking her to be abstinent."
actually, this is where you're wrong. they indeed asking her to remain abstinent, because the women does not by any circumstances want to risk having a child, and those other methods provide risks to her, as per her assessment, ie she might not be the least forgetful person, or perhaps she doesn't want to deal with the side-effects of the pill...and as the slogan at NHS reads, in bold, "YOUR HEALTH, YOUR CHOICE".
"According to your logic there would be no lower age limit to sterilisation."
LOL no. by my logic, as i've provided, the age of consent (21) is the age limit, you know, legal adulthood.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
no, Akuryu. you might have had a point ten years ago, then it was a hopeful wish, or belief. clearly if you do follow their orders, you still invariably increase the chances of being killed, so no matter what, following orders, or not following orders, you're still fucked by even initially attracting a cops attention. if they are violating your rights, they should be shot, and rightfully so.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
i knew this already...not about the Greek translation (jeez i know epiousios, but i only may have briefly touched on that name, denotation, or not at all, from the Greek), i mean that Jesus was actually Lucifer. first off, he's clearly called the light-bearer...that's Lucifer. two, if you read Revelations, i dunno, that doesn't like look like the Jesus from the Ten Commandments, but more like a super sayan.
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
-
um you have no brain. again, OJ didn't kill anyone, Jack the Ripper didn't exist, and it's in everyone's mind, because there's no evidence, according to you.
i never said Papa Kills was real. do you even use that head meat up there? or do you just parrot what you've heard other idiots say?
where's the evidence? of what? be specific. Satanic networks? read the comment i wrote, instead of continuing to squawk. i said "there is no evidence of modern day satanic networks, but there has been ritual killings in Satanic fashion, so a group whom do rituals isn't out of the realm of possibility". which is true. i'm not asking for proof of a Satanic "cabal" nor is it important. i'm not saying there is a "cabal", i'm saying "there is pedophile rings, there are Satanic ritual killings (of animals, and in certain cases people have been killed by people whom killed for Satan in their eyes) so putting the two together is entirely POSSIBLE". i didn't say likely. i said possible. get the wax out of your ears, and stop parroting shit. it's weak skepicism.
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
-
"It's not subjective because cave paintings are objectively shit, are you going to try and tell me that cave paintings are better than the Mona Lisa?"
that doesn't mean art isn't subjective, shit heel. there is an objective measure to the critique of art. art is not defined by what objective measure it reaches in the mind of critics. it's basic "objective measures" in the marketplace (where art is taken in the most objective sense) is either A what money it can pull in for the sake of publicity, B how it is viewed by the public and critics/ie how it is critiqued, and C in what form does the art take, and how does it compare to other works, in terms of A & B.
that's it. most of which can be argued is unnecessary for art to be "good".
"good" art, as defined by most people, is art that effects them somehow..."fine art" i'd argue, like painting a portrait or a landscape, in the classically trained setting, is more or less a backtracking to the past -- it's a fine thing, but it's "fineness" needs not be measured as the objective "good", seeing as though there are other works that can achieve what there is to achieve in art, and that is, to fuse together connections and make a statement on the world. shrug either that, or look nice. classical art does both. but "looking nice" that's an aesthetic, that varies between people
there...the more you fucking know, i suppose.
"The part about not debating that because it's my opinion was part of the mocking of such a person who would claim that an internet post is art, that completely went over your head. "
PS: no one is debating that an internet post is art; i simply ignore such retarded notions. i didn't say it, you did.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
nice parroting of a narrative. 10 gold stars.
yeah, he was proven wrong in hindsight, and hindsight is always 20/20. he as wrong. he wasn't a suspect (Trayvon) because he wasn't suspicious, because he didn't do anything wrong, hence NO REASON. you can't just assume there was a reason, because even if there was the instance of crime occurring in the neighborhood, there was none that TRAYVON HAD DONE. also, he was a night watchman, but he was off-duty. and if he WAS on duty, he'd have been required to leave his gun at home, as per the watchmen laws in the state (look it up). and that lovely narrative, oh Trayvon lost, but he came back...like i said, Trayvon was fearing for his life, he didn't want some psycho following to his house, so he went back to make sure he wasn't followed and saw that he (Zimmerman) was still covering his (Trayvon's) tracks, in the park adjacent to the street he resides on, which was a stones throw away from his home, which was making sure psycho didn't know the location of; then he made sure that he confronted Zimmerman because in the admittedly unfortunate culture of diss that surrounds black culture and black youth especially, and he felt the need to fend off who he thought was a potential threat - street rules - rules of which i don't approve of, but i don't spin the narrative to make Zimmerman totally innocent when it's clear from his intent and his lack of foresight that he shouldn't have tried to attempt what he did, because it was fervently stupid. and only stupid people support it.
2
-
you are still just spouting the mimicry of the case, i am telling you, however, that if you have brain enough, you could see that Trayvon was provoked and even though he acted outside of the law, Zimmerman pushed him to do so, because Trayvon literally was being followed all the way to his house, by this psychopath. sorry that sense and logic does not sit well with you, but dude, i know what you're gonna do...you're gonna come back and parrot the same dumb shit, right? i already know Zimmerman was found innocent dumbass, which is fine, Trayvon fucked up himself, but that doesn't end the conversation, unless you're i dunno, are you a Trumptarded constitutionalist lib? Zimmerman didn'tNEED to follow Martin, to come close to confronting him, because he THOUGHT Trayvon was breaking the law somewhere, but HE WASN'T, so his REASONING (you know what that is right?) his REASONING was faulty. meaning his REASON for getting involved with Martin was faulty. meaning that him going up to Martin provoking Martin (legally, nonetheless) whilst carrying a gun, whilst proposing that Martin was breaking the law, while he wasn't, and following to his home, which would scare anyone, well, it wasn't justified. no matter what crazed insane way you wanna make believe it happened, it's still a matter of ZIMMERMAN WAS WRONG. MISTAKEN.
if the tables were turned and Trayvon had a gun, while Zimmerman attacked HIM first, even just a brush with battery, and Trayvon shot HIM...it'd BE EVEN MORE JUSTIFIED because ZIMMERDICK ACCOSTED TRAYVON by FOLLOWING HIM WITH A GUN HE PLANNED ON USING ON HIM with no JUST CAUSE FOR DOING SO.
if the tables were turned, Trayvon would be the "true" mascot for gun carry and stand your ground self-defence laws.
the fact that so many idiots that shouldn't be yapping so much, though they're the loudest of course, they ALSO shouldn't be praising a dick hole for making what mistakes he made, but since he stands for gun laws, idiots everywhere who don't understand nuance think that they've made a huge leap...yeah a huge leap in logic, by being idiots. support for Zimmerman is like the blind leading the blind. it's just pure unadulterated stupidity. he's the man because he goaded on an attack?
the real proponent here for gun laws would be "TRAYVON - IF ONLY HE A GUN" - yeah, if only he had been attacked by the guy doing the accosting, instead of jumped first, like in any order of natural selection, a value the self-defence supporters should be a proponent for, as that's what it's all about, defending yourself from would be attackers, and Zim was ready to attack, he sure wasn't gonna ARREST anyone, so what else could he do? he was told by police to stop following Martin, but he didn't...and Trayvon should have been the one to have been brushed, and even slightly, and then just loaded in on him, cause then AT LEAST, we'd be having a real debate, and not a pissing battle over how Zimmerman is a hero for "standing his ground". Trayvon ALSO "stood his ground"...only without the same legal precedent. but where is the LEGAL precedent for following someone mistaking them for a criminal and then bringing your gun with you to shoot whom is presumed innocent until proven guilty? if he had already profiled him as guilty, then that sets the precedent that he was 100% wrong, until he chose to act like he was correct, which meant essentially that he was stalking Martin (but we aren't talking those laws, because it's not your platform), and for no reason OTHER THAN to possibly shoot him, which was the intent if things got out of control, WHICH IS WHAT HE PLANNED FOR ERRONEOUSLY.
see laws are made by man...they are dictated, in their construction, by logic. it's too bad so many idiots that want simple black and white results, that don't actually make any logical sense, have such a precedent of idiocy to stand firm by - you know - so they can feel better about if they ever are stalking a kid whom they think is gonna burgle someone's home, and then ends up shooting them in an incident involving them confronting you and asking you to stop stalking them; see people like yourself would love the excuse to say
"i'm not stalking, not by any legal definition, so i'll just keep menacing you, until you get home to call the cops, don't worry i'm not a burglar or arsonist or anything; even though i'm hypocritically assuming that everyone else can possibly be and that i should go hassle them for that potential possibility - but please continue on to your residence so you can call the cops on me, and legally stop me from following you - oop wait you brushed my shoulder? boom legal man, totally legal, you saw him, he assaulted me!"
that is what people like yourself think is logical. it's astounding.
you think Zimmerman had reason to shoot, but i'm telling you he had no reason to follow. he no reason to be there, and to basically stalk Martin. he initiated EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED, NOT MARTIN. Martin was innocent until confronted with Zimmerman whom was there , following him to his home (which no sane person would want anyone doing in the middle of the night, to their home).
point is, you're glad that what happened happened because it fulfils your agenda, not because it's righteous. otherwise, you'd be able to see that Zimmerman was wrong to begin with, in his actions, meaning in hindsight, he was the one in the wrong and NOT Martin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
it doesn't piss me off, so much as it does make me respond. religion is just an old-school form of philosophy. people always thought. they had to. they didn't just do things for no reason...from cave paintings to just about any other relationship between them and the All. but in a sense, i see what you're getting at, it's sort of a form of abuse, but...not in the sense that it's damaging to the practice, but that it's influential to a lot of stupid people. lol. stupid people whom are proud and idiotic. wipe away that, and you've got a legitimate practice of spiritualism philosophy, that's just simply different. though, to your point, however, i do think these religions can be abusive to people. which is a problem. mythology is deeper than simply marking scientific knowledge, it's about the human condition...i wish people still had an appreciation for that. and dance...just look at it now...vomit worthy, in most circles, more mainstream circles. and worship...well, particular worship is very critical of people, within circles outside of the mainstream religions...this goes back to my idea that religions do, indeed, end up causing people to abuse people; with their stringent rules. i mean, don't take drugs...? fuck that shit. wine, and mushrooms and plants...they are the shit. i can't believe we still live in a world where most of these things are either illegal, or just abused...ok, so that does piss me off. =P so i guess you're right, in that regard, i think. well...religion still can't fight human nature. just look at...just look at the world. look at food for example...one of the biggest things in culture and for enjoyment, and of necessity, and religion never took that away; not all Earthly pleasures are reliant on the old-ways, the occult...the gyres are always turning. people are always learning. i'm sure "pagan" elements within the cultures of the world are growing in popularity, exponentially, with the advent of the internet...these things cannot be killed, simply because they've been incorporated into the major religions. secularism...is inherently an even bigger danger to this elements, though, is it a bad thing, overall? no, of course not. we need to retain some sense of what is magical for our minds to complete the thought-process, i truly believe...i think that logic, for example, will never actually fill the holes...as it were...nor will God. it's all music to my ears. the antithetical feeds the thetical.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
YOU think I'm "sick"?! Well the only disease I've got is "Modern Life," a schnutbusting gauntlet of inefficiency and misery that's one long parade of let-downs, put-downs, trickle downs, shutouts, freeze outs, sell-outs, numnuts, nincompoops and nimrods, all making every day as much fun as waxing a flaming Pontiac with your tongue, where even if you do luck into the possibility of some fleeting pleasure, like, say, if some nymphomaniac telephone operator with the muscle control of Romanian mat-slappers agree to a little strip air hockey, it'll be over before it starts 'cuz some vowel-lacking, feta-reeking cab-jockey slams his checker up your hatchback and the cab is owned by some pinata spanker from a Santeria cult in Xoacalpa who starts shaking chicken bones at you and gives you a boil on your neck so big all it needs is Michael Jordan's autograph to make it complete, and even with all this, with ALL THIS, I still drag my sorry butt off the Sealy every morning and stick my face in the reaping machine for one more day, knowing when it's time to flash the cosmic card key at those Pearly Gates, I won't be in the coffin anyway 'cuz some underhanded undertaker sold my heart, in pancreas and other assorted Good 'N' Plenty to that same Santeria cult so does anybody really wonder why anybody is hanging onto sanity by the atoms on the tips of their fingernails while life dirty-dances on their digits, and is it really any wonder that I seem DERANGED???!!
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
-
i agree. it's a fuckin' hard commitment though, given the ... well, what i find to be, the struggles of coalition. people generally all need to be heard and accounted for, but it needs to be done peaceably, or there needs to be serious talks for setting the priorities and merits of said coalitions -- be it for this party, or that party,-- regardless. too many disenfranchised people are not being heard, and it raises tensions, in more ways than one, because there is always a counter-opposition coalition to each party's aim. everyone is always beset at each other's throat it seems, there days...maybe, thus it ever was....but is it coming to a head? i dunno.
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
-
ok, jeez, because for a moment there, i thought you did. =P (--following comment posted for posterities sake)
they have to make ads. it takes way less time and energy to just not watch this video, and move on, rather than make a comment stating the obvious; no one likes ads. but ads generate interest and revenue, and they need to do something in order to make ends meet. but this is less of an ad, and more a preview video -- it should be put on the TYT/youtube front page -- but they uploaded it, regardless of it's purpose, it's going to pop up in the feed. it's really no big thing to rail at them about. it's like railing at them for being a news organization that doesn't appear on TV. there you get even more ads. there's no escape. there is always turnover...hence previews for new members, to get interested in the site, are required. but it's no big thing, either. just ... i see this too much, and people tend to take it seriously. it's like c'mon...give me a break.
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
-
are they still calling it a murder?
and yeah, i wouldn't act like that with police, and i've only been stopped once. i was pleasant even though the officer wasn't, but i got let off without even a warning. i know how to "disarm" cops (i'd like to think). but still, not everyone has that luxury. she didn't have to put out her damn cigarette, is the problem. she didn't have to. it's no one's business, if she's only being stopped for a signal light warning.
and that families behavior, if what you say is true, is frankly shameless. it's disgusting all around this story. PS TYT aren't perfect. no news outlet can be trusted 100%, you need documentation (ie that autopsy) or some other evidence to show, to trust that what has occurred is real. TYT breaks news stories that that other outlets flat out ignore. i like my alternative media, for that reason. so i can't blame them for focusing on the platform that they support, which is to highlight racism in the media, for the most part, and across the field, from cops to the public. i admire that. although they are not always right, and they probably can address that, in terms of their particular slant. but what organization does?
and also, i'm really not into the news that much which is probably why i use alt. media...it's just more of a platform for me, here, to discuss topics and whatever...i'm not gonna go balls out to make sure i have all my information correct, because i don't have the time nor patience, but i TRY to come with an open mind, so thanks for not taking this exchange too seriously; it's frankly my favorite kind of exchange.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You show socialists proportional numbers of underemployed people, and rural poverty, they shun you. In that instance, it must ALL BE ABSOLUTE. But in any other instance, concerning mayhaps the cultural Marxist, it's always, "but look at this blip on the radar, here. What are you racist!?" Must spend more on minority causes, degrade their agency, deplore white people, must must must.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ReverseTranscriptase You seem to be convinced of the old trope, 'Marx, the utopian, proletarian masses, family-busting, "postnationalism", equality and postmodernist harbinger'. I don't think he was ever those things, based on my reading all he did was provide the opinions on the calculus of how the "elites" would operate, and witness the cultural degradation everyone complains about. They blame socialism without realising that that was always going to happen...unless they literally...abrogated the wealth. Now no one is pleased. This was foreseen. Yet everyone hails capitalism, their savior. Makes no sense. And I'm not a "neo-Marxian". I will give you an analysis: see below: cause I've already written one, and several. But no, not a "neo-Marxian". I actually would slim Marx down to his bare minimum. No Engels, no "dictator of the proletariat" [that's done, we already have unions, and they also falter], no "vangaurdism" [Leninism is orthodox and classical Marxian theory doesn't ascribe to those notions]. YOU learn something, please. Now see below for more info.
2
-
@ReverseTranscriptase New Sections On The On-Coming Socium & It's Affects
§1: Pro-socium advancemen: pur[il]e supernumerary aggregate development [P(lace)-SAD] for short. All is numerical econometric force; life is valueless, all numbers must conform to the socium of affects.
§2: The closer man gets to the socium, the more the synarchic fold of the "elite" [so-called, ostensibly] reign supreme; the Capital will always be the utmost top earners, as per the baring of the "job" [so-called] and it's antecedent "belonging" to hierarchy.
§3: Someone who is the "ideal perfect man" president- this expectation is what leads into the socium [it's also a false expectation and a false premise]; assuming that we need a completely transparent leadership for "the proletariat" or for some ideal "utopia".
§4: Allow this schemata to be detailed through-and-through, you'll have a rudderless leadership who's only regard is towards the socium. One will be taken advantage of, the proletariat will continue to espouse disdain for the upper classes; until they rule "the ideal leadership", which will be a continuance of the communism of old. This, or, more and more of the already elite leadership in the world will decentralize out of sight and mind, further, as they use puppet-leadership, to enact the socium and it's details.
§5: The Trisons quotidian of the anarchic dune-warmachine, Islam, prevails by introducing themselves 'as Other', in the process of Lamassu [the Super-Bull] [eg, the "anti-"bull] and []hole-complex.
§6: If power is racism then racism is the only way. It's really pathetic that leftists cannot fathom this simple logic, which a: evinces how wrong they are and b: evinces how, in the future, they will have to continue fighting, as one group will always be "in more need" than another.
§7: People hyperbolically use the term 'racist' to denote things in a comedic fashion; this gets domesticated, in the hyperbolic fashion, and then is made more hyperbolic, leaving us with a societal disconnect.
§8: People [will] foment that 'they themselves' [their "race"] are under attack, by way of prevarication and lies, in order to raise racial tensions.
§9: What is seen as "racial tensions" is really just the incurring of the socium of affects against the "rich North", in the progressively federalizing [in Europe; and continually bloating in the American north], and it all can be summarized in this epigram;
The rich are marred by the poor, so thus they are hated.
The poor are marred by the rich, so thus they are hated.
§10: One cannot all at once say "you need money to make money" & "you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and make sense. I guess this is why the UBI is A: up for debate as per it's use in institutions, & B: why it [& cryptocurrencies] are so contentious [until federalized].
§11: The proponents of the advent of the on-coming socium, and it itself, are bullies.
§12: All people "all working together" is a misidentification of humanities composite. Majorities are majorities and minorities are minorities. There is no changing that but through foist and force.
2
-
@ReverseTranscriptase On The Racial Implications Of The Incurring Socium Of Affects
§1: An example of the misplaced notion of economics over disparity. It's never the same thing. Disparity is willed into the economy, but at the depths of depravity, and that is, even political depravity, of the sort [especial] that relates to common kind- the breakdown is thus...
§2: Family breakdown is subtle, it [family] is the last to go, but the first to feel the trembling of inversion. The first to go is the axiom of the "common man" [read Marx], then of "woman and children" [as they become subpersonal stock- first by way of welfare, then by way of ordination].
§3: This leads to everyone becoming "worker". Not "breadwinner" versus "housekeeper" or, in other words, husbandry in the most commonest sense of the term; no, but "worker", for the state, at first, then lastly as serfs to the synarchic fold of syndicalist corporations or "factions".
§4: Only then does the family breakdown find it's completion- and only then does the trend go from normalcy to deadpan disaster. First, this is enacted by the socium, by the centralized forces of world federalization engaging the peripheral proletariat in asserting themselves.
§5: This is promulgated by the strata of neoliberal turfwar which aims to stultify the proponents of populist movements [and this is merely one angle in a many-fold complexity], and foment the peripheral proletariat with strength [in 'numbers', yet again] and "courage" [to join the bourgeoisie].
§6: This leads to further incursion from the South & from insurgent forces, from other nations which pose a threat to US intelligence & integrity- a ballast of the navigational jetty which then acts as a Trojan Horse- wars across the heartland converge on the west, in involution. Thru this, the peripheral proletariat provide a tunnel entrance [so to speak] to the narrow divide in the conjunction of war-zones, of classes, and of nations, and races.
§7: All by way of asserting the peripheral proletariat against the west, and thru incorporating them into the bourgeoisie, does the chips fall.
2
-
@ReverseTranscriptase The Similarities & Differences Of Fascism & Communism
Right now the "antifa" people are a threat to American sovereignty. This "Anticenter-Fascism" is not good for the country. It's growing (on both the right and the left) because the left keeps fucking insinuating itself in debacle after debacle, pissing off the right enough for them to become "rampantly individualist" from the base of the 'center-right' on the political spectrum, and thus separate from the left entirely—a bifurcation. Which is by title alone extensive in it's nuance, because it is this that is actually an attempt at the impossible; that is to say, the two divisions share in remarkable quality the essence of what both sides want to achieve, yet vary in the goals to achieve for themselves—and that's still putting it simply. Yet the Fascist strives for (thus in likemindedness they strive for) what is essentially an antithesis to the Global-Centrist model, given the current political spectrum. It's revolutionary, it's tendency is to be disdained, it involves a massive disproportion of violence (throughout History, this is a fact)—and it revolves around idealist solutions that DO NOT WORK for long term success, unless they were to enact a virulent (and in this day and age, possibly world-ending) war—the selfsame as the Communist, which aims for non-violent coercion, in the striving for autarky (whether they achieve that or not History tells us is an entirely different matter); that is, whether collectivized, a la Communist existence, versus, "more independent" a la Fascismo methodology, for the state.
Now notice, there are two distinctions here:
One: Fascism focuses on "independence", and there is a, let's call it, "rampant individualism" of the Fascistic flair—and yet they at most collectivize the labor's wealth at the very highest state levels—in order to fund it's activities, all while maintaining it's self-providing state. It relies on everyone's "individual" effort, but no less than "everyone's"; similar to....
Two: Communism focuses on "collectivism" and there is a notion of the state being abolished and the individual being insuperable in importance, a la Fascismo—but without the import of the state—thusly requiring, in theory, no one to supplant one another in their collective importance. Thusly, like the Fascismo, they are needed in a collective state to provide the necessities of the whole of the individual—this is what the Greeks taught, at some point, I do believe—point is, that it eventually requires something akin to a "state".
[A last point is definitely that statism has nothing more than the social requirement, period: nothing akin to a imperialistic state apparatus, but the State often adapts that form. And the social requires the economic at that end, but that means that the conversion from socialism and/or anarcho-capitalism (in a given racial/national body) and then into either totalizing it's pursuits of resources and juridical/legal components or absolutizing the universal imperative of racial/national or religious directives: which then lead to a contradiction: this is why you see such forms taking place in Russia, as of now, and in China, still yet].
2
-
@ReverseTranscriptase On Capitalism:
An economic system has as much conscience as people give it. People consume so much, that's why you see the results you get, but that's not capitalisms' fault. It's the consumers. Corporations should not be granted "personhood"; just as- like how Orwell noted- "his idea of Socialism" is not Stalinism- one thinks pertaining to a political cause, does not an ideology (or economic system) make.
On Killing (In Self-Defense):
Killing is natural, just like socializing is natural. One can claim to have a moral high-ground, but it's build on one's own whims. Which are equal to the whims of a killer, only the former's entail a sense of order, and the latter, accepts his own order, and confounds it by simply being. Human nature requires higher truths to avoid this conundrum. The same argument could be made for those who steal. People don't tend to complain about that who are socialized, but then again....
On "The west":
The "west" didn't export anything that wasn't already fungible, say, in the middle east, or even Vietnam. All these places had the same economic wants and desires, and they needed to fight for them, and they certainly couldn't have the amenities to their desires (for wealth, or infrastructure, political change, etc) if it wasn't for their fighting, and if it wasn't for the practical annihilation of Communism (from most of) that part of the world. It could have gone either way- don't get me wrong. Soviet communism was strong (and I'm not making an espousal for Communism, just adverting the facts), but they had to MAKE IT STRONG.
On Class Warfare:
'It's called being aware that the world is not run by the hoi polloi, and it would be no different in any goddamn economy. Just look at the population rate of this planet. There is no perfect world where a small group of well connected people will not "leer" over them (the hoi polloi)- even the Guardians of Plato's Republic (as noted in the work itself) are a purely speculative and impossible fiction, as even they would become as the "leerer" of the top-dogs of the public body. You want answers, it's not "defeating capitalism", because it's been here since the Sun was cooking oil in the bowels of the Earth. An order where everything is in it's set place is still one in which oil permeates the underwork, and movements need be made to retrieve it's resource (among other resources, just the same). As an institution, it needs work...undoubtedly. Something people tend to do, especially if they see political underpinnings in motion, is they get tunnel vision. All of these "ideologies" have suffered from it. Neoliberalism. Conservatism. Socialism (Che, Maduro, etc). Communism (Iron Curtain, Mao, ect). None of these ideologies are (did I mention Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist? look it up, if you are curious) without faults. They all fall for the same human plights. Greed and feigned superiority. Whether rich, middle-class, or poor, it's been shown that each of these classes can permit themselves to commit to the same things....'
There ya go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
LOL, this guy...the narcissism....
I'm sure "cat-home" guy isn't throwing that many parties, but alas, what else do people have to do, other than A, B, C & D...party, their job [interests], try and get laid, or stay at home and entertain yourself [with cats, presumably]. Maybe, the friend was relying on the party to have something to do; perhaps they put off an alternative plan because they were told to come to the party, which is then cancelled, leaving that person high-and-dry, as it were. His analogy was very poor.
2
-
WeNt ToO fAr
He didn't...he didn't wait long enough after his compromising comments, he should have let them come to the conclusion that they were dying, and given them more time to dwell on their anger...the snuffing out of their lives wouldn't have been potentiated with more hope, then, but merely given more to whimper about at exit, more then what was already, probably, expected by the shooter. He should have let them suffer, if he was gonna kill himself, anyway. And it wouldn't have been just macho-bullshit: but it would have righteous: at least according to the macho-bullshit that got them killed: it would have been a completion of macho-bullshit.
Is this sounding too dire?
Some assholes died, who fucking cares.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
16:19 -- And did that have to do with this "psycho-sexual" nature, too? Oh I'm sorry his "dysfunction"...because sex as nature is, well, sordid, especially legally, and well, it's sort of implicit in the "psychology" of people [libido], right? so, this must just be obvious to the audience, all this subtext- it's not like the fires have anything to do with why he killed, though, right? because it's not "psycho-sexual", right, really? cause the other doctor said that he clearly was resentful as the society and parents that he felt had abandoned him, and that was reflected in his adopted parents [as he never knew his real parents really], and so he killed people fitting that reflection of resentment [hence the narcissism]. But you guys like to disarm narcissism, but only insofar as to capture it and then direct it, and then set it free again: correct? isn't that was psychologists of a certain school do? But then again, is this correct, in this case, to say that "the fires he started" was in anyway connected to the murders he committed? right? I mean, this isn't "random killings", he had more motive than just "to start fires" and then with an escalation to killing people outright: this is affirmed in the psyche literature: so why the double standard? oh because starting fires is still delinquency....the more you know. =) Gotta love it when people tell you it's your fault your lonely and unsexed and not just randomness in the universe, because then you might start wondering to hard, and break the habit of libidinal subterfuge.
2
-
No. Any actual leftism is anti-authoritarian, and is pro-self management. Right-wing thought entails hierarchy and "nationalism" [a nation-state]. Styx is, as usual, wrong, here; and he is just spouting Americanised bullshit about "leftism", because he's "right"-wing libertarian [a capitalist], which doesn't actually ascribe to actual right-wing thought [reactionaries, fascism, national socialism, monarchism, aristocracy, et al.]. Left-wing thought is all oriented around "liberating" from these things. What Styx thinks that the left does the opposite, which is actually not true. It is the "right"-wing [capitalists] who confuse the left-wing notion of liberty, with the right-wing notion of hierarchy [hence, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, synarchy]. This is confusion.
The capitalists [the "right"-wing; Americanised populists notions of "centrist"-right (minimal state, supposedly) and a "far-right" (whom actually ascribe to fascism and national socialism, yet no fairly little about it's fundaments and it's reality, outside of the Americanised notion, within the European sphere), whom confused "capitalism" from anything but "elitism", and claim that the "elites" are "leftist", even though they are regarded as conforming to what is considered "anti-establishment"; from this the "capitalists" claim that "crony capitalism" is "leftism", because the "left" [liberals] are conveniently conflated with the 'far-left', when clearly both the 'far-left' and the 'far-right' are anti-establishment; only the 'far-right' are actually proponents of an ethnostate, completely out of line with American, so-called, values.
The capitalists have made civil society what it is thru "progress", but not only that, "colonialism", oppression, exploitation, growth and expansion, across the every ocean. It's the capitalists who made everyone established in a central composition of nation-states which all vie for their own elite status, which is reflected not mostly in the people of the nation, the lower-classes, but instead, the immensely influential [eg. stars and starlets, big-wigs, politicians with monied interests at their speaking gigs, and behind closed doors, etc.], the "elite". The "social contract" assures this rote paradigm. Styx is a liar, or is severely confused, or delusional.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only partly true. It was inverted. In the Eastern Aryan religions the left-hand was the path of separation (sinister only implies the "female nature" and this came along in the reclamation of the Tantric path) and the right hand path was the path that claimed to have the Truth. This was a lie, hence why Buddha went the middle path. This is an occurrence from another inversion as well. So, hence why you are partially right. The "lie" is the false claim (false witness) to having the truth. The truth is in separation, but not in the common sense, the Gaia-ladden gynococratic sense which people have tried to fill in the void with, with monotheism, with the notion of "leaving here to go to God", nor in some inverted theistic sense of loving the Earth, or something like that- but in the Aryan sense of renunciation of the world of 'becoming', into the world of 'being', and thensome. And the reason there is a "middle pillar" or "path" is because the two remain in flux until they are resolved. As it is said: “When you give … do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”. The resolution is in the defeat of the minds bonds to the claim to truth, without truth. The natural inclination beats the supernatural when regards the subsistence in this world. Always. It's why the Enlightenment happened, the Age of Reason, why Rome existence, the ancient Egyptian culture, the Norse, ect ect. all the way down to the Jews and Sumur, ect.... T means "Truth". The snake of lies hangs on top the arch of T.
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
-
It's really weird, on the wiki page for her, it says ""ads sponsored by the British government and several private sector companies had appeared ahead of YouTube videos supporting terrorist groups" and several large advertisers withdrew their ads from YouTube in response." -- They aren't talking about ISIL...no, they are talking about the English Liberation Front, and those people were called "extremists" in the article that is cited for this quote taken from the wiki. Note: there is a difference between "extremist" and "terrorist group", right? But here the difference is taken as negligible. So this is what adpocalypse is about, right? Not ISIL propaganda videos, not anything like that...but video ads by the English Lib. Front, and because they are considered "racist" (because the influx of Muslim migrants is criticized by them), that means all of Youtube has to bend over backwards....for Susan, of course.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xeyon He uses the aspects of sexual dimorphism to sell a notion of evolutionary "property". He, thru the insistence of his Darwinism (remember, belonging to the same family, and wide reader of one, Malthuse), sees the "use-value" of a species' sexual selection as if it was a sort of 'cost-benefit' analysis. He treats humans as if they were like Cannabis plants, when really, on a wider "spectrum"/continuum (really, "spectrum" sound cool, but sounds utterly "idealistic", as in to say, Platonic - but maybe it is so simple....), we are sexuated like plants which are their own genus. Biology lacks a mechanism to even care about consciousness, let alone even understand it: how do we know it's mechanisms of survival, even autonomic systems, sympathetic nervous system, et al., are "supposed" to be "useful" at all? Why do we still use terms like "design" in in discussions of evolutionary biology? unless there is a bias already for the certain inflection of language, in-itself, that is also biological, but at once also non-biological, a "transformable" thing, not a "progress" but a Cause for itself. An exit, and return. [...] (To expand on that a little further: like the Cannabis plant, it works, a panacea in it's own right, but not literally: it's both, in this sense, true, and also false. It's false in that of course it's not a panacea: but it's graceful assuaging, euphoric, meaningful, purposeless, is a truth in it's own right.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A lockdown was definitely necessary to contain the viruses spread. Even Hitchens would have to agree with this, or he is, just essentially, a science-denying individual who thinks that viruses are just hunky-dory, especially ones that are unknown. If some novel Ebola strain gets out, I'm sure he'd be the first one to acknowledge that novel viruses need containment, cause they can kill people, lots of people...like this SARS-2 virus did. That's not to say that lockdowns should be indefinite, but here's the thing...you morons couldn't even do the bare minimum without losing your shit...so if there ever is a dangerous novel virus that we have to deal with, you people would rather just throw caution to the wind than do the actual necessary thing, and that is to analyse and protect people from such a possible threat. Anyone who can't understand these fairly basic facts shouldn't have a public speaking job, just on principal of their stupidity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Society is socializing. Styx. Sorry, but...that is just the future knocking at the door. What people should be doing is concerning themselves with abjuring socialistic corporatism for something that is more of a patchwork system- the metropolis should be the city-state par excellence, and that's that- competition is going LOCAL. "Socialists" as you claim aren't hard working, well, that may be, I don't know, but either way, society is growing by those hard working people [hopefully, right?] and as it does it will become more "socialistic" in the atypical sense of the term, that is, it will become more "corporate" in it's handling of domestic/civic affairs including manufacturing and business- or at least people will continue to strive for that- hard working or not. Because it will be called for—or people will have to use "platforms" to engender themselves to alternative sources of income [like we see in alt. media]—the oversocialization will continue. The socium only becomes neutral when nationalities are oriented with their own mutual world-islands. Laissez-faire capitalism is the pièce de résistance, but alas, oversocialization almost prevents this- the blockchain shows promise, however. But technocapitalist-socialists [indeed] aim to stifle at every turn any mobility of "platforms" other than their own- and any outsider is merely absorbed, eventually....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anti- anti-
Seriously, America has this weird way of appropriating, territorialising, everything. When they want, boom, we capture you. Whenever they want, boom, what is happening over there, is also, somehow, happening over here. It's all just politics. If America has an outpost somewhere, boom, that place is now their place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I admit...I am a little in a shitposty kinda mood- but this is what it amounts to, I just...I see alot of haranguing of people, of entire nations, and it's not productive...I just wish to point out that there are even ludicrous-seeming limits on speech even in America, and I want us ALL to fight against it TOGETHER, as opposed to trying to jump down one anothers throats for being "too cucked", or whatever...that makes me want to point out the obvious problems regarding people's, honestly, compromised opinions. PS: Regulation...sometimes I even wonder if I should take the leap from minarchism to pure anarchism (but then again, not an altogether good look, plus, it just wouldn't work, everyone would still fight, only it'd be a fight therein anarchy...big difference...not)....Socialism is the bane of everything; unless you are Jesus with a small ass congregation, or you're a tribe circa anytime before Christ, and you can conform to either some nomadic tribalism or some small cullings- socialism SUCKS. We need better than this old timey shit...and then again, atheistic socialism a la the French Revolution sucks even worse...and EVEN WORSE is the fucking Fabian society types, trying to foist this anti-whiteness bullshit on everyone...and it just gets worse and worse.... facepalm to the point where you can't even tell who is coo'ing (cucking, J00ing) who anymore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
your not helping at all. Your like Gavin or Lauren here. Quit trying to take the wind out of people's sails
I am amply pointing out a subterfuge that is this fool threatening me, and making outrageous claims because he thinks he is a godman, when he ultimately fails to comprehend being anything of the sort. I am simply speaking the facts. Without authority, he is just a gentry without a cause, making him a demon. By who's investiture does he grant us with his grace? naught anyone but his own ego. The narodnik can bicker all he wants- even the volk won't help him now, not along his lines- it will be purely a matter for people like him to orient themselves in the proper fashion, or lest be a non-entity, or simply become absorbed in the fecundity of the rural placation to the "Northern peoples", who have usurped, with gold, the rightful heirs to the throne, because of their avarice; or it will at the behest of a much greater guard to, again, orient themselves- you can't orient a chicken on a spit. People do not want war. You have a lot of work to do, ffh, by the by.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No problem
Wrong. My job is on the line because, me, being born here, my not be able to have a job, when someone from afar, who wasn't born here, takes it. Get it? It's like, how real are you? are you real but insanely stupid and ignorant? cause on a sliding scale, things might be that you are real but also stupid, and that this is, in fact, a problem. [...]
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
-
She did not simply "drop". She moved 20 feet down the road, from a position where there was no room to avoid being hit by the car, to a position she might have been flung to by the collision. Being hit by a car does not preclude her dying of a heart attack.
Video evidence proves otherwise. She was there in the crowd, the car was NEAR her, but it did not HIT her. You can see the video. The only possibility, truly, is that she was hit by some missile launched from the car hitting others', perhaps her supposed leg injury came from that, someone falling INTO HER. But the car was not in contact with her. As professionals, you'd figure that people can at least get these details right...the fact there is so much lies and spin makes me think this is just a narrative used to politicize this event further, because the narrative you've been laying out for us here, it certainly isn't the truth, according to what evidence there is of her, on video, not being hit by a fucking car. The only thing that hits her, is a blurry mass of people, all whom are lower then her height, as they are all collapsing at the moment they draw near to her; perhaps one of those 'debris' (yes, human debris) hit her in the leg, causing her to fall (as you see on video) and that caused her chestal burst, perhaps the impact to the ground, or perhaps it was the CPR that was preformed on her that accounts for the supposed "blunt force trauma".
2
-
Being trampled by a crowd does not explain how the car failed to hit her despite travelling in the space she occupied, and does not explain how she moved down the road. By the way, another problem you have with that explanation, if you value consistency, is the "evidence there is of her, on video, not being hit by...a blurry mass of people"
You are mad. She was not hit, how many times must you be told, it's on video, she wasn't hit, come up with something better. She was co-mingled with others, whom all moved out of the way, then the rest of those surrounding her, as she falls, are people who've been hit. Notice that it wasn't her though.
How does CPR result in "blunt force trauma" to a leg? You're clutching at straws and ignoring the obvious
You are being foolish, no one said that CPR brought damage to her leg. LOL, what I SAID was that some missile from the crash may have hit her leg, and that is what could explain it, because ON VIDEO, CLEAR AS DAY, you see no vehicle hit her, period. You just don't. So you must be mistaken.
And guy, she was found further away because people moved her, so they could do triage. Goddamn, how are you unaware of this?
Look up "Heather Heyer Died by a Heart Attack" from the channel "Yes You", and look at timecode 3:31--- there ya go. Enough is enough.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Noam is wrong. Noam imagines that the orthodox comes out of Marx, but obviously his thinking was somewhat twisted, and it's not really Marx at all. Marx only insisted that material means make up the ends, and he's right. When you think about it, very simply [reification], people need things, without those things, they are incomplete, they need this and that, and these are social ends. These ends are not ends in themselves, but they are of a "dual nature" [Marxian theory is expansive, but Marx talks about this, in his very eschatological and empirical fashion], they are of 'thought' and as such are inexhaustive ends [ or in other words, time-general ideas/thoughts ]. He is basically making prelude to contemporary [that is, our modern day] paradigm of "positive science", and saying that this is not enough without the proper material ends: and he goes on to say that Capitalism will make everyone run thru it's calculus [so to speak], and be 'thingified' [cf. automation] in the workplace - "primitive" communism goes into the thereafter, the hypothetical "what if" when people become pushed out of the capitalist workplace. See, Kyle, all of this is useless understanding of Marx [from Noam].
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, it's called Virology. Viruses tend to mutate. They can also mutate in the direction [becoming more lethal]. Sky News is literally either retarded, or fear-mongering. Viruses still need to be addressed, and not IGNORED, because people will die...people have died. People have been taken out of their daily life and their jobs. DUE TO GETTING SICK. Now Sky News wants to tell their retard audience that they were right, this was never "an issue". All those people who died, were BOUND TO DIE, because who cares? that is what they want you to think, and this is what a lot of you morons actually think, out there, right? Disgusting "nationalists" [who don't care about the sons and daughters of their nation...so ostensibly "nationalists"].
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dying and rebirth, in the Buddhist sense, is just a coming apart and coming together again, in the vorticies of existence. Spirally fun time magick, wheeee. PS: I am excited for Ars Goetia illustrations, mainly why i'm getting the work- and the Rosencreuz work too, soon? methinks this will be delightful! PPS: LOL, Styx conjured Stolus in drawings, LOL, then it came to visit him, and now we get all these great books and videos...COINCIDENCE?!@
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
EVERYONE SHOULD BE MAKING THEIR OWN CONTENT.
jeez
it's really simple, and much more fun and much less gay. All those films and video games we play? Some people had to make them. Switch it up, you can make your own games, music, videos, EASILY. Eventually, if you really want, you can step up the production. Literally ANYONE can do it! You create and do art, no matter what, on this planet, and there is a lot of cool things, so it's fine have your interests, but don't forget you can make your own contributions to the genres and forms of art, even the ones you think are beyond you- they aren't- so do it, because it's simply more fun, and you can be creative yourself, and influence the world around you, instead of just taking it all in. Also prose and poetry are cool too- same so is any form of critical thought, put into a project, whether to organize or build. It's all up to the person, but it really is ALL YOU. Though, you might not literally own your own thoughts, though that is another matter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Communists are all the same. (and you can stop using "China is not communist" to justify communism, Vladimir Lenin's "new economy" allowed private businesses and ownership too)
Annnd Marx called this "crude communism" and warned of it's inherent cruelty. But you didn't know that. Well, now you know...not that that is going to make you think. Plus, you're still wrong.
And Capitalism is just modernised feudalism. You can give stuff new names and new features doesn't make it a entirely new thing most of the time
In a sense, this is true. Feudalism is imperial ruin of warlords trying to maintain their own flows of economy and war-efforts: very similar to industrialism & capitalism's proponents and their movements.
Socialism is the worst evil of this world
And you're all socializing to the point where social democracy or national socialism is an inevitability, for the reasons of "the peripheral proletariat" and the "poor masses", and "race", respectively. The only other options you'll have are anti-state, which you people won't adhere to, not really.
This is not about "good vs. bad", but about "the lesser of two evils". For that, capitalism still tops every other system for modern society since it maximizes efficiency through "division of labor" and allows persistent development through competition
I like being a human mechanism for rich people and like when super-duper rich people send more immigration my way, it's always good, love my masters
You should research yourself before talking. Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Findland aren't socialist AT ALL. They are a mix with capitalism and socialist bases
That goes for all nations, dupe. All nations "are mixed models" because capitalists control WORLD-WIDE flows...you utter dolt. Plus, those nations aforementioned...from Europe...the have royal and ancient riches and colonial money to stave off any depletion from a socialist regime. So it's a win-win for their Statist power bloc.
Socialism and Fascism
And you're seeing a revolutionary divide which actually promotes these two systems. Both are global, one is racial, the other purely anti-capitalist. And why do you think that is? I'm sure you're smart enough to know.
I'm not a capitalist supporter, capitalism is shit, but less shitty than socialism
And some people had it better under communism, it depends totally on the timeline of history, and where you lived. Look at some former USSR states, some of them are much worse off under the neoliberalist paradigm. But it always depends, because we are not some "state form", but the State simply manages people into a mold which presupposes the state-form as a "given", which is a means of control. Whence comes Crude Communism, as well.
Saying these countries are Socialist is the most dense thing to say, they're their own thing, the Nordic model
It's socialism and it's fine to call it what it is. Word games aren't necessary to be honest. Socialism happens because society happens and oversocialization [and over reliance on government] happens. This also leads to Fascism and National Socialism, when race gets involved, which it inherently is...the only reason one takes off over and under the other is because of the tendency to "demote" socialism as an evil, and yet promote capitalism as an evil, which leads to a "nationalitarian" undertaking by the front of race.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kyle, you are just being ironic at this point: you should stop lying by omission, too. Big thing, this COVID19 stuff. Wonder if there is any "collateral" damage from the vaccines, you know, regarding certain youth? young men and teenage boys, perhaps? that you'd like to admit is a reality people should maybe face up to? If we are to admit that this situation comes down to pure material exigence, well, we wouldn't want to abandon the medicine, in our coverage of the news, would we?
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
-
The beginnings of "accelerationism" starts with Marx, predominantly. This, also, here, is an insuperable fact: Marx did not speak of an economic plan- no- he spoke of an inherent worry of "man being made meaningless" and his thought is outmoded and as such, hard to even read- neomarxists are not even reading him right, I can tell this without a whit of uncertainty. All Marx set in motion [as not everyone that proceeds from there can even be equated with Marx in any fashion, maybe save their mental fervor brought on by the fin de siècle era European economy] was the thought that many a right-wing[er] has come across himself, many a "reactionary" [which the Bolsheviks were, "a revolutionary reactionary socius", arising after the fall of the Russian empire—the actual beginnings of the Russian Revolution period is demarcated to a point before said Leninist theory]. This "crisis" mentality is contained in most reactionary thought, just see Spengler's Decline Of The West, or Julius Evola. These are not just "left-wing ideas", they are shared ideas, Styx—it'd be best to deal with their outgrowths wisely, especially in this crucial interim between now and the next election, when people are fired up. Trump is a form of accelerationism, Styx...just not a leftist sort—which stems from the notion that the absolute highest-ups are shit-bags. And the theory begins there. You don't even have to agree with the ends of his critique nor even agree with anything in-between [which even any libertarian worth his salt will acknowledge exists—take "individualism" in the sense of what is "sensed as value", ie., an object independent of a price that is fixed to it from an outside subject to oneself, given a value as to what you think it's actually worth, that is, what a person "demands" of the "supply"]—really it's the beginning that gets me. So what? The machine flows continue.
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
-
This is like funny and everything [yawn], but the logic still holds [and "power" doesn't change any of this dynamic], when you say something like 'cracker', it's used a slur, mostly. If it's a joke, it's not an issue. If it's a slur, then...if you use it like that, you give a rationale for other people to use it like that, and that makes people have a vendetta against the use of these slur words, period. Whether it's the n-word or 'cracker', or whatever it may be. A slur, is a slur, is a slur. Sorry if that fries your brain to try and apprehend.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Uh, I don't take ad-sense for two reasons. 1: Who gives a fuck this is social media to me, i'm not "Youtube famous". 2: The conformity would be too great for me, anyway, a slow-rise is tantamount to meteoric, in terms of "Video Sharing", to me, because my content would not be "popular" either way you cut it...so who cares. The train has got to come to the station at some point- will Youtube allow major content creators who do my type of content, yes, but at the slow-trickle provided (a la the amount of ad-money i'd make anyway), and with the notion of trying to emulate some kind of "news network" (or music label- perhaps, but that's another story) is out of my league. I'm happy being a lo-fi Youtube Stratfor and Conspiracy Nutbar/Occultist Musician on Youtube than be some e-celeb anyway...not that having a good audience base is a bad thing- not everyone really asks for this sort of thing, anyway, and then again, there is also the possibility that things change, and then some...some just have a knack for things. Youtube is constant entertainment- it's never what it was actually meant for, but then again, some people like Styx can provide an interesting niche between the popular and the sort of...normal basis (social media) for Youtube. Good. I'll keep buying his books, since that's where it's all at anyway. That and music and making your own stuff for the fuck of it, anyway.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And yet, as the state becomes more centralized and abusive, people clamor, even on the right, for greater centralization- even in their internal logic, by ends of the apparatus of a leftism in state politics [ideally speaking] there are forces which want to fascisize groups around them, entrenched enclaves will see a backlash entailed, and people will call for a "breakdown" of these "subversions" [already called for by some] in order to create a "better functioning [efficacy of] state apparatus", even for the sake of the great economy- even those who claim to be "spiritual" in the sense that they are "traditionalists" [ostensibly] will derive this self-seeking wont as a means to an end, just so to "have order", that is, the abstract of order.
2
-
2
-
People who took civics classes back in the day, were a lot better at assimilating information and making informed decisions about voting
That's ironic, considering your last statement, before...what was it...I'm blah blah not smart, yada yada...ok. But yeah...I never said anything opposing the statement quoted above [in bold]. In fact, I think civics not being taught in school is stupid. Next idiotic line of reasoning....
As far as your second comment, it really did not address what you think it did. It was just a bunch of nonsense, worded in a way that made you feel smart
I'm sure this comment is enough to evince for some people "how wrong I am" but could you actually suss for me how wrong I am by telling me where I was wrong? please?
People vote Democrat now days because they are not taught civics or economics on a way that they can understand that free stuff isn't free
Says you. That substantially gormless platitude of "dey don't know things aren't free" is a real non-sequitur. They know things aren't free, they simply don't care about taxes being too high, if they're told "it's for a good cause", I think that, maybe, could be a better sussing and argument for your position, but alas, I don't know why I'm helping you out. I mean, everyone is told what they are doing is for a good cause. You can simply look at religion for an example: who's right, the protestants or the catholics? see, you can't really tell me, can you? But the question is, who is more right in their assessment of what dictates should be followed in regards the education of a voting block, when they disagree on what money should be spent on and [what it] should not be spent on.
Add to that the "everything I disagree with is racist" aspect to modern public education, and many young voters don't have a clue. That's the point
That's it? You "added" at the last framing of your argumentation "the point". I don't think so, but sure, if you say so...a great lead-on. But alas, sure...no one said the "everything is racist" delusion was correct in anyway. But...I never said it was. I never mentioned it. Can you actually address what I said, with your "tall-order" and "reasoned" speeches, here?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@High Definition Dude, remember Drrty? nothing change in the world then, either...these people just wanna whinge, and boy, if only they would comprehend the world they live in without the hyperbole. Do they realise kids are still abused more often in the home than on casting couches? do they do anything about it? not really. Do they stop their kids from going to the party, where, inevitably, they will 'twerk'? nope. It's all hypocritical whinging over the facts of reality being too "real" for them to jive with [which is understandable] but then they find this Cuties thing to be the crux of their issues with the medium of entertainment right now...entertainment...which is feeding into the outrage. Ok....ok....but will they ACTUALLY do anything? and will they realise the film literally was intended for this? no. And you must imagine, with all that in mind...if PDF files really did have a had in making this movie outright, would that be cool if all anyone did was whinge about Hollywood entertainment/film? of course not, but here is the thing: alot of these people think along the lines of 'it's all connected, this is all to do with the deep state' etc...so they think some great figure will, obviously, save the day for them....which won't happen; hence, why raising awareness about actual abuse is important...especially on a mass scale.
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
-
Fair enough. Good response, dude. I believe he may have existed, but the stories are all...meh. Council of Hippo, and Carthage, and Nicea, all these delineations were made that don't really make sense- plus, not only is it all very hole-filled and then contradictory (Jesus' claims, and response there after being to spread conquest by sword, all seems very backwards, if we're to believe said claims), but then it's clear that "The Book", both "old and new" testaments, were stories written/created by the likes of farmers, merchants, sometimes poets and more intellectual people, and the like- these stories were then compiled...it's clear that these stories are written by man, and thus potentially fallible. Obviously. (Jesus is still a good symbol, just it's been abused through out time immemorial to History....just my opinion.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks for the info, dude (fucking Canadian Eugenics still fresh in the 70s!) Yeah, this is what people do with words, I call it the Conflagration Of Misuse. But the thing is, this misuse can also be useful, as opposing forces can use such muddled language as bullets against their enemies, too; there just needs to be an attempt to look at the truth of such ill-usage of words. But the fact is gender has been a concept within linguistics and biology before it was ever a concept within this paradigm of "Fluid Science", or otherwise known as "bunk science" of the Gender Gurus of the academic world. And don't even get me started on "Social Constructionism", it's the worst, they've kept us muddled for a long time. (Not to be confused with Constructivists, whom look for meaning in meaning-based systems, and do not "socially construct" new devises, but simply examine currently existing ones.)
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
-
Cultures can co-exist, as culture is an framework of ideas, which can co-exist. People however cannot co-exist. They can cohabitate, but they cannot "co-exist". In essence, they are already one and the same, anyway, but otherwise, pairs of bodies are clearly not twain [and furthermore, no bodies are as such], as externally existing things q.e.d. Also: cultures can also destroy one another, with their maladapted ideas [otherwise non-adaptable, mutually exclusive, ie, a cause of hatred], from one to the other culture, being the culprit. Therefore, cultures can, of their nature, destroy one another and be destroyed [or avoid destroying one or another].
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Shut down
The term is just wrong: a temporary halt to get the preliminary procedures gone over: to prepare for, in effect, a standard operating procedure, for the working [yes, the primary working] of the economy: as the economy would have seen shuddering effects simply by people getting overwhelmingly sick [not to mention the problems from a healthcare and medicine standpoint, which would have been devastating, if no actions were taken]. The "shut down" should not have had to even gone into effect unless in the most hard-hit cities and regions: now, it turns, that with the slow performance, people would have been better off, in some places, to lock down their own townships and cities, effectively cutting off the outside regions to those places: because that would have prevented further spread: which couldn't happen because a: that's asking too much for most regions, and b: people were too slow to begin with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good spiel. Would read again. It's still Identitarian politics. Just face the fact that by trying to insert yourself into identity politics, to do politics, even if you are doing satire, you are still doing identity politics. Kekistan is the definition of ironic (actually, post-irony, but let's not get anyone triggered). But that's why it's effective. But "idpol" is effective in a sense too, because by asserting that one's identity is at the epicenter of ideology (your political ideology is something one identifies with), it makes doing politics concerning ideology a matter of identity. To fight back against Identitarian politics, one should lose all labels. Kekistan does not do that. They entrench into a label so formidable (the self-same as the SJWs and alt-right), and so seemingly "necessary" to the groups identity (of course, regardless of whether or not it's their 'true' identity, or just part of their persona, online, or otherwise), that it solidifies them as an identitarian movement, even if it is in jest. Which, in the case of Kekistan, isn't a bad thing. It's a joke. That's the joke. That it's "identitarian", yet ridiculous and useless at face value. (Although get it recognized as "real" and I feel the final boss of the internet may be summoned.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RebeccaCampbell1969 This is not “a democracy”, it’s a representative republic... who represents you, choosing the person...
A representative republic is a representative democracy. Now, you people can "say" it's not...that really doesn't matter...the point is, it's an indirect democracy. You vote for representatives...you, the DEMOS, vote for representation in this republic. Where do you think the republican ideal comes from? it comes out of the ceding of Roman authorial powers to the senate, whom are, in a democratic fashion, voted for by some class...and in America, that "class" is "everyone", "the people". Everyone gets to vote, and then you have what pertains to the electoral college, etc. But alas, the voting is entailed within democracies, there are no other system over politics or governance that ALLOWS voting of the DEMOS [the people, demographics], period. Any kind of VOTING from "the people" is a democracy, but in the US, because of the electoral college, and because of how voting works, otherwise, it is an indirect vote, but nonetheless still a democratic vote, and pertains to a democratic system.
If every American did it’s job, but then again that’s a fantasy
What job? freedom? liberty? what job? owning a business? if every one owned their own business, no competition would be available...then you have your socialism, already. Ahh...don't you love it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mikey-jv5fv The app probably [as in definitely] shouldn't be used by children. Children shouldn't BE on the internet. But alas, they are, aren't they? cause of moron parents.
Bystanders
What about them?
One of the dudes themselves stop and untie the girl
How does this "clearly imply rape or sexual harassment"? if not simply some kind of "kink", as you say? Bondage fits. So does exhibitionism. The notion of "doing it in the photobooth" is not new, you know...not...in the least, in fact, it's a trope, isn't it? I believe it, at least, was...making-out in the photobooth? [sort of like making out in a phonebooth?]. They seem to be 'trying' [emphasis on 'trying'] to be, erm, 'creative'? But you seem to want to insinuate them to be the worst kind of offenders? Why?
2
-
@Xavier Azhar You never asked anything like what I thought the "message of the video" is, and you are misattributing other posters' views to my own. You lack reading comprehension. I never said anything about "a message", either. All I am talking about is what I am seeing with my own two eyes, and then, once more, what critique I have of the hyperbolic reaction other people are having [if that wasn't clear to you, it should hopefully now be abundantly clear].
What is the "message" behind the video, you ask, in my opinion? Nothing much but what is plain to see: they are doing a skit, where a sexually charged motif is comprised of gymnastics [stretching], and simulating public sex - the scenes mock-up in most of the videos shown is of some kind of thing you'd mostly only see in like, honestly, a Hentai or some shit...the character archetype of the "bad guy" who "looms in the background" typically rubbing his hands together. That's the closest approximation to anything like the idea people are exasperated about, here. But to me, that clearly is a "reference" to that archetype [otherwise, no one would recognize it as such]. But alas, that's it when it comes to that. The rest of what I see just produces a message, in my opinion, of a sort of culturesque "raunch" that is reminiscent of some sex-positive circles in even the LGBTQ+ community, and feminist community - only in this case, it's sex-positive "straight" culture. And it's Russian, as some have pointed out: which appears to overlay a sense of fostering "straight" sex-positivity [as a message, like you said] thru the lens of voyeurism/exhibitionism [ironically, against the purview of the norms in North America, they tend to have to ascribe to sex in a particularly open way - which is just an aside], by way of confronting sex publicly, that is to say, by means of public sexual interaction: but that is where the approximations end, as what we see in the videos in those instances is just acrobatics [in one video, the first one], gymnastics, mixed with a scenario befitting of a narrative [which also includes the girl who's smile indicates enjoyment, not fear or distress or resignation or disgust] - this "narrative" is so as to make it allowable on Tiktok as "content" [and not just to make an even cruder video whereby there wouldn't even be any sort of "story" to seek out, making it even dumber, by the by].
The other video [of them in the photobooth] is even less so remarkable. The message here is "people like to gangbang" and "people do naughty things in photobooths".
There are more things than the general disgust and shame you people want to "see" in this "message" you think the video has. I surprisingly don't see any mention of heteronormativity and it's insipid propriety and "seemliness" of quality displayed at the end of this exampled video, which evinces the instant birthing of a baby. Gotta look at those birth rates and wonder, I guess. But that's really besides the outrage this video has gotten thru the backlash on this channel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IncredulousMisanthrope Considering how rape predominantly involves someone preparing someone for "non consensual sex" through methods implied in the video (eg:- taking their own clothes off and restrain someone from moving, while nearing them suggestively for the act), similar to how historically, rape is conducted in a similar fashion leading to the explicit event. I am hence bound to predict an event through an implication itself, the same way others predict, merely through an implication
First off, you have [hopefully] more higher order abilities to recognise things as they are, objectively, than that. Secondly, all the ways you "historically defined rape" [historicism] equally apply to play. You take off your clothes [to some extent: people at the beach for example], you move near a person suggestively [heaven forbid!], and, in the bedroom with a consenting person you might bind them [now, you wouldn't do this in public with someone off to the side rubbing their hands together like an anime hentai villain (which, by the way, is the joke, it seems), not unless you were doing some kind of exhibitionism, that is, if you were enjoying the act and it was, again, consented, like it clearly is in the video itself]. You just can't stand the idea of the erotic placed anywhere outside of your consent and control. But other people, it seems, don't care as much as you do, when it comes to what motivates them to do such things, like, make videos for Tiktok which include these types of themes.
Either they have been aware of how rape is usually conducted through given steps via observation, or they simply "made it up" and your prediction is the universal truth that everyone should affirm to
No, no, not really. You have merely oversimplified to the point of absurdity. These people don't have to think like you do. They might think as I have explained above, with the notions described being found not "rapey", but instead merely suggestive of eroticism outside of your limited scope of perception. And really? you're proclaiming what a "universal truth" is, by how they "seemed" to have potentially just "made it up" on the spot, that is, unless they think like you do, basically, that "they are aware of how rape is" erm usually [loaded term, a fallacy] "observed" - that's laughable. You don't even perceive what is actually happening in the video, you're just doing what lots of morons do - you're assuming.
2
-
@IncredulousMisanthrope Okay so first off, you can't interpret things "objectively", nobody can due to the way our cognition intends to work (coding and decoding based on subjective values). Sure we sense objective events on phenomenological aspects (sight, hearing etc), but you interpret it subjectively. Basically, your biasness affects your interpretation of an objective stimuli. It's a lengthy debate I intend not to dive deeper into yet
Someone has left out their Kant. We can cogitate using the Reason of categories of schema. I can see and verify what I am seeing, without the Humean fork imploring us to reconsider what we're taking in as perception [seeing as we are not doing science, here]. See, if I'm not biased, then I'm not affected by bias. I might have confirmation bias - but so do you. So I don't think that readily makes for your arguments success. So what bias are you seeing in me, oh...wait...can you see it, or is it just your subjective bias? Psyche.
Now here you defined a possible event based on your own subjective interpretation of the information you have, which may be based on prior experiences or so. In simple words, you predicted an event through your own opinionated view formed by your prior knowledge from your experience. Since it's your own interpretation of a possibility which hasn't happened yet (in the video), I won't judge that specifically
I wasn't talking about the video - I was talking about your mention of the concept. So again, you're just wrong here.
I don't think I'm liable to think on sex in such of an in depth manner, considering how I'm like...a 19 year old virgin lmfao. Buuut, I guess if I were to imagine myself having a decision to have an erotic piece outside my consent and control, I wouldn't care and let it happen. Although it depends on if that erotica has anything to do with me directly or not idk
Well, good luck with that, skippy.
I think you misunderstood what I meant there mate. I basically implied that your statements to everyone else here in this thread felt as if you were convincing everyone to give in to your perceived truth, as if it was a universal view that everyone should follow
Not at all. I am just sure that you people aren't really doing anything more than overreacting [as in, propounding absurdities]. There is at least a tiny minority that agrees with me, here.
Exactly, I am and I intended to do just that, assume. I think now you caught up to what I was trying to say. When it comes to future predictions, and events beyond our direct control there is no possible way to "perceive what is actually happening" and we have to rely on assumptions based on the knowledge we have on our own experiences. Conclusive terms such as "reality" and "actually" are relative (ie:- people perceive reality differently, forming their own reality based on individual experiences)
What you have described is called 'naive realism'. It's typical, especially these days, since everyone things they are already clear in somehow knowing everything, because they say what they mean a lot, and mean what they say - as if this structures reality. This flat conception of reality is unread. We have the ability to anticipate greatly what is beyond out direct control. This is because there is some structure to language, and there is, thru that, some structure to representation [again, cf. Kant]. So what is "relative" to actuality or reality is just that: a relative notion [cf. Hegel].
Hence why your subjective truth/interpretation is just that, subjective. One thing I can reaffirm is that your eccentric interpretation of the event is quite abnormal, as most of us interpret the video as having rapey tendencies
My interpretation is closer to truth than yours, however. And because "most of you" comprehend something someway as "abnormal" and "wrong" [most of you being Charlies' audience, here, a limited sample, to be sure] that doesn't mean anything is actually "abnormal" [what is the exceptional in the norm of any ideal is what is "normal", and not what is abnormal - what is abnormal is for all intents and purposes undifferentiated and integrated oneness of opinion. That is abnormal, by all historical merit].
And what you have also described is merely an appeal to the crowd.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jeffreycarman2185 Problem is people want a hail mary pass or nothing at all. I am saying that medicine is medicine is medicine...if it works, even a little, it works...why waste the opportunity to use medicine that can help people, even a little? if it improves their chances of survival, even a little bit...why should it be ignored? for the sake of people's curiosity being charged with finding a fool-proof and full solution [and instant cure] where there is none? or some kind of miracle thru vacs., where there is none? People seem to really be banking on this notion of "just take a fourth booster, and wait for the omicron vacs." when people are dying in hospitals. It seems to me, you'd want any and everything you can throw at this disease, no? Plus, yes, the study, the meta-analysis I am referring to, took those exclusion criteria into account.
2
-
Everything is symbolic. If I give you something, it's symbolic of a gift-giving. If you receive something, it's symbolic of the worlds orderliness, fairness, justness. If something is taken from you, it's symbolic of the worlds disorder an chaos and unfairness and unjustifiable way. Symbolism is something that people thrive on because it's how people think. It's symbolic to write a bill 'The Justice For Brianna Taylor Act' when Brianna Taylor is dead, and police standing-by "until after the officer provides notice of his or her authority and purpose" is all symbolic. People want to understand the symbolic system they live in. Even Kyle is being symbolic, here. He thinks, ideologically, this is a bad idea cause of the optics...perhaps optics isn't everything to some people. That can taken one way or another, but it's still true to an extent. Even if optics is of import, some people want the symbolic to actually mean something, rather than be passed off as some bill that never gets signed into affect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
tribal people, we share heritage, ancestors and land
Yes, we shared. The Holy Roman Empire [that is territories under their rule] where not made into ethnostates, they were, in essence, "shared". Tribes have always intermarried [save the most remote and uncontacted tribes...you trying to relate us to them? really?], just do some research on ethnosociology. Tribes have warred, and intermarried, for thousands of years. You'd have to go back to a primordial time when people basically fucked their own family to be as uhhh "comprehensive" as you are claiming to want to be. I would say this couldn't really be your wish, though, because that would be going too far, wouldn't it? Tribes either intermarry and share, or they die from interbreeding.
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
-
He had a knife
So what? You know, the government should just actually annihilate all of you. You're all not actually worth promoting this charade...seriously...you people are actually disease. You say one thing [I'm anti-government overreach and overpolicing, remember Ruby Ridge] and then do another [I'm going to lick boots and then I think people who have 2nd amendment rights should actually be killed]. Well, here is the thing...you should all receive this treatment. There ya go. You bunch of hypocrites should just get this singular treatment- the exact treatment you propound to enjoy. So when it comes down to "draining a swamp", the only means to do that, by any merit presented by "American values", that is, those presented by the "right-wing" [although, not the real right-wing, apparently, R.I.P. Finicum] is to all implode yourselves into your own destruction. But honestly...to witness such stupidity...I would have you all done away with, just on principal. To be so hypocritical...it's actually more odious than any thing that can even be witnessed on this planet. It's utterly unaware, this beast of burden [as it has no human features], this creature of despair. Hopefully, this "America" burns...right down. Like it deserves...with all of you in it. Disgusting wretched filth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fight TheMan The Similarities & Differences Of Fascism & Communism
Right now the "antifa" people are a threat to American sovereignty. This "Anticenter-Fascism" is not good for the country. It's growing (on both the right and the left) because the left keeps fucking insinuating itself in debacle after debacle, pissing off the right enough for them to become "rampantly individualist" from the base of the 'center-right' on the political spectrum, and thus separate from the left entirely—a bifurcation. Which is by title alone extensive in it's nuance, because it is this that is actually an attempt at the impossible; that is to say, the two divisions share in remarkable quality the essence of what both sides want to achieve, yet vary in the goals to achieve for themselves—and that's still putting it simply. Yet the Fascist strives for (thus in likemindedness they strive for) what is essentially an antithesis to the Global-Centrist model, given the current political spectrum. It's revolutionary, it's tendency is to be disdained, it involves a massive disproportion of violence (throughout History, this is a fact)—and it revolves around idealist solutions that DO NOT WORK for long term success, unless they were to enact a virulent (and in this day and age, possibly world-ending) war—the selfsame as the Communist, which aims for non-violent coercion, in the striving for autarky (whether they achieve that or not History tells us is an entirely different matter); that is, whether collectivized, a la Communist existence, versus, "more independent" a la Fascismo methodology, for the state.
Now notice, there are two distinctions here:
One: Fascism focuses on "independence", and there is a, let's call it, "rampant individualism" of the Fascistic flair—and yet they at most collectivize the labor's wealth at the very highest state levels—in order to fund it's activities, all while maintaining it's self-providing state. It relies on everyone's "individual" effort, but no less than "everyone's"; similar to....
Two: Communism focuses on "collectivism" and there is a notion of the state being abolished and the individual being insuperable in importance, a la Fascismo—but without the import of the state—thusly requiring, in theory, no one to supplant one another in their collective importance. Thusly, like the Fascismo, they are needed in a collective state to provide the necessities of the whole of the individual—this is what the Greeks taught, at some point, I do believe—point is, that it eventually requires something akin to a "state".
[A last point is definitely that statism has nothing more than the social requirement, period: nothing akin to a imperialistic state apparatus, but the State often adapts that form. And the social requires the economic at that end, but that means that the conversion from socialism and/or anarcho-capitalism (in a given racial/national body) and then into either totalizing it's pursuits of resources and juridical/legal components or absolutizing the universal imperative of racial/national or religious directives: which then lead to a contradiction: this is why you see such forms taking place in Russia, as of now, and in China, still yet].
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trik Stari pretty much nailed it, and Brishear 70: both are correct: Trik, you're right because any socialism is a band-aid solution [socialism being what crude communism devolves into; statism and corporatism, even fascism in it's own right, see National Bolshevism and some forms of fascism too have their implications in Marx]: and Brishear because it's essentially true that Soviets, the Chinese, etc. all of these are crude forms: why?: answer is simple: because [at this point; especially since the "revolution failed", as it were,] Marxist theory eluding to Communism [in the Communist manifesto, and come some concurrent thought parsed from Capital, which has some truths and some errors, especially in inconclusive anthropological "positives" espoused by Marx: and perhaps he's workers unite theory was so hasty as much as anything else that came after, but...], this is theory is not exactly what I think most people took it for, at least in my eyes, anyway, it's an eschatology [like alot of books of that era, pessimistic, dark outlook, just see Mein Kampf]. So Hitler was reluctant to become a "comrade" [I would be too], but nevertheless, some of Marx was right, and he was prescient.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
mearek - He isn't my "buddy". I don't have any affiliation with him. But you people are so rampantly hypocritical, you're dangerous. But by my estimation, you are stupid and hypocritical enough, at once, to warrant extirpation. But that's just my opinion. You are a State-worshiper, and you worship the death of Americans, whereby your State can control the masses, and are helpless to resist, and are helpless in regards to self-management: and as the "right"wing goes, the State-worshipers there will claim to be "anti-establishment" while worshiping the establishment. This kind of radical hypocrisy, just like when ANTIFA actually perpetrates fascistic tendencies, is so abhorrent, the only right thing to do with it would be to destroy it. Americanisation and State-worship must either be wiped out, or embraced. You are the ones to embrace it. Sorry.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Pizzagate indicates only one thing, and it isn't the supposed 'reality' of the situ reported. It indicates that in the highest, or even lowest, of places, from government buildings with suites off the tour grounds, to apartment buildings and hotels, to pizza parlors, there are people, high & low, who indulge in the lowest and most dastardly of lows and wretchedness. It's not about a singular target, it's about many. (And yes, it is a bit of a witch-hunt.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
None of this is surprising at all. For decades now, private corporations, entertainment moguls, celebrities, always consolidated with the establishment, and they always will. Take 'em down. They are never honest, always deceptive. Always, the people you least suspect to flip establishment, like Eminem, THEY ALWAYS DO. TV, their old control grid, needs to be moved, Styx. Moved to Youtube.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Muta explain it, don't just rant. You could be actually useful. No one should, by any means, think "my dead relative" [if that's the issue, ok, understandable, but...] explain the instances where there is seemingly "intelligent" [nte. not "sapient", just of a form of intellect, like a computer AI can "simulate" a "form of intellect"] responses...of course this isn't "ones deceased relative"- q.e.f. - but why any "seeming response" at all. Why do they not simply remain indecipherable? there is, for example, instances of names coming through, there is instances of stations apparently coming together [in sequence] to form words that are uncanny, that is, as sentences which assume intelligence- this could be all illusion- but to simply suss that "nothing is happening" is clearly not true- another thing, why is there ever swearing that occurs? these are radio stations, there should be no swearing- and it's FM, isn't it? that's terrestrial radio, that's censored under FCC regulation. Things like this make me think something more needs to be done in researching this phenomenon, instead of yelling at the camera in a bellicose manner. Think about it: If one studies Cryptochromes, one can see some oddities in how we evolved [along with all other species] on this planet to be keenly sensitive of electromagnetic subcurrents, thru our senses- even if for us humans they've been dulled by way of evolving our pre-frontal cortex, evolving a much more demarcated and intelligible "I", leading subsequent improvement in mental functions and the concurrent devolution of our inherent sensitivities to the EM-sphere. Maybe this has something to do with that,- that is, due to some psychical activity [literally brainwaves, nothing spooky or paranormal here, pure scientific data], coming into interference with the EM-sphere, perhaps with a heightened emotional response, might stimulate the amygdala, causing hallucinations- but what if that information can be distributed somehow? the recent literature in information science qua neuroscience, you can see the instance of studies which verify 'floating data' between neuron, as said "information" [electrically] is passed along them flies off among your neural-net. This seemingly can account for synesthesia, a well. But the implications here, are even more staggering. But alas, dude, no one is like hiding away microphoning this into the spook-box- no one- these "messages" [this "syntax" with seemingly apparent "semantic" meaning] comes through, and it's unaccounted for why this should happen, at all. Scientifically. In cognitive science we know of things like pareidolia, but really that doesn't account for the instances which have been identified. No one is seeing a face in a tree or hearing voices in the leaves blowing in the wind- this is verifiable strangeness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, it's called Virology. Viruses tend to mutate. They can also mutate in the direction [becoming more lethal]. Sky News is literally either retarded, or fear-mongering. Viruses still need to be addressed, and not IGNORED, because people will die...people have died. People have been taken out of their daily life and their jobs. DUE TO GETTING SICK. Now Sky News wants to tell their retard audience that they were right, this was never "an issue". All those people who died, were BOUND TO DIE, because who cares? that is what they want you to think, and this is what a lot of you morons actually think, out there, right? Disgusting "nationalists" [who don't care about the sons and daughters of their nation...so ostensibly "nationalists"].
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
PS: "Indoctrination centers"? You mean like every institution in the USA and the western world at large? Schools aren't the only thing brainwashing people, and you people will never seem to learn this. "Commie this commie that" -- Capitalists are making all this occur. Not communists. Communists are a psyop co-opted by neoliberal crony capitalists/socialists like Soros. You know, it, I know it. I can just call it like it is, without the need to blow it up into hyperbole. When will people learn? The answer is a resounding: "Never". Plus, crude communism was warned of by Marx. Just saying, it's all predicted and condemned, in theory, and in all practicality, already, as being "crude", greed-driven, and scummy.
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
-
@namenameson9065 All your funny-money printing makes the private central bankers very rich. That's why they love high government spending so much! And we pay for it all! No, I don't want to pay for anymore of other peoples loan debt!
Just defenestrate...seriously...so you are claiming to be a capitalist, and don't understand HOW CAPITALISM OPERATES. It's always global, because the money goes everywhere, and can be siphoned everywhere, too. Which is the case, right now. You like central banking if you like capitalism. If you like self-managed economies, then socialism is what you truly endorse. I'm many of you mongs don't understand the facts, here. But that's not anyone's problems but...well, it's everyone's problem, because you people are run amok.
2
-
@namenameson9065 Supply and demand are simple laws of nature. The more of something the is, the less demand there is, then the less value it has. This is just how things work. You can't argue against this principle. Communism will not save you from supply and demand
How is anything he is saying "communism"? You are such a moron, and you people, you viruses, are infecting people with the most tragically stupid misunderstandings of economics and politics, that can even be imagined. The more of something there is the demand there is? right...and so this is what you see: people's wages becoming nary enough to support people's conflicted ideas of "managing wealth", and then people like you jut out, like sore thumbs, wanting things to be fixed and not having a clue how to fix it or what is even concurrently happening on a day to day basis with your wealth, and then you'll say: but my taxes...it's the leftists taking it! -- No...it's just the way you like things to run. Sorry. Socialism, Capitalism...all the same, by these markers...they are different in other ways, though. Socialism is "self-managed". Capitalism is not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It should happen to all of you. None of you are exculpated. None of you did anything, in 2019. You waited. You let delta in overseas, when we knew it was spreading - all for "normalcy's" sake. Before, logistically, we could vaccinate everyone, delta had spread [so you cannot, logically, stigmatise "the unvax'd" for that: it's insuperable]. And then you and the CV-panels continued to lie, leading to more vaccine hesitancy, and greater distrust in the medical apparatus, and not to mention, government and media apparatus. [...]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dreams are portals to the architectonic realms of demonic forces, ie, iconic forces- that which is manifested through archetypes, memes, in otherwords- concepts evolve over time, in language & symbol, & memes, icons (or "totems"), and the "demonic" (eg, "intelligent" forces), by way of the architectonic plates of the lower being of the seat of the conscious "soul", the unconscious/subconscious mind, and causal forces implicit in consciousness are invoked by these forces; that without proper rites or wights to establish limits, generate out of control, in a libidinal economy that is quite...taxing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, I didn't mean, like "cellular" life, as I'm sure no one did. I'm sure you don't think it's "cellular life" we're talking about, either. I mean, you don't think it's "cellular life" that we're referring to, do you? We're talking about human life. So as such, by "non-living", I meant as an "animal" or a "human" if you prefer (either way), but not a "vegetable" or a "rock" or "cellular life". So no, not "objectively false". You're objectively fallacious in your assertion. And as I stated before, the term "unborn child" makes no sense, and it should be stricken from English idiom for it's overstated idiocy. A child is BARED in the womb...thus, if a child is in the womb, to call it UNBORN is...just plain stupid...and doesn't make logical sense, nor linguistical sense, but only in the vaguest way, in which English can provide exceptionally ugly sentences and nuance, and still be grammatically correct, and/or readable. So, to re-iterate...again...a child BARED in the womb, is BORN- either that, or is eventually born (depending on your point of view, which is afterall what this entire bitchfit [from you people] is about...about how "life begins at conception" -- which is when...a soul can be said to possess the body (or vise versa, depending on your point of view- it matters not), but that is when the human body can possess a sense of what it is, even if it doesn't possess the 'context, 'structure', 'subject matter' ect (whatever you want to presume to call it) to realize what [and/or who ] it is. -- via your own, and assumedly most others' here's logic [see? witness the terrible phrasing!] you can also postulate that the child is already "living while unborn", and/or "presumed to have a human soul at x interval of time" which you can never adjudicate upon facts, or inference [internal logic, ie, inductive reasoning], but you can all intuit when it is precisely based on your feelings and emotions. It's a tad...cumbersome...reasoning, that is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
what symbolism and magic? Haven't been to church in 20 years and no intention to go
Exactly. You're a Charismatic Christian. When they are still fundamentally stupid, boy, whew, they are the worst. You saw Christ? That's called magic, dumbass. What do you do with what you know? have a party? no, not you...you preach about a God in the Christian sense, declaim all Christianity, save your own experience, and yet, in your foolishness, you don't realize you've seen Personality ascribed to what you call "Christ" and it came in the form in which you could ascribe to. And now, what do you do? Preach Christianity; and in such a way, you'll probably annoy 'seekers' and just drive them to one or another church- because you're so evidently full of it. LOL, and it's simply because you do not comprehend what you saw. But it did make you crumble and weep...that's like...hilarious, because that isn't even the half of it.
2
-
2
-
Decent video: But alas, the SJW progressive types are leading the charge. They might be a fringe slice of loony pie, they might not be the actual stakeholders in any of this, because big monied interests are. But thing is, these interests, they are not just in Silicon Valley...they are in most of the political world, now. Because of these people - Not corpo cocksuckers- no, they didn't open up these doors...stupid SJW dumbfucks did, because that is what alot of people are taught...to upend a system that "disenfranchises them", and if you can be painted as nazi, all the better- monetarily and politically. They are TWAIN, Styx. I know you want to harp on the principal of the matter- money- but to SJWs it's beyond money, and this is EXACTLY WHY they are instrumentalized against political conservatism. 10:50 -- Good Christ. Cum farts as art.
2
-
2
-
People are social animals, you all are trying to vie for your own groups, and/or "race". At-bottom, the people, the narod, are social, and hence, at-bottom, socialism is what is relevant to the people and their social ends [as per the definition of the term]. It's about people, at-bottom, having self-management. You want that. The entire populists sphere of the right-wing now wants SELF-MANAGEMENT. You understand what that means reta- I mean, Drizzle? No. But I'll tell you. It means that, at-bottom, when the people want self-management and seemingly can't have it, because they try to rise up and attain it, this is what makes them both libertarian in ethos, and socialist in action.
2
-
2
-
So protectionist policies help in international trade, to combat globalist socialism? I'm in then. It makes sense, IF people are trying to play fair and not be a total autarky, in international diplomacy and trade. Leftist position on trade is a scam- I knew it, Trumponomics proves this. Thank goodness I've not blurted too much about tariffs in the past, because civics was never my forte, as I learn more, I realize that autarky is a bit...untenable in a global diplomacy , when considering trade. But protectionism to an extent is a worthy end towards dissembling against globalist socialism, so, OH SNAP.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
right. i do not have a problem with self-defence...i'd wager that MOST informed individual's, "liberal" or not (i really don't even like liberal party in Canada, and you know what, US too. but then again, i don't get the hype around hating on them, NOR conservatives. i am a liberal conservative. i guess you can call it libertarian, but then again, not quite), do have anything against guns for home protection, but they want to quell the amount of guns on the street SOMEHOW. there aren't very many good idea's on that front, it's a tough situation.
that's my opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
they are talking about progressive topics, as this is a progressive network. they do not need to sound alarms at every Muslim's idiocy, especially considering -- where's the terrible Muslim attacks that are so prevalent in the US? oh right, there is very little in comparison to right-wing crime (see Oregon), blue collar crime, and the other various trials, as such, in the US; and considering this is a news cast for the US, you can imagine they want to stick to that news that is relevant in the US, and that pertains to it. PS: whenever a Muslim attack happens in Europe (or the rare attack, in the past decade, in the US -- 2?) TYT covers it -- and i don't recall anyone ever saying that "all other religions are the cause for Muslim extremism"; i'm sorry, but where did you hear that from? i've never seen it on TYT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paul...i genuinely love this channel. you are the most clear headed reporter and well, these videos are also special, they are broadly open-minded, in spite of insanity, and yet you nail all the right points of objectivity. yes, there is some major fails in art. art needs to be critiqued, right? well....it certainly does. but there is still some great artists out there (and musicians). -- though i will have to highlight something, nevertheless -- Henri Matisse is old as fuck, and he's a painter. i'm pretty sure he was specifically talking about painting, and not all forms of art, because, the thing is, your comparison was pretty specious; comparing the painter (and quoting him on the realism -- to expressionism [ie Starry Night Sky] shift in art painting) to a photorealist sculptor, is a bit...ehhh, i mean, it doesn't really add up. but who cares. tis still only a matter of opinion...oh and of course, you were more making a point about the art institution, and not so much about Matisse, in general. and that part, about the art snobs in the elite, is at least partially, to significantly, true. -- and one more thing...being given grants to do art -that's nice, very free (sarcasm) - but you take thousands and thousands of tax dollars, being paid by the government, directly, for public art, and it's a piece of expensive shit! is stupid! --- art should be personal. "public art" is a disgrace to art if it's just shit! it's like saying "here, by the way, this is what you really pay for" to everybody...my God, that's retarded. those people should be anxious as hell about what kind of lifestyle or motives they have for this gobsmack. it's like spitting in the face of society at large. shame. PS: last thing: that last line...that was conceptual art. and it was pretty much free for how many people? "these people should be ostracized, and left alone! to play with eachothers poo! while genuflecting over it's artistic brilliance!" -- Genius!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:50 -- Indeed. By the by, I have no problem with the so-called Cultural Christianity. Just the fire and brimstone "my way or the highway" variety. 8:39 -- People also, however, have the tendency to belief that people are feigning tolerance as a political strategy, because religious people tend to want political power- afterall, Taqiyya is a thing...no one trusts Muslims henceforth, from learning about Taqiyya, and how it's examined and propounded on in the Koran. Same logic applies to Christians. Their book says one thing, Christians believe it's authentic, they hold to those beliefs, and may lie about their intentions about gaining political power, if they truly believe, for example, that being gay leads to, say, social degeneration. =) "Oh it's not a big deal, we've modernized", all until it's simply irrelevant to take such a stance...afterall, the Bible isn't going anywhere. They can immediately resort back to it's glorious ways, whenever enough power is struck within government and US society at large. This is the problem people have with ANY religious authority in the White House.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i knew you would! people have to drop the fiction that they are supposed to live in a perfect society...or that they're supposed to BE perfect, in general. they're not. people have to stop playing the blame game, it's not getting us anywhere. we have to stand up against the real powers that be, which is ignorance and fear, and put them in their places. blindfold the truth for dignity's sake? NO. people should reason with themselves when they want to insist that everything will just go away, when there is greed, violence, and suffering in the world; and should learn to not blame other people, for what they never did, because they are of a similar creed, race, culture, opinion, than someone that one doesn't like. DEAL WITH IT. people, it's called freedom. the root of all evil is money -- you deal with the economic issues, you deal with the PROBLEM. -- please, no one conflate this with Europe, right now; neither the time nor the place. the Refugee problem is a disaster, but here we're talking about freedom in America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bwahahahahaha, 4chan. The FCC has rules you know, Colbert! PS: The only think that's funny about Jimmy Fallon is the name Jimmy Fallon. PPS: Comedians should be exempt from any kind of foofooraw of political hypocrisy, because to tell jokes, at all, you have to put yourself in other people's shoes, so to speak...you need to be able to put yourself in place of your enemy, even, to make a joke work (it's all about happenstance). Leftists don't understand this concept. No, sorry...SJWs on the right and left, they just don't understand this concept. (This FCC thing was clever though, and pretty funny.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
why should it? let me put it to you this way... why shouldn't women have tipped the scales in that regard? the draft was already unfair to begin with, so really by them saying no, they were fighting against unfairness for both parties...how do you know they were thinking about "oh what's just fair for us" when they could have very well been thinking "well it's already unfair, so lets not deal with it".
i get ya on "ok the men had to fight, so the women should have had to" but... should they have if it was already unfair to begin with? i mean, i hear this alot, "men built civilization, we fought all the battles" well... did you HAVE to fight or were they coerced to fight for rulers? and plus, sorry, i know it's kinda of trite point but not trivial, women had to kinda have and tend to the kids that one day would become ruler's and fight in wars, nevertheless.
1
-
well i can't disagree with that either. i think that feminist's in this day and age have alot more resources available to them, i mean, there are academic courses and philosophy's and lots of historical and ethical proportions to study about, and that provides a background for alot of misrepresentation and misdirection from certain lets just say "grassroots" movements, where certain coalitions can gain from, and establish themselves in...not all of them are necessarily factual or even relevant. i don't think feminism is respected by both men and women these days. personally, i am a feminist, but only in the strictest sense of the word; i am new to this, i don't particularly study or research feminism, and most of what i hear is from the MRA side of things, given the perspective these days and what people are talking about, obviously. so i dunno, i am still undecided on alot of issues here. i've had plenty of discussions and debates though on the subject. i agree with alot of "anti" feminist statements (such as custody and guardianship of children and divorce liability, such as what Karen brought up in that particular interview. even had a discussion today on it about this particular comment which didn't go so well admittedly. i am quite stern in my views. but i feel like we're having a legit conversation about this, so i am happy to admit, that i am not the first person i'd go to to debate this topic. but i am curious to know how MRA's (to use that silly terminology, but hey what can you do, there are so many things to fight for, because people have to stand up for their believes) ... how MRA's view the ideal of feminism before we get to the "grassroots" movements that are happening all over. i mean, i hear arguments from both sides that i agree with, and also arguments that i tend to find facetious at best. i mean i really don't know how to address the point on which she brought up the draft, because i find the draft abhorrent to begin with, and find it something that any group nowadays would be willing to fight for unanimously, if it weren't for such a divide such as men's vs women's rights. i mean, women had to fight for SOME of their rights because otherwise they would not be granted... but haven't we all?
i apologize for the long sentence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok. But it's still not a Satire. At least, I don't think he's doing that...he certainly isn't taking any real moral stance either...I don't think it counts as Satire, but just barely doesn't. It's more of a polemic against De Niro, than a satire about him. Satire implies more than I think you give credit for. Simply mocking or deriding someone isn't automatically humorous, nor is it automatically Satire, even if it's cynically sarcastic. Usually, in a Satire, the subject is made to be either ignorant of his wrong-doing (which, politically, De Niro isn't), or is incapable of wrong-doing (which I suspect isn't something YOU believe). Usually, in a Satire, the "bad guy" is subtly making fun of HIMSELF. So again...don't think this counts as a Satire. Just an Opprobrium or Polemic. Let's not bastardize the language more than it's been allowed to be already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christians want to instate laws for the country, specified by their religions doctrine, and they say it's purely constitutional, which it's not...basically, a type of religious imposition on the people, like they are afraid of with Sharia Law. sorry but the constitution is the best law...and this is the point: it's the hypocrisy and media spin that Cenk addresses on TYT. most people are too stupid to understand the concept. he is always on the side of freedom -- but he knows not to continue to follow idiotic rhetoric that only serves to stir the pot, instead effectively pointing out blatant hypocrisies and fundamental errors in logic and reasoning, and understanding of politics and media production. this stuff flies over peoples heads and then they want to critique and share their opinions, more idiots follow, and parrot...and the idiots continue to rule, in numbers, as thus it ever was.
1
-
Cenk is referring the media bias when making reference to the comparisons -- ie, he's referring the media making blanket generalizations and then pundits making declarative statements against "liberals" or "gays" or whatever have you, and then getting away with it, skewing the narrative -- he battles that by questioning the comparisons that others make, by proposing other comparisons that seem absurd by comparison, because they are -- but he does this on purpose. you are one of the many whom do not understand this fundamental aspect of watching Cenk on TYT...that's the goal, to question the narrative being produced by corporate media outlets. you know they lie all the time, right? well, that's why Cenk does what he does, in that regard...to propose that when someone, anyone, does something like that, it's the same media spin as anyone else doing it, regardless what it's about.
and also, you can't really say that he used an argument like "oh the KKK bomb people too". what just like that? does he shrug his arms too? i've never seen it. i've only seen him make the odd comparisons that he then decries them as absurd, and warns the audience that his comparisons are to elucidate the way corporate media (and politicians) creates spin and skews narrative. he flat out tells the audience this -- and people like you just insist that he's an apologist, when he's the furthest thing from it. he decries Islam for their actions -- he decries media spin, and the lies perpetrated, and elucidates how they do that, and people still don't get that they're watching an explanation, and not an account of actual spin. the spin is in the spin of anything, not just things against/for Muslims, Blacks, or Mexicans. only these get brought up in the media alot more than anything else, so this is the subject matter that's covered -- and people seemingly get confused, after hearing enough times things that go against the media narrative, they then start getting mad at Cenk for trying to spin the narrative, when all he is doing is exposing the hypocrisy of the misleading spin already being readily bought.
if one keep saying "all terrorists in the US are Muslim" one'll begin to believe it, and then one'll hear something like "also there are Right-Wing terrorists" from Cenk, after discussing the notion of the first statement, and one'll say (presuming they are right-wing, far leaning) "that's just not true, he's making a faulty analogy!"
right! but the thing is, the statement that "all terrorists in the US are Muslim" (and this is what some people believe, that Islam is it, and there is no Christian terrorism, no right-wing terrorism, ect) is WRONG, whilst the second statement, in conjuction, is perfectly rational and reasonable and TRUE, but to make the analogy, even tacitly, IMPLIES SOMETHING, right? so when anyone in media does it, it's always a sham -- thing is Cenk openly discusses the subject matter on air, as it's addressed, and doesn't just make a false analogy, and then not address it's falsity. he addresses those in the media whom DO, though; and at the same time, he addresses those whom buy the media's false narratives and spin, by engaging them, and bringing the believers of the spin of corporate news out of the wood work to oust themselves -- all for the sake of having (or trying to have) an honest discussion, in a supremely dishonest media environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
how things are pointed, connected, and shaped, determine some kind of output of energy -- my own personal theory, due to a dream i had. (knives arranged in a hanging fashion [like Damocles] over photos of memories, hidden in the actor's suite in some back of an abandoned theater -- ha, sorta like Pale Fire, weird.) PS: this video just informed me of Joe Citro, so that's awesome. i think i have one's Vermont Ghost Guide, coincidentally, from a box of books someone gave me. hadn't looked into it yet, but will now!)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
well to be honest, i thin that ethics are the most important thing we can, for lack of a better word, "Dwell" on, but i also think that everyone shares their opinion and has the ability to be entirely wrong based on the premise that they state their opinion on. now i don't think he's been wrong about anything i've heard recently that i can remember, but i can say that he surely has had to learn all that knows so surely at some point he was as misinformed as the rest of humanity. so how can i know he's right based on a hypothetical presumption? i think he's got good IDEAS but that doesn't necessarily make him right. but i ain't bashing him. i am actually kind of a Sam Harris fan. he doesn't even like the word "atheism" and what it's come to represent to communities of supposed atheists, and i agree with him on that. some people say it means the lack of believe in anything... well, i dunno... the lack of believe in things with substantiation or evidence is called empiricism and i like that more than the term atheist for that connotation. but really the word just means A (as in anti) Theism (meaning a single God entity) so technically by the word's ascribed meaning it's self, Atheist shant believe in a single God, but they're certainly allowed to believe in multiple rulers of the universe, so...how can one take it all so literally? some people really do, and don't even get the definition right. i think it's fine that they can live by their own definition but it's not fine that some people can't even discuss the differences from people's views on what the word actually represents, for example; not to get into the details of how some atheist's just piss me off with their rhetoric and some with their insensible conniptions about the world around them. i am more of an agnostic than anything.
1
-
i like you. this is good.
well first off let me say that i am an agnostic atheist. personally my opinion is as follows, and thanks for letting me clarify: i think that a God that wanted me to worship and believe in him fervently with no regard to... not even facts... just... knowledge and believe's and logic... i think that that God would not be worthy of my worship... so hence i say "if there is a God let him take me into heaven or whatever you want to call it (truth, knowledge, some indefinable good) without me subjugating myself to him, otherise what's the point, but if so, sure i'd take it, but i don't necessarily believe in it". that's my honest point of view; correct me if i'm wrong but that makes me an atheist no? i don't believe. i do open myself to the possibility though that well... who knows? i can't prove the non-existence of a God who's immensely secretive and whom is unknowable (even by any religion's standards, afterall, isn't that the point, trust?) but i do struggle with being on the fence, so to speak, about things. i do not accept things at face value unless these things are factual, i question everything. so if there is God i'd have to have him accept me for questioning his/her/it's entire existence. it's a nice story though, i mean, it's practically poetic.
but let me bring up this other minor point...
" I think this is the main point I want to get across, that using a hypothetical situation to explain a position isn't a weakness, it's part of forming a strong argument, or part of attacking someone's position by highlighting contradictions in their views."
as an example. i do not believe that hypothetical's are inherently dangerous or immobile; i live by this standard, the possibility of being wrong. so i do not view Harris's view on creating hypothetical dialectics to show that he may have a point, not at all, as a wrong doing. i am just saying he might have to be correct in the near future, cause who knows? hindsight is 20/20 but to make predictions that's always "up in the air" so to say.
bad grammar is a trait of mine. i do not ascribe to entirely proper grammar to make a point more reasonable. i think that my thoughts should stand on their own, and grammar is for writing (while i add this edit to affirm that i forgot to add a comma here and this is important so... i'm pointing it out , comma), while on the internet for example, my grammar isn't really portraying my thoughts, it may make my thoughts more communicable but i don't care to convince people. i'll save grammar for my writing and for when i am well i take it account... i won't say i don't, but not always. so please excuse the horrible punctuation and sentence structure. i am type in a stream of consciousness style and have no editor. :P
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boy, that is...just sad, very sad reasoning skills. He didn't "support" Soros, in any way. He said "Media Matters is going to end up with something that bites them in the ass", and you somehow misconstrued that, because you can't understand what nuance belayed his thought process, nor what language distilled into the overall delivery of the thoughts of this video. When he said "I support that", he didn't mean it literally, you...blimey, I just don't get it...how you could miss that. He said "I support them in their self-defeating conquest", and you...think that's wrong. You're perception is incomprehensible...and unsound.
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all, you're still missing the point: Styx didn't say what you seem to've presumed he said. He made prediction, and I suppose I shouldn't call you a nonce for missing that fact...? He didn't say he support "the anti-American sworn enemies to destroy the only mass-reaching outlet on your side", did he? I didn't hear that. I heard "Their attempt at discrediting Fox is a cover for their taking on more conservative clout for the sake of filling a vacuum, which will destabilize their core audience, so good, if one falls, they all fall, because they, and their audience, will decentralize, a la, Bill O'Reilly/Glenn Beck- and then the ONLY mass-reaching media (regardless if it's on our side, or not) will be social media, and the internet, and new firms will spring up, leading to further propagation of ideas, which you'd have to continue to render unto yourselves, or something like that."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
he said "isn't it a shame that for most black people the good ole' days were the days when things were segregated legally in this country...that the good ole' days when there were two parent families -- were the norm, in the black community, -- and there were...two parent families were the norm, back during segregation days."
this is called double speak. he's saying the family unit is broken up due to ???? reasons ???? and that's bad, but the good ole' days that people refer to (older people) were back during segregation; with a proper family unit -- implying that it's better during segregation -- even if he doesn't state that explicitly, this is what he is implying. double speak. the family unit still exists, he's making a statement implying that somehow it's an abject failure -- the black family -- and he's implying that, when people refer to "the good ole' days" that they referring to a "better day", without any further inference. that is an unsound conclusion, because just people people refer to them as "the good ole' days", doesn't mean they actually "good". in fact, it means squat. it's a logical fallacy aimed to convince idiots of things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"its a great idea, but collecting more money for the gov won't help it go away. Spreading around wealth from others wont help.
Nothing bernie will do will help. If he gets close to change id bet he dies quick.
If you want people to live better maybe let them live and not tax them to death. The gov isnt responsible for taking care of people like that. No one is owed health care or schooling. A fair wage maybe, but still it shouldnt be gov mandated."
if Bernie cannot help the country...than who the fuck can? Trump is just as slimy as Hilary (though his policies are alot less slimy -- i'm just talking ethics here)...does he take the same position now, as he did two months ago? nope. gotta compete against 'liberal Hilary" now. and Trump wanted just as much of a redistribution as what you suspect of Bernie. he's basically paying people to support him. remove the Mexicans and redistribute the jobs (ie the cashflow) to ordinary Americans...yeah, and what if most of those Mexicans were being paid under the table, and being paid less than what an "ordinary American" will be willing to work for? and how many of these people will America need? sounds equally absurd as the "lining up for rations" socialism idea that people kinda just presume will happen, in a country like America (doubtful -- highly doubtful).
the system is fucked. fiscal-conservatism > libertarianism, in terms of running a nation. i still call myself a libertarian, but that's not a position i'd support in my government, because ther effects would be one of two, either 1: environmental destruction, which is shown to be the case in attempts at agorist societies, or 2: crony capitalism still thrives and people have a lovely personal opinion that means nothing to said cronies.
libertarianism is a fine personal belief system.
1
-
i am not making arguments. i am making statements. there's a difference. i'm not arguing with you; how could i be, we're mostly in agreement. except in one area, it seems, but perhaps not, how can i know you from Adam? -- you need government. so the point (for the massive population, which entails having a fucking government, unless you'd prefer anarchy. trust me, you probably don't. because people stronger than you will opt for you to cater to them) is to have a sustainable, minimal (of course) government that the people (as they already do) take part in, and aim to regulate with all the functions of a people whom control THEIR representatives should -- with regulations ON GOVERNMENT powers, and not on the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"From mindlessly disagreeing to everything to switching sides depending on what you assume side im taking."
you're assuming as well. this is what happens when you take a rhetorical stance as opposed to a purely logical one. now we're sort of playing a game. all i said at first was: money out of politics is a good idea, and only Bernie was supporting that idea; not Trump or Hilary.
"How about calling us a democracy than citing the constitution which states we are a republic. "
that's silly. i've responded with more from the constitution than you have. i didn't call anything a democracy. i just said that i assumed you would make this declination of logical forbearance, thinking that i'm saying that we're a democracy, when really we have a representative republic, which representative needs to be voted in, which is a purely democratic concept -- and not just a Greek one, as you can plainly see.
"or at least pick a side/perspective. "
oh i have. on a personal ideological level i am libertarian, but as for political agency and for the terms of a political body, i am fiscal-conservative on economic policy and liberal/individualist on social policy -- and a constitutionalist -- not a liberal-constitutionalist, no no, i like the constitution the way it is now, and i don't want to repeal anything -- with the exception of getting money out of politics (it's clearly polluted our system) being amended into the writ, i'm good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
your claim that anarchism (the anti-state) works better than socialism, follows the insistence that you would want to break up the parties, which concludes that you think "anarchy works and is an answer/solution", ie, the only solution, as evidenced by you wanting to "break the illusion" of a two party system, and your claim that anarchy would work "better than socialism". so no, not no, but yes, yes, Cynical Bastard, that's exactly right.
you embossed carbuncle.
1
-
1
-
yeah, excuse me for being realistic about the prospects of the country, instead of opting for fantasy, like yourself. i told you: ain't no one rolling up on the white house lawn with any degree of weaponry to "take the country back" from it's 'government of theft', as you'd call it...so you simply bitch, basically, and DO NOTHING -- people like you -- and except everyone else to 'wake up' for your sake, so you can, what? finally take some action against the government? i don't see you doing anything about it. and the constitution is the only reason you aren't reading German right now. the only credit, is where credit is due. it's a better constitution than any other nation. i do not ascribe to the notion that government is the enemy, automatically, because anarchism is = an enemy to a free nation, because in anarchy the wolf with the sharpest teeth survives. but what the fuck WOULD YOU KNOW, you've never lived in anarchy before, HAVE YOU? so you don't have any firsthand experience of what it's like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Whats you brilliant plan? To keep voting for candidates who are 90% the same as the others? "
i don't vote. assumption number 10.
"You literally advocated voting for a socialist as a means to improve our current government which is already to big"
no, i didn't. i explained a position. i didn't advocate for his candidacy. i am as yet completely decided that he doesn't have a chance of winning, and that that should be obvious; and i don't like Trump or Hilary at all. for clear reasons.
"You bitch about the system we have than babble about how we need it to do anything and we have to have it."
actually, all i ever advocated was that a complete reversion to classical liberalism is unrealistic, because of the population -- you need to enact legislation slowly to set the precedent first -- hence my remarks about rolling up on Washington. you can't do what you want to do, but you can advocate for it...just expect realistic people to come with facts. sorry. but if you read what i said, you'd see that i never advocated for bigger government, and you'll see that i mention that i am a libertarian at heart, and want small government too, but that it's just not possible -- oh yeah, and your plan...
"if you paid attention i advocated a small government kept in check by people who are paying attention. A actual representative government. Back to the republic we were meant to be. This is only the 4th time ive said as much."
that's not a plan. that's your advocacy. not a plan. i advocate the same thing...but i don't do it so blindly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yes, because he almost had a non-forced TV interview that almost came across as sincere, i mean, if only he'd left out his attempts at discrediting SLJ as a "role model" simply because of characters he plays that, by all means, WERE NOT even created by SLJ; so he is holding no bearing on whether he should consider questioning his role in playing them, because to him they are simply characters, like in a book... it's a story. just because you see it acted upon on screen, on set, doesn't mean anything about what SLJ actually thinks about anyone or anything in society. well it might, but the interview barely touches on that. he even says "the other character gets DISTRACTED, hence he dies, while Jules lives." a cautionary tale, which with, if you look past the violence, you can actually see it's really trying to say that "kid's definitely maybe shouldn't be criminals. they'll die over something petty, and the only ones who won't are once who are ready to learn anyway, so they shouldn't endow themselves with that kind of work to begin with. after all, you'll only come to realize that you're only in control because your not distracted, and if you weren't distracted, you can do much better then be a hitman. ie, crime doesn't pay, intelligence does." that's what he saw in the character. doesn't mean that's necessarily how the character was written, but that's what HE saw and what he LIKED; and it had nothing to do with the violence in the movie, why he took the role. but the damn journalist is pushing the issue as if he cares about the violence. he doesn't, and it's not his place to be a spokesperson for or against it. k, long enough comment. seriously, journalism like this is is nothing but a piss off.
1
-
no, she doesn't get it though. i like how she called him out, because she got to learn something. all that the dude was saying was that THAT method, in his opinion, would be a non-confrontational way to say that "if my feelings are hurt by you purposely or on a constant basis, that i can show love for and respect other people too; and that in that way, without needing confrontation, she OR HE (works both ways) can get the message, that ones feelings were hurt."and i think what was saying was that with a little joke or a little nudge, this type of thing can be alleviated, because BOTH women and men do becoming interested outside of things in the relationship, and they have to keep each other in check, and ironically, THAT KEEPING IN CHECK, actually helps a relationship, because it shows that you can trust the person more... which leads to respecting them more. and remember, i think was over exaggerating a bit, and what he was talking about in the end of the clip, was more realistic on the level of a "incidental" situation where one party in the relationship is harming the other... but not as far as to be hitting them or some more serious then, say, and incidental hurting of feelings. say it WAS worse... THEN i'd say that Ana was right, because THEN is when you'd want to maybe try couples counselling... or then, leave, if that doesn't work.
when people marry, it's because they want to be together forever, seriously... if THAT PROSPECT isn't being taken seriously anymore, you should leave. she was absolutely right about that... BUT i think she was missing the Boss's point.
i hope i help you understand where i think he was coming from. because that "power fluctuation" in relationships, exist, even if incidentally. you've never swooned over someone outside your marriage? that's what i'm talking about, and what he was talking about... and THAT can be rectified and actually help improve your marriage, when you can show that you are the boss of yourself. both MEN ... AND WOMEN.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the problem with any government is that they get in and then they sit pretty and don't budge, when they should. you can call this the fallacy of the false dilemma, because the idea is that if they leave things go to shit again, when in reality, you get in, and get out, because you did what you need to do, and now the furthering of the solution is to 'change gears', so to speak, but those whom get the graft of taxpayer and corporate money (especially corporate $) don't want to leave, and want to sit pretty, with the dough, as it were.
before this recent climate i would have told you, years ago, that politics was for idiots and that i have no interest in it at all, and that i hated it. how naive i was to think that. now i know that everyone is an idiot (sometimes), including me, and thus we all bear a responsibility in the matter. my point is: black and white thinking when it comes to politics or the economy, or social values, is dangerous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Sam Harris never said we SHOULD nuke ISIS. He said that if the west was put in a position where they knew ISIS had nuclear capabilities it would be foolish not to strike first. "
"I can't see how that is egregious. I mean, it is if you remove his qualifiers and the context and just say 'Harris wants to nuke the middle east' as it was framed by Cenk but, that is not what Harris was/is saying. "
so it's hypothetical -- he's saying that Islam would be much more likely to use a nuclear bomb, than we would, so we should strike first...but what's the rationale there? that we're better because we strike first? or we're different for having nukes, than they are? where is the rationale, if i might ask?
"His point is that, ISIS is not like Russia were on the cold war. The Russians were as scared to die as anyone else and thus everyone chilled. "
was his point to dispel other fallacious reasoning that he's seen Cenk, perhaps, or someone else, postulate? because that explain the extreme nature of his hypothetical.
"ISIS fighters have shown time and time again that they don't care about dying, or more accurately, dying to them is honourable. This means the concept of 'mutually assured destruction' wouldn't act as the deterrent it was against Russia. So, while I am against the use of nuclear weapons, in fact, I'm a practical pacifist, If ISIS obtained nuclear weapons, I agree we would be administering our own death sentence if we didn't act first."
i suppose, hypothetically, that'd be true. ISIS should have been wiped out a long time ago, already -- to be frank.
1
-
1
-
i don't think Hannah said that, even though i agree with you in principal. no one should say that, but she didn't...she said "i tend to believe more" --as in 'moreso'; because of her belief that women do not come forward so readily, with rape accusations; i would suspect that's the reason she said that. it was a poor choice of words, but she was just saying she opts for believing the women more. slight difference; since we're talking about not misrepresenting people. she also said something recently that made me laugh too, she said "...blah blah isn't perfect" and i was like "yeah, well perfection is an impossibility, so watch it honey". LOL
PS: also, yeah, Cenk isn't always a buffoon, so i give him the benefit of the doubt, as long as he isn't going of the rails, that he isn't a complete total buffoon, and simply...another fallible human whom invents rhetorical discussion based on limited knowledge ie opinions. like everyone else.
i try not to hold judgements of people. i judge alot, already in my life, so when i make a judgement, it doesn't stick; usually, i just move on to the next judgement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've done that before, blasted someone whom wouldn't leave my home (drunkeness, couldn't receive subtle information, so....) I mocked him mercilessly in an onslaught of mirrored satire and my intellect shattered him and made him finally leave, after presuming of course to think I was speaking on fighting him, but he was too chicken shit to ask me to come outside, nor anything else outside of that piddling exchange, to which I added: "What fighting words?" Afterall, all I did was do what he constantly does, but back at him, in extreme form. LOL. It worked well to get him out of my life, and radically change things, also. The power of words. (PS: Had enough of that as well, drunkeness in my home is no longer tolerated by those with the minds of children.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
an appeal to emotion: very compelling argument. no, i'm serious, i didn't really think of it that way before...but it's not logical, still. their emotions shouldn't have anything to do with ethical guidelines. what should be regarded in those guidelines is what is ethical for the patient, not the doctors themselves. see the difference? why are they putting their feelings over the patients health? if she wants to prevent herself from getting pregnant, it's her right to do so, and she's an adult...so why can't she make that decision and get it done (like others [30yr olds] can do, paid for by insurance) due to the fact that she's below age 30? is that supposed to be a "window" for birthing & rearing a child? is the guideline (by your logic) supposed to imply that because she hasn't given herself enough time to define herself by cultural norms, she should wait, if she is below the age 30; but after that, whoo woo, you don't need to allow yourself to have kids anymore, what, maybe you already had one, and that's enough, now you should be able to have guilt free-sex? sounds twisted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yeah, your argument is fine, for their legal right to not be forced to preform any surgery. but also, on that note, she did win the court case, apparently. but that's besides the point, because your argument to mine is specious.
"surgeons are often unwilling to perform the procedure if the patient is under the age of 30. This is an acknowledgement of what many doctors do, not a guideline on how those doctors should act."
appeal to authority is not a rational response. i wanna know why the age 30 is the guideline, instead of the age of consent, 21. what do the 9 years make a difference of? you tell me that, and you've won. but you can't address that. that's really it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
do you people see his little gesticulation of his left hand, as his right hand continues to hold the papers? lol, you guys see the papers brushing her, but you don't....lol...that's hilarious that you all only see him brush her with his papers...i see them now...ahhahaha, totally irrelevant. he is holding them in his RIGHT hand, geniuses, and his LEFT (note LEFT-RIIIIGHT -- see how that works LEFT ---- RIGHT), i repeat, HIS LEFT HAND lets go of those papers from the center, and he spins his hand around (can't do that whilst still holding papers in the right, because they'd fall or rip! LOL), but c'mon you guys can see, (i didn't even really process the papers, but you're right, there is papers) but then after his little spin, he juts out his index to poke her. it's not a big deal guys. he doesn't need to get in shit for something so simple, and harmless, and her asinine actions are not EXCUSED they ARE EXPLAINED. now, please...yield.
1
-
1
-
1
-
lol, that's funny..."you...social justice warrior! RAAWW!!!"
yeah...i'm the social justice warrior. i can see the poke. you can see the poke...the other guy who was talking to me can see the poke. we all see the poke. look back through your comments...you say it yourselves you "saw the poke but..."
but nothing. we all agree on everything save two things...she shouldn't have punched, that's for sure, and she certainly wasn't "groped" -- but -- the man did poke her, you admitted it already, but you're making excuses that make it seem as if he didn't do anything -- he did -- he poked her, like we can all admit we see. is it a big deal. no, it isn't. what is a big deal however is the jackass who sprayed her. he was not defending the guy, as he wasn't there during the initiation of the altercation between them, verbally, and when people were trying to hold her back, the guy with the mace then trolled up from behind everyone -- through the crowd -- and unbeknownst to anyone else, had had the mace ready for if she attacked; she threw the fist then, (and she shouldn't have), and then he sprayed her immediately; no one is that fast on the defence of someone in the public sphere, but that's besides the point, since we have the video. everyone can see him troll up as if planning a premeditated attack, and looking for an in. that's the deviousness of this person you people are simply praising at this point, you're so derisive in your contempt for the truth that we plainly have in video, you and I,and scooter over there. you ingrates just wish to argue about nothing -- because you're fools.
" Touch signals reach the brain in a fraction of a second. I"
you pick your specialty you pick your bias. i am not talking about the signals being received in the brain, fool, i am talking about her processing the decision to 'call sexual assault' out, and then more ensued. it's not like she just immediately punched after she was touched, dorkus. there was a lot of time after that of being held back, yelling, and then she eventually threw the punch, which we all do not accept. so it's you with the false narrative in this conclusion...and all the rest, but we may yet get to that, if we haven't already.
"Your conclusion from that video that he poked her would never stand up in court, "
no it wasn't you insurmountable idiot.
my words were thus:
"i am not calling for his being charged or anything"
"nothing was WRONG WITH HIS POKE. did i call for action or legal action against the guy who "groped her"? no. i said she was wrong, the whole time, and never said the guy actually did anythingwrong"
"remember: no one is saying what she did wasn't wrong or what the guy did was wrong."
"he doesn't need to get in shit for something so simple, and harmless"
"A: no sexual assault B: no assault (or that's pushing it, i don't think it'd hold up in court"
you muckbrain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
if humans have a significant presence on the planet's ecosphere, there are gonna be changes...the question is, if those changes are dangerous, and/or, if they are dangerous, to what extent, and what can we do to counter-act those dangers with proportionate response. seeing as though the planet goes through climate change as a natural concurrence, it's impossible to tell at this time (even with models) whether we can even prevent this from becoming a problem (and to what extent, of course) until we have more data, and/or we see the effects on a more definite scale, based on actual readings of events transpiring, as opposed to computer models. we have insufficient data regarding the ecosphere as a whole & climate change- this is a relatively new phenomenon. we do know that our presence changes things, but we don't know what effect, bad or good, and to what extent those effects will change our approach- climate concern is a lot different, i'd say, than simply wanting to conserve the environments natural beauty and our ecosystem's health.
1
-
the increase in C02 might actually be good to stave off an ice-age scenario, that is, until the climate collapses in (probably the north) somewhere, then you get another ice-age, when it gets too hot.
but then again, if the increase is minimal, then it might improve agriculture, especially in certain regions in the world with less development. really the big problem is cows. in India, greatest producer of C02 in cow-form, is the greatest fuckery of anti-rational impudence (by accident, no less; i don't begrudge them in spirit, but their society has been in need of growth, and it's still too slow a trickle, they need better infrastructure...part of that would be...), the fact that they hold so many cows, means they manifest a giant hole (lol) in the atmospheric pressure, of course then causing stupid storms all over the pacific, and it fucks with the climate more than anything- it apparently also causes worse winters sometimes in the northwest regions of the world, due to that atmospheric pressure being distributed at a certain demarcation in weather patterns (that have been documented, i believe- if any one knows a source?).
1
-
1
-
1
-
oh well, you should have told me. clarified your statement. because some people literally do go "it's the land of the free, i can be as racist as i want" -- which, in turn, means the exact same thing you said, only less ambiguous. your comment could have been taken either way; either/or. nevertheless, the comments were worthwhile anyway. you should try clarifying your statements if you think someone isn't understanding what you're saying...which is besides the point, considering all i said was -- "yeah, but you can't go around shooting people. go die."
if you would have clarified, i would have apologized for my last statement. i wasn't sure if you were making excuses for the guy, or not; other people did. i told them off too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
not an intellectual quest for truth and rebellion against religious dogma, but a rebellion against morality itself.
which is why it's not real occultism...hopefully you can be one of the sum few whom can apprehend this concept. i made some funny troll music videos, to troll around some...these, for example, are just attempts at trolling, and even though there are occult elements being hinted at, it's not real occultism, seeing as though the motivations are to troll and not to effect reality. if the intent was effect reality, alot more than a couple hours worth of fun would be necessary to commit to. and to note: to effect reality, i'd have to change myself in the process, regardless if i am using/changing anyone else in the middle of it. no change in ones self, no real occultism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
another parrot with no actual brain of his own. he doesn't deny the Armenian genocide. i have looked it up. he wrote an article, as a conservative pundit, actually decrying the Turkish president denying the genocide, whilst other AMERICAN c's ALSO deny the genocide, as it fits in with the proclaiming that it didn't fit "the definition" of genocide, to specifics, which helps conservatives (like those in Japan) whom want revisionist history (like Confederates). actually in the article (have you actually read it? i mean the ACTUAL article?) he poses questions about the genocide and shares that he's not so sure if it happened the way people claimed it did, or not -- basically, an open ending -- being a conservative pundit, he would have had to take that position. so now that you've been given facts...go along now. you'll keep doing what you're doing.
"And Cenk had a headline (which he had to retract) comparing Sam Harris To sarah palin"
that's the big claim to fame Sam ass-suckers point to, is it? damn, first i've ever heard someone mention anything of it...LOL, slander@! GASP! Sam Harris would have sued! HAHAHAHAHA just about anyone can sue for slander, you fucking gorm. LOL, that's the big offense? AHAHAHHAHAHAHA
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i'm not saying it doesn't make sense business-wise. i'm saying it's unethical. how are they going to justify copyrighting and trademarking a brand that revolves around using other people's content under the fair use doctrine. they can TRY and make a "React World" -- that might solve the problem FOR THEM, but it has holes in it -- they can't own the word React, like they wanted, and they can't own the format they want, because they format A: revolves around content that doesn't belong to them, and is only being used under fair use and B: sitting and watching a video, on camera, and reacting to said video, isn't a "show format", nor a brand; they can copyright "React Channel" if they'd like, but then i'd say, wtf youtube, you gonna let them do this shit, but i'd already be asking youtube that already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the only secularism that was in Islam was from Greek philosophers. literally. soon teachers and philosophers went "too far" and eventually sects were created that eventually destroyed them -- fast foward a bit, and then you get Wahabbism (spelling?) ... the smart people in Islam were smart despite being indoctrinated. but that doesn't mean that there weren't some certain tenants of the Quran that didn't give it extra merit over what decent stuff could be found in the Bible. the fact that Allah needs to be inherent ABSOLUTE it would requite that it falls in line with reason, which is why the first real Islamic philosophers inferred about everything from medicinal science, to math, and secularity -- but this also is attributed to Aristotle of the Greeks! but nevertheless, it was allowed at least, because the scriptures assured Allah's reality in conjunction with reason and provability...to a point! but when it becomes that a philosopher questions the ultimate existence of Allah, he gets killed, and sets off a horde! all because the religion can't be dropped, it just can't, because it has passages that insist that apostates be killed. there is no escape the trap of the dogma, even if there was some hope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
it's funny how idiotic you are. i said: "i don't see it in this video, however. does it look like the guy in this video is a materialist? he doesn't even have a shirt...but let alone, not much else that seems extravagant."
in case you didn't notice -- which you didn't -- i made a joke. the shirt was the reference that was the joke. the rest of what i said here, quoted above, was in regards to his appearance. he appears to not be entirely too materialistic. now you can infer from that that maybe he is more spiritual that you think, because if he was a pure materialist, then you'd figure he might be more concerned with the physical and not have videos on his channel (also mentioned, afterwards) that deal with the spiritual and where he talks about paranormal subjects and things that he defines as "not able to be explained, yet, by science"...but yet he does all these things. perhaps you need to research a bit before you make retarded claims. especially if someone corrects you, you shouldn't fight that person on it, either. you should just roll with the punches. also, don't expect people to baby you. i told you that you were wrong, and that you can even extrapolate from his lack of extravagance.
1
-
"Now you've hiding behind "a joke". I win. :)"
you don't win shit. first of all, i didn't really speak on Islamic history. i told you that philosopher's have been beheaded for questioning the existence of God -- this is a fact. i don't need to study much, at all, to know this. i've seen the many works and some f the history, enough to know. i don't need your lesson. secondly: i didn't mess up the definition of materialism, you did. i didn't mess anything up. i used the definition of materialism as "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values" -- which sums up how to address your stupidity. the joke was just that...and i'm not hiding behind anything. you were told the joke, and you just didn't get it. isn't that clever? you thought i was talking about materialism from a strictly philosophical point of view, but i wasn't, i was using the other definition to make the joke -- why? -- because i knew that you clearly hadn't watched his videos, but having no knowledge of this, i had to prove it to myself. tell me that isn't clever. = ) you proved to me that you knew nothing because you insisted, after i told you that you were wrong, that i needed to brush up on what you meant, but obviously you missed the part where i confirmed that he was no materialist; and i told you that you should go and check out his videos, so you can understand how wrong your assumption was. instead of doing that, you're still here. this is not my problem. it's yours. LOL
1
-
1
-
1
-
for you to say that you clearly don't understand what materialism is, or you can't understand what i said. take the consciousness for example -- scientific mystery. no material way to process an experiment on consciousness as a MATERIAL OBJECT or FORM, right? so hence, it's not material, as far as we can presume. what a materialist would be concerned with is the actions of the brain which govern the cognitive actions of the consciousness, but since there is no form to said consciousness, save the form of the nervous system, there is no way to measure such an energy -- if philosophical weight is given to the presumption that that energy is responsible for governing action, as opposed to the presumption that the brain controls these functions entire, is a non-materialist philosophical point of view; which is what Styx talks about more than anything else, in regard to spirituality; ie he's not a materialist. do try getting it through your thick soul knot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i don't care if you do. and me finding his trolling funny is particular...i just like the dynamic. Ana for example...i just find funny, her reaction to his idiocy. and i think it's fine that he plays an idiot, and i'm certain he's not an actual full-fledged moron, because he doesn't sound like one. do you realize how difficult comedy is to prefect? not everything comes across even from PROFESSIONAL comedians...my point here is that, comedy is a huge spectrum. i just happen to find anti-humor situations, in the right setting, (and within taste), applicable, and funny. i find stuff funny, alot of the times, because they are not funny and come across as cringe worthy. it's called cringe comedy. and it's funny to some people. i like all forms of comedy so, one shouldn't be surprised.
now you can dislike the co-hosts all you want. i think you're wrong though.
PS: how else do i interpret what you are saying without making assumptions? LOL take note: we all make assumptions. it's called thinking. since i have no source of information on you, nor know you or your stance on things, it's safe to assume, i can only assume, and can only assume by what tiny information has befallen me, in this case...and i've seen it, you simply were turned off by the analysis, and commentary, but you've only responded to comment strings that involved the discussion (and inherent bashing, in your other comment found) of the TOPIC AT HAND. you just find that an appealing entry to proclaim your dislike for the co-hosts? or is it just a coincidence?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
a laissez faire philosophy in doing your work is the best (and also occult) means to production. it's much ado in the world, too much distractions, without a personal means to make your product. that's personal impact. working for some corporate body is not as pleasing...next best thing is busting-ass for a dopamine boost when you, oh, make money, spend money, eat, whenever someone agrees with you, or you're proven right (one of the best but...) but it always outlasts it's welcome, as it leaves you craving for a gaol of a goal, as if it were improper to live without a need to consume other depraved works from other corporate whores.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL, quantum mechanics has been under my purview the past two days, heavy-duty...and now this video. LOL.
Well, on that note, i was just thinking, to the staunch atheist, i'd have to quibble, that surely, if there is no life after death, then it's still useful to know how to handle death with some hope- if at the very least, to find that life has some meaning.
All this is- science, that is- is human's reaching into the past, and finding the practical inference and uses of what was already there, long before our time....point is: there is more evidence of unlikely unknown outcomes to our scientific reasoning (inasmuch as our folklore reflects our evidence to the unlikely unknowns), than there is evidence for the "supposed" likely unknowns. ie, there is no way to define an empiricist reality based on empirical evidence, only a pragmatic one; thus it follows, only pragmatic evidence can provide an empiricist reality, based on the reasoning that we haven't all the answers- but is that a truly sound reality? (Predilections before actual evidence, is the key to finding evidence, afterall.)
*- Vortices of Existence
all life contained therein life has but one process:
it resolves that in itself a hole separates the elements of existence into a vortex.
a ring divides the elements above a vortex, which is a hole, or well, (of gravity).
this vortex recedes as the elements become gaseous, and vapourize, and then reforms again.*
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"According to your logic there would be no lower age limit to sterilisation."
what? no. i said like about ten times by now the age limit should be the age limit for just about everything else, and that's legal age of consent (not the hypothetical age of sexual permission, don't get it twisted, i'm not talking about tweens here) ie 21, the age where you can vote, drink, and class yourself as an adult. so no, by my logic, there is an age limit -- and that's the legal age of consent. i don't know how you got to your conclusions, perhaps you can explain. LOL
PS: i'm sure that the girl in this video was made aware of the risks, and decided that they did not halt her decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Irrelevant. Are the babies being aborted? Yes. Did their lives matter to the mother? No."
facetious argument.
"Why is the local troll, Ebonni, upset with you? Did you even reply to her? I don't see any replies."
and i don't know why she's upset with me, she cray cray.
and my point is (in interjecting myself into this nonsense) that people whom decide to start rioting should cease to be BLM members -- which is what happened as now there is more than just BLM -- and the reason for pointing that out was to hopefully put a nail in the coffin of this idiocy about how this, to you, all revolves around "blacks rioting" or the futility of their cause, because to you, their cause is useless, because it revolves around something you find to be hypocritical -- but this is only because you lump them all together into one group, when you are talking about individuals here; and that's the problem i have with your rhetoric. BLM has splintered now...they are defunct. but that doesn't mean their cause, at first, wasn't worthy, even if it was lacking tact. it should be criticised for that (like Oregon) but you shouldn't lump all this stuff into one basket, saying that somehow something some person did, whom happened to be black, invalidates the original message, which is to the injustice of police misconduct.
like with the Oregon situation -- you don't see everyone going, "see, all white republicans want to take over the government through force".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
well, look with all this information, i can't say i disagree with your assessment.
"Judging by their behavior in this video I would say the center is telling the truth."
if they were causing a disturbance, as you say, before the center threatened to call the cops, there's really no way around the scenario that played out -- save them reserving themselves -- now the performance of the cops are in question, too; but i don't see any reason to think they acted rashly, that is, if like you said, they had caused the scene first, before the cops were called, or before they threatened to call them...it's really a matter of "did they just cause a scene immediately upon receiving a notice of infringement from the staff?"which in the case of: Yes: the only answer is: well, of course they'd call the police -- you're in a public space freaking out, um, there's really not any arguing with the prospect of going to jail; especially if one continues to act up.
glad we could clear this up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Anime Hero
"it's the same as a piece of art I can't go around ripping off Picasso or Warhol and pass it off as my unique style"
LOL that's not the same thing.
oy...you can't reproduce a Warhol and sell it, no, but React videos aren't that.
first off: there is no room for anything different, which is the main problem -- no one wants these douches to corner the market on people reacting to videos (i can't believe this utterance token has any value; no...no i must believe....), and there isn't anything to copyright past "someone reacting to a video on video".
secondly: they can copyright their channel's property "Fine Brothers Entertainment" and "Teens React" ect ect, which is in conflict with point number one, but nevertheless, there is still also nothing to copyright other than the names, but the names shouldn't be copyrighted either, because then it make it so they could control whether videos such as "Teen Reacts to Charleston Shooting Video" are able to be online or not, because it would only be viable under their permission; which is asinine and crude to say the very least. they should be halted at every turn trying to make something so asinine happen. if not. they should get sued. they did not invent Reaction videos. Candid Camera should sue, i and many others would try and get a petition to get them and anyone else that has their name to the "React video" concept, to sue fine Brothers for all they are worth.
they should be scared, because they're trying to get away with some dastardly, for the sake of greed.
you can be greedy reproducing a Picasso, Fine Brothers can also be greedy copyrighting a concept that doesn't belong to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even though, for the past few years, I've learned where I stand (as someone who's always hated the dog and pony show of politics, and caped dogs doing jobs they no not how to do), and I have my own beef with the progressive tax (levied as a means of a stop-gap, not towards equality of wealth), and the system that halts the marketplace, due to their monopolies having all the say and means...while the little guy can't even make taxes- because the rate is too high (give a flat tax rate and rein corporate scum). My true blue enemy is corporate media, in general. Slackers, boring, redundant, messy, waste of talent when it shows up, evil-producer, lying, cheating, overpriced shit, in order to sell socio-political views in the form of "news" and "art" (art being something which I respect heavily but is that which is controlled, in this instance, and hence, loses it's very essence!), but it's bullshit, and it stifles everyone else!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
not at all. news has never worked like that. you aim to be as accurate as you can be, but you don't NOT do the news without all the facts because most often the facts are obscure at best, and the reason for news is to break stories that people LIKE YOURSELF can research into. THAT's actually journalism, and always has been. unless your talking TIME magazine or something. but hard hitting journalism is always obscure, unless it's considered a "bombshell" (industry talk) or unless you are doing investigative journalism, where you do not rely on sources, solely, but GO OUT into the field and get tape, interview people, find evidence ect ect like AN INVESTIGATOR. but that's ONE type of journalistic endeavor. broadcast reporting works solely on the level that you see here at TYT and everywhere else where it's done. sources come in, they report it, you research it; they might do a follow-up, correct any mistakes, usually brought in by their viewers, why? because the news tends to keep up with THE NEWS. it's like you think that they should only bring you bombshell facts to blow your mind, and then what...you go about day? NO. this is JOINT EFFORT, and always has been. you know why there are so many outlets? because it works. the more information spread the better. misinformation can be detected and exposed. just because there is mistakes in reporting, doesn't mean they are not reporters. don't be so absolutely foolish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nice job, that's exactly right. they just reacted to a video, didn't they?
this whole thing is stupid. people in this internet race to fame (and fortune) should use the Creative Commons license more often, and stop trying to get $ off of ridiculous ideas like this, anyway...but more to the point, no one can copyright the "format" or "genre" of "REACT" (which is to react to a video online - something news journalists do all the time, i'm looking at you Cenk) because it ISN'T a "genre" or "format".
copyrighting the logo, to, is absurd. they want to make their logo "REACT", meaning that anyone with a video that A: has someone reacting to a video or B: has the title "so and so REACTS" in it, is off-limits to everyone unless you go through Fine Brothers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2010.509202
"The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conducted a consensus process in order to make recommendations for revision of the DSM diagnoses of Gender Identity Disorders. This is a report from the work group proposing new diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorders for adults if the diagnosis were to be retained in the next revision of the DSM. The group recommended changing the diagnosis to one based on distress rather than on identity, on which the current diagnosis is based. Hence, they proposed changing the name of the diagnosis from Gender Identity Disorder to the more accurate and less pathologizing Gender Dysphoria, a name familiar to the field, used before, and describing the condition of distress. They proposed the following criteria for a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria in Adults: (a) strong and persistent distress with physical sex characteristics or ascribed social gender role that is incongruent with persistent gender identity, and (b) the distress is clinically significant or causes impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning and this distress or impairment is not solely due to external prejudice or discrimination. There was consensus that a transgender identity is not pathology. Gender variant individuals are not inherently disordered; rather, the distress of gender dysphoria is the psychological problem."
-- which is always the case when it comes to the DSM -- disorders are characterized by distress of an individual. if i have Anxiety for example...does this mean i'm mental, because it's listed in the DSM? no. unless i seek their professional help and my anxiety is so distressful that it's effecting my life and psyche, then i go to them for help, then no; because not all anxiety meet DSM requirements. also the DSM is a book that is constantly under review.
PS: pediatricians take care of child patients, and they advocated that one shouldn't let CHILDREN just opt for specificity on their gender roles, because they are too young to make such distinctions rationally. no one said anything about ADULTs making their own decisions being unhealthy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Who said Harris 'changed his mind", child?"
you did when you reversed the fucking argument in a tu quoque, as you did above, citing that because Sam had changed his mind, he's all fine and dandy, and beyond criticism, but yet, when HE HADN'T updated, according to your ridiculous comparison, he was still beyond reproach from Cenk...but yet, at that same time, you say Cenk is not beyond reproach, (if you're following the logic of your constituent here, whom you're trying to support, flailing) even if he updates and changes his "errors" -- all whilst exclaiming that Cenk cannot have been right about Same Harris, EVER, whilst Sam Harris INDEED had updated and nuanced his silly nuclear option plan...probably because there were glaring holes in said plan.
1
-
actually child, my understanding of a straw man is exactly what it is. you pose an argument that is supposed to address someone's statements but you use said argument to address either side issues (or in other words misrepresenting the issue and thus the argument) that are not directly causal or relevant to the statement one is addressing. i did not address any argument or statement that you made, since you made none. you just repeated and reversed what someone else said. that's not an argument. hence, i was not arguing with you. hence my comment was no straw-man. that is fallacy fallacy. silly no? but you're a child in a big boys body, whom has some toys. =) also Tu quoque is exactly your defence. and it's just that. you support those whom say that Sam Harris is beyond reproach, that you can't question his past remarks and use them to scrutinize what he says now, but yet they don't hold that regard for Cenk. you support these people, and hence are just as culpable in attempting to stabilize that weak and pathetic defence. illogical. irrational. and totally ironic.
PS: ADDENDUM: nah, i am a more stream-of-consciousness sort of writer. i don't plan out my writing, or in this case, typing. but you can keep bloviating all you want, gorm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That's not what I did."
ya it is -- quote:
"Defense of Torture was posted in 2005 and has been updated and "clarified" since. You think evolving opinions or explaining misunderstandings is a bad thing? If so (to refit a punchline from a detestable hillbilly comedian) you might be a regressive..."
which is what was said about Cenk, that he has "updated" his worldview, and which is true, and people ARE allowed to do so, which you claimed as well, above...yet, you do not hold that same argument for Cenk, so why are you using it against his declaiming Harris as merely "updating" instead of having been right all along; why are you insisting that that person didn't want anyone to change their views...he wasn't saying that...he said "Harris changed his views in a year after the interview" ie "Cenk and Harris should be able to change their minds on issues" -- as you've said...but the people you then aim to defend by attacking his position, are those whom said the opposite, that Cenk can't backpedal, because he said what he said once already, and he can't change his mind without appearing the liar. that's why you are a hypocrite, like the others, and why you were addressed.
"You should look that term up while you're at it, child. Your misunderstanding of the form, function and definitions of every fallacy you've evoked is flawless. Meaning you've failed to comprehend the meaning of every fallacy you've named. It's sad really. Amusing. But sad, too." what's sad is you not being able to comprehend that i was using his own rhetoric, and thus his own logic, to prove that he was using fallacious logic. and you agree. and thus, you're an idiot, because you can't even understand that i pointed to your own logic to derive the argument -- because that's where YOUR argument falls apart. simple as that.
(also this is what happens in rhetorical argument. there is nothing but bedrock assumptions here, on your part, and william dishrag)
"Reread your initial appearance for both retarded amusement and elucidation on the tu quoque as a textbook example."
this hilarious example is brought to you by: someone who understands logic, and whom can point out people's hypocrisies. he was using the logic, that you declaim as fallacious...well, then we both agree. it was. that's why i pointed it out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yeah, but the thing is, you don't HAVE an argument AT ALL...you have some fallacious conjecture, at best. postulations are not argument, you're correct. but when have you EVER made an argument? you've merely defended william dishrag, and i've shown his and your "logic" to be inherently twisted. you say straw-man, when there is none (i represented and explained his fallacious reasoning -- that's pretty apropos,and also not a straw-man), and you say that you using his argument wasn't tu quoque, which is exactly what it was. "you support those whom say that Sam Harris is beyond reproach, that you can't question his past remarks and use them to scrutinize what he says now, but yet they don't hold that regard and courtesy for Cenk. you support these people, and hence are just as culpable in attempting to stabilize that weak and pathetic defence. illogical. irrational. and totally ironic."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Tu_quoque_in_response_to_support
1
-
1
-
"You think evolving opinions or explaining misunderstandings is a bad thing?"
he never said that. and it was in response to:
" Cenk has definitely been a slandering provocateur on this issue in order to discredit and silence these people. "
no one has slandered Sam Harris with undue reasoning. people do not misunderstand Sam Harris' position, they just simply think his position is foolhardy and dangerous and condemnable. but to condemn Cenk for "slandering Harris" by simply calling his position idiotic, when it is, and then A: presume that Harris' position was ever up-to-snuff with any tenable opposition, whilst B: presuming Cenk was always to be considered wrong, while C: Harris had to "update" his arguments -- as clearly if they needed to be updated, then they were clearly unable to hold the water Harris suspected, nor his fanboys -- well, that's just inexcusably wrong.
PS: "Again, infant, clarification =/= change"
if he needed to clarify his argument, it wasn't a sound argument, it was a confused and muddled argument -- which would account for Cenk and everyone else not buying it, and seeing it's glaring holes.
"Well, I'll only answer the last comment that shows up when I reply so you should maybe reconsider that."
this isn't done to convince you of anything. this is done to show that the defence of Harris is specious, whilst the defence of Cenk is rational, considering peoples confusion over what constitutes a failure is misconstrued, as they think that Cenk cannot disagree with Harris, and he cannot wholly insist on Harris clarifying his argument, to make it make more rational sense.
1
-
PS: ISIS has no nuke capabilities, and no ability to strike the US directly from their location. hence, Harris' nuclear first strike plan is fearful and regressive dookie (and also "not as bad as" illogical dookie, at that), that idiots like. PPS: i confused you for someone else. either way, tu quoque is applicable, because within this comment line, people asserted that Sam Harris can clarify and change his views, whilst at the same time, condemning Cenk and calling him a "regressive", because he simply disagrees with Harris, and among other things, such as "he's a genocide denier", and then he's not only condemned for that, but for trying to change and/or clarify his views, ie change in respect to the genocide denial accusation (bullshit) and clarity to his position ad infinitum that Islam is not a good religion and proposes bad ideas, and causes chaos in fundamentalist Islam. he does this, he gets bashed...Sam Harris does this (this clarity -- nothing to the genocide denial claim), he gets praised. this is a tu quoque, and you are in defence of it. to say but Sam Harris "clarified his views" and applaud him for it, while condemning Cenk for doing the same. questioning him on his logic; and if it so needed clarity, you can't fault him for questioning the logic, when it is faulty; but yet, people do fault him for it,whilst at the same time praising Harris for the same thing they condemn Cenk for doing just the same; which is appeal to hypocrisy or tu quoque.
PPS: not that that invalidates your argument...your agreeing with Harris' slippery slope "not as bad as" nuclear-first-strike against-camel-riding-desert-dwellers-with-no-nukes-to-strike-the-US-with logic -- this all invalidates your argument for me.
1
-
PPS: also, Sam Harris = slippery slope fallacy. "we need to attack them first, if they have a nuclear capability, because they try and kill us as soon as they can, so we need to nuke them as soon as 'IF' arrives"
no IF. there is no IF. not yet. and IF they were to get a nuke, or nukes...there are special forces that are classed with the abilities to go in and seek and destroy the nukes -- so no, we don't have to nuke them first -- we just need intelligence, like we have plastered all over the middle east, and then we need to send in JSOC or whomever handles Nuclear Weapons, and let them attempt to handle the situation with carefully planned tactics and, with a solution, that'll be clean and not be a disproportional response to an area already destabilized, and not to mention the ethics involved of the murder of innocent lives in the area, that are not involved in sectarian violence.
Sam Harris ignores all this, and all his fans suck his ass, and hate on anyone who'll point out this glaring fallacy in logical reasoning, and then Sam and his idiot supporters will say: "but he said IF" -- yeah, well, we're not at "IF" and even IF we were, it still doesn't discount the glaring lack of rationality and logic on Harris' part, and it doesn't discount his slippery slope and "not as bad as" fallacious reasoning.
yeah, not as bad...but what's even less bad is, oh i dunno, not nuking the country for no good reason, and just going in and destroying the nuke before they even have the ability to launch, and/or, destroy their capabilities, before any completion of any silos. -- can they even build any place for missiles? ... let's just presume for the sake of argument they can, i guess...since -- i think, at least -- it'd satisfy the crowd. facepalm
1
-
yeah, i noticed he was just using other people's ideas to inform his worldview, and is as such defending the other person's (in this case Harris) idea, tooth and nail. well, i'm sure he'd like to actually address my last comment, and assuredly, he'll find it is not an "argument" (and he'd be right, they are statements and they hold propositions within, holding truth values) -- but let's see if he can actually show how i am wrong in my statements -- let's see if he can actually show they are wrong with those great polemics of his, and perhaps he can grant us the pleasure of seeing him formulate an argument that's sound against my propositions. (PS: before he calls me lexiconically challenged proposition: Logic. a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.)
thing is no one here needs to make an argument...as there is no argument, as he has noted. that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to prove me wrong by asserting himself and showing me how i am wrong in my statements.
1
-
the IQ test, what IQ test, gormfuck?
what is the determination, anyways, save an IQ test? how is someone's opinion on Islam a factor? it's an opinion. i mean, statistically speaking, more people die from car accidents and other random accidental bullshit like that, than they do from mass shootings and terrorism combined. so basically Islam and it's 'danger' is statistically irrelevant, in the overall aspect of what is dangerous versus what's non-dangerous. not that it's an excuse for the prevalent violence and, yes, 'danger' within Islamic nations, and within the religion's scriptural dogma, and within the ideology; don't mistake an explanation with an excuse, as this isn't an excuse, like i've said. so what's the determining factor, in regards to recognising danger within Islamic culture, that relates to IQ? or in your words, what's "the IQ test", you speak of. tell us O wise one. you know, without ad hominem, dickhole.
"Are you still here after the ass pounding you took, princess? Seemed you enjoyed the pounding this 'cockmaster' provided you after all."
yeah, this popped up in my notifications. i'm "still here", faggot.
1
-
"You poor thing. Even the notion of an IQ test confounds your dumb ass. As I said, buttercup, you're unqualified to speak on what does and does not constitutes intelligence."
oh YOU...a random idiot commenting on youtube does not an IQ test make.
"Having to ask also presents further evidence of your necessary disqualification from intelligent discourse. I'll give you a hint though: Knowledge of global, social and political situations (past and present) are just a few factors in determining intelligence. You're welcome."
we're talking about an intelligence quotient, fagmo. not intelligence as to wit socio-political acumen and insight, you crass blowhard cockmaster. LOL
"You obviously still don't know what an ad hominem is, child. This is also apropos to the Dunning-Kruger effect you labor so mightily and insuperably beneath. Do look up the term at you convenience."
insuperable, that's nice, you get that in a translation of some classicist text? i love that word, too. it's fancy. but yeah, no, i know what an ad hominem is, moron. what you're illogically committing to, to get your "point" across, is called "argumentum ad hominem, through guilt by association". do try harder. or wait...do you want me to Latinize it a bit, make it a bit more contusive to your ego? i know you like it. also: you still haven't shown me the determination of what makes an intelligence quotient with what is presented here, in this comment line. where's your argument or explanation? you're great, though, at prevaricating and avoiding having to make a counter-argument. bravo sophist-bullshitter. LOL
"Faggot? Now that's just blatant projection, princess. You're not fooling anyone."
you're the one implying you wanna fuck me in the ass, faggot.
1
-
1
-
"Perhaps while you're failing to look up words you can pretend top discover what 'quotient' means in relation to intelligence. If only you could comprehend such complexity..."
we aren't talking about 'a quotient in relation to intelligence'...we are talking about the IQ or Intelligence Quotient Test, ie, the TEST, that is given to produce an IQ SCORE. not any of the prevaricating evasion you have dribbled off your chin.
"We of some modicum of intellect call it 'education'."
hedge more. first we are talking about you showing me where there is an IQ Test within this comment thread...then you want to reduce it to "a quotient of intelligence" that you're trying to point out to me (my lack thereof, you say), then you say it's 'education' you're talking about...make up your fucking mind. oh wait, you're just making more fallacious counterarguments.
"Obviously not, cupcake, you used it wrong."
good luck showing that, because i obviously didn't "use it wrong".
"You really are a mindless fuckwit, aren't you? That was rhetorical, princess. Of course you are. Mashing words together does not make them coherent, kiddo. If you make a positive claim regarding a logic fallacy, you must follow up with a demonstration of said fallacy. It is not enough to make the assertion, child. Had you been familiar with logic at all you'd have known this and not have to be told. Further compounding the proof of your utter vacuity. By all means continue. I enjoy watching you morons flounder under the burden of your own failed statements."
i'll point it out: "As I said, buttercup, you're unqualified to speak on what does and does not constitutes intelligence."
i'm unqualified? that statement itself is unqualified, and it's also an ad hominem. moron.
"Contusive. That term does not fit or mean what you think it means buttercup. Mulligan?"
it means to injure without breaking the skin. a contusion; leading to bruising. stfu, moron. yes, you can say it was reification, but the fact is, when i say ego, i am making a play on words. it makes responding to you more pleasant, to try and have some fun.
"Still too much irony for you to parse, I see. Again, apropos."
i never said you produced a non-existent IQ test, you proposed that. hence, i am referring to you, clearly, and accurately, cocksmear.
"I didn't imply such a thing. I directly stated that it occurred and you obviously enjoyed it. Ass fucking alone does not make one a 'faggot', princess. You're clearly female so the term does not apply."
no, i'm pretty sure you did. i called you a cockmaster, and you said something like, oh i dunno, "Seemed you enjoyed the pounding this 'cockmaster' provided you after all" which sorta insinuates that you'd like to fuck me in the ass (or that you did, but sadly we all know this is just projection; now that's ironic, according to the record here. hmmm.) also, i'm clearly a female? lol, no. terrible attempt at a reversal of what you were implying. also, you doubled up your comment, there, Cochise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the position that i am quite aware of from you. FYI is short form for "i don't want to take a position" because you know you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to your statement. the fact of his not making the clock from scratch is a moot point, but ideally you'd want it to be said that because his clock wasn't made from scratch that somehow it invalidates his attempt at doing something for himself. whether he made the clock from scratch or just dissembled another clock to refurbish, it's all the same, he made something for school. you just wish it was an important fact. it's not. i presume it's because you want to invalidate his attempts because it'd serve your ideals better if his clock was invalid as a piece of school work or project, because then you obfuscate the issue of him getting arrested for nothing.
basically put, you want to distract people from the fact he did nothing wrong, because you think it was alright that he got arrested for nothing, because you think essentially that because he was suspect in something (he didn't do) that he should be looked at more harshly; whether because you are frightened of Muslims, potential bomb threats, ect whatever the case is with you, you just don't like what he did, period. you don't like what he did so you're trying to insinuate that he is in the wrong somehow, when in fact he was not. he actually didn't do anything.
again to make this abundantly clear: you WISH it was important (your "statement"), because then it would obfuscate the issue of him getting arrested for blind idiocy on another person's part; which might make you seem idiotic, i dunno,...and maybe you don't want to seem idiotic, but nonetheless, you do, because through your "statement" you're inherently trying to make a point which is that he shouldn't have done what he did...even though he should have, because he didn't do nothing wrong and only did something that was interesting (at least to him), which is something you clearly don't want him doing, for whatever reason...whatever reason it is, it's a stupid one.
so i'm telling you how irrelevant your "statement" is. it's practically idiotic at this point; at this point you might as well just say "it's not a real clock!" - who cares? it's a project he tinkered with, and maybe he shouldn't have brought it to school, but nonetheless, it wasn't what anyone thought and it's tantamount to arresting a kid in school for drawing a sword or a gun; it's immensely idiotic and only idiots are worried about that shit. what a non-idiotic non-fuckhead would be worried about is how the kid got shit on for doing NOTHING WRONG. so do you get it yet or are you still going to continue on with your schtick?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
only four months? i thought it was quite a bit longer than that. anyways strategic bankruptcy is still not something a business owner aims for, nor should aim for; it's tantamount to the kind of defaulting on debts that caused the housing crash, and it's only "legitimate" of Tremp to his beholden because they see it as "fierce business", when really it's just bad business, and is screwing over, completely, the people he owes in the process -- http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/donald-trump-debt/
also his money is all tied up in his businesses, which are always failing apparently, (hence the bankruptcy's; you know, from his failed businesses, that no one aims to have happen but Trump did have happen), he can't even give himself a salary anymore. he is BEHOLDEN to his debtors.
anyone who doesn't think so just because it's business and not "political" doesn't understand politics.
1
-
1
-
Jesus, literally, did talk about pacifism, and that's it. even look at the famous "sword" example. he says sword but by sword he means = the gospel, the word of God, the tongue, he can sway minds with his intellect regarding the "end all be all" -- it's that simple. later on, they ask Jesus "should we bring the swords" and Jesus says, "we will need only one", because he intends on getting caught and arrested by the guards, in order to 'bring forth the prophecy'. Americans and Christians everywhere seem to forget all these pertinent facts about the New Testament...conveniently. it was a PROPHECY. not the literal 'word of God'. no, that was never written...did Jesus ever write anything? no. did God? no. not ever. all the religions are based off of all farmer literature (and a COUPLE actual letters), and maybe some older ones like Judaism and the Vedic religions and the "Pagan" religions (shitty term but for the sake of brevity) are based off of old oral history, that's alot different, but nevertheless, God never actually came to write anything. EVER. it's all based in the mind. ALL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
as people, they are more interesting, than as artists. they are manipulating reality, but not through magick - though with "art". and art is always malleable. though, none of this means they are able to concoct anything but their own whims into reality. are the elite gonna serve themselves by partaking in "ritualism" with Abramovic...no, they aren't, they are going to shoot themselves in the foot with that kind of thing, so why should they even bother. i still think this is all hyperbolic scare-mongering about a silly "art" project -- all of which has worked AGAINST their favor (the elites), so what the fuck would be the point of it all, for them? can you answer me that, Adapt?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
a lesson in ethics and being an intelligent thinking human being with no qualms telling idiots what's right: from cynicalbastard.
we all collectively have 20/20 hindsight. a: Zimmerman should not have been following Trayvon Martin, as Zimmerman could not have been aware of any crimes, nor was there any for him to be concerned about b: Zimmerman, even as a neighborhood watchman, should not have had his gun due to the provisions of the charter in his city & state regarding attire and protocol of Neighborhood watch; which is a fact, you're not allowed to have a gun, even in an open carry environment, as that does not project a safe environment, and is in fact dangerous to do, and so Neighborhood Watch has these provisions. c: he was not on duty that night.
in conclusion Zimmerman was 100% totally wrong. he was legal in shooting Trayvon but wrong in every other account. as is most of this comment line, from the top down. you are all wrong, and you actually have no idea about the facts about why Zimmerman was 100% in the wrong for having followed Trayvon to his home, which most would argue is stalking. if you argue against that, then i'd have to prove to you, by following you home, that you obviously wouldn't like it. but i can't so to you i say, you're a moron.
congrats hypocrites though, you guys won that round.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the word React is speculative.
you cannot coin the term "so-and-so REACT" and expect not to have problems, when it comes to people's sensibilities, about what they think belongs to them, when "REACT" isn't a genre, or a format, it's just a thing -- also with their history of taking down youtube videos following the React TREND (not format, or genre, because Reacting isn't any of those things, not in video, not in music, not in any form of entertainment or consumer product), people simply don't trust them to be able to have the means to corner the market, and not to mention, they don't trust them to not take down people's videos EVEN MORE than they have been already, just because it's "Teens" reacting in videos, ie teens in front of a camera, sitting down (standing up, regardless), and watching a video and then reacting to it, for the camera to capture on video, and then putting it up online on a sharing website...people, you know, want to be able to still do that without treading on Fine Brothers web.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
there are pedo rings though.
and there have always been Satanic ritual, perhaps not on the conspiratorial "tin-foil hat" level, but certainly people have murdered for Satanic ritual, especially centuries ago. if people have sacrificed for God's, you don't think that Satanists wouldn't do the same for their "god"?
i just find it highly unlikely that they'd find themselves so special. so with that in mind, i don't find it to far-fetched that people have killed for Satan...eg look at the Night Stalker. so if it's possible, then it's likely at least once that someone has done a ritual involving murder (killing of Animals is pretty much chic in ritual circles; so human sacrifice can't be too far off).
and if that's the case then it's possible that it happens more times then we think, and maybe it just hasn't been exposed? i don't know if i believe Satanic Pedo Rings, per se...but both separate ideas i can imagine probably happens to some extent, and then i have to imagine that maybe perhaps there is some overlap there.
and sure it's a "conspiracy" that "the elite" are running pedophile rings...but there has been instances of high profile celebrities and politicians being involved in pedophilia.
to me, it's mathematically improbably that there has never been a pedophile Satanist, which of course leaves the possibility that there has been a Satanist pedophilic ritual that has occurred at some point in history. though maybe not recorded history, which is all that's relevant, i guess.
i just don't put it past humans to try and achieve something like that.
1
-
evidence about what? pedo rings. need not. it's there for anyone to see, just use Google or whatever.
Satanic rituals? well, that one is definitely dicey in regards to evidence. but if religious people of centuries past have sacrificed lives, then Satanist sacrifice can't be too far off. i mean, the ideal of Satan has persisted for centuries, and certainly there are sects of Satanism that aren't exactly in the public eye, and certainly sects of certain other shadowy organizations (eg Ordo Templis Orientis, Hermetic Order of The Golden Dawn) whom are in utter secrecy.
i don't deny the possibility that people can become victim to rogue believer's in Satanism as well, as i pointed out earlier The Nightstalker killer. he killed FOR Satan, in his own words.
there is my evidence. it's small, but it allows the possibility, the possibility in which there could either be rogue Satanist's (PS: and there are definitely ones in even recent times who've sacrificed animals that weren't humans) or that ritual sacrifice may happen in other secret societies.
basically your weak skepicism you're giving me is akin to saying that Jack the Ripper never existed because we never found him...or her.
it's just poppycock. look you can be as hardline as you want, but when there is evidence that presents itself, i take into account all the possibilities. we know Satanism exists, we know Satanists will ritually sacrifice an animal, so a human isn't far off from that possibility of sacrifice, and also people have killed in the name of Satan, which again isn't too far off from ritual sacrifice, seeing as they've killed FOR the deity they believe in, so...what have you got to settle this? nothing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
dude, he was joking, it was hyperbole, he was responding to Pat jokingly. she took it the wrong way. then he had to explain himself, and he made a good point about relationships. he didn't say "go threaten to fuck more women" while he was talking seriously he said "no, you act more outside of your own personal relationship with your spouse, to show her that you can have fun and respect other people as well as he can his spouse, so that that shows her to respect him and feelings more" because THAT IS WHAT A MARRIAGE IS ABOUT. it's not about FEAR. it's about showing respect, and if you don't show respect, even incidentally, then you're gonna need to be told SOMEHOW. and the way he described was a way to do-so without even confrontation, and very smartly... because that kind of non-confrontation shows that you're not AFRAID, and because of that your spouse CAN TRUST YOU MORE.
i hope i imparted some wisdom to you today. he made a very good point, haphazardly, because he was called out, because of a comprehension issue. he told her and she still probably missed the point. she's young so it's understandable... but i hope i could help you sir.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jdmdealers correlation does not equal causation. Mexico is a shithole.
that's why the number's are so high.
i don't think the left, as a consensus, want to ban all guns, they just want tighter control's so that less guns need to get produced, and thus less gun's are flooding the black market. it's a concerted effort bring down crime in a country that's riddled with it, because of VARIOUS reasons.
there is no excuse to not be able to own a gun for home protection however, but in America, one of the reasons for so many gun deaths is because of the large proportions of guns. i know it's pretty hamfisted a rationale to try and say that the rate of crime is because of guns in general, cause that's obviously not true, and i don't fully buy that that'll simply eliminate crime, to "take away the guns", no, but then again, to produce less guns, and to confiscate unnecessary guns means that less are available to used in crimes. so you can see their point when they say that the gun culture as much as it wants to be about protection, also influences the influx of guns on the streets. sure knife homicide will go up. we're humans. humans kill. but gun crime will go down, and gun homicide is the highest instance of homicide.
so it's hard to not see from both sides of the table, their respective concerns.
1
-
1
-
PSS: occult philosophy is great to read on, and learn. i've always been into fusing everything, art, music, philosophy, geography, culture, science, poetry, mythology, esoteric/mystic and spiritual paths, history, psychology, astronomy/astrology, anthropology, medicine, logic, politics, rhetoric, ethics, literature, mathematics and geometry, biology, physics, chemistry/alchemy, agriculture, mechanics, reason, language, even pedagogy...even game theory and economics, criticism, ect...everything connects on some level. occultism seems to confirm that concept.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
he said "isn't it a shame that for most black people the good ole' days were the days when things were segregated legally in this country...that the good ole' days when there were two parent families -- were the norm, in the black community, -- and there were...two parent families were the norm, back during segregation days."
this is called double speak. he's saying the family unit is broken up due to ???? reasons ???? and that's bad, but the good ole' days that people refer to (older people) were back during segregation; with a proper family unit -- implying that it's better during segregation -- even if he doesn't state that explicitly, this is what he is implying. double speak. the family unit still exists, he's making a statement implying that somehow it's an abject failure -- the black family -- and he's implying that, when people refer to "the good ole' days" that they referring to a "better day", without any further inference. that is an unsound conclusion, because just people people refer to them as "the good ole' days", doesn't mean they actually "good". in fact, it means squat. it's a logical fallacy aimed to convince idiots of things.
1
-
there isn't a problem leading to the disintegration of black families that can't be attributed purely to human nature. the black family is just as perplexed, culturally, as any other family in America (and should be treated as any other problem in America, an American one). the air of lament should come from the fact that people want solutions for problems that have none. curb the population growth? that's a simple proposal. but no. that won't happen. so what is to be done? lament? lament what? it was never any better than it is now, in fact, it was very plainly worse. that is the argument...you are CORRECT that that's what he thinks people think, that their referring to the good ole' days in that sense, or is it in the sense of "the good ole' days" when people were young and ignorant and thought the world made sense. it never did -- not fully. but progress has slowly been made, especially for people of color, and they need to continue to do so, not wish for the past...the past is gone, and it was never really that great to begin with. and that IS sad. but that's not what the guy was a pointing to. he was saying that "it's sad that they felt better about the good ole' days because the family was connected, unlike now" but this is JUST NOT TRUE. the families were separated, children were sold off from their parents, and they were NOT happier -- they had the illusion of being happier. and black person can tell you, that hasn't been trying to make excuses for his or her life, that life is a hundred percent better now. this is the problem. the big guy is just saying that older black folk have their rose-colored glasses on, which isn't really an accurate representation of the world. anyone without said glasses can look at history, and look at their life now, and plainly see things are better now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
it's really not an opinion.
axiomatically, i used the word correctly. hence, not an opinion.
even when i first used it, it was signify that your argument held no weight and had no substance, and was patently false, and illogical, with no logical premise or conclusion -- a failure, all round, in logic. so hence the word was used to describe just how obvious your wrongness was and to describe that you need to make logical propositions, to be "correct"; which wasn't the case for you, AXIOMATICALLY. LOL but you don't recognize that (why would you? you'd have to admit you were wrong), so you keep regressing into the logic that "i have not used the word Axiomatically correctly (false) thus i do not have to address how i was wrong, so i can still pretend i was right all along!"
LOL that's your "logic".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
meh, you know what, he poked her chest. that's assault. she had the right to call him on it. basically, it's on camera, if you don't see it, you're fucked, and not one person needs to be charged in that matter, because she overracted, but she OBVIOUSLY didn't like him laying a finger on her, and if he was in her shoes, and she poked him in the right tit, when guess what, he wouldn't like it either. and that is technically assault; the question is do you file charges, which is gonna be hard to do if you're swinging at people whom simply poked you, as that is NOT a proportional response, and she'd have to fight that in court if she was going to take legal action. but ... But the guy with the pepper spray, that is an entirely different matter. HE should be charged.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"overwhelming majority" seems like an overstatement. most of the cases i've seen of police brutality being assessed from the news IS police brutality, because brutality isn't something one can readily miss, or misinterpret. if a police officer is beating you down, when you're restrained, that's police brutality. doesn't mean charges get brought on the police. doesn't happen, most of the time. that's why they are ready to "jump the gun", if you will, when anything resembling brutality (again, hard to miss) shows up, especially in video form. yeah, they make assumptions. like for example, Michael Brown, that's a clear case of misjudgement in part of speculation. but that was a predominantly normative case of how to deduce what is and is not police brutality (though he [Wilson] still should have called for back-up, and put out an APB, when Brown started to run...shooting down a public street at a target at 148 feet, not the safest route of action for public safety....). but then there are alot more cases where it's clear the police acted without due course, and they often times (most of the time) do not receive any charges...take Tamir Rice for example. also: do you put IMO in all your comments online? those comments could also be considered journalism. social media journalism. =)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
um, Sunbeam? no.
my trouble is not what you suspect at all. there is no problem with me and who people vote for -- it's the fact that when the candidates are given superdelagates,that squashes the individuals whom vote with their vote, and not with their money -- because given the fact of PAC lobbying interests and the superdelegates, there is more people whom can sway the vote, without it being based simply on their vote, because they can CHOOSE whom to vote in, come primary elections; as opposed to simply being tallied fairly. after all, that's why they're called "delegates", because they delegate who the winner is going to be. it's not democratic, it's anti-democratic.
1
-
1
-
because it invalidates everyone else's vote who didn't vote for Hilary, in that sense. because their vote is useless in the tally, if the vote isn't selected by the number of votes per state tallied, and instead is chosen by the sway of the delegates, whom provide finances for smear ads, whom buy votes from corporate interests looking to catch windfall of big interests from the administration, especially, by the by, when concerning international policy.
how can you claim that delegates choosing the vote, instead of relying on the number of votes to win -- without swaying the public or corporate interests on who to vote for (tantamount to fraud in some countries) and whom to pledge their allegiance too, monetarily -- isn't 'bought' but is 'realistic' democracy and fair?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
all of the hub-bub is bullshit though. yes, she could be pulling a Spare, using art as the medium for magick, but her attempts seem vague at best...just take a ritual someone made, and perform it shoddily, and call it art? that's not all that's involved in making the ritual, though. =\ but i do agree, if i can shed some light on Hillary Clinton, i guess it's not all bad...though this hoopla about artists being satanic and thus "must be stopped" is just as bad as any other forgoing of freedom you see these days. just like the people who state "those Marxist teachers must be stopped!" hello, A: freedom of expression and B: people have to pay to take the class! it's not like people are being forced to take it...but people ACT like that that's the case. it's absurd and sickening, to say the least. if that's what it takes in this election...then seriously, fuck this election. and if all it takes is a Katie Perry video with a symbol in it to cause mass fear and panic, and create a less free world in the process, as people witch hunt for "possible occultism" (possible hidden stuff, it's laughable to the extreme), then this race is more and more looking dire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even the tribes of Judah are very paganistic, in some sects, in some ways, but they fluff it up with their portents- and their particularly gritty ones, where human value and pride is invalidated, are quite egregious- but secular Jews are alright- Zionism is wrapped up in there though, right along with entire nation...so it's inseparable from the religious aspect of their being in Yisreal. Islam is also a pagan cult, wrapped up in cotton wool, so they feel secure in the fact of their God, and it's highest form being so "beyond" anything, that they remain in the past, and worship stone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sonic Occultism is excellent so far Styx...the archeological stuff- i thought of that as well. think about how people react to certain creatures...arthropods, especially...spiders...i figure, along with tales of other mythological beings, are lack of proper structuring of classification and documentation of record, mayhaps, (or not), but add that with the clear evidence to support the possible existence of preponderously large beings (the megalodon is hypothesised, as the sabertooth tiger) -- think of the spider...what if there were larger spiders? --- larger arthropods have been hypothesised as well, so mayhaps there were larger creatures our subconsciousness identifies with, from these small beings such as the spider. (just a theory --- but along the same lines of thought --- you should write that, still; i hope you do, sounds interesting. love to see your hypothesis on proto-man, Styx. [of course, this all came to me by way of trying to make an explanation how could be a time immemorial which we cannot produce evidence of- thus is explained psychologically; older me would resound with your hypothesis more...that man could have been kicking up dirt in a more advanced (legalistic) civilisation, before which time we can possibly contact and record.] PS: Sound is everything. (10-4 wing-nut commander, roger dodger over-n-under, 10-4, easy)
1
-
1
-
along with the grand chessboard, there is also the lesser chessboard of who controls the money. personally, on the left & the right, i think collusion and corruption are the rule of thumb when it comes to controlling the financing of either/or type of government; regardless of which partisan politics whomever is involved, whichever party one belongs to, everyone should be aware of when there is something fishy going on in their government. no matter what. even if i espouse that the libertarian motif/model is the greatest personal philosophy, bar none, nevertheless, one should be careful not to turn one's sightline away from truth. also, could there be a contest between Trump and Sanders for the election? because the right will admonish the DNC, no matter what, and if Sanders is proposed (and what'll look like being propped) to be elected, there'll be riots in the streets, because it'll be seen as unfair, and they'd have a point, too. (Predator theme)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
there should be open carry in metropolitan areas. even though it's understandable why, in a representative democracy, things will swing left, and right, one way, and the other, from time to time -- after enough of this political crap (whereby i learned alot, even before finding these insightful videos), i find there are sensible positions within most political ideologies...but the libertarian ethos, since a young age, has always made the most sense, personally...and it is, at the very least, as a personal philosophy, 100% ken in terms of what is ethically righteous...though, again, things swing, so it's hard to say what is right for everyone, at once...which is why in a representative democracy, it pays to win. to win -- stick to libertarianism. MEOW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
blah blah blah blah balh religious freedom is not this. this is not religious freedom. it simply isn't. religious freedom is NOT something that you can foist on someone else, and not something that you can make other people have to consider for themselves or make them do, because guess what, it's not THEIR religion. they are FREE from your religion, and you are free from theirs. the only thing is, though, them being who THEY are, does NOT EFFECT YOU,...you have the religious freedom to not get a sex change operation, or to not like trans people or whatever dumb shit...but you have no freedoms to foist your believe on other people, and to have other people have to take your beliefs into account for ANYTHING. if you refuse to serve people, you should have your business license revoked. also, the states do have control over their own governments, to an extent; only a retarded bunch of idiots would see "religious FREEDOM" as "well, i don't like trans so i don't have to serve them, it's against my religion." guess what...no one cares if it's against your religion to serve them, you're a public service, you'll serve them...or else all this dumb asinine American idiot only bullshit will be taken to court. it's right there in the constitution...if some idiot states want to secede from the rest of the US constitution, then be my guest. but the states won't get away with this forever. 1st amendment = freedom of religion and separation from church and state...state = public business operations. i am never allowed to deny you service because it's against my religion to serve Christians (let's just say that's true) -- get it? of course not. this is for posterities sake. not yours. you won't get it. because you don't understand the 1st amendment and the concept of freedom of religion. FREEDOM -- meaning if your religion dictates that you don't have to serve me, and the states agree with you, then you're gonna be seeing alot of segragation and this will all get settled by simply looking at the first amendment; why? because others will not serve Christians next...people will force people to serve christians...then christians will be all means have to stop the boycott against serving whom they don't like to serve in their establishments...or else American then (people reading this) will then change form a free and secular nation, to a utterly controlled and christian only nation, and everyone will leave, meh, probably for Canada...that or fight you christians on every front, and there'll be another civil war type scenario. but either way...religious freedoms will win over christian tyranny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Martin was a thug...yeah when an idiot says that, i tend to laugh. he's a "thug"...and he wasn't going to do anything if idiot Zimmerman didn't "follow" him for NO REASON, making Trayvon reasonably fear for his safety...he only didn't reasonably defend himself, because the story was twisted, and he (Zimmerman) had "legal" precedence to say that he shot him in defence, defence to something that HE initiated himself.
legally he walks. logically America is set back a decade, idiots win by a landslide of idiot legal defence against logic, rationality, intelligence ect ect... another OJ.
and only because idiots misread the chronology, and the intent, and focus solely on eliminating the instance of the constitution failing to have any logical leg to be feasible to stand on. but who needs logic in a society?
gotta love constitutionalist liberal conservatives wanting to revise the constitution (and hold back it's amendment) based on their wish for an 18th century purview of American life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL, every single culture out there has a criminal element within the culture, and not to mention, corruption, and just plain mental illness and psychosis -- and Greed. every single culture. and every single culture too, has had wars, and tyranny. you just don't know wtf you are talking about, and you're misinformed -- about history, and human nature, and culture, and criminality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
alright, i apologize, i was out of line, having a bad day. i shouldn't have called you an idiot. cause you're right about what you just said. but i don't think TYT is as slanted and presumptive as you insinuate. when the BLM proponents have attacked (and killed) police, and/or have called for the killing of police, they've vehemently repudiated such actions and such a notion. i've seen it. why haven't you? i don't even watch TYT hardly, anymore -- but that's besides the point; in the sum few videos i've seen, they've never not pointed to, on the left, especially in BLM, the abject ridiculousness of the call to "kill police".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
not really. (not on the last part, that part i agree with you on) but no, i think it's more like the person develops a sexual desire, and they put those desires towards children, and that's that. it's not even a moral choice...it develops early-on the persons childhood, i'd presume, unless they were already immoral already, upon committing the act of pederasty. but if the case is that it developed early on, i don't think it's because of a physical reason, but it's more a spiritual one. they simply act upon their desires without knowing where they will lead, and then they are lead to becoming attracted to children, by their own wants, and they simply do not consider the consequences (or they abandon all reason) when they decide they will perpetrate on someone, their sexual desires. either because they think they can get away with it, or they simply don't care and are desperate (a most desperate desperation) -- there are two choices for these people; they either hold-fast and never give in to those desires and certainly don't discuss them (obviously stupid), or they perpetrate on someone, and they face the consequences. they should readily be sterilized. people ARE animals. some HAVE NOT learned to be a spiritual animal. some are inherent dangerous to society.
1
-
oy vey.
dude, there is no defence. yes, porn can lead to abjectly miserable places, but that's totally on you. and no, you CAN comprehend (clearly) and you CAN control your actions -- many people probably do -- and the fact is, if you have such desires, you're probably conflating that with your innate sexual desires, and you should strictly contemplate that, whether or not you are controlling said desires or not...go get laid. stop watching porn. if you continue to feel attraction towards children, if you don't keep it to yourself, you can't even imagine the consequences...people will not stand for it, morally. and they shouldn't. they should be outraged. the fact that you've stumbled across an onion site or whatever, and did not notify the authorities is a lack on your part to do the right thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i've said it before and i'll say it again -- Donald has his brain trust. and at the very least, unlike Clinton's, it will be accountable to the American people. "oh Donald. the people are calling". "ok, so what do we do". -- this is better than Clinton's crapshoot. Trump isn't my favorite person in the world...i don't fucking give two shits about money nor business, not big business. not retail. (it's hard to say where to the draw the line, but let's just say, it's mostly a fucking gyp). but his brain trust is more capable than Hilary, and at least you can say there is no one pulling any strings, unless Donald is, and he could be, playing a long game. of course, wouldn't it be interesting to speculate that perhaps Trump has his brain trust with Clinton already...dum dum DUH!!! @ 5:52 -- finally, i hear some sense on the topic. though, i must admit, Donald was quite disjointed in his press interviews, and his speeches, well, alot of things can be misconstrued by the hoi polloi. it's in his own fault for playing up that base, though; it was probably intentional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+StevenCrowder Crowder
on climate change in the media and about the source of the consensus: you can't have an objective reality without numbers, and if the source of the numbers is naturally incorrect, then it's subject to question. when a question presents itself, it calls for an answer, biznizsch's. -- we need the truth on climate change. notice Crowder corrected himself, he said "not global warming" probably because this is different than climate change...global warming -- considering what some say, global warming is a natural effect of the climate. while climate change is whether he have anything to be truly alarmed about, which is what the media pushes. i want real answers: and scientists can be bought and paid for. this is a fact. PS: liberalism should stay out of the economy -- fiscal-conservatism is the only kind of conservatism that makes real sense. -- and liberalism should remain a social movement, in terms of LGBT rights, ect, as the people do indeed have the right to freedom of expression. sorry to disagree with you there Crowder (assuming you take just about every other Christian i've talked to's position -- [grammar, kids]), sorry to indirectly hammer that in, but i just don't see any other way to denote the problem i have with this particular area of disagreement, considering [yes admittedly anecdotal] my experiences with discussing the issue with Christians, and i'm in a Christian family myself. -- but i don't see how these people being whom they belief they are is any different from any Christian. fiscal-conservatism is the only kind of economy that makes real sense. (did i say that already?) but on the subject of Christianity, abortion is murder...lol, but i take the ethical "what if the baby is of a rape?" stance. because i can't really see anything being lawful in determining for a women whether or not she should have to keep a baby she simply doesn't want, by way of incident, or simply cannot handle -- why put more people on the streets, potentially? it's SUCH a complicated issue. PPS: apologies for the essay. but one more thing: if a woman does an illegal abortion, is it because there aren't enough resources for her to get it done by medical professionals? what happens to those women? it's complicated.
1
-
it's not a type of political conservatism? are you sure. it's a philosophy that frankly can be employed, and simply hasn't. raise the taxes on the wealthiest 1%-10%, let them pay their fair share.
liberals in office, plenty, will overspend on those strange new ideas, and they will certainly not always succeed. the thing is we do this too often. simple fact. no one wants to pay for things that only a sum few people wouldn't mind paying for themselves, and on a thing that is in all probability not going to be a simple return of investment, it will, in some cases, require more investiture, to make it profitable, which takes a huge chunk of money out of the economy, that doesn't get spit back out through revenue, it simply gets chewed up and swallowed, and the tax payer has to carry that burden. basically: sometimes, but not always, liberals screw up -- and fiscal conservatism just makes sense. you say it's a buzzword and that'd probably be accurate, i'm sure that conservative lobbyists and thinktanks like to prop up the party with certain misinformation -- but raising taxes on the wealthy is the best way to remain fiscally conservative (and no, not the political fiscal conservatism, but the just plain conservatism that comes with propping up the economy with the money conserved, the infrastructure built upon, and people given a shoulder to stand on to help build. it's too bad that is a dead and long gone way, to most of these fake neo-cons.
1
-
"But when stifling government spending is your entire point, I would say you're not really talking about politics -- and you don't fully understand how money works, because you'd realize government spending can only ever be a good thing"
LOL not if the tax payer has to pay for the spending that's being done that people don't want. the people make the rules, not the money. if we all could fix the tax burden on just the FED, that'd be disastrous, but surely by your logic, that'd be better, to just print as much money and spend as much as possible, right? or no...? you like some conservatism of $$$, right? or no? -- so what else can people do but just that, pay into the system that supports them...but if the system is not supporting them, they have good reason to not support that system -- no matter how much money it generates. it's basically the reverse of corporatism, the opposite, -- that's what you're advocating. PS: who said anything about wanting to stifle government spending? i'm talking about NOT stifling government spending.
1
-
i am not talking about saving it, that was a presumption on your part, but i commend your shrewdness. now, i say spend it, you didn't know that, but that's what i'm saying...spend it. but then you start saving and balance the books, after you inject that spending into the economy...now where it goes, people will widely differ on that issue. but where it goes is fundamentally the most important issue at that point -- and i'd say there is plenty of room for reform in many areas of the institution of public funds to government programs...education for example, is SORELY lacking -- i mean BAD; in terms of results, it's not terrible, but in terms of how it's run, it's terrible -- and that's just one area of concern.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
and am i saying any of that rhetorical claptrap? no. i am not. so we can agree: that he (Muhammed) can be considered immoral now. but also that he was a historical figure in a different time and culture with vastly different norms, regardless of what we think of them now, that existed in due course, thanks to whatever reasoning they had at the time...whether they found it practical, or we find it immoral in the present day, is irrelevant. you wanna fight against Islam, use a more logical rationale for your fight. not because "in the old days they married young girls -- oh and the Islamic prophet was one of those that married a young girl, and because he's a prophet, it makes it extra wrong".
yeah, it doesn't make it extra wrong, and just because it's unacceptable now, doesn't mean you even have the sense to know what was sensible then, because you weren't alive then, and have no real conclusive idea on how people lived.
no one is excusing pedophilia now. it's just your regressive and circular logic that prevents you from deducing a rational conclusion to your already faulty premise, that i am pointing out, and it's why i am only helping to confirm for you your bias (assumptions). but this isn't about you, or me...this is for posterity, quite frankly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you were arguing with me about what i informed you about, because you didn't like what you were being informed about (about the differences of social thought in old-century far-east cultures that've existed a lot longer than our western sphere of thought and influence) -- and by doing so, you started a chain reaction of having to proven to be using ill-fated rhetoric to substantiate your views and to try and justify irrational hatred towards an entire group (whom all have different points of view about life and their culture/nations/religion &c) when you actually do not make any logical sense; when you say "since Muhammed was a 'pedophile' Islam is evil, cause they think he was moral" all of that is wrong. first off, no, it wasn't pedophilia TO THEM THEN, it was just typical arranged marriage; and then also, no, not everyone in Islam thinks Muhammed was perfectly moral. that's why there is more than one Hadith, and more than one sect, and more than one set of beliefs in Islam. which you obviously fail to understand.
and here we are again. retort?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the thing about Islam (making it quite unique in religions) is that policy, culture, religion, law, all of that is integrated at the foundations of the precepts of Islam -- similar to the Vedas but monotheistic instead, like the other Abrahamic religions -- meaning all facets of the nation adhering to Islam is entirely and ornately encapsulated into the faith. so when you attack the religion, you seriously will come across to anyone whom you're debating, that is Islamic or whom wants a clear discussion about the ill-merits of Islamic tradition and the religion and texts, as someone who is attacking the people within the religion. the religion was conceived out of a pure malice for outsiders and a concept of purity of insiders -- like Judaism.
i'd recommend nailing the key-points of morality (or the lack thereof) in the policies of Islamic nations, first and foremost -- and THEN follow that up with the iconoclastic devices of trying to change their doctrine. get them to see the lack of morality in their policy decisions first, then the people of those nations could start to come around, potentially. but they are so tied to the structure of their religion as a way of law, that's the biggest hurdle. alot of people will just follow the law, because it's the status quo. but i'm speaking i guess on a large scale...on a small scale, i'd be careful of using facetious arguments like "he was a pedophile" and use more serious KEY arguments like "why stoning women and hanging homosexuals is immoral" and how 'western economy and democratic freedom' works miles beyond in terms of results than Islam. if you convince people their lives will get better, than there is hope. consider the fact that they are truly that lost with Islam, because it truly is mostly all they know over there. it's constantly re-enforced, too, by sectarian violence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does it matter if it's merely political if they're using the issue? If the issue had no sway, they wouldn't be using it; so no, I don't think they are necessarily religious nuts, but they are using religious nuts to find the sway to their agenda, dumbshit. Which is the point. You wanna tell me about the sordid History of polygamy, because I haven't ever picked up a book on it- just know that basically there is no legal recourse against it that is sensible, and that there is no social dysfunction, mayhaps with the exception of within the family unit, and that as far as I can see, with any instance I've gathered, is only the case when the family are already dysfunctional. You could make the argument that they are dysfunctional because of the polygamous relationship, but they don't think so- maybe they were already screwed up to begin with...but here's the thing, shitheel; not all families turn out that way, so hence the onus is clearly not on the polygamy, but on the people engaged in it. People in "normal" marriages also turn out to be dysfunctional? Should we blame improper marriage vows, or something, moron? No.
1
-
"In context to OP, the gay marriage argument hinged on "because they love each other" which brings no value for secular reasoning"
Wrong. There is your secular reasoning...they love each other. That is the premise in which people get married. They love each other and want to be wedded. That's as secular is you can get.
"Civil Union" is a terrible non-argument- marriage is not simply a civil union, it is a sentimental ceremony and a matter of fiduciary concern.
"You too are letting the religious argument cloud your judgement, but hopefully you'll overcome this deficiency someday."
Your mental gymnastics are ineffective.
"Again, the government has every right to subsidize production of things that will sustain its society."
Doesn't mean jackshit. Doesn't mean that it SHOULD.
"There are 2 major concerns in polygamy."
Not an argument. The government has no role in stipulating what people can and cannot do when their actions harm no one. Individuals in society isn't the governments concern, only policy, and policy cannot be enacted based on an inconclusive premise, or at least it shouldn't be. Is there data to show that marriage in general creates familial problems and thus effects individuals in society? Yes. So stfu, because it still will not nor could ever be made illegal. Polygamy was outlawed purely on contentious religious rationale. Divorce rates skyrockets, families suffer, why isn't marriage outlawed? You still have not laid out a refutation, because I assume you have none. I rest my case.
1
-
Love is just a word. Courses on Religion aren't necessary, there is plenty of literature on the subject.
"Yes it does; it's literally the role of government"
Yeah, and people differ in opinion on what constitutes the sustaining of their society. Get fucked leech.
"It very must is. Those 2 reasons do harm, or help, the people.... another fundamental missed, again."
Still not an argument. The government has decided on a moral basis that polygamy is unreasonable. You can't refute that, so please, try to. The government should have no role in morality issues, as it's a secular institution. Fuck off now. I've got a sammich to eat.
"Your statement logically should have lead to, "why isn't divorce outlawed?" You statement is saying divorce harms then suggests stopping marriage ( which doesn't harm ) is the solution.... wow. Thanks for the excellent chuckle on that one.... another fundamental missed by you."
Wrong again hot shot. My statement should have led to "why isn't divorced outlawed"? No, idiot. It was a rhetorical statement, forgoing your logic, and in substitute, implementing my superior logic in order to prove your lackadaisical reasoning. My statement, obscure as it may be to you, leads to the logic that "divorce isn't outlawed, because the US government has no basis for instituting moral laws. This has been back in forth in LAW for decades now almost a century. You're a holdover from another age and you can't think straight. Go away now.
1
-
1
-
Doesn't matter, as I've said, people decide what is their concern in policy (which you agree), and as i've stated, just because something is in law, doesn't mean it should be- a mere technicality does not change the fact that Trump's ban had no religious basis; just because Islam is both a governmental and religious organisation, matters not, because Trump is not banning anyone from any of those "religious nations" (you could say) for "religious reasons", but purely legitimate economic, and also security, reasons. Unfortunately, his rhetoric on the campaign trail hurt his cause, which anyone could have warned about (as I did, but who listens);-- look, go hump a Bible. Nobody cares about your polygamy red herring, and your equivocations. Gay marriage has no basis in anything, let alone any argument here, and is nothing but the pith of a temerent impetus to your religious notions. It is more than just a civil union, it's a legal union, and a business union, and it's also a concept that transcends your moral boundaries, because it is such, a concept, malleable, and freeforming in the eyes of the constitution.
1
-
Your justification doesn't make it right, ponder that, oh ye old gorm- and honestly, I can tell if it's red herring to try and encapsulate your ridiculous holdover ideals, if and only if you aren't addressing these ridiculous claims to Styx anymore, and are only addressing them to me; otherwise, it is simply a clever Strawman. Styx made the claim that it is a moral quandary and not a merely metaphysical one at that, instead of a logical quandary; and thus it's legalese and it's justification (this so-called ordinance) is bullshit on the face of it, because it is a moral quandary, instead of a more logical stepping stone into a more cohesive and stable society- and we have to see it to believe it, as stark-raving mad moral busy-bodies would have at any length within their grasp to obscure that fact, because of the facile and ill-conceived conclusions based on their fearful predilections, furthermore, of course, only based on MORAL QUANDARIES ie, 6% of people think smoking is bad enough to warrant it's illegality in public venues ect, and some people think less people in a society is morally wrong as it would weaken the state of the nation as a whole, which is bad because it's wrong. All moral implications, impinged on the masses by the few whom whine and project enough about their fear of destruction. Civilizations have survived big and small, and there is such a thing as NATURAL SELECTION, you know- maybe you should ponder that too. A nation where a sum few idiots doesn't get to decide to impinge of the rights of another minority on the basis that they are gay, (not a moral argument, by the by, but simply logical one, QED...), while the more gay society can be kept happy, the more production in the state, the greater the wealth expenditure (of course, in the hands of the people, including you idiots, sadly), and the greater the ability to produce off-spring. Do you know how many kids are fostered? STFU you stark raving mad idiot. I hate to tell to go away, but it's your idiocy that's astoundingly distasteful.
1
-
"They love" is not merely the test...fool. It is the fact of them being legally enjoined, contractually no less, at the hip (if you will). Come with arguments, not this pithy disapprobation, this is getting old. No need to leave, either. I am remarking on your thread like a madman scrawling on the walls of your inner sanctum, and will continue to do so, for pleasure in seeing you squirm. But alas, it does bore that you capitulate and offer no arguments or refutations so easily. The people can be seen fit to be enjoined in marriage contractually, and legally, so as to give them the civic pursuit of family and happiness (or productivity, if you'd prefer; i'd prefer happiness be instated first as ordinance of the government in moral affairs.)...Which is what you keep postulating. A moral quandary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What he continually ignores is the fact Styx said the government can't discriminate on that basis, and Styx is wrong in that claim. They can, but they have chosen not to."
So sans the strawman, you concede that Styx didn't make the claim you insisted he was making, because really he made no such claim, "they can't discriminate on that basis", that is to say, "legally"- but constitutionally, yes, and your claim is no? Well, prove it. Because although marriage isn't a right (looking at you Danny the Rehabitulated Lobotomitard), discrimination is clearly unconstitutional and you'd be looking at a civic rights violation in due course. STFU, you ingratiating hyena-mad lunatics.
"Obviously separation of church and state was the premise, not "Lemon v. Kurtzman.""
Tell that to Ri3m4nn, dumbshit. The original contention here, regardless, is whether there is a moral basis for the polygamy law, and of course there is...your dumbasses' just can't see the fact because you think the law speaks for itself. You're morons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, I didn't delete any comment. I've edited errors and reformed a passage to make it clearer, that was earlier. I've already clarified that the strawman was when you (Reimann) launched in to presuppose an argument Styx never made, so you could try and argue against him- it's really dumb of you to do so. I'm just here, playing interlocutor, to tell you that by what he said, at face value, was right, and to argue what you're arguing, well you'd have to take it up with the courts- and/or ask Styx to weigh in on his position, instead of just assuming it.
1
-
Speak for yourself.
Styx also said, "you're talking about religious ceremonialism", which is what he was referring to by "that basis", that is to say, the basis by which you cannot marry (which was used as his example); ie, that you can't ban gay marriage (as per the example given) because you'd be violating the constitutional rights of those seeking to marry. Simple as that. Styx wasn't imprecise. Styx gave a damn good précis of the notion he wanted to touch on. You were imprecise in your presumptions. The strawman is in assuming an argument that hasn't be put forward by an opponent is an argument you can rationally win against, in a debate you set forth with, where the opponent is literally nowhere to be found, cause he made no refutation or claim. Even though Styx is still right in what he actually said (as opposed to what you're appoximating he said); and I made an off-hand comment about the moral reasoning behind the banning of polygamy...you denied...eventually even Danno agreed with me, when he said, quote, "MORAL IMPETUS IS RELIGION", end quote...but he's still conflating two entirely different terms, consequently beclowning himself, down the line, unforeseen by him in the time he made the O so ironic comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
holy shit, awesome panel, this is awesome for so many reasons...Jamie Kennedy is O'Brian, watch out, he's gonna get you. he's just fooling!
yeah, this segment reminds me of like some conspiracy shit, but the best part is, it's more like 1984, because it's true, and yet, it's on a level of fuckedness that only belongs in fiction. bizarre.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
there's also backlash for other reasons other than Ellen: and no, you can't brand "reacting to videos", that's the crux of the issue, actually. you can't brand or copyright their particular subset of popular videos, not with out consequences that people are being vocal about now.
they took down "Seniors React", a channel that sounds like what it is, and then afterwards...AFTER...they made "Elders React" (cleverly [but not really] changing the name just a little to avoid any comparisons).
and that's just ONE example.
another would be them trying to brand something so idiotic, in my opinion, but then, again, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
i think they want to make "React World" so they can avoid having to use content from youtube to "react" in their videos with (well not THEM, but you know what i mean) and to have a place like "React World" to have users upload their own react videos, or their own content as well, under fair use, to hence make more "react videos".
this way they can avoid dealing with youtube in using their content to make tons of money, from content that they didn't make.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you have no idea how reality works. there is no impartial news. robots don't work there...people do. and people have beliefs, principals...opinions...and as long as TYT isn't straddling the fence on topics (which is REALLY telling you what to think) then they are far and beyond the best kind of news. the journalistic left is much more powerful than the right, cause they at least TELL YOU WHAT THEY THINK, and so there can be an open dialogue. they don't TELL YOU what to think, THAT'S CNN and FOX news and the like...no, TYT actually just gives you their straight foward and honest opinions, and then you can add yours in the discussion, via youtube or whatever, and join in. no one is telling you, here, what to think; so don't be so silly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
don't drag mythology into this. mythology never hurt anyone, not from ancient Greece. they worshipped hero forms of humans, ie, humans as Gods, ie, they see humans as having archetypal tendencies which are personified, that is to say, they are human attributes considered "God-like", yet are manifest in humans. that's not the same as pretending there are sky-gods. pretty advanced for their time. it's not like the Egyptians or something, whom actually believed in the spiritual world. in Greek mythology, it was not so much that. it was just story-telling, no strings attached.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i never said i don't like any of those people. i like Hitchens, especially. but yeah, this isn't a popularity contest...i'm sure he doesn't want to address the same dumb question about people's misapprehension about his beliefs on the Armenian Genocide. he simply says it wasn't a "genocide"? that isn't denying anything happened, that's semantics. you want to hate him for that, go right ahead, at least it's honest. and of course they have a slant to stories regarding bigotry, because it's a hot button issue, these days, hell, half the presidential candidates are running on this very premise - that and immigration, of course. but that slant doesn't leave out Muslims, no, it encourages it. it just so happens there are much more stories involving other people that occur, and these stories comes out quicker because A: they happen more often and B: because we already have the slant against Muslims, especially in the mainstream media, and we don't need to have it constantly covered by an outlet that is aiming to focus on stories that are less mainstream, such as bigotry and hate from OTHER PEOPLE OTHER THAN MUSLIM, which coincidentally...HAPPENS MORE OFTEN.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So if we're talking about humanitarian efforts and BRINGING something, ANYTHING, edible for these people to eat from developed countries, we are wasting it all on livestock to feed the vast majority of McD's eating obese fat fucks"
did i endorse McDonalds anywhere, you ignoramus?
"cut out animal agriculture which is the biggest component of climate change, and we will all be healthier for it."
Cowspiracy is bullshit.
"Are you guys just purposefully stupid or incapable of following the logic here?"
are you? it'd cost more to produce and manufacture supplements, than to produce the grain, to feed the steer, to feed people meat and get what's required from said meat as naturally as we can, without potentially starving people whom can't afford supplements, from a market that wouldn't be cost-efficient in production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you can fight for your lack of beliefs (and no one said that you fight the beliefs of deities; that has nothing to do with anything and you're misunderstanding me), in order to denote that lack of belief as the thing to think. that's fundamentalism. you are dead wrong. if you fundamentally believe that you are right and anyone thinking differently is wrong (and anything that goes along with that) that is precisely fundamentalism. sorry you can't see that.
and i don't if this was you or not, but...i think i made the distinction here that Athe-ISM, cannot be fundamentalist by it's nature of being an ideal. an atheIST on the otherhand is a person, who can be as fundamentalist in their views as anyone else, religion or no.
(and sometimes literally is just used for emphasis, so as you can see, language has clearly evolved beyond your understanding. literally.)
essentially Atheist who presume that religious people are dangerous or nuts simply because of their beliefs (as opposed to their actions) are being fundamentalists.
you can call them fundamental materialists, too, but they identify as Atheist, so it's just as fitting. you can refer to it as merely a pejorative, but i think it's rather well suited considering the in-group mentality of Atheists and their disregard for logic in determining whether they're correct in their views or not.
you cannot prove there's no God, it's inherently an illogical point of view to believe that you can assume "it" doesn't exist. meaning you're just about as bad as any Christian fundamentalist. crazy eh?
1
-
you are going LALALA. you can't even understand logic or words.
let me break it down for you more.
first off: Literally is used for emphasis. it's not wrong. it's not formal English but it's not "unacceptable" to say something like "your ass is literally stupid" and have that not be clear in it's intended message. the literally is for EMPHASIS. read a dictionary.
two: "Nowhere does it say: the desire to spread your opinions"
and nowhere did I say that. so can you just learn how to read?
i said that if you THINK that someone else's THINKING is wrong because you think your's is right, fundamentally, without any proof or rationale, you are being fundamentalist. also that you think that you can insist there is no God via your orthodox belief systems, rather than empirical proof. that's another great form fundamentalism from Atheists, because they think they CAN. but yet, they can't. ever. because it's illogical and unreasonable.
three: i already said definitions change all the time, and fundamentalism isn't solely about believes, it can apply to viewpoints and thoughts as well. you can be a fundamentalist religious person or political person or doctorate, or whatever, i don't care; if you're fundamentally sticking to your metaphorical "guns" with no rationality involved, and refuse to change your adherence to these "guns" and irrationality, than you are being FUNDAMENTAL in your beliefs, thoughts, ideals, actions, ect ect ect
you don't get this though...right...even still?
(and what does any of what i'm saying here, or the definition of fundamentalism, have to do with being MORE ATHEIST?)
you can call them fundamental materialists, too, but they identify as Atheist, so it's just as fitting. you can refer to it as merely a pejorative, but i think it's rather well suited considering the in-group mentality of Atheists and their disregard for logic in determining whether they're correct in their views or not.
you cannot prove there's no God, it's inherently an illogical point of view to believe that you can assume "it" doesn't exist. meaning you're just about as bad as any Christian fundamentalist. crazy eh?
1
-
"The WRONG use of "literally" is only a few years old, and incredibly fucking annoying. You need a word like "literally" to mean exactly instead of just another word for emphasis. I'm going to ignore this, because it's largely irrelevant."
annoying sure. but language isn't fundamentalist. it can't be. it doesn't come from a place of strict adherence.
and you can keep saying "by definition" but you're still wrong. my definition holds up. religious doctrine and precepts to be held to strict adherence, is the EXACT same thing as INSISTING and ASSUMING all the while that god doesn't exist. you'd be far safer in your presumptuous attitude without the whole unsubstantiated claims department running amok.
"How can I strictly adhere to the idea of lacking a belief in deities? It doesn't make sense."
by presuming that God doesn't exist and presuming that everyone should follow that logic or be wrong/dangerous/whatever else you can think ect.
that's how. like i said Fundamentalist Atheism is distinct from the concept here of your being a fundamentalist Atheist. two different things.
"You pulled this right out of your ass, so I'll ignore this drivel."
=( oh no you can't understand words again. go get that dictionary.
"Since atheism has no rules, claiming strict adherence to "their rules" is nearly meaningless."
oh really, no rules? how about the rule of thumb that there is no God? there is no evidence of that BTW, which makes the presumption illogical on the face of it. it is a precept in Atheism, and thus there are rules.
like i said, if you think that someone's thinking is wrong simply because you BELIEVE your thinking is more correct, that directly delineates to the same exact type of thinking that Christian or Muslim fundamentalists have in tandem with their views on the world. which form of thinking is in the precept's definition; it's a BELIEF, because there is no evidence to support the claim; which BTW i am not claiming here that there is a God, i'm just pointing out your insistence in the belief that there isn't one.
you can be SUPER SUPER Atheist, because according to you, you can't not not believe in non-beliefs, while apparently you can. Atheist do it everytime they insist that God doesn't exist, and everyone who thinks it does is wrong and must be ostracized.
Dawkin Militants are the most grandiose fundamentalist Atheist, even though Dawkins isn't even fundamentalist in his views. he's an actual intelligent Atheist. it's amazing. but it's also like wow... the following. DUR.
1
-
i don't wanna do this again.
look i told you already... AtheISM, AtheIST. two different things. Atheist do much against their own precepts when they, in fact, claim there is no God. they do this. this is what the guy in the video was referring to as "fundamentalist".
"An atheist does not insist that god doesn't exist. You don't know what you're talking about. "
right. but yet many do. they aren't doing a good job are they?
"That is not, by definition, fundamentalism. "
then what is it?
"Being agnostic atheist is not a lesser version of atheism. "
no it isn't, it's a greater form of Atheism.
"The atheist does not claim that there is no god. He simply rejects the belief in deities. It's not the same."
that's the purport, but that's not what many Atheists do. so you're telling there are fake Atheists? well that hurts the perception of the there being no fundamentalist Atheists.
"Which is why so few atheists claim to know that there is no god. They can't, and they accept that."
and yet so many do and they are the fundamentalists i'm talking about. they make up a huge proportion of those whom write Atheist literature and on broadcasting.
"You're confusing agnosticism, gnosticism, and atheism; distinctions that are very important. "
i don't think so. i am merely addressing those who do what they shant do to believe what they will fundamentally, and that is believe that there is no God and to tout that belief as absolutely correct. i know that's not what Atheism is supposed to be about, and maybe that'll change, but for now that's the overall rally cry. you should probably talk to those people and tell them to hold up with their fundamental beliefs on...non-beliefs. which is just absurd, of course.
people who claim to be just "atheist" should even be discussing God. but this again, is what the guy in the video was addressing. not YOU and your specific Atheism, specifically. he as talking about gnostic atheists whom believe that they know that there is no God, with no proof. they are almost militant in their process. that's why he called them fundamentalists. because they will tell you that you're wrong and their right, and never wriggle from that position, no matter how much it makes no sense, and stick with that as a rule of thumb, that God does not exist, which is fundamental in it's viewpoint.
1
-
"Very, very, very few atheists claim to know there is no god. You don't know what you're talking about. A gnostic atheist is not a "fundamental atheist". Atheism is not fundamentally about gnostic atheism. You don't know what you're talking about."
you keep saying i don't know what i'm talking about, yet you admit that "very very few claim to blah blah" well, those very very few (which are more than very very few) are the ones i'm referring to. so no...no i'm not wrong. by your very logic. you dolt.
so if it happens it happens.
and i am talking about fundamentalism in thoughts and viewpoints. if i said "if you don't do or think what i think you should do or think you should be removed from making decisions" that's a fundamental point of view and thus a fundamentalist point of view to adhere to.
plenty militant atheists (the ones you claim are so so very few and yet don't exist, hmmm how does that work again?) proclaim that God DOES NOT EXIST. they are the fundamentalists i am referring to. and i am just explaining the guy in the video's perspective reasoning in calling them Atheists. i am explaining to you, because you can't understand the concept.
good day.
please no more telling what Atheism means, i know what it means. too bad so many "Atheists" don't. and no, before you come back with a response, no, i'm not referring to you. i was never referring to you, and if you can't gather what the explanation was for, i'll assume it's probably because you're slightly offended. so just don't bother.
1
-
"Which are nonexistant"
making the fundamentalism extremely stupid.
"That is not what fundamentalism means."
uhh what is fundamental and/or is touted as fundamental and is adhered to, equals the term fundamental-ism. the word does not solely apply to religious sects. you are just sooooo damn wrong, and can't fathom how or why. the word it's so confusing for you because it's not expounded on in whatever dictionary you're reading. LOL you can't ENGLISH.
"I'm trying to make you understand why you're wrong, too."
by assuming that Atheists have no fundamental points of view. LOL but yet they do. you may not...but that's arguable as well...though whatever the case, it doesn't change the fact of those who treat Atheism as a fundamental belief structure. didn't i say that already, or was it another Atheist trying to say that "Atheist is strictly defined by having no beliefs". lol, yes true. i already said that was true but this doesn't stop people from entreating their fundamentalism into their Atheism. if you don't believe me, good for you. i have had experience with many a type of flagrant ignorance from Atheists, both falsely touting there is absolutely no God, and those like you whom say i'm confusing the term...no i'm not. i know that Atheism means Lack of Beliefs, BUT that's not what MANY Atheists ACTUALLY believe; NOR even when that IS the case; they do not "not believe", they merely SAY IT, and then tout that anyone who thinks there is a God is wrong; and how would they know that. they are incorrect in calling themselves Atheists. that is what the guy in the video was describing. it's what i am describing. you still insist that i am talking about you. you're really daft. and stupid.
"So basically, "fundamentalist" doesn't mean what you want it to mean"
no, a fundamentalist means someone who adheres to fundamentalism, and what is fundamentalism, it is the adherence to values, believes, thoughts, feelings, ect that are fundamental to the person. that's it.
it's very simple and it's not as simple as what you tout it to be, because you're a simp.
1
-
dude i'm not talking with you i'm running circles over your head. "Atheism is not an ideology" it's certainly held as one. and Atheism as merely a "proposition" is still adherent to the ideology that "no Gods exist". it's in the word...A - THEISM. Theism meaning belief in a God, so hence A-Theism is the lack of a belief in A GOD. SPECIFICALLY. Atheists have reclaimed the word, rightfully so, and i agree with the proponent here, only i'm explaining what the guy in the video was referring to, i wasn't looking to wax philosophical on how the word has come to mean "a position which holds no beliefs" nor pontificate about the changing of the meaning of the word from it's root definition. it's ACTUAL definition...seeing as though i find words to be malleable, i have no qualms with that, at all.
" It is not possible to "strictly adhere to" a lack of belief in deities"
no, but like i said, it's possible to adhere to your desire to have people think like you do, which is entirely ... wait for it... a FUNDAMENTAL point of view for many Atheists who DO claim there is ABSOLUTELY NO GOD. and those are the "Atheists" (and i use the term lightly here) that the guy in the video was referring to. it's a pejorative.
you guys and your "but it means no beliefs ugh!" do you even realize what Theist means? it means belief in a God... and A-Theism means... SPECIFICALLY... THE LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.
SPECIFICALLY. the meaning has just merely been commandeered, which is totally ok. just so long as the original meaning isn't lost. which it seems to have been with many louts who think that they can bowl over logic with pure insistence of, ironically, their beliefs.
you believe that Atheism means "no beliefs period" and that's good...good for you. doesn't change the actual meaning of the word, however, in ecumenical discussion.
PS: you've not actually addressed anything i've said and just been repeating yourself, so i'll assume you have no idea what i am saying.
1
-
dude, i know the definition of words simply more precisely than you do. you're pigeon holing yourself into strict, lousy, and incomplete definition. here i'll repeat myself again so you can bask in how little you can grasp. A-THEISM. A for Antithesis, Theism for Belief in a God.
that's the original definition. it's been beleaguered into being re-defined as "a lack of any and all beliefs", but that doesn't erase the actual word's semantical purpose.
"This is what I mean. Atheism isn't an ideology. Anyone who claims it don't understand it. It's fundamentally dishonest to have this as a starting point."
i know, i was explaining how the guy in the video used "fundamentalist" as a pejorative against the kind of people who DO claim it to be an ideology. what the flying fuck is so hard to understand here? we are arguing for no reason.
"Atheism does not say: "I believe no gods exist". It says: "I lack a belief in gods".
still an ideology. the ideal here being that you lack any beliefs in Gods, and the ideology here being that you insist on that as the lens in which you view the world.
"He, and you, are using the words flat out wrongly."
no, we are using words in a malleable way, using "fundamentalist" as a pejorative for "crazy believing person".
"Not once have I said this. I've said over and over and over that atheism is a lack of belief IN DEITIES"
that's funny, what a strange ideology. you believe in the lack of something that you can't prove the lack thereof? kinda crazy.
but you know in even STRICTER definitions Atheism is defined as having a lacking in ANY BELIEFS at all. as you can see the word does not mold to exactly your astringent idea of the word.
and you are really quite abjectly not objective. you can't grasp simple concepts of language, semantics and the argument here in general. you are completely oblivious to what's being told to you, though i am not. take care.
1
-
your lack of a belief in deities is still a belief. a belief is essentially an orthodox opinion, and a lack of belief in deities would still be a belief, considering there is no empirical evidence that there is no deity.
PS: i hear alot of different arguments from Atheists about what the word means, everything from it means i don't believe in BELIEFS (which is astounding) to anti-Christian, to your much more accurate definition.
but i'm not arguing that the definition you use is wrong, and i never did. i just A: explained why the guy said what he said in the video, truthfully he was correct; and B: that Atheists are usually unaware of the precise definition of the word and thus the word means alot of things informally. just like words do.
but please don't type out another long comment, just save yourself the trouble. you don't need to tell me what Atheism means, i know what it means. i'm just telling you that A: what the guy said wasn't false, he used Fundamentalist as a pejorative and B: that Atheists are often as confounded by the definition of their own word that they attribute to themselves, and C: that the specific lack of a belief in a God is still a BELIEF. it is an unfounded proposition to even claim to be an Atheist, because you couldn't possibly regard your thoughts on the specific lack of belief in a God or Gods, without believing yourself to be right; again...a fundamental fact and a fundamental trait.
1
-
1
-
"And if not, we might as well light dictionaries on fire. What's the point, if words don't actually mean anything?"
dictionaries are merely records.
"He did, and it was the wrong use of the word"
no, it was a perfectly legitimate use of the word.
"How can you be a fundamentalist atheist?"
you're still not cluing in. you can be an Atheist and still be fundamentalist, because you can rightly believe you're an Atheist, while still believe in the notion that you lack any beliefs of any Gods, and still not actually know for sure, which entails a fundamental perspective on the finality of the belief, whether it's a believe of a lack of a belief or not. it cannot NOT be a belief because it's simply a lack of belief by definition because whether there is a God is still something unconfirmed to be true or false, and you'd have to take whatever position you hold as a belief, because there are no facts pertaining to the proposition that there is or is not any Gods.
you require the fundamental conviction that you are right, in order to say that the lack of any beliefs in a God is NOT a belief in and of itself, which you can't have, because this concept is unknowable. Agnosticism is much more rational than Atheism.
1
-
"Just not an atheist fundamentalist, but sure."
my point being there is fundamentalism within Atheism, as a sub-set, a group. there are really really stupid Atheists who do not understand a thing about what's logical.
"because there are no rules or tenants or dogma"
save the dogma of trying to militarize the incentive to bash Christians and Muslims. it happens all over youtube. don't act like it doesn't happen.
"You don't know what you're talking about."
nah, i'm pretty sure you're just offended. Atheism (lack of belief in Gods) is much less sensible than Agnosticism (the uncertainty of the existence of God) because one is scientific the other is just assumption without evidence. which dogma follows rampantly, because there is no way to actually say "i'm an Atheist" without being slightly misinformed about the scientific method and about religiousness in general. you can't lack a belief in something that you say you don't believe but yet acknowledge in other people, that their thoughts are wrong based on absolutely no evidence. you can call that the dogma and fundamentalism of Atheists. (again not Atheism, but Atheists who are too stupid to recognize how circular their logic is)
it's much better as a backlash to Christianity, because at least then you're being honest.
or just presume to not have any knowledge at all. then you're not not believing a lack of belief that you insist upon, yet is in question everytime it's said "i don't believe in Gods". how? you seen how there's no God? i don't think so. you just wish you did, so you can say "i know there's no god, i'm right, anyone who thinks there is one is wrong".
that's pretty much the only reason for Atheism. to promote there is no Gods. or to simply lack any belief in any God, but then again, as i said...you can't know, so it's illogical on the face of it.
and i'd say there is certainly a dogma following militant Atheism because people form coalitions and aim to change society and it's rules based on a presumption by an in-group of people who want to believe there is nothing to believe about Gods, under assumption that there is none, which is essentially a belief. and it's touted as a belief structure as well. "i don't believe in Gods" (which is exactly the same as saying "i lack any beliefs in Gods"; it's the exact same line of reasoning and the way it's worded doesn't change a single iota of fact about the statement) is in fact a belief. it's just a stand alone statement like "i like chips". if you can believe in God, if you can believe in the Sun, if you can believe in Doritos, you can believe in Atheism, making it quite the untidy little ideology indeed.
again, not saying YOU do it. but you don't speak for all Atheists, whom i guess haven't gotten the memo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
yet you posit it positively as something that you have and regard for yourself. you don't reject your own belief in the lacking of a belief, so there's your belief right there.
a belief is just an instance of thinking something is true or right, formulated by nothing, by your mind. you do that very thing by insisting on that you lack any beliefs in Gods. that in itself is a believe, simply because you can't know whether you're right or wrong.
and there are alot of weird Atheists who think that the world would be better off Atheist, and that other people's beliefs are dangerous and stupid. i'd say belief, in general, is dangerous and stupid.
which is a fundamental precept of Atheism in general.
you can twist words as much as you'd like to support your thesis here, but it's just again recombining the different beliefs you have into a sense of "lacking any beliefs" which wouldn't be a belief if it was true that to "lack belief in Gods" is sensible and rational, but yet it isn't because you couldn't possibly know if it was or not. that's your problem with belief. that you need it in order to justify your lack of belief in a God or Gods.
if you think you are right about something you cannot proof, that's a belief. and of course again fundamentalism isn't an Atheist trait. it's a trait of belief. you have to presume you are right, without any evidence, in order to believe you are right, which is a fundamental precept of belief in the lack of beliefs in Gods. so in that way, while Atheism isn't a fundamentalist idea, AtheISTs on the otherhand can hold fundamentalist ideals.
you'll never really understand the concept here. but you really are a good Atheist. so bravo.
but Atheism cannot be incontrovertible in it's assessment of the belief in no God, because there is no evidence to support that proposition. you can say there i don't believe in Gods, and that's perfectly rational, but then to think that you're right about that, is not. because you couldn't know.
1
-
Atheism is not a belief, it's a belief structure. those under this presumption of belief, they are called Atheists. calling yourself an Atheist is a belief, just the same as calling yourself a Hindu.
they (Atheists) belief that there is a wholly lacking instance of any Gods. which is a belief.
you're wrong about your definition of fundamentalism. fundamentalism, the word, is not solely related to belief structures, but also beliefs in general, thoughts, feelings, ect.
if you fundamentally think/feel that there are no Gods, that is a fundamentalist perspective on the existence of Deities, one that excludes the criteria in believing deities, but nonetheless is still a belief structure.
you identify as Atheist, you're proposing your convictions that you are correct in your presumptions, which is considered a belief and which is illogical.
you aren't going to get any farther in this discussion. you think Atheists do not hold fundamental beliefs about the world, yet they do. that's why there is fundamentalist Atheists. they aren't fundamentalist because they lack belief in Gods, they are fundamentalists for believing they are right about their presumptions about the world, having no evidence to show that they are right.
ie militant Atheists. and you, for carrying on so long trying to convince me a belief structure isn't a belief structure but just a stand alone position of nothingness. you can't think nothingness. it's impossible. you do not know Nothing. so hence there is Something. the preponderance of your belief that you lack any belief of Gods, whilst you couldn't possibly know the truth of that. without knowing the truth, or any facts, it is therefore not a fact, nor truth, but a belief in and of itself. maybe not so bad as believing that Atheism is the "correct way" to think, but it's nonetheless a belief structure you adhere to. if you didn't, you'd be able to discern between the lack of a belief and your conviction that you are correct in your assertions that there is no Gods, because your lack of a belief in Gods tacitly implies there was something right about the assertion that there is no Gods, which you cannot know.
1
-
1
-
religion is simply in-group collectivist mentality in regards to believing one's coalition to be grander and more "true" than another.
it doesn't necessarily denote to Gods. Buddhists like to say they aren't religious either, that they are not a religion, but they are.
the definition you have for religion needs an update.
and the vestigial trait of non-belief in deities connotes to having an assertion of belief, at it's very core, because you have to had believed in a non-existent God in order to not believe it. if you didn't, than you wouldn't assert anything regarding this topic, because you will have not believed in God/Gods. in this case though, you obviously believe in something, just not Gods. that belief is a fundamental belief, because you adhere to that as a belief you hold for yourself.
sorry.
that and you and other Atheists form a collective of like-minded in-group thinking. which thus makes it a religion, in terms of it's religiousness, which is it's collectivism and fundamentalism within the collective belief structure.
PS: bald is a hair style. not riding motorcycles is a decision...based on the belief that it wouldn't be fun, or that it'd be dangerous, or that it's just simply not for you, ect ect.
1
-
1
-
i guess the color would be the color of your head, but no, no a hair style and a hair style's color are two different things while referring to them separate, though of course they are both PART of the same thing, that is hairstyle. if you had to list your hair style, you can either be a fucking pedantic idiotic and say "well since i don't have hair i'd have to say none, i'm bald" or you could just accept the idiom and say "what style? oh bald". both sentences make perfect sense. but one is obviously catered to a shortening of your answer.
and no it's not babble. it's semantics. you do not understand the concept here. and BTW, you asked if someone could consider having no hobby's a hobby, and i said, well depends if they consider it one. because why not? if they think sitting and relaxing in the midday Sun is a hobby, that's fine. and it's not really a "hobby" per se, maybe it's just a routine, or it's a happenstance, but if the person considers any sort of routine like that a "hobby", then it's a hobby to them. again semantics.
and no you're very very wrong because you don't understand the concept of...Bird? bird is the word? oh and how language works and what makes sense and what is merely being a pedant.
bye, looooser. :D
1
-
my hair doesn't think, so it doesn't know it's hair, so it can't ever be a style...lest i attribute style to hair. a hair style is isn't for hair, it's for people. people idiomize terminology like hair style to "what's naturally on top of your head", the hair part is distinct from that, philosophically speaking, because hair doesn't concern itself with style, as it's not conscious, at least, not past your say bloodstream being conscious because it's a part of your being.
to say that bald isn't a hair style because it involves no hair is mere sophistry.
bald is called hair style because it involves the style of that which is on top of your head, where the hair is being connoted to, in the terminology.
i hope you can see the connection here in the language and semantic meaning of what i was telling you. your propositions were sound, but my arguments were better.
BTW.
1
-
no, you're just ludicrously misinformed about language.
i am arguing that the idiom "hair style" refers to what is naturally on top of your head, so minus the dunce hat...not that bald is a style of something that is not on top of your head.
not collecting stamps is not a hobby, no.
but it can be said to be your hobby, however sarcastically. it makes perfect sense, because you can call anything you want a hobby. you may find that not doing something is as much a regular activity you enjoy, as is doing something. again the semantic argument goes over your head, but, that's neither here nor there. i was merely trying to point you in the right direction in understanding the argument.
words are more powerful than any belief, or lack thereof.
a lack of belief in a deity is not a belief. the belief that you are under the correct assumption IS however, making your belief a fundamental FACT in your perspective on beliefs. which in turn is a belief.
you are stupid. shut the fuck trap already. :P
and yeah i'm crazy...CRAZY LIKE A FOX!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yes, i'll grant you it's a semantic argument, but a perfectly fine one. but also -- nevertheless, this is not a separation of church and state, as the congress is state, and prayer is church. there should be a petition of the government to halt these ceremonies as they infringe on the non-religious beliefs that money shouldn't be wasted on nothingness.
"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
these priests are taking taxpayer money to pray in congress. this isn't Free exercise. i know you think that's not how the clause was worded, but it was...it says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- in the very wording it states "no law [shall be made] against 'prohibiting' ( thus now already noted as being unable to be done) the '*free exercise thereof'*; making the phrase accountable as another piece of this clause OTHER THAN the 'prohibition' phrase, because it has, as such, already been stated -- so the phrase 'free' must be part of something else, because the law being unable to prohibit religious practice is already given precedent by the 'prohibition' phrase -- thus the phrase 'free' must be referring to the cost of the practices.
1
-
1
-
it would when i point out the clause -- if we deny the phrase "free" means anything after "prohibition" -- is worded faultily, and requires personal interpretation that would require degrees of legalist psychobabble from christians to admonish the proposition that "free" means more than just "prohibition" again, and that the clause is repeating itself, and being unclear in it's language. and also, it'd be pointed out that: "Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:
If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion. In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.[4]
Historically, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in dealing with this problem. When the Court leans toward more accommodation for the Free Exercise Clause, there is greater conflict."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
for greater effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yeah, it means that. it also means 'to stroll', or to troll along, ie, movement. yes, i know what trolling means, but the equivalent of online trolling and RL baiting is not fishing, do you see any boats at the convention? no. you don't. the etymological here is crap. trolling in sense of what online trolls do is not what you're referring to, hence, this is basically fallacy of extension. they are BAITING, this is ACTUALLY what you mean, but you don't seem to understand this. it's equivocation, at best. like i said, the RNC is not online...it's in RL. rebuttal?
1
-
Bait: 1. deliberately annoy or taunt (someone).
2. prepare (a hook, trap, net, or fishing area) with bait to entice fish or animals as prey.
Troll: 1. informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
2. fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat. or carefully and systematically search an area for something.
all of the parts to show you how you're misinterpreting are in bold: when you say "troll", you actually mean "bait". now you don't need to define "troll" with a boat, no, that was just an attempt at humor, truly, i don't think you could really take it as anything other than exaggeration, for effect, that i pointed out zero boats. but in effect, you are still wrong to call what people do in real life "trolling" unless it involves the concept of leaving a message online to provoke or upset, seeing as what you mean is "bait". now you don't need boats, or a line, or a fish, no, but you do need to understand what i'm saying, when you say "troll" it carries a connotation. you're talking about online trolls...unless you mean the mythological troll, i guess...because the other kind of "trolling", the kind you're referring to, involves towing a baited line along a boat, on water, presumably; it's literally "baiting" that you're referring to when pointing to what Alex Jones did. because that is the actual word/term you're looking for: see above. don't commit to the fallacy of extension. i am literally right. this is insuperable for you to wiggle out of with selective attention.
if you have a rebuttal, i'll grant it, but take note: i have not stated that you can't use the word troll to define something that isn't trolling, but i would argue that it's less prevaricating to use the proper term "bait", in real world contexts, so people wouldn't presume that anything less than a prank would suffice for the term "troll" being used, seeing how it's hard to bring internet terms into the real world without making the language used more obfuscating.
rebuttal? or no?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow...you're just plain ignorant; the names change, the ideas remain the same.
The names change? That's awfully convenient. So at one point conservatism was what? Not conservatism but what? Liberalism? or no, was it Traditionalism? Well, you tell me what conservatism was 'back then'. Good luck with that. But no, what seems to ACTUALLY be the case (you know, in reality, not your idealism), is that the IDEAS change, while the NAMES stay the same, quite the opposite of your imaginings.
The modern Progressivist philosophy has far more in common with serfdom than Conservativism.
That's sort of besides the point, isn't it? But regardless, modern "progressivism" doesn't have anything to do with serfdom, even if, as a consequence, it attracts morons whom'd give in to it's promulgation. Same goes with modern Conservatism- just see the last video on this channel, where there was every moron calling for the death of all gays because they've been told it's degeneracy. But again, doesn't change the fact that pre-modern nations (ie, nations therefore which conserved their ideals of themselves) had serfdom, openly. Hell, just look at Table Mountain, you ingrate.
He never stated what you described. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension dipshit.
Sure he did, he just didn't realize it...and I damn well won't shut up, because just look at the idiocy it attracts, this kind of blatant craptacular bullshit you want to swill because it somehow vindicates you, or validates you. Nah, I love exposing that shit for what it truly is, it's a dog wearing a cape.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx in Pepe form, that's funny. PS: wizardly malice, lol, that got the host pretty good. it's hard not to imagine when it's phrased like that. PS: i make my own experimental music. it's fun. it really does improve your psychology, and change it, with occultism and alchemy thrown in, it's a good time. still gonna buy that book, regardless of if i can only glean so much, but for all i know, it could be packed full of new information--it's only 15 bucks, hell yes, i'm going to buy it. again, should be fun. PPS: that's my purse i don't know you! lol that's funny too. and nuclear explosions...ahahaha memes. well said on Trump on pulling the Republicans through the shift. that's a fairly accurate assessment, bar none, i'd say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ISIS, as soon as they took off, and we were made aware, should have been sent not just ordinance, but boots on the ground as well. prevent them from taking a hold like they did...but Russia will take care of that now. i guess it just makes America look bad when we're on the forefront of taking action like that...but then again, you look at the disaster that was Iraq, and you can see why the people didn't want to go in; but man, ISIS is worse than anything we've seen so far. i really wish we would have taken more pertinent preventative measures...not another Iraq and Bengazi, which is what is now the result, because we were, as usual, slow on the draw, due to political fears. this some of the few issues i'm conservative on, and yes, it's a bit regressive, isn't it? i can't go back in time obviously, but, thing is Russia will deal with it better than we can, at this point; but it has already had spun out of control anyway. PS: it's also not a smart idea to attack them too early, let me clarify; as soon as we had gotten SUPPORT from the Saudi's, basically, that's when we immediately should have gone in. now, it all makes us look bad, except in the Russians sake, because they are actually just defending their allies; it doesn't make them look like provocateurs, which surely the US would have probably been accused of, if we went in at the wrong time, and that would have led to greater insurgence of ISIS across the board. this is a tricky long game, we can't obviously attack without due reasoning and intelligence, because we can't rattle or swords at people whom might end up radicalizing because of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
no, he can't. no president can't act of his own accord and expect to not be harangued for it. and when it comes to Vermont, Bernie doesn't control all of policy, of course, only that which is in Vermont -- and Vermont, a rural state, is in natural competition for jobs and resources, like any other state, and thus younger people move to more urban states to get "a leg up", as it were, up the social ladder, in more urban areas, which will cost more, ultimately to live in, but which also ultimately pays more. that's my understanding of that fundamental hitch for you. other than that, the mere idea that "Bernie is governor, thus all problems arisen in the state relate to his decisions, personally", is fallacious, at best -- you need better rationale than 'correlation = causation', if you're gonna try and make an ethical case against him.
1
-
yeah, and that all might be very well true. but this is a single state, and you're comparing it's values and it's results to the potential results and values on a national level. you can't really say for sure that what ends up working for Vermont, won't work for the rest of the nation, especially since, if the rest of the nation does go under a big change in policy the rest of the states will adjust to said change, and they (the people of said state) will have to make up their own workforce/student body according to that adjustment, so yes, people might be moving out of Vermont to get better jobs, but if every state was a 'Vermont state', then obviously this problem of people leaving, would be avoided, as people leaving their state, then, would be a moot endeavor. they'd probably opt to stay to build up the economy in their state of current residence, because to move wouldn't accomplish a greater incentive for their self-interest -- ie the interest remains at home...and after all, isn't that what states want? less of their people to move to other states or other countries entirely, because they can make economic opportunities at home?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yeah, and they've been doing a service for over ten years. what, you don't like getting paid for work you do? please, tell me the awe-inspiring answer "no, i don't like getting paid for my work".
but it's different when it's a company who does the news...they have to make ends meet with no backing or support...basically, unless they're streaming from a basement with no pay for themselves, just them doing a free service, with no growth opportunities for the company...yeah...no one should do that, ever. because why would they? it's an idiotic perspective, to want to invest your time and energy, to do a job, and then not get any solid return on that investment.
1
-
1
-
you can have your predilections and opinions, and they might be sound. but without evidence, how can you be sure you're correct? the difference between what you're assessing and what TYT calls corporate media and politicians out for, is corruption, not being business people: and the corruption requires some type of evidence, or least a questioning of the ethics of those running things as representative for the people. there is no evidence that the money, here in question, nor the man added to the advisory board, has any corrupting influence on TYT network. you could be right -- but i don't see how you pointing out this connection to Roemer is anything but a tenuous attempt to conflate the issue of money in politics creating kickbacks for their sponsors, with money as an incentive in business practices. you need proof to assert that claim honestly that they are now under "corporate influence" because of this 2014 incentive by the Roemer. otherwise, it's just hyperbole, and not only that, but inaccurate as well. this is what is to be cynical -- you don't choose sides.
1
-
1
-
it only opens up the doors to people potentially twisting their words, to promote against their values, which, frankly, can easily not exist, just like anyone's particular values. consensus will dictate the truth of the matter, or at least, what we will be able to see of it.
you can even take the constitution and twist it to be interpreted in all sorts of untrue ways,...like for example, there shall be no infringing on the right to bear arms, yet, this is not entirely true...it's interpreted, and thus it's not follow literally. that is because there is no perfect system; that's why having amendable clauses in the constitution (and having the declaration, which states the potential necessity for a 'reboot', so to speak) is so important, and why that document is the most accurate and noble document, almost, to ever exist...i'd even argue it is the best, period...because the writers knew that truth comes in a variety of forms, because they knew that in a free country, people will have vastly differing opinions about what's "valued" in society -- and they knew that no one person was ever 100% correct, in terms of a free country, because dictator's have no place in a free country. we all come to our own truths -- some our applicable to the external world around us -- some are merely only applicable to the individual -- not all opinions are created equal, in otherwords -- so there needs to be room for competition. my point here is: the competition will always get dirty if you give your opponents ammo, and your opponent, in politics, will scrounge for whatever ammo they need to put some holes in the competition, so to speak. i wish we could all always be transparent, but it's just not realistic. it's just like posting yourself doing illegal shit on Facebook - essentially, one is just asking for trouble. -- politics is always merely the battle for hearts and minds -- at least in a free nation, anyway.
sorry if this seems vacuous, but it's not. giving over ammo to the enemy when you know they are gonna use it against you, regardless if the said "ammo" was "true" ammo or "false", it's still ammo to be used, and people will trust people, sometimes, based on faulty information -- so why give them ammo, period? let them scour for it.
"The only claim i made was TYT are bullshitting in this video when they say they are funded by the members it's blatant bullshit."
they are funded by the members. they've been kept afloat by the members for a decade now. they've had Roemer for how long? a couple years?
"No they don't they show people donating funds to campaigns for candidates they believe will vote in a favorable way to what they want."
"That's no different to any donation even if it's 1 dollar everyone donates to a candidate they think will vote for their needs and wants."
it's not the money that's the problem. again, donations would be fine, if only there wasn't SuperPACs created by large corporate donors that swing the votes to their favorite runner -- all for kickbacks, so they can continue to off-load their tax burden onto the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i don't think you're crazy in the least. many people have experienced what you did. see Steve Roach -- his NDE story might interest you -- and i've had my own experiences as well, that defy logical explanation (we all do, they're called dreams =) ), and to have an NDE must be extremely powerful. i've heard of this sort of "carrier wave", sound-sorta thing, that people talk about (like Steve Roach) where they were 'tuned into' something like a radio signal, or something, sorta, but you could feel it...and then some.
outrageous, sure, yes! preposterous, absolutely not. some things simply have no scientific explanation as of yet. =) so know what you felt and experienced WAS real. oh for sure. as real as it gets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL i am a regressive SJW how can i not see that? again...begging the question. you are an SJW regressive, dude, how can YOU not see that? -- you're educated with two degrees? in what? and a high IQ? again, what does that show? nothing. -- oh and that last part, that was rather poetic, lovely rhymes. i ply my own trade, gormless cockmunch and no education was needed -- numb nuts. being self-taught, well, that was a treat for me -- maybe not so much for you, though, miss 2 degrees. (gasp, who could have imagined your enlightened wisdom though? get laid, get a job, ect ect...nice, real good argument there, you raging cancer bubble.)
1
-
LOL, i wouldn't need any muscle. it's a pejorative term that might as well be used to cuss at anyone with dissenting views. what you addressed was not ironic. he was pointing out the fact that people do, in fact, call people SJW, (like you just did me, at least tacitly, with the muscle remark), when they've not made any attempt to silence criticism or do anything an SJW "supposedly does". and i agree that the pedagogy is spreading an out of control regressive liberalism, i just don't feel to use the terminology, because i have my own, and more precise terminology...pedagogy, and idiots, are words that suffice. but thanks for helping prove mine, and the other gentleman's point.
1
-
i don't really mind ad hominems. as long as they aren't used to try and prove the argument. but yeah...aren't we merely agreeing at this point? have we reached the bed rock? i don't like SJWs, and i don't think the term is "a problem", i think it's easy use is a problem. and yeah, the term is dumb as fuck, but someone else coined it...oh well. it's apparently really popular. it "means" something, i guess...it denotes something, is more like it, though. it doesn't really mean much, except as a pejorative, as the commenter said, and he was right. and what does it "mean" or denote, rather...it denotes someone who is neatly offended and/or "triggered" by things that they feel they should be able to simply stop, or insist should be banned or should be ignored, ect ect, basically wildly entitled neo-hippy kids.
but then the term is used many a time over to simply declaim people and put them down INSTEAD of posing an argument to an opposing position they don't like...THAT to ME is the DEFINITION of the whole denoting of the crowd. when someone does just that -- and like you said, it's that "they are unwilling to have an argument using rational means of discourse rather than adhominem".
so what do i call those people? SJW+?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam foundering a new and more tolerant belief structure, in which they abrogate the sin apostasy (would be a GREAT start) would be immensely good for everyone who has been effected by the blight of radicalism -- maybe some good can come out of that, in this area against the radicals as well. if they want their religion to not influence evil bullshit, and want it to be more peaceful, than they should help stop the fuckers in ISIS, for example. really, the Saudi's won't...but another country might, and it'd be great, just say it with me Muslims "killing apostates is wrong, because beliefs in and of themselves are harmless to your religion; unless our religion is already wrong". -- damn Mr Geography. -- PS: i gotta do some reading on the Vedics...those dudes definitely did shrooms. -- on Pagan's; LOL. that sucks. there is so much history and literature to dive into, but alas, gotta make that dolla dolla bill ya'll...oh God...did i just quote Fred Durst? oh whew...lucky me, that was stolen from Wu-Tang Clan. for a second, i thought i'd have to commit seppuku. --- and now we have it...caveman shrooming. gotta love the art of the mind. and the lightning. yep. that's my theory too...lightning strikes, cracks rock, rock falls on head, everyone is thinking "well gee, we gotta capture this force of power in some way". lightning strikes a tree = you got fire, now they want that now. ect ect -- and you speak "or something" without moving your lips -- reptile confirmed. (LOL) -- Wakatng? LOL. there's an idea...the great bible of Caveman Names. Salvia mention = win --- paragraphs in a youtube comment? not a chance. --- Jefferson --- damn, you know your history. good job man. -- i wonder how many people know that Christ is better represented by the intellect, and that a burnished bronze red-eyed deity doesn't exactly look like something you usually would identify, in America, with Jesus. oh and i just realized something -- lol, books were made along time ago to deal with most devilish thing that's ever persisted, death. LOL genius. "i know how i can control people...i'll help them worry less about dying. they'll love me." - God. but damn god...isn't it just recording stuff that we're doing? God: "sure, CynicalBastard" -- Me: thanks God. --- oh and yes, finally, i've heard someone say it, Atheism has cast it's dogma as it's pope, already, especially in Atheist movements like Atheism+. an anti-religious dogma...most Atheist's heads explode.
1
-
sure. i agree, to the extant that governments treat dissidents on the same grounds, regardless of race. but the dead man here was running borders, as a vigilante cohort to a criminal party, that are not enforcing their rights, by the by, and this dead man was giving chase to the police, and he almost took out an agent with his vehicle at an oncoming roadblock, and he was given sufficient chance to get down on the ground, and he was lucky he wasn't shot immediately upon his crashing the road block, as would be the usual scenario, and he shouldn't have tried loping through the snow, waiting to reach into his pockets to retrieve a weapon.
he ended up metaphorically shooting whatever movement was there, in the foot, by breaking the law, which he is supposed to be standing for. if he has an inch of merit to his accusations of the government, then he wouldn't NEED to break the law. but that's besides the point -- their stand-off is not only illegal, but it's also unjustified.
1
-
1
-
no, it is ironic, because you say that they are everything they are not, while you staunchly defend that right-wing bullshit is any better, by association of your comments (because only an opponent could try to inflame their adversary with such outright empty rhetoric); which they BTW, lie to their advocacies, and they only make for bullshit far-right scummy misrepresenting, biased, offended-by-everything, and everything-is-about-race-and-gender.
that's certainly 1 definition of ironic.
-- a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result
synonyms, paradoxical. which is exactly what your comment was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i question the validity of climate science as it pertains to climate change being a threat to humanity, but i don't see a problem with the study in and of itself. that study is questioning the nature of "climate change". which is good, because to know is power. i question the validity of gun control, given my talks and inferences, but i also question those who insist that people want to confiscate their guns...obviously the majority of people just want to see more "regulation", ie, more background checks and balances on the selling of guns. i hate seeing that notion mixed up with the notion that "the lefties wanna take yer guns!" that's not really a lefty position, more of a ultra-progressive position (prevarication, but the notion getting confused, nonetheless, is of note as being a "non-questioning" position. it's annoying.) i question the validity of Christian doctrine being foisted into law for non-believers, within certain states, just as much as i question the validity of pure atheism, and their proponents therein, whom insist that all religion is a scourge that must be stopped...i consider it more an antiquated art-form/ritualistic format of belief systems. i question the validity of pacifism only to the extent that it's a viable SOP for when your life is in danger of being taken by another...but not as a means to an end to war; i also see validity in taking up arms, if you or your people are being attacked, though also question the validity of war...not of the senses, and of emotion, but of resources, and of conquering land. i think diplomacy works best, but don't i think we should all intermingle our cultures, as opposed to simply letting some culture in, to reside, without fundamentally changing the original cultures identity. of course, one (the latter) is a fine deal, the former is out of the question. i question the notion of insular society as a "necessity" to mankind's well-being. i also question whether a nation can do away entirely with welfare, or not; consider this: if everyone made "their own way" through start-ups of independent businesses, eventually the market would become watered down, and people would only have the choice between many similar products, by means that would entail that people pick and choose, most likely, what is closest and easiest for them to purchase, while more rural businesses simply wouldn't be able to compete, and they'd have to either move or shut down...this sounds like it'd lead to an overly homogenized, over-crowded, civic center metropolis, which would then be governed entirely different than what we see today.
1
-
i think the main argument is about the fact of mass shooters, and mental health screenings, not so much that guns are inherently destructive in society, but some people do think that too, like far-leaning progressives. i don't agree with the sentiment, necessarily; it seems that mass shootings have decreased, almost like as if it was a fad; and the fact is, as well, that those incidences were, on the overall, tiny blips on the radar, something that never really was as "dire" a threat as people made it out to be. in principal, i don't disagree with better mental health screening...but then again, i'm not sure, exactly, how that'd be employed, and what the general effect might be outside of simply constraining the process of getting a gun for certain people whom should be screened for say paranoid, or anti-social tendencies. really, it's a matter of pragmatism; if it can be done without impinging on those whom can actually pass that type of screening, and/or those whom do not require said "screening". but i may be wrong, i have to consider the fact that that seems to be infringing on the constitutional rights of those whom have mental issues -- though, we don't allow criminals to have guns either, do we? so to me, it's quite the conundrum that has no easy answer, so i'm still on the fence about the idea. after all, i don't believe in seeking out "thought-crime", but, then again, we do not allow criminals to have guns, why? because we predict they'll use them in a crime. that's why. so it's quite...insuperable, this conundrum....it hurts my head. oh and gun sales on the black market should be looked into as well. i mean, this is illegal, afterall, and gun sellers are perpetrating against the law, fielding firearms on the black market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's utter crap and has been for ages...the best thing from the 90s was either A: so bad it was good commercials and movies and music videos, B: video games, and C: the beginnings of internet culture. Think about the fact that TV and Radio has been lame for decades before that, and the only good thing then was the organised and foisted-on Hippy movement, which led to some bullshit, and then secondly, I guess rapid scientific innovation at the time was booming, and continues to make strides but only very slowly, in medicine where we sorely need it most, and it's being all put into this virulent corporate safety net, even going as far as to secretly promote attrition as to make ends meet for themselves, so they can take as much as they can before it's too late and it all collapses. That is what the corporate media (which has distilled into muck and exposed itself for it really is, all with a little help from independent media simply having a PRESENCE-- which just goes to show how control we really are) -- and not to mention it's put into spying on people and an improper, let's just say, military presence in the world (absence through presence?) It is insidious.
1
-
1
-
not when you argue at a constitutional level, though, man. that's where you're wrong. it might be an uphill battle, when someone provides a petition to the courts, it eventually will get to congress. i don't even need to be a lawyer -- seriously, it should be obvious. it's in the 1st, and also citizens do have rights, but there is no right to discriminate, that's against people rights to be free from discrimination, under the 14th, and also the 5th (when it comes to federal or state authorities) and the 9th ("Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")
so, like it or not, people have got a case. this is politics. -- of course, this will be fought tooth and nail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
what ties? the guy that lives down the road from me lives a completely, and utterly, different way than i do. same goes for thousands more. there are no ties there. we have common ties like pursuit of happiness, McDonalds Big Macs, and entertainment, and the arts; but our way of life is completely different from one another. the culture can permeate as it wishes, but it's not the glue that ties a nation together. the glue that ties is simply personal endeavor. that's it. that's why a free nation is a staple in the new world, because in a free nation, society doesn't cater to culture, it caters to personal endeavor, which, i supposed drives a culture, one that isn't especially that magnificent, and then again, why should it be? so we can fit the people we wish into a certain set of rules, and ideas? in freedom, those things are up for debate; they shouldn't be imposed on anyone; and what culture does is impose on people.
i'm fine with the arts (in fact, i think that it's an important facet in humanity) and ceremony and tradition...just as long as it doesn't infringe on my lifestyle, my rights, and doesn't get shoved down my throat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"its ironic that immediately after you accuse me of making ad hominem attacks, your first words are 'dude. listen idiot'."
i never said it wasn't ironic. it was intentionally ironic. LOL, especially since my calling you a moron is somewhat justified seeing as you A: resorted to ad hominem in your argument yourself, and B: because your trying to argue ridiculous shit in order to justify your position that they are "bad " journalists, but i've never argued that they weren't "bad", but that they you're calling them "bad" is not justified.
and i like irony like that, because even though i called you a moron, i'm still right, because i was right to begin with.
arrogance has to be earned, shitheel.
"you obviously can't even grasp the true meaning of irony, you just repeat the word trying to sound smart."
LOL -- more irony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
so there's no purpose but God, or else Hedonism? fuck this guy is as dumb as a bag of shit. (oh and then it gets worse)
PS: all the God stuff...just about mind, that's it. people don't get it, because it's been perverted by language and story telling (fiction is awesome...let's not just assume that because something sounds like one thing, that it is meant to be literal, all the time. it's not) (ie by the by, old farmer literature in the NT, nice stuff, just replace the God stuff with Mind stuff, or read the gnostic scripts, they are more informative in that light [or just remain secular in vision, because this essentially achieves the same thing] -- religions have it WRONG)
save Buddha, he might have been onto something relevant insofar as a secular philosophy, put spiritually...just gotta put away all the re-incarnation stuff...just like reading Nietzsche, you gotta think of eternal recurrence as more of a concept on how to live your life "fully", philosophically speaking, instead of taking it literally. that's the point. don't take it literal. the power of belief should, in fact, be put into science...ie to belief that we can do really awesome stuff using the physical minds we embody ourselves with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yeah, but if we would have that'd have violated the constitution...(lol) Styx...you realize, obviously, how many people were advocating for this, right? PS: oh like i've been saying since day one (oh and also, duh, the criminality follows a mess of refugees, it's just common sense, also like i've been saying; don't pussy out and go after the criminal elements, before i forget...) so...finally, ISIS? when it that shitstorm going to be mopped up? it should have been done a long time ago.
1
-
1
-
+saro ban "You say "spot on, Kyle", then go on a rant that's the opposite of what Kyle said. Apparently you regressives can't help but misrepresent even those you agree with."
can you actually be serious? he didn't make a rant that's the opposite...he made a couple sentences that was running parallel to his argument, that people tend to call people "regressive" just simply for disagreeing with them. that happens. those people are idiots. you might be one of those people. anyone can say "oh well, you support Islam because you think they deserve to not get ridiculed" . LOL. yeah. i think they shouldn't be ridiculed because they're human -- but their religion can be questioned and ascertained as something to be mocked, sure -- but do you mock the person? no. that's called Ad Hominem, and it's counter-productive...but yet, if i say this, i get called regressive, by some. these people are the idiots i am referring to. are you one, i should ask, rather...so are you?
1
-
actually, if you hold ridiculous ideas the logical thing to do is to ridicule the ideas -- NOT THE INDIVIDUAL -- to do otherwise is ad hominem and is counter-productive if you're aiming to change the minds of the people that have said bad ideas.
" but if when exposed to better ideas, they dump on them and tell me to go to hell, then they get ridiculed, and it would be brought on by their own ridiculousness"
sure, that's not the same thing as what i was talking about, though. if they ridicule you, or they simply refuse to listen to reason, i'd have no problem insulting them. i'm just saying it's not productive if the person simply has a different viewpoint or opinion than you, to ridicule them. it's more productive then to stick to attacking 'the ideas' and not the person. much more likely to change their minds, that way.
1
-
i never questioned your "technique". PS: i never said you shouldn't ridicule. i said, "anyone can say oh well, you support Islam because you think they deserve to not get ridiculed -- you shouldn't ridicule because their human"
ie, it's no excuse to ridicule for the sake that they are Muslim, if you're going to ridicule them for being human as well -- but you should ridicule their ideas, though shouldn't ridicule them for being human, and should stick to ridiculing and attacking their ideas, instead of simply fearing and/or fighting with all Muslims, just because they're Muslim.
"No, if I say you are wrong because you are stupid, that is an ad hominem"
ad hominem simply means attacking the person. that's it. it can be used in a variety of contexts. you are referring the common logical fallacy. i am simply referring the instance of attacking someone's character (ie they're Muslims hence must likely believe in Sharia Law) as opposed to their ideas, solely (ie he believes in Sharia Law and ect).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sigh Toronto....Trudeau...the fire...genetics being called into question of "inferior races"...regressivism...we can do so much better. shakes head PS: Styx reads articles about DNA, OR, was that in some course? either way...my knowledge of DNA is limited, but now also expanded to, Unweaving The Rainbow & Styxhexenhammer666. yay genetics are fucking confusing! (but the regressive-dominant gene terminology is clear and hard to misinterpret...but...sigh then again) (PPS: i want people to defend their shit, their riches...because just look at all this...better defend your shit. but the rich, the super rich...they are in ivory towers. basically....enough. -- oh look, Styx gets into this at the end of the video....) (look, no one is gonna roll up on the White House and "take back the country", ala Alex Jones- not gonna happen...so hmmm...you have parties, which vies for seats in the House, and you are proponents of those parties- they vie for YOUR interests...clearly the left's mind and sense has left the building...but the right can be...hmm....all i'm saying is, well, no party has got their shit together, and hasn't for awhile...so make it happen. stop fighting for stupid bullshit and come to a bedrock agreement on some core values to work on, friggin' Leftists, you especially right now. you've got room right now to work with the right.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
see: all that is wrong, and it's why i called you on your bullshit. Cenk isn't a genocide denier, you gorm. lol, he's talked about it on the show; he is certainly, according to his own lights, quite aware and openly discusses the Armenian genocide...and also the name Young Turk came from the Oxford (controversial) definition: "A young person eager for radical change to the established order"; ie what Cenk was talking about in the segment where this was discussed. you realize that trolls keep coming on the channel to keep touting this, and it simply mostly gets ignored, right? and it gets ignored because they can't keep making videos (like they've already done) suggesting to people that he does in fact not deny the genocide, because trolls will still keep coming to tout that rhetoric, just to cause idiots (erm) to believe in that schlock; when in actuality, an essay on denying the genocide was written by Uygur in his 1990s conservative persona. he disavowed this and accepted the truth of the Armenian slaughter after he stopped believing conservative hype.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sometimes comedy is so bad, it's good. sometimes... this was one of those times. bweep bweep bweep bweep bweep that must annoy the shit out of everybody. LOL
PS: i guess Pat forgot that God created that desire as a punishment for eating of the Fruit of Knowledge. oops. someone fucked up.
PPS: hmmm, and it's not until Adam eats the apple after being tempted by Eve, by her enjoying the apple, that God comes down all mad and shit. something about desire? but wait, i thought eastern religions have no compatibility with western religions!?
i think the story of Genesis... is a cool STORY. because i just thought of this, and that's cool.
but yeah, i think there is alot of Christians that believe that they are supposed to fuck like animals... but according to Genesis, at least, that is not true. but then again, i think Jesus said be fruitful and multiply, but that guy was on some different level with this parables. so... i dunno... but GOD certainly didn't want us to fuck, according to the Bible. and Christians have got to remember, that Jesus was THE SON of God, and BECAME God, in the New Testament. basically believe your story all you want, just at least get it right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
O, CANADUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH facedesks why must my country carry such oversights on high, in such unreachable places? i am fine with the libby nature here, i don't really give a fuck, SJWs are weak-willed, they can't harm anyone, save when they get their way (they shouldn't) they get people fired from their jobs (weak-willed, but if you cry loud enough....) and yeah, we have a feminist PM (facepalm the kind that thinks shit that's not in league with reality) but again, in terms of harm prevention, this is not a big issue, it's just stupid...but this...the lack of free-speech provisions our governments lack here is absurd. plus, we've had such good Comedians, Norm Macdonald, Phil Hartman, WILLIAM SHAT -- the SHATMAN, MORT SAHL, Yvon Deschamps, Jim Carry (slide whistle), Dan Akroyd, Rick Moranis, Tom Green, The Kids In The Hall, Catherine O'Hara; Goddamn it, Quebec is comedy central! but Kyle is right, how the fuck are comedians gonna want to come here!? (they will go to Britain or Trumpistan.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
obviously, it's foolish. it's what we chose. don't fight me on it. all i'm saying is that, he could have done something...the courts might have heard his story and said, well she kept him hostage. if this is the case, he can't be charged with assault...(unless he really beats her up bad)...see, the goal would be to get out, not assault her. has he been barred inside? chained up? lol i don't think so...at least, i don't...think....and regardless, if he had to hit her, to escape her keeping him captive...well, our courts could go either way, we have a terrible justice system.
(see the separation of issues here?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hi-nw7qy Both governments are power-hungry and oppressive. I'll give you that China is more oppressive under it's Confucian and CCP politics. Frankly, the Chinese are so strange in their customs that I can only imagine the CCP is either aware of that, or they are influenced by that. Either way, I level the same argument to Americans. They're customs are not only kinda dubtailing right now into catastrophe, cause they worship "capitalism" and "rugged individualism" to the point that their heads are on backwards and can't tell from one person's individualism to another person's interdependence, and a monopoly in business, and how that's screwing them [in small business, and in national interests], and how all at once, they wish to have "small businesses" propped up by capitalists, capitalists who for all intents and purposes, would tell you to do it yourselves, cause anything else would be tantamount, to them, to being socialism...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But also, their government can't handle them, or are so influenced by these customs that they are oppressing their own people, by trying to give the nation [in a world of nations] a leg up, which is exactly what every other nation is trying to do...just some more than others, thru not being "cooperative". The same accusation could be leveled at the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, it's called Virology. Viruses tend to mutate. They can also mutate in the direction [becoming more lethal]. Sky News is literally either retarded, or fear-mongering. Viruses still need to be addressed, and not IGNORED, because people will die...people have died. People have been taken out of their daily life and their jobs. DUE TO GETTING SICK. Now Sky News wants to tell their retard audience that they were right, this was never "an issue". All those people who died, were BOUND TO DIE, because who cares? that is what they want you to think, and this is what a lot of you morons actually think, out there, right? Disgusting "nationalists" [who don't care about the sons and daughters of their nation...so ostensibly "nationalists"].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've realized the same thing myself, Styx (even after watching this video) -- right back to Satanism. Stranger yet, Jesus is also Satanic (and not just based on the fraudulent mistranslation of Phosperos into Lucifer, either), at least...on pseudo-psychological and spiritual basis. Then Yahweh...again...lol, at least in the sense of "my domain", again, Satanic...seeming, anyway- by most Abrahamists conception, that is (because it's projection, of a sort). The Druj in Persian religions...the Yahzidi. The Sufi mystic. All of these religions are Satanic, because the seed of Satan is THERE. LOL Setianism is interesting, at least in some of their theories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody is in. Prove to me I'm wrong. As soon as the "elites" fall, supposedly...which they will, but falling is a silly word. When they "get removed"- this gap will just get filled in again soon. This isn't a club. It's just a pocket of the higher realm of thought. Collectivism without individualism is an ant colony, and individualism without some minor form of collective thought, for human kind, at least, is a rat's nest. We all project our reifications on the ecology. Until we can function, as a people, without the need for economic "business", and without the need for war, which feed one another quid quo pro, and until we can temper those innate instincts, which we won't, and why would we want to? until then there is no changing the dynamics of the power struggle. Most people just stop at the corrupt and inverted power struggle we've seen poison sexuality and politics at Orwellian heights- the only hope is to forget about these pandering propagandistic believe structures, and amalgamate them, if need be- like the Romans did- or do away with them altogether, at least eventually, would be even better. But this would involve critical thought and purview beyond what most people are willing to sacrifice in their lives. This removal of power structures, a la wealth, stature (fame), sex, control (power), which dominate the natural order of simple give and take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You created
A force to be reckoned with. Both the left and the "right" are dupes. The far-progressive left are de-territorialising too quickly, as are the "right". The "right" wants to promote natsbol shit in the more far-reaching corners, and just the same, they and the far-progressive left are fighting in a "culture war" that is altogether being used by corporations to enrich themselves, presidents to enrich his sponsors, and in turn, himself, and all for the sake of pushing what ultimately goes "too far" for either or side, when you look at the central goals of either or side [the "right" wanting more money, and yet, contradictory enough, want to isolate from the world-at-large, so, an impossiblity - and then the far-progressive left take this intersectionality stuff too far, and can't contain themselves. Both sides are being retarded. Styx, if you can't see that...sorry to say but YOU...ARE...RETARDED. Isn't that fucking sad? for you? to have make shit up to placate a stupid audience?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At around 30:00 the logic-chopping beings. Look, you have this course of action: you either disallow the "Stoking" of media news stories, or you disallow them to "stoke" you: or you have two other choices...get rid of them, altogether ["I'm sick of hearing of these killer kids!"] or just put up with the system. The guy explains the system he is administrating rather well, and well, because he got one [?] visit just "a year" after arrival, maybe that's just an inclusion that was provided by the staff for some unasked for reason, and also, then, when does "mobility" start? and wasn't he to "gradually" be reintroduced into larger spaces, with accompaniment [he's a small child]. Now, I see peoples concerns [I do believe for good reason]. But their cases seem to be a special set of cases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:30:10 -- They're called Ì̑͊d͓̣̘̯̲̥ͭ̔̒ͨ͊̃eỏ̗̼̠͚͐͗ͤg͈̜ͪͮrͮ͆͊ͫam͊ṣ̺̙̠̤̽ͤ͐ͩ̌ and personalities - Whence, Marx. And Nietzsche, and Kant, and Hegel, and many more, but especially Marx...the material-unmaterial per-son. Charaktēres. -- You've done something you should have done, accretions (sediments?), etc... You go on to explain in no uncertain terms the very things to be found in yogic schools, like Karma, and Bhakti, and Gyan yoga, specifically are highlighted here, Raja yoga, of course, is nestled safe in Jesus Christ. -- 2:31:50 -- Here, this sounds like something from Deleuze & Guatarri. Then you go onto speak about "appearing" meaning, and well, you didn't quite put it in that exact sense, but...formally, this is easily attenuated to the rest of the discussion's highlights...this near scholastic or even Marxian take [cf. also, "reification as recognition"]...and this is the problem I have with this notion of "appearing meaning/appearance of meaning"...people seem to be able to justify so much atrocity, and marginalization, and provocation, and fanaticism, beliefs, whatever, "capitalism",...all these axiomatics are self-justifiable only insofar as these assertions have been promulgated by predilections [already highlighted by people (personalities and their speeches and writings) like Marx and Freud and Jung and Kant, without exception, etc.] towards an unknown [hence the Landian approach to "accelerationist capitalism"]...all this self-justifying and self-righteousness is what's "toxic" in society. Then we go onto this "unconscious set of undefined axioms", which is nicely said, too. This is almost "occult" in it's aspect, spooky-doo, ooooo, ghostly-creepy crawlies. "Personalities", Charaktēres. This subterranean-Platonic double-bind [it appears, quite plainly] is the crux of many interesting things. The "Socratic Daemon". Try to stop doing that -- Have initiation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DieselRamcharger Im not arguing "the people" arent at the bottom. Self Management isnt Proletarian
The people are at-bottom. The race is also at-bottom [the nation, as it were]. Self-management is where the nation/race/sociality is located, the "folk". Proletarianization is what is happening as you refuse to acknowledge this, for the sake of being an idiot.
You keep mixing contradictory terms
No. I actually understand these terms. At-bottom is the customary law and ethic of a peoples, which is socialism [national socialism, in other words], but is also anarchistic capital, capital at-bottom [the means to production being taken by the social group at-bottom] is anarchic [cf. Chile after the juntas were funded by the Mont Pelerin Society, a libertarian think-tank group].
Then you say things like thats where "you" are at thinking you yourself is somehow excluded from being ruled over. You believe yourself to be of the ruling class. You are a deluded idiot. With no basic understanding of the words you use.
That'd be you, dum-dum. You think you are of the ruling class [the global capitalist]. You just can't see it cause you are an Americanized retard. Spread more democracy over yonder, and defenestrate yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eric Abner LOL, no one "defeated" me. The guy assumed I was mixing up my terms, when I wasn't. I am talking about how at-bottom the folk want self-management and they are proletarianizing all at once, when they should be considering that their social ends are being usurped by global capital. An that at-bottom the "capital" that there is is "social", is "national", is "racial" [for alot of people, though it's not necessarily the majority that believes that], and these social ends are the same for everyone across the board, as it were. That's why you're proletarianizing, as well. Alot of you morons are like "I need to work!" -- LOL, that's your freedom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@epimetheus9053 And you forget national socialism where the weltanshuaang of the race is assessed [by Hitler, and ilk] to be in the self-hood of the race [selbst], and thus, customary law [the ethics of those ethnic forces at-bottom, of the "race" of German spirit, a la Hitler] is scissioned from the positive [positif] law of the global civil society. There is that socialism that is based on race, instead of idealism, per se, and economics. There are Christians socialists [cf. the Institute For Christian Socialism], there is Catholic Distributism, there are Christian Communists. Do you people even read about these subjects, objectively? to attain knowledge? or do you just like reading polemics against these things you imagine you understand, but really don't?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4 minutes, still no point
Well, the republic is "falling" to these liberals, pffft, linker-fachismus. Falling upwards, into space, into space dust. Wonder why....
5 minutes in, finally a point - Hmmm, yes, neocons are big money, too, don't forget, Styx.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At some point, people just have to undermine these corpos. They are not...really...whatever humanity they had, they lost. Let's just put it that way. Why bother with them? Why even treat them well, when they treat their users like shit? This shouldn't even be a matter of "oh well, boycott them". No, I mean, these idiots should be tarred & feathered. Sorry, but...they used you all. They lied to you. It's almost like, at a certain rung of corpo-intellect, you lose whatever soul you may have had, and you devote all of your time and energy to sucking the funds necessary for people to function, so that they can have it- even though they don't really require this money, it's just a matter of corporate interest. I see a problem here, in basic human societies' anatomy. Do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just imagine all the kiddies, just being brainwashed daily, by this "think of the children" crap, of course, with the usual racist spin [all white people are part of a groupthink on a massive scale, and just exist to be "supremacist" in their upbringing, unless, of course, brainwashed, for...the children's sake, of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Modern medicine treats symptoms. Modern medicine also includes things like knowing health related aspects of living (cf. vets, botanists, et al.). It's not ALL about symptoms. Nutrition is also in relation to modern medicine (directly from health). Ergo, modern medicine deals with nutrition; the only thing to note, however, is that contributing factors on ones' health, such as what one consumes, and the effects on their metabolism—leading to disease—concerns, yes, the causes of symptoms, but, it already always did. It never negated nutrition, nor symptoms—food does not typically treat symptoms save in rare cases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nice video, Styx. Vietnamization is almost as interesting as Sovietizing. And yeah, RAIN, LOLOLOL, the left are mad because Trump called a rain-check cause of the rain. And to nte. At one point the intelligensia embraced Marxist and Communist rhetoric (Camus did but later rejected it outright), and yes, in the "hippy-trippy" days, it wasn't the counter-culture, per se, that were "anti-war", because the clash of intellect had already shunted the divide into the other side of the debate. PS: Cartography rules.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe religious, not Christian
I'm more Christian than you, but we can war over it, if you want, "Christian". I'm sure that the many denominations want to see killing and death, or just plain oppression. I can solve all of that for you, if you wish. Just give me the keys. I will out Christian the fuck out of you. Not only will it be very protestant, and I'll take all your land, and it'll manifest destiny, but then, it'll all go to the church, just like a good Catholic, you'll give it to me. Than, as an Orthodox prelate of God, I'll smite you.
1
-
It should happen to all of you. None of you are exculpated. None of you did anything, in 2019. You waited. You let delta in overseas, when we knew it was spreading - all for "normalcy's" sake. Before, logistically, we could vaccinate everyone, delta had spread [so you cannot, logically, stigmatise "the unvax'd" for that: it's insuperable]. And then you and the CV-panels continued to lie, leading to more vaccine hesitancy, and greater distrust in the medical apparatus, and not to mention, government and media apparatus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Antiteshmis I am not responding solely to the OP. What is with you people and thinking that every reply to a comment thread is necessaryily in response to the OP? LOL I am saying you people, all of you, pretty much, a: don't know what you are talking about, you confuse autarky [not isolationism, you're getting two different terms confused AGAIN] for capitalism. You think "communism" brought you this world system, while it was actually fighting against it, and the world-system we have is from capitalism, neoliberalism, world markets opened up capitalists, globalisation and globalism by way of capitalists: Marx said in warning: “The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. . . . In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.” - Where was he wrong?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@botero01 And now I'll tell you why you are both right and wrong [and how this is a case of application of replacing the logic of 'either/or', with 'both/and'], and why you are taking a wrong step in the right direction: "A[n] example here is the most notorious case of universal judgement: 'All men are mortal'. In its implicit libidinal-symbolic economy, such a judgement always excludes 𝑚𝑒 - that is, the absolute singularity of the speaker, qua subject of enunciation. It is easy to ascertain, from the observer's safe distance, that 'everybody' is mortal: however, this very statement involves the exception of its subject of enunciation - as Lacan puts it, in the 𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 [emphasis mine, here], nobody truly believes that ℎ𝑒 is mortal; this knowledge is disavowed, we are dealing with a fetishistic splitting: 'I know very well that I am mortal, but still...'."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia isn't imperialist anymore...that's a pretty tall order. Countries don't just snap-to and change. I've never seen it happen. Not without some major force running through it, like the communists have done, in the past. All of the era of Nazis and Fascism and Communism, it's all tied together, it's all the same reactionary/revolutionary bullcrap, that leads still to dismay. The world is changing, there are grassroots movements like portions of the alt-right- but where it all comes from is suspicious. Does that make it all bad? no, but it is suspicious. And like the EU, Russia is not willing to change...the only thing that's different between the two is that Russia can effectively put on airs. EU, all their shit is fucked, and everyone already knows the ins-and-outs of why. I don't buy the media slander, because they don't even know how fucked shit is- or they do, and they direct the narrative as such- no reason to listen to them and believe. Just like with anyone else. Trump included, though, I see good things- potentially good things. There is no conspiracy. Russia works for Russia first, and they are not trustworthy...not yet, not by a long shot. Trump could not bring Putin any closer...there is a reason for this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PS: Emotional Alchemy was actually more nifty (and true to form) than Football Occultism [post-modern occult weirdness- there you were drunk, right?] ... A very good tract on Styxism. But yeah, it's only a subtle perturbation one should be looking for, not a total redistribution. Ideas are powerful, and must be sussed accordingly. Yeah, workaholic isn't a good thing. Being sound with meet intelligence around you, and comfort, that is much better still. And better is better. Still, gotta watch out for them holes, or else you'll meet them bones, them sad bones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@v.k.rt.m.6030 Naive. Engels is actually a perfect example of what happens in the contemporary moment when Communism unfolds from a proletarian state of mind, apart from a duly aristocratic one: neither of which are anymore or less scrupulous. Marxian theory is sound: Engels interpretation of Marxian theory is nothing but a form of naive realism. It's one of the best examples [other than in the current political moment right now] of the arbitrarization of tendencies and things in general [something Engels would gathered easily, even if in his naive way: as he would have pointed out the objectification of things into people and people into things, and the conversion from quality into quantity, and visa versa]. With Engels, the contention that "Marxists make everything into a economism and into a materialism" is a sound one, that holds water. But Marx, himself, was more circumspect than that. He quite duly noted, for example, that Communism would come from Capitalism itself, and thru it, to be more precise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
18:50 -- Good Styx, that's why I respect you. You release your own material, books, videos online, you literally write some of the handiest tracts around, and the absolutely original stuff, your PERSONAL occult works, and your books like Sickness In Hell. Holy shit, that's what I want to do, with music, too (oh yeah, your music too! it's pronounced Jee-sus, not pronounced Gee-Ziz!)- and perhaps other avenues. It's too bad people won't, generally, attempt the same for themselves. It's a shame. Anyone who is doing that, Varg, Thomas Sheridan, hell, even fucking edgelord master E.A. Koetting- if you're making your own material, you win- because film sucks now, music sucks now (mainstream music & film), Youtube is starting to suck, badly, alt-tech is great, but slow moving like a slug, and well...good luck man, because that's where it's at, doing your own material. Fuck the modern world. PS: Oh yeah, and there are alot of indie music makers, but you all have to stop making this tacky "free music" and this jingly-type club crap. Ready-mades are better than that, no offence, because I do think it's cool when people make and release their own music, too- just don't make it too easy for yourselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cultural Marxism is a misnomer. Literally, a contradictory term. And it is also an excuse, both as an axiomatic to presuppose the "purity" and "superiority" of capitalism itself, or an axiomatic to presuppose a flattening of culture ["transposes immanent antagonism, ambiguity, tension"] itself, which just sounds, frankly, like a Soviet plot. Crude Communists. They are probably more racists than just plain "nationalists", too, given the track record.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Americansikkunt "The right" is falling prey to the same dog and pony show to ingrain in them a sense of duplicity on "the left" [Democrats] which the "right" [Republicans] share with them. They are also unable to comprehend where they are at, most literally. No sense of history, no sense of political concept. You are primed to facisize. You think "the left" are all "radical" and you conflate all of this "radical left" with "liberals" too, moderates, centrists, and anything that can be viably called "the left". You conflate them all, fringe and centrist, together. This is why there is no more "right-wing" in America past the most fringe right-wing. You need an enemy, and since it can't be the Jews [we're not in Germany now, are we? we're the land of Judeo-Christian values], it's gotta be "the left". The left brought all the fruit-pickers to America...in your eyes. And as the capitalist system breaks down, you are enraged further, and still can't pick your targets right. The "elites" continue to trammel you all in, and you all eat each other alive. And you wonder: "when will my capitalism save me". It never was going to do anything but bring you here. Where you are at, now.
1
-
@Americansikkunt You don't see how the "right" is stuck either having to make progress, or to relinquish themselves to the dust-bin of history, or, third option, to abandon American ideals and values for something other than those values, et al., which are so ascribed to American sentiments. Intersectional politics aside, you are committing to this stride to "blow-up" the left [or watch them implode, whatever the case may be], all while the "right" pretty well does the same thing; implode. I don't have to call the "right" "nasis". Nasism is a very specific ideology, it's mostly got people who literally value old Germany over the American counter-part to their identity. But fascism is another thing: leftists can be fascistic, as well. Fascism doesn't only occur [at least, historically, it can be shown to be an open-ended aspect of reactionary politics] by way of some merited doctrine...even if such a thing has been proposed [cf. Doctrine Of Fascism, but, this is just Mussolini's fascism]. Fascistic tendencies can be seen across the board, in the political spectrum. And by the by, "anything right-leaning"? that is a non-existent aberration. There is no "right". What is "right-leaning" that is "being cancelled"? nothing, it has cancelled itself. Oh you don't like civil rights? oh you don't like the LGBTQ+ community? you don't like "the left", you don't like civil society, you want people to "go back", or...whatever...those are disintegrating "values". They aren't very well American values, at all. They are basically holdover opinions of the Judeo-Christian follower. All power to the church, and whatnot: but of course, this is a protestant church [oh sweet irony], so the "church" in this case is just "the people". But "the people" of America are NOT only "right-wing". Whoops!
Also: the "right" is "super aware of centrist hate"? you even get "hate" from "centrists"? ok. Like I said, there is no "right" wing. Just a set of disintegrating values. If you can't even hold to the center, then you are going so far-right as to abandon American values: which is why so many people, here and there, are trying to call fascism and nasis "leftists", in the most blatant irony and surreality- and is just another reason why "the right" as you people posit it is simply non-existent, as of right now; it's left the proverbial "building".
And I would say people trying to spread a virus around, purposefully, because they want to [not because they might, but to literally "stick it to the man"], are domestic terrorists. But that's just my opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll say what these dumards could just make clear, but instead made cryptic and crypto [in an obtuse sort of way] -- Marxist "theory" [ie, Accelerationism -- economic, specifically to Marx -- not the pseudo-accelerationism of Nietzsche's "will to power"] can be "extricated and extrapolated from" - that is to say; here's an argument for why book burning is dumb. Sometimes shitty people [through history] have had minutely good ideas in the conflagration of their hysteric frenzies [especially back in the fin de siècle], that can be taken and molded by extraneous political/philosophical-thought from it's own categories per se, and made manifoldly anew. I don't necessarily agree with the trends towards Socialist governments, not at all. But this is what Sanders could have made clear- that his repertoire with the milieu of Communist factions, and Socialist governments like Venezuela, was merely "theoretical" in it's political-movements, and thus, not an exact endorsement of the outward regimes he co-mingled with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Queen only has as much power as she is afforded by her constituents in office...we could completely lambaste her, if we didn't have those cohorts of her's in our parliament, and she wouldn't have any recourse, save to attack us somehow, either by military, or economically- and that's where the fear comes in the most- the monetary incentive to "support the Queen" is bigger (among parliament, not among fans of her popularity or royalty- no, those people are just stupid) than the wont of her regal authority. To be honest. She is not as powerful as people make her out to be. She is spookily present, sure...she has got our parliament in her bag, sure...we are invested in her, as a nation, sure...and that looks ludicrous, YES...BUT, we aren't attached at the hip, like most people suggest. We are not conjoined twins, in otherwords...we CAN distances ourselves from them...but look at Britain now...are the people truly happy? surely they'd rather see us all get along and just discard the monarchy together...and i'm sure, fucking Americans (love ya), that you want to fight the same battles we are fighting, that is, against such pervasive authoritarianism (even if it's just perceived or co-opted [by neolibs] or foisted-on authoritarianism).
Yeah in America we just killed everyone that was against us having our own freedom.... Anyone can do that, no one gave us permission.
Yep.
1
-
It's all just a show gallantry, at the end of the day, this pity party for the monarchy, that, and for their monetary ends. Good God, we always think about money, and numbers and statistics (especially socialists, for their aggregate of the countries monetary "profile", of course); what about fairness (sorry, just contemplating the current hate boner on "the right wing", and the hypocrisy of the claims and concerns therein said hate filled boner -- although, I bet this is a bit of a psychological backgammon counter against the constant hate spewed towards them from proponents on the right, though....)....fairness, just simply having some fucking backbone, too- in the case of the government of Canada. We do not need the UK- the UK should far and wide be disparaged for their centralization of powers. I don't mind having them as allies, but nevertheless, the train ends there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With all you know Styx, it'd be great if you were apolitical, then at least there wouldn't be the total hypocrisy of the irreconcilable nature of being a libertarian and yet plodding along the usual lines of "American exceptionalism", which is propounded only to the extant of the war-drums' thrum, whether low or high, in volume. I think American exception is not logical. America is great. It's exception though, is a pipe-dream- at least when these populist forces are still twain with forces outside of America, who are themselves not nationalistic. See? I think this is a problem, but...I guess I am the only one, or is this just not viable contention to put out there in the internet sphere, right now? Cause I tell you wut...it's bullshit. Utter bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The guy is acting like the workers are some abstraction and yet the government is like some real superman out to "defend" some ideal, some ideal which it can't defend, but yet, this guy can't see it...even though he's a supposed conservative, conservatives being the kind of people who think the government is all "out to get them". It just goes to show that whoever is paying these peoples' checks are wormy as fuck, and it goes to show that the conservative angle is to promote a government that only "works for them", and nothing more...it doesn't manage anything, nor should it...it should "stay out of everyone's business", but yet at the same time, it should "serve the needs of conservative donors, period". Capitalism, baby.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And on the psychic arts. Well, I forget the name for it (in Hindu, or Sanskrit, whatever) but I know a practitioner that looked into my soul/heart. Felt like mushrooms for sec, time dilation, my facial expression seemed wild and disproportionate to my own senses, and there was a spiral (or halo, if you will) circling around my peripheral vision, in a tunnel-esque fashion, after he has asked "did you feel that", I went yeah- this all happened pretty well momentarily, in seconds. He then gave me some private discourse- simple stuff. He made it real simple. But that is indeed a thing in the literature, dang it, if only I could remember the name.
1
-
2:07:00 -- Here comes the Kantian Categorical Imperative argument, based on not only "Judeo-Christian" values, but pan-Germanic values, German Idealism, and what is the precursor to the Hegelian dialectic. The view that "what I think is good and can make a universal value, is the Good, and is right opinion, judgement and critical view" -- A real act of primordial postmodernism. Plus, if a moral isn't "universal" [and is capitalism? is race? is culture? is systems? is politics? or is politics just an extension of that "war (which is) an extension of politics"?], it can't be "true", right? so if Capitalism is the moral perfection of truth and the categorical imperative par excellence, then it clearly needs to be critiqued on these grounds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PS: I hear there is some tiddie shot, that's about the grossest thing that could be in the film. I can't say this is acceptable, if true. But some water splashing on a girl...I'm sure the actors know the script and have an idea of what is being speculated upon, here; but the film is rated R...it's obviously tackling adult subject matter. Kids shouldn't be put in compromising scenes, any kind of thing like that...but when a film pushes the boundaries, it can be testy waters. Personally, this whole controversy is marred by hyperbole and lies about some of the material, or it seems like most people aren't willing to watch the whole movie, or something, they skip thru it, whatever...none of this addresses the actual issue of 'yes, kids do go to twerk on dancefloors before the age of 15'. No one does anything about that, so I'm not impressed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Give it rest with that tired line. His political views were more nuanced than "He must love Bernie and ANTIFA cause he was a democratic socialist!" No. He criticized all forms of government, and approved of anarchism. Your quote specifies how you are assuming things. He said "I write FOR Democratic Socialism AS I UNDERSTAND IT" (ie, he writes and believes in a socialism that doesn't quite actually get propounded by governments or other philosophers) (Source: https://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript990.html -- note that in this transcript it states "for, was italicized"). Yeah...there are different understandings of political ideologies. Go figure. You don't know his exact views on the actions of people like ANTIFA, and the likes of the Democratic party, Bernie Sanders, or anything for that matter. There are nuances you are missing as well. He outlines pros and cons to all forms and changes of government. He warns about Newspeak, ie, political doublespeak, in which the likes of ANTIFA often speak, and the Democratic party speaks. Let me guess, you blindly think he'd approve their double speak because they are "antifash" and/or "democratic"? No. It should also be noted that he was very much so Anti-Communist, so there goes ANTIFA's support, with their anarcho-communist crowd and not to mention their Fascist tactics. He would look at them, attacking peaceful MAGA hat wearing people, and would conclude that their violence is A: Horrible, and B: justifies the rationale for the state, as a means of protection against would-be ANTIFA violent perpetrators. He was vehemently "anarchist" in spirit, because he was anti-authoritarian, but he also realized that there needed to be SOME kind of apparatus of government, so he approve democratic socialism. He said " "it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence." Well, that includes peaceful Trump supporters. I can verily say, George is spinning in his grave, when it comes to people such as yourselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:38
Wow, care to explain to the class how that paradigm operated within Communist circles? weren't they just poor fucks who wanted to stop elitist crony capitalism and engender nations with greater weal under the accumulation of Capital? then the nazis, in Germany, after in-fighting between Bavaria and communists, start getting co-opted by Hitler and his eschatological parade about the Jews? Of course not...that'd be a complicated video, and would need to be well-thought out. Weren't they all suppressed, respectively? doesn't that explain things? is that not good enough, you need to dress it up, or something? with some spin? Here's some spin right from the horses mouth:
“(For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist.”
"[S]ince it negates the personality of man in every sphere Crude Communism is but the logical expression of private property. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself".
"One may say that this idea of the community of women is the open secret of this entirely crude and unreflective communism. Just as women are to pass from marriage to universal prostitution, so the whole world of wealth (ie., the objective being of man) is to pass to the relation of universal prostitution with the community."
“Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.” - Marx
Oh look...this explains the uprising of the communist takeover, thru suppression and the reaction to that suppression, making things ultimately worse for everyone. Can't talk that talk, nor walk that walk, though, can ya Styx. Does it hurt to have to lie by omission?
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boomshroomgoonmoon Socialism, outside of Christian thought [which has it's own definition, universalist]: which translates, in modern socialism, as "social democracy", but that is what absolutizes into a "world-federalist democracy"; it has it's precedence in the fact of a bottom-down "racial" standpoint [most people do not realize this is how national socialism and "socialism" ties together], and by "racial" it doesn't have to be "pure racism" [Hitlerism], it can just mean "civic-body" and it can just as much relate to a "racial unity": that is to say, this "race" aspect [in socialism itself] shows mostly thru the racist paradigm because it's a decision making process [read Hitler: no...I mean, literally] where the "people" recognize their own "Weltanschauung" without the hierarchy of the State at the behest of...well...in Hitler's case, the Jews, but you know what I mean, it's not just "the Jews", it's everyone seemingly "aggregated": which world-federalists love to take advantage of, but also, everyone does: which leads to....: 2: The "fascistic" frame of totalitarian thought is absolutizing itself, in America, with linker-Fachismus [leftist-fascism], and the response is going to be one of three: the motivation will be to fascisize ["we must defend our birthright, fatherland/motherland"], or it will be to proletarianize ["the elite must fall, the State must fall"], or it will co-opt a third [see "fourth position", Dugin], where nation and "pride" will come to mean a greater distrust of government and eventually an anarcho-capitalist sense of wont [cf. Chile].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It could be said to be amoral. That is, morals are not really the predicate here. It's simply a "lacking of morals", per se, not a "good" or "bad" thing, to have an abortion. At that point, the "moral" issue becomes clear. At some point, amoral behavior can lead to egregious and asinine action and thought. This should be prevented. However, this isn't the same thing as an ethics of people having choice in the matter, whether or not to governmentally restrict and/or prohibit the act of abortion. Logic abounds in nature, but logic requires the nature of thought to behoove it any necessary existence in the realm of affects in perception. In otherwords, there has to made "a case" for logical inference 'before' they can be 'thought of'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hunger
Ask the Hunger Artist, he'll tell you, it is indeed a social construct. And I think I know why: biology doesn't care. That's why. It's a simple thing to understand: we have mind, consciousness of mind, we have language (fascinating, no?), and with this, we establish constructs shared between one another (hence, "social" construct). Biology, or erm, "life", to be more precise (otherwise, it'd defeat the purpose of my argument, here, to not narrow in on this lovely term), erm, doesn't care. It doesn't care if I'm doing my best Jeff Goldblum impression, either. It simply doesn't care, because it can't, it can't care, because it can't think: things have no thoughts: we do. We establish the terms. Nothing else does it for us. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:42 - 4:04
Styx, you just rampantly contradicted yourself, right here. LOL [...] "You want things to make sense, and be truthful and honest, and not a random set of actions to intimidate, camouflage, and traverse past any sort of concept of reason, to get to your emotional core, and convince you that you're inevitable good cause is delayed by 'muh enemy', and be manipulated and coerced? Trust muh manipulative, overly emotional, travesty of a president, who camouflaged his way into confusion his opponents, and intimidated no one, in the end, and made us look like fools to the world at large: trust the plan! but...I mean, erm, don't trust the plan, just trust me, Styx =D"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx, (and I can confirm that the dictionary definitions underwent a
change, but nevertheless, can't prove it [just saw it myself- I like
words........] but alas...just see Wikitionary for the proper definition
of...) Identitarianism, it isn't just White Identity like MOST
dictionaries define it as, online, obviously, as well. But it actually
denotes a value of "identity politics", as we so term it, in regards to
ANY identity group, ie, any race, nationality, ethnicity, color, creed,
ect.
-- Identitarianism: (psychology) The set of ideas arising from an ontology of identity.
(sociology) Politics based on social identity.
BUT, see the mainstream dictionaries and their definitions...they are now BUNK, and refer to the word "Indentitarian" --- see Oxford's: Relating to or supporting the political interests of a
particular racial, ethnic, or national group, typically one composed of
Europeans or white people.
WHAT!!!!! what "especially" makes it that?!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dhumm81 Crystal clear diversions from Marx, and using his concepts as puppet strings for a puppet-Marx, Engels concluded more with, than he did understanding Marx. Both had constitutive developments of thought, but clearly [yes, clearly] Engels was a far-cry from Marx's overall work in toto. Only thing Engels did was obfuscate Marx's overall point of reference for the edifice of communism, which is in the given Das Kapital, because in the end from the time it was released, and Engels was working towards his main thesis for the family, based on the anthropic principal of Engels' specialisation, he wrote Dialectics Of Nature, in which led to his complicating the nature of the concrete dialectic into a overly scientistic, "naturalistic" [as in "natural science"] concept, which doesn't get much further without the help of people like Kropotkin and Bookchin, and Marxian theory wasn't helped out until Lenin, et al.
1
-
@Dhumm81 PS: 'As the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, and the richest in content, Hegelian dialectics was considered by Marx and Engels the greatest achievement of classical German philosophy.... "The great basic thought", Engels writes, "that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things, apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away... this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that, in its generality, it is now scarcely ever contradicted. But, to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words, and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation, are two different things.... For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy, itself, is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain." Thus, according to Marx, dialectics is "the science of the general laws of motion both of the external world and of human thought"' - Lenin, V. I., On the Question of Dialectics: A Collection, pp. 7–9. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1980.
1
-
1
-
Imagine one is put, suddenly, in a starcraft, a vessel of star-ship: you are put into Star Trek, as it were...there is an alien in front of you: what do you do? act like everything is normal? do you cope? what about the tentacles coming out of their face? is this bearable? no? to be taken out of your, yes, extraneous, but ultimately purposeful circumstances of the here and now, you being placed into the far-flung future [where the Marxian dialectic really can be drawn out to, as it has been done, many a time, by many a dialectician and scientist of their time], is not going to relegate you to a compassionate or even understanding response to this all: you need time to get used to this: you are not there yet, ready to deal with drastic changes in circumstances: it shakes you — it's the same with culture: like the culture of this far-flung future, they needed time for their culture to be used to this [as like from ape to man, and hand to tool-object — like children at play — the adjust].
1
-
1
-
Even "dictatorship of the proletariat" comes out of Weydemeyer, which Marx [& Engels, in his "withering away of the state" concept, which crops up in his work] adopted; as such, it's rightly Marxian in theory, but not at all "perfected" or fool-proof; or as it has it on Wikipedia, rightly so: "For Marx, dialectics is not a formula for generating predetermined outcomes but is a method for the empirical study of social processes in terms of interrelations, development, and transformation".
So everything is open to interpretation and experimentation. I'd recommend you'd read, say, Axel Honneth for more on that subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Übermensch [W]here you alluded that those rioters were somehow justified in their looting and Trump speaking out against them is glorification of violence
Yeah, well, you were wrong, so....I never "alluded" to anything of the sort. In fact, all I said that would possibly be called "an allusion" was this: "I don't agree with Twitter's decorum, anyway". Meaning, I don't agree that Twitter should have took down Trump's tweet. But it is a glorification of violence, if only subtle.
How tf is speaking against violent rioting thugs be a glorification of violence??
You aren't really getting at the actuality of what is being said. Trump isn't speaking out against violence. He is saying that looting and fires will be met with violence.
By suppressing speech against those thugs Twitter just condoned violence and so did you
Well, no, cause I didn't support Twitter. I actually said that I didn't approve of what hey did. And no, Twitter didn't "condone" violence by erasing that tweet. That doesn't even make sense. How is it "condoning" violence? They didn't say "we at Twitter approve of the looting and arson of buildings" - did they? No, they didn't.
I wonder what will happen to your virtuosity when those rioters reach the property of your loved ones
Yeah, it'll spread that far, totally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Übermensch You said that the riots would never spread to a city near
It still hasn't made it to me, but no, I didn't say anything about "my" anything, nor any "bubble".
Also you said that Trump was wrong to suggest any use of force against the rioters
No, wrong again. Yikes, you just imagine things. I said Trump glorified violence with his statements: he even had to quote said statement, he was so apt to glorify the words therein. He had to make it real succinct and almost poetic, so he lifted his statement from someone else. But nevertheless, I never said anything more than that. I don't really think Trump is going to do anything, and if he does it's going to be contentious, either way.
I bet you would be begging the govt to protect you once the thugs reach your or your loved one's property
You're assuming too much about the nature of peoples' advocacy for non-violence, and the ability to protest, whereby to strip that away [by fears of rioting] would be to impinge on the very nature [indeed] of the spirit of the law in the constitution. They don't really think—like you might think yourself—that they ought to abjure the processes of a "direct action" in "civil disobedience" when the precedence being set, in their minds, will invalidate their own rights, as they see it. You probably don't care, but that's "rights" for ya.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's a great story. Wanna talk of the blatant and obvious battles and in-fighting between Christians? No? People invented less crazy shit in the past, yes...and during the middle ages, science improved, yes- it's called a technological scale. It conforms to an ability to perform technical feats on par with others- competition spurns this- the competition between Muslims, Christians, and otherwise, other "pagans" (gotta love the nomenclature that amalgamates every religion into one, sans "the Abrahamic ones" [note the use of pluralism among the One God, whom has religions that FIGHT ONE ANOTHER] ... right?) -- the competition spurned on technological and intellectual advancement, which has always been the case since the inception of the idea of a "trade route", which is erm...is it Christian? no, it's "Pagan". Nice story, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can you drop the historical drama and look at things objectively?
Styx: No, I can't
That's really too bad, it's just a lot of misinfo. You keep conflating nationalist state-coopted "communism" of the historical sense, with the idea of it, and keep conflating this notion that a state acting like any state does [by railroading outsiders that could be disruptive into re-education, or deportation, either/or] is so much like the historical account of Soviet and Maoist communism [it isn't, you adduce no nuance, such as inferring the reality of all states historically acting pretty much alike on this account of how to approach outsider forces and their incursions], and like YOU would do any different in a state where bomb-chuckers are flooding into your country. Just an act Styx...it's just an act. And yes, it is indefensible, but yet, it's literally the same thing that occurs historically in every country. They either are given this choice of "education" or they are sent back packing- or they are kept in-land, and this tends to piss off the "conservatives". You see China as a distant alien landscape...just admit it. It's not. It's just another all-too-human port of misery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh and this:
there’s a dozen better arguments for socialism however socialism can only work within a tight nit community of demographically similar region with high accountability if you put that system in America you will get significant political violence and probably create another civil war
Is absolutely correct. Nicely said, as well. But you haven't really "doubted" anything I actually said, so....yeah, socialism is a stop-gap, when it comes to the idea of "social programs", but we all don't mind this ultimately "social" paradigm, as long as it works to help people out in some actually socially useful way, and actually be fungible. But "Socialism" [big S] would only work in some small group which would pay into itself...otherwise, it's just what we have now, but with less fungibility in terms of an exchange between workers and owners- hence why Marx abhorred Socialism- and hence why Capitalists are so fond so Socialism, when it suits them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The80sWolf_ I'll just repost what I gave as retort, to someone else who wants to jive-talk Vaush about quibbles:
Engels is actually a perfect example of what happens in the contemporary moment when Communism unfolds from a proletarian state of mind, apart from a duly aristocratic one: neither of which are anymore or less scrupulous. Marxian theory is sound: Engels interpretation of Marxian theory is nothing but a form of naive realism. It's one of the best examples [other than in the current political moment right now] of the arbitrarization of tendencies and things in general [something Engels would gathered easily, even if in his naive way: as he would have pointed out the objectification of things into people and people into things, and the conversion from quality into quantity, and visa versa]. With Engels, the contention that "Marxists make everything into a economism and into a materialism" is a sound one, that holds water. But Marx, himself, was more circumspect than that. He quite duly noted, for example, that Communism would come from Capitalism itself, and thru it, to be more precise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Astares9 I'm not a commie, though. The time for that is long past, the retreat into the future has left us away from the potential of a "return" to the ethnos, or for the potential of a "communist revolution" [that isn't crude and forced]. Besides, Marx had stated that the means come about for "revolution" [which I take to be a different meaning here, as a revolution of thinking] is when capitalism is collapsing: not to make it collapse thru force: because the theory [classical] is eschatological. At least, that's how it seems to have evolved, to Marx [as he abjured the communist manifesto, sometime after it's publishing]. For me to be a "commie", whether crude and insurrectionary, or just plain orthodox in my thinking "as a communist" [allegedly], I would have to believe that Marx was inherently correct in his orientation, in toto. I do believe that he was trying to maintain a historical trend of socialism [pagan, even: this sort of trend can be seen in the anthropological dealings some parts of Marxian theory], to maintain the level of society that didn't extend to "civil society" or "global society", and didn't extend into the atomization and thingification of "human resource", and the culture-corruption of these forces he deemed "capitalism" and "capital" itself. Very highfalutin, very 1800s. I would say, I'm not a communist, I'm more of a libertarian marxist in my thinking, or a libertarian socialist, even. From a purely issue-based point of view, I'm a Municipal Localist: not an insurrectionary, nor even a structural marxist [professing constructivist and structuralist cues to modernity and postmodernity that line up with Marxian theory or Marxist-Leninist]. I am a Non-Marxist. Marx pointed out in his work "Private Property And Communism" a means by which "woman" are fetishized as commodity form, in a reified manner. I would say this is true, but it's not because of why Marx said [what he alluded to was prescient though]. And this is really the crux of why I'm not a Marxist, even if I understand Marxian theory. I also understand Spengler and Evola's crisis of concern for the human race under the boot of "machine industry". Look at Kazcinsky: yet another "right-wing" theorist. I am prompting a concern of such things: nothing more. I am promoting nothing more than the idea that people want a: self-management and b: that people want to be productive for their social ends [races, groups, even at an individual level. But no less than these three categories persist at once]. My videos would be aiming to promote this, yes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@audiofash8478 How is the hall-mark of proto-communism the inability to understand the experience of being exposed to original ideas?
Because the likes of Thomas Müntzer and the Shakers, et al., exemplify the common idea, shared by Christian socialists, Christian communists, Christians in generally, Lutherans [cf. Müntzer], shared by Platonists, shared by people at meet social ends common to them; part of Marx's point, over all, was that men would be slaves to machines: to him a miserable existence that would only lead to the devaluation of workers in the long-run [automation, automatons, "NPCs", in the contemporary parlance; cf. 'Erewhon', by Samuel Butler]...heck, this notion of 'meet social ends' applies as well to the pagan groups of various origin. And why is this the "hall-mark" of the "inability to understand the experience of being exposed to new ideas"? Why is that "proto-communism"? Because they emulate the form, that's why...there is alot of different contents, faces to the multifarious extrapolations of the means [the concretization] of historical forces to divulge the intention, to converge on the ratiocination, of 'meet social ends', for 'groups' and 'races' and 'individuals/individuated institutions' [the family, "schools", "the factory", etc.]; and with this, the consolidation [solidarity] of peoples under different compositions of the form of the ethnos being given as the choice between "progress" and "conservation".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's happening in Canada. (not) PS: Yeah, Styx, it does seem a bit hyperbolic, doesn't it? Strange, that. Raising propaganda like that- way to help bolster support against the current Liberal regime. Do they think people are gonna JUST blame Trump? They'll see this and go "Canada, you're cucked". PPS: Thanks Styx. Doesn't get said enough. I just swallowed the line because it sounded so good, and yet, look, it really DOES seem far-fetched now that I think a bit more on it. Why would the news fucks even report on something like that, anyway? News media in Canada are some of the most brainwashed crap on this continent. So what is this angle they are taking? Canada, too MANY migrants? NAH, NEVER. Hell, that's usually the line, "don't worry, we can handle it". Now it's, "unable to handle this shit, abort abort"? Good Christ it is not the easiest time to stay in the loop, proper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rb3425 No, that's you, you live in your own fantasy world. You just displayed, evinced, and even argued [I won, remember? see above: but of course you don't "remember", you're disconnected from reality, apparently], the very facts, already. How you are glorifying violence is by glorifying what Trump said [which was glorifying violence, as per the definition of "glorifying" {pertaining to "honor", remember? you made my argument for me, above, by evincing how you thought it was "honorable" to shoot looters} and what he said {"Once the looting starts, the shooting starts"}, and the definition of "violence"]. It's really as simple as you not apprehending what it means to "glorify" something [as you have done, and as Trump has done].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My short take on Kyle's oversimplified explanation of masks
The aerosols are what anti-maskers can point to, Kyle, not droplets. Even breathing, you can disperse SARS-2-V. But with the more high-tech masks [N95, and other equivalents], there is perforation technology that makes it so that not only droplets but even aerosolised matter, even if it can pass thru the mask [you know, so you can breathe...which one can...anti-maskers out there...], because of the perforation material inside the mask itself, the matter gets, well, perforated, it gets 'destroyed' for lack of a better term. This with social distancing EXTREMELY limits the worry of spreading diseases, of many kinds, actually.
1
-
And lesser types of masks can still be useful in all the ways Kyle elucidated. If you wanted to even more towards limiting one's own exposure to droplets, combining a mask with a face shield is the way to go [of it you work in an environment where social distance is already factored in, a face shield by itself can be the lite-alternative to even wearing a mask; even though that's increasing risk, not decreasing it, obviously]. If one doesn't have mask, it's been shown that, although not as effective, makeshift masks of like clothing material, can be made and used: and they are doubly effective if you, of course, double up on this type of makeshift mask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zizek is right on Racism. As I've said before, 'Jokes, Politics, And Race All Coalesce In[to] Comedy'. PS: And as I've also said before: Indian just means either a: to be indigenous, or b: it's got etymological correspondence in "-dia" with 'heaven' [if we want to go to the place we call "India", and because of it's so called "indigenous austerity", it was given that name instead of than it's actual name, Bhārat]. [Next, progressives will be saying that language is "whiteness" and that it's "racist" and "sexist", too. Oh wait, it already has. The grammarians "were racist", because of some "white superiority" such-and-such excuse. Wait till that line of thinking picks up the slack in the progressives lack of a coherent vanguard without the promulgation of their own inner racism.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You, Hasan, are just filling in the gaps just as much as they are. I think that might mean something along the lines of, "this is unexplored territory, for society at large, for a lot of people", and that that might be the "creative" thing being alluded to [read: ALLUDED TO - leftists CAN read, right?]. Jordan Peterson is a dolt, but he is only looking at where his interests lay, giving him a bias (an extreme one, granted - I don't agree with his takes, at all, save when I am faced with gaps, I don't present bad faith "explanations" like you do), and like anyone else would have pertaining to the clout of their own particular field/profession, and their own personal interests, he has confirmation bias - that isn't an excuse for his transphobia, but it is an explanation - a better one than you can provide, Hasan, you drooling Him. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyone didn't see this coming? this is all part of DA PLAN. There was always going to be another cold war, Hillary, or no. LOL, Trump, the consolation prize, set-up up by you know who! Trumpy-doody says "what next"?
(Sorry, this all seems to plain as day a scheme to me- then again, might just be that Trump is being used, and maybe Trump is just gaming them, so I could be completely off-base here, lol!!!!)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Axiom 1: History is to be viewed as an economic class struggle.
Only in the sense of our drives leading us as being the viewer of History. In this sense, yes it is a class-struggle, because of economic burdens and exigencies. Beyond this there are drives which pertain to complexes that exhibit in other ways rather than reproductive, or even expressive, but this is not solely due to human nature, but also due to certain power dynamics that press on human productivity. Next axiom. PS: In keeping with hierarchical organization -- And synarchic organization, like tech-capital. Animal kingdom, structuralism -- Both do not preclude themselves, unless one admits that what is sole for the human being is nary for the animal creature. Predated human history itself, capitalism -- Certainly a good phrasing there, Peterson, whether you meant it or not: yes it has been predating human history for so long. True. It also can be refined...didn't you think that it could? Class struggle, no, deeper problem -- Cf. Axiom 1. Existential problem, taking from below -- The Commons, in Marx's words. Cruel and harsh natural world -- Cf. Reification. Give the devil his due -- Or in other words, class struggle, q.e.d. PPS: Crystal clear -- So was Marx, on that. Eschatological, Peterson...read Capital...it's not a proposal that to have revolution is a given only then: that was never presumed by Marx, hence Axiom 1: the reasoning is that because someone always struggles to the top, in order precisely to control and compartmentalize hierarchy below them [that's what Hierarch means], and that means that revolution is "natural" and hence predicated on the absorption of surplus value, thence Valorization, the concept of the remit to wages and/or slavery [or destitution] being a "moral value" for the good of "nature": and thence with out capitulation, the order of revolution in class struggle in toto. Exploitation, very unstable means of obtaining power -- It's a means of keeping power within synachic lines of affectation, and also, cf. Axiom 1. It's also a means of expanding and implicitly controlling power. And it's also a means of "creative destruction". It's a means of keeping an axiom of contingency and necessity, and reliance, which instability provides. Exploiter and exploitee, it's not obvious -- It's obvious, when in the framework of Axiom 1 [see above]. And the reasoning is because of the proverbial "class struggle". The binary does preclude a further mystery, but to nail it down to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is cutting a little thin, though. That is to say, that it's multiple classes that form the structure base and superstructure. Unfortunately race, and nation, and creed, plays part and parcel as well. Group identity politics, proletariat good, bourgeoisie evil -- Inner warfare? Pitting people into groups -- Uhh...I thought nature did that itself? Aren't you backtracking a bit here? as in...alot? This goes to the further Marxian theory of Capital. Capitalists own means of production, oppressing all the workers -- No. Not "all the workers". Just the workers in Germany. He couldn't predict everything, and well, Marx never claimed he could predict things outside of this theoretic schemata, just that it would represent whyfors in a historicist fashion. Wage earners become scarce, which drives market value upward -- And where do these new earners get found? right. From the "globalized" world. Not a very good critique, here, from you, Peterson. It's a meager derivative of not keeping up to date with Marxian theory, nor reading Marx in his entirety, and thus you attribute this notion as being a misunderstood one by Marx, when in actuality it was merely understated because he did not predict how Capital would operate at all lengths...that would be impossible. But he does draw out a very dire premise and eschatology. Assume a priori -- Like so many powers that be, just do willy-nilly? like State? like Church? "The Cathedral"? like "a priori synthesis"? Like capitalism?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Haha, midway through this video, I pause it...2:00 -- Was thinking the exact same thing, Styx. It's funny, the different tactics. On the far-left, just like on the further reaches on the right, the humor and memeage gets more so like "yeah, ok, this is effective". While the center right and left really can't meme (honestly), but you can look at all this and see that A: most of this contrived on some level and B: both sides have completely different motivations (obviously; even if the outcomes they want are the same, they are two different "teams" so, tactics are heeded) so this changes their tactics and thus their results. In terms of memetics...I like politics...still pretty apolitical at heart but...boy, this is amusing (save the shootings, that's not amusing at all, but I will say, it fits in the dichotomous bifurcation, this trying to attain the same goals through various different means of political tactic and/or motivation). Although, I still rather am apolitical, the desire for seeing things through leads me to some interesting conclusions about politics. It can be fun, actually, and not just annoying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martins458 Even elderly people were saying they would rather social distance and stay home, then "see the economy get so effected" - there are many arguments - not just the "opinion of the collective". But for what it's worth, I have suggested much more than "do nothing" - which is what makes the right look dumb - and then they pile on more things, still, which I won't get into, here. Just stop making assumptions, please. I am the one who said that we should be locking down inessential travel Nov. 2019, and then using masks, and containing public and workplace accommodations, operationally, so break-up vectors of transmission, to cool the rate of community transmission, so we could "slow the curve" - which made total sense as the first wave was hitting: but we acted too late to contain it, and let it spread: didn't we? But that wasn't because of what I said, cause I said the above things: which are just facts.
1
-
1
-
Doctors, ill-intentioned? how? by wanting you to have some Chai Tea instead of some pills? This is the MONSTROUS dimension we are heading into with this overt disregard for any sense of homeostasis as it actually pertains to health and social life, for the sake of forcing a worldview on everyone of scientism, materialism, non-conclusory, of course, because of the induction problem and because of the inability for science to a: predict the future with no degree of uncertainty, especially in human behaviour, and b: for them to "remember to stop" acquiring knowledge [new knowledge that only gets set to lead to more new knowledge, never stopping to think, cause science doesn't think, it just goes, endlessly, in the pursuit of the answer to a void]. If "the smart people" of the world are this malevolent in intent, then no one can trust them. This is technocracy, and whether by maladjusted whimsy of their supposed knowledge [which has failed to reflect on their course of action, and simply press on with bad info, which we can all see here], or just evil...it's blatant for everyone to see...this is ASININE to listen to these people, and people are being FORCED TO. This calls for action.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, but people will just assume things- "Satanists" are "people". They like to fit in, the fall into things, they are convinced of things- I don't think Styx really ever gave mind to how deep the "elite" like to "fit in", as well- which maybe others maybe have done more so, than him? That is to say, that it seems, to me anyway, that the "elite" have "slipped", they have be "indoctrinated" [does that make sense?] and that this behavior is not typical of what people even proclaim to even be "elite" [they still gather under idols of wood and stone, after all], as a elite means something of high-standing and valor and honor. Little do they know that the insidious nature of the beast only alludes them even within the parochial "balance" they met with such forces- and these forces manifest themselves in all desires- so hence to capitulate to desires is to "feed" on these beastial temptations until the true one [the evil one] makes the big reveal. It's all thru "temptation", remember?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I think the intrigue was enough to play with, for enticing an audience, until it wasn't...until one day, proof was needed, and couldn't be given, so people started to improvise, faked some shit, and made people wise to the notion that they would even do such a thing, when exposed, and thus it destroyed any credence to be had, and all because of a necessity to suddenly provide proof, which they thought they could get away with faking. Not something one can "provide evidence" for, when people aren't willing participants in their own practice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One of the jokes from Spongebob...'Twenty-five'
I never watched it, but I have seen it's effects, and I did watch "Adventure Time, so I can comment. From the little I've glanced at, I've learned nothing but a template, but to see the effects it (like Fortnite) has had on kids in this hyperactive world, it's enough to evince for me, along with this '25' joke that...] Spongebob proves here that micromemes [in comedy] works...if you can set the punchline and timing just right, anything can be a joke. It's just at this level it's not really a "joke" as in a "jape" or an "observation", or even a funny sequence of events [in a story or whatever]; it's more like a subtle suggestion to laugh at nonsense and/or something primed to be taken as sense-worthy [even if it's not]. Between these two poles, the spectrum of jokes reaches it's apex and magnitude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He is saying she is a Stalinist, why?
Because most people won't admit, right- or left-wing, that in the early century [the fin de siècle, to be even more precise, is what led to the early centuries events] all the "gulags" and "concentration camps" were made out of 'sides' becoming monsters to one another and to themselves: and it was all based on the reduction of the quality of life in relation to social convention: both left...and right...faced this in bloody war: one side for the "material ends" of a Soviet [and Chinese] concept [and abroad, as well, for other nations' peoples], the other side for pan-Germanic [in one corner], pan-Italian [in another corner], pan-Japanese [in another corner] and pan-European [altogether, pan-imperialist; and not econo-imperialist like China or Russia, but "traditional" imperial values of "leadership" of royalty].
1
-
1
-
No, they don't do anything but, alas, maybe some odd renegades, and there are also sometimes even internal enemies of one another, within their ranks. It's basically a kind of spiritual anarchism (note, not "anarchy, per se", but 'anarchism', lawlessness). The occult predilections at the time infused within the Abrahamic faith, it seems, within it's already warrior mentality. It's feudalist, still, basically.
1
-
1
-
That's fucking stupid
But you have no better ideas, and you're gonna keep seeing more conflagration on the right-wing eking towards anarcho-capitalism or some kind of right-wing populist movement towards a national socialism, where people will continue to insist on more self-management in their lives and their perceived culture, which people like you really don't give a fuck about, but they do...and you're selling them 'snake oil', as well. They just can't see it, yet, because 'capitalism' keeps flashing forth as the contingent necessity, even though thru that they will get nothing they want, and receive only everything they actively fight against. More migrants, less jobs, less income, more taxes: just give it time to get past Trump and his particular brand of protectionism, further isolating the US, which will continue the trend towards national socialism, "fairness", etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now now, don't think you want to go there. I, after all, never claimed that they are "the same", those two acts. I said one will proceed the other, if you try to tell them what their limits are. Everyone, despite what they might think, or no, actually has the ability, and not only ability, but the necessity, to make their own choices...as soon as one group or individual tries to limit another, you meet in strife, and then what is "free" might lead to what I see some here are claiming as "consequences of speech", which are by and by NOT considered (by these people) to be adjoined to the speech they provide (almost a separate issue, but the point is...)-- when one party feels they've been slighted or limited, they'll go after what you deem to be free, and the contention is "who of you are in the right- who gets to limit who"; and in that case, who is really truly allowed "free speech"? If you have to go to court, or if you have to toe the line or be banished and de-platformed, or slandered out of their spotlight (cleverly, or no), for your "free speech", is that speech really free? or is it "free" but just "with consequences attached"?
1
-
Jesus wasn't a "socialist" per se...he advised people to be free from such things...but you misunderstand me, I think (sorry for the confusion)-- I never said Jesus was a socialist, I said that his small congregation was THE WAY to do things, actually. =) I might have implied that Christianity is socialist (not Jesus though- I said he 'kept it small', which is a good thing- read on, and you'll see what I mean). And they have been, for ages. See: Distributism -- But my point is, in saying what I said, friend, is that Jesus kept it small...his congregation was SMALL. Older tribes used to either be culled by nomadic life, or by cultural exchanges between tribes (war, a la blue plate special)-- they were kept Small, most importantly. I happen to believe Socialism is a sort of natural human tendency to provide a stop-gap against "inequality" in larger populaces (ie, within a republic, or even empire- a small bit of "redistribution" in some fashion is always employed, even if it's "better rations", or "better accommodations", or whatever the matter..."whores"....whatever the case.) The only political tendency, I find, that could avoid that, was within feudal systems....nevertheless, all of our "societies'" (pure fictions, like laws) seem to transcend (negatively) into a socialist mindset, because as they grow, the function of the church or the state tends to want to appease them, to avoid a conflagration against them, by the people. Because of such proclivities towards "weaknesses" (one might say), bigger populaces tend towards appeasing THEMSELVES with socialism, and/or some kind of nationalism (the two can be twain), or patriotism, of some sort. The tendency towards socialism is found within pagan tribes, empires, the church, cities and states, alike....all because of "the people" and their proclivity towards the path of least resistance...and why do you think they are given it; of course, to appease them means to make them weaker...so of course they would appease them...we are coming to only realize this now- and I assure you, only more confusion is on the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, when I see these videos, I can't help but think that somewhere, secretly, is the wont for empathy to not really exist: empathy leads to dismay, according to these videos. Being human is ultimately not about empathy, but vanity, at this point, where everyone feels they need to "seek out the red flags" in everything, and everyone. I don't think the human species would have gotten so far [as we have], if we were literally like this: which makes me think that we aren't. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not evidence of fascism
Correct, no it isn't. It's just neoliberalist bullshit [if anything, ANTIFA are proponents of linker-Fachismus or Leftist-Fascism]. Migrants not only effect the economy, but effect crime stats, and also effect movements, themselves. Movements of migrants within nations where they migrate to create movements of migrant nomadicism. Which then ends up making conflations between nations, of a socialistic sort. Then you have the instance of the peripheral proletariat, who instead of being co-optioned by the Traditionalists of the world [as they should be, as they mostly reside in BRICs nations, which still hold to valuable traditions, or what should be seen as such], they are co-opted by neoliberals, who are trying to foist a world-federalism [not communism].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength with the mass of numbers and their dead weight
And yet speak of self-management and you are called a Marxist. Deadweight loss from this coercion from capitalist-socialists like the Fabians are to blame, implementing their neo-Prussian mental screws to our kids in the pedagogy of the damned.
Thus it denies personal worth, contests the significance of folk and race, and thereby withdraws from mankind premise for its existence and culture
According to you. Marxian theory doesn't contest human nature, nor it's existence, it explains it, almost better than race could. We live by social means, and hence to discard that worldview for the view of an unbridled machine like the disdainful and alienated ivory tower dwellers and their suburban closed-off societies which are even emulated in the rural, by way of the encroaching [and necrotizing] metropolis, and of "capital" and "monied interests", bringing you your migrants and itinerancy, your "racial chaos", and for what? for what? It's you Americans that are so weighty with your love for first-principals out of thin-air, and your love for "churches" and "statements" and "affairs", you can't see your time is being usurped from even being alive, let alone your labor's loss.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx, you are talking to a bunch of literal empty skinsuit morons brain-marred to the the degree of gaseous decay-making rotten mindlessness, about viruses...they don't care...if a virus came their way, it's soon to be death, cause these morons can't "understand" viruses...they are holdovers a bygone era. [Or at least, it truly doesn't matter, cause these morons are just that retarded anyway...it doesn't even matter what they actually believe...they'll just act accordingly moronic, and run amok, regardless of anything, at all, period...it's in their wiring to do so. Comprehension doesn't matter. Only destruction matters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL, holy shit, I hate all those things too. Your insinuations are intense, though, bro. You actually gonna do something about any of those things- can you dismantle them intellectually? no. Of course not. So...when? nowhen? maybe you'll be the next Dallas guy. Oh and woman's suffrage [leading to feminism, eventually, after the civil rights era] was the prototypical form of feminism [and feminism is a term from the mid eightteen hundreds, not in modern times...regardless...it wasn't invented by Jews, but Christians & Englishmen. Anyway.... As philosopher King, I myself DO have that authority. Yessireee
Whoa now, you're a rockstar....but hey, I was talking to the other guy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the thing: I hear you, but, where else do you go? Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Satanists, Occultists, ect...all have filth in their midst. So does every town, city, church, nation, and continent. Fact is: Styx is talking about the side of whatever he's about that isn't the side that condones filth in their midst. Just the same, that goes with every other person who preaches a belief system, whether religious, or idealistic, ect. If there is no where else to go, what next? make something else up? what happens when it gets popular enough that it attracts the seeds of filth to it? this happens in all walks of life, unfortunately. One can't just presume that everyone is a liar, or lest, you could, but you might seem a little out of line when it inevitably turns out that the individual you were condemning wasn't that which you thought you were condemning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hated seeing those post-ups, it was even a newspaper clipping- the one I remember sparking a sot of outrage in me- of an article claiming that high-school dropouts had shitty jobs- basically- well, we were told simultaneously that "we could be anything we wanted", which was a lie, and I knew it- I had told my principal that we are just here thrown into an 'adult atmosphere', with little direction, and a responsibility to be [not guided but...] again, 'thrown', into this world and learn how to meander to a source of work to retrieve and deadlines to be ascertained by teachers who were overworked and who taught a rampant cause [that is, to push out many many students]. I never blamed those teachers of course, I was rather admirable of teachers, and even like the profession. But that stuck with me, forever. PS: Age Of Mythology rocks. Age Of Empires 1, too, but 2, ppffffft- and is that a Pentax. Hmmm.... PPS: The entire pedagogical IDEA needs a paradigmal change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@inovakovsky Actually, I am saying quite the opposite, quite literally. It's foolish to assert "what would Marx x", cause that is a: antithetical to Marxian theory, and b: Marx wasn't a proponent of such things, and c: Marx can still be wrong; he was, afterall, not able to predict the revolutions arising in Russia and China, but instead, saw the historical outcomes completely differently than how they actual panned out: and this is one of the many reasons why Marxist-Leninism is a misnomer. It should just be called "Stalinism", and leave it at that. Just like Lenin, apart from Stalinist theory, is very different, and should be simply called "Leninism".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, no, no it's because it's a huge metropolitan city with huge gun crime. Styx, do you have to talk shit and lie all the time to make a point? or can you make a point without doing so? Strong arm police tactics? you mean stop and frisk? it helps prevent a lot of unneeded criminal activity and weed out potential gang violence. You have endorsed it before, at least once. But alas, no, you are a real fan, however, of stand your ground laws...tell me, Styx, are you gonna invite your shadow-tailing in for tea any time soon? I'm still wondering, thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just because you worship the same deity it doesn't mean you share the same ideology if that was true all the abrahamic religions would be mormons the latest version of the abrahamic faiths .
Very true. And I don't suppose I said otherwise. But if you worship the same deity in this case, sort of like with Islam, how it based on political tracts, as much as "wisdom scripture from God Allah, the Powerful Shitlord", or how Judaism's tenants are based in political and geographical irredentist philosophy, along with it's "wisdom of I AM THAT I AM THAT I AM THAT I AM....", isn't that worshiping the same ideologies, if God has set it, in His Wisdom, that the world belong to whomever truly lays claim among the empires of the Lord? How can claim all this? Maybe the Jews, after all they started the damn ideology, that spawned the rest of the ideologies, that differ only in the obtusely extraneous to the core of the faiths of these people? The christ is in "Christian" for a reason- so I don't think anything i've said (that you were responding to) was contradictory or misled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sick of having to kowtow to some outgroup, Israel, or trans-people, and literally treat them like Gods among men. Everyone judges everyone. Cab drivers, construction workers, CEO's, et al. Everyone, men, women, children, transwomen, transmen. Good god.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is there to refute? You said Copernicus was killed. He wasn't. You can't "win" with false facts.
I said he was suppressed along with Bruno, and re-iterated that Bruno was killed, and that Galileo was tried and jailed for their express adverting of the heliocentric model. You are a confused, and/or flagrant prevaricator.
By the way, if Copernicus's research was suppressed, how did Galileo know about it?
Great argument (not, but nice try)-- it was suppressed, that doesn't mean no one knew about it. Jesus fucking christ, that was a lame retort from you. Fuck me. Can you at least contribute to some badinage so I can find some entertainment from you? Giordano, he was killed, for express views against the church, and for his philosophical beliefs, including astrological and scientific, precisely the point- Galileo was tried- then forced to "re-exmine" for simply expressing his views and espousing that they were more correct than the geocentric model- that is called "suppression". Jesus christ, Inquisition and first judgement, 1616, the ban on Copernicus' books, the rejection of the heliocentric model due to the annexation of the VERY THOUGHT, through BANNING THE FUCKING MATERIEL. You STUPID COCKSMOKER. PS: And of course, by "jailed", it wasn't that it was as tortuous as one would expect, but nonetheless, the point stands. He was tried. There was a ban. Refute this or shush.
1
-
Like pagans never banned a book.
Yes, another thing I never said. Strawman arguments are fun.
Like they didn't slaughter Christians merely because they didn't like their ideas.
Herp derp, like the Christians didn't...you wanna keep going in this circle, or do you wanna just finally say the words, Yes, CynicalBroadcast. You were right.
Tiresome, one-sided anger parade here. What did Daddy not give you for Christmas to make you this pissed off?
He didn't smite the sinners of bearing false witness.
You're really no longer worth my time responding to.
So, you're gonna run off then, and not admit your faulty reasoning...Ok.
Read a book that challenges your ideas once in awhile. Or even one that agrees with them. Then come back in, say, ten years when you're ready to discuss such weighty matters.
LOL, right, DUR, it's cause I don't do my readin' that you can't posit a refutation of my evidenced claims.
1
-
1
-
I misspoke, but of course you will label it "something denied". If anyone looks, which is doubtful, but if so, they can see I simply had, in the midst of mentioning the suppression of Copernicus' theories along with the mentioning of the fact of many people who were always cut down whilst making said scientific process in the middle ages, and Copernicus was in-between ellipses with mention of Bruno, in the same breadth, as my mention of the others, including Bruno, being killed, you concluded that I meant that Copernicus had been killed, but I simply did not mean that, and so edited my post (openly, you prevaricator, you) so as to correct myself, and added "(OR SUPPRESSED)" in betwixt my admitted error in speaking (which was the main point you prevaricated away from)- that was before I knew someone was going to actually attempt to argue the point- which I suggest people look at, at the top of the page, it's a doozy, it's very funny seeing Christians exculpate themselves from any wrong-doing ever in History, while at the same time decrying everyone else in History, and claiming that they "invented civilization" (nothing more, not "western civilization", which is at least marginally more understandable a claim, that some individuals do make, but not more so- besides, Greek civility, and Roman civility, seems to've invented western civilization, and alot of the Bible was lifted from pagan lore).
But it's funny to see you constantly refer to this mistake, simply rectified within moments of it's utterance- it's not really a good argument, considering things.
1
-
Liar. You didn't misspeak. You thought Copernicus was killed. You said so. This is your exact quote before your edit. Notice how you used the plural "they."
Copernicus...Bruno...why were they killed for being RIGHT in their science?
No, not "liar", and as I already explained, this was AFTER I had ALREADY AFOREMENTIONED (The AFOREMENTIONED SUPPRESSION, which any can see was the original topic) that "the sentence structure was broken into ellipses for a reason; the lack of motivation for me to write an essay on how you are wrong", and that "I was referring to those who were killed for their scientific endeavor." See: right before your quote of me: Muslims in Spain were doing great things, until they were sacked by crusaders. Then that scientific age of discovery was delayed, yet again...and how many times in History has this occurred? -- than I go on to state the sentence you attribute to me, and I edited it, and openly stated that I didn't mean he was killed, but that "they", the Muslims in Spain, and the likes of Bruno, were killed, and that Copernicus was suppressed, like the aforementioned Muslims in Spain. See what I did there? Now, please, I admitted I "Misspoke". You don't wont for the committal of the fallacy fallacy, and see that even though, while shitposting, I misspoke, now you've arrived at, what's it called, the Dragon Power, yes, that's it...can you ever prove a refutation of the facts presented herein this comment thread, or the one you've gotten that quote out of? That of the active suppression of (and banning of) books, works, knowledge, ect, and other various acts committed by the church to suppress and subdue? Well, I mean, again, cause you already have, anyone can plainly look at the strenuous display and see, well shit, i'll be, Cynicalbroadcast is right. shrug No skin off my teeth, anyway. You keep adulating yourself with the notion that you "see my words as error" (even after they've been correctly posited, and you still can't refute my statements of fact, but instead opt for ad homs about my poetry (lol) and make claims about how, and I quote, "pagans can do x y and z, but you want me to hang my head in shame", which is pitiful to say the least, because at least you could have relented and yielded from the argument, but instead insisted, and continue to insist, that you've made a point. You haven't. In fact, you've only been shewn refuted out-right, and quite abjectly, I might say. I have not spoken out of turn, once. You keep trying to insinuate that, though. =) Anyone can see for themselves. (You can't discern verisimilitude because you keep harkening back to a loosely worded statement, that you want to keep identifying as a "lie", even though it's been established to've been your misapprehension of me.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
I dare not wont for the actual reading of this malarky, I hjad to stop at "Heh,complaining about the ad homs" because, as you can clearly see above, the last thing I did was "complain", moron. Hehe, see what I did there? You are a such a fool. Was that an ad hom? well no...because this isn't an argument, you're fucking moron. But do you have an argument against the proposition that the church suppressed Copernicus' work? nothing but excuses about hyperbolic pagan sacrifice and my poetry, eh? Let me guess....
The fact you stupidly thought Copernicus was killed.
I was rambling, as I already explained. Plenty of people will killed. Do you object to this basic factoid?
I don't need to refute what you say.
LOL, sure, but you keep making arguments and I keep smacking them down. Do you have a point anymore here? You should refute what i've said, otherwise, you have none.
People who get things wrong are immediately dismissed, so goes your reasoning. They lack credibility.
This is called the Fallacy Fallacy. You're an idiot. There was no argument before I said what I said, and you had no argument to back it up other than some assumption about my knowledge about Copernicus. It's not relevant. Fallacy Fallacy. Was the church responsible for the ban of his works? Yes. You lose.
a 2000 year old religion sometimes did wrongheaded things.
No, my argument is, "The church suppressed knowledge because of their predilections". You're an idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was the fact that he was dishonest to the American people about it and purjured himself that got him into trouble
I already affirmed that, dork. The fact is, you keep insisting that that was still a good way to catch him lying...you wasn't tried. He was impeached but not charged with any crime, was he? nope...the answer is a swift "nope". So stop trying this game [all of you] of continuously reiterating your same exact tired platitudes about how "I am missing this perfect fact about the American spirit of the law" which you have not really evinced, considering that he wasn't charged with any seditious crime. He literally was just told to not be unbecoming, and once more, that his lies was noteworthy, that's not the point: the point is that whether he perjured himself or not, he only did so being confronted with "sex allegations". Imagine that...*sex allegations*...and look at the Me Too Movement now...what, you for that too? facepalm
Had Bill told the truth from the get-go, there may still have been some people angry at him, but there never would've been an impeachment trial of any sort. And in all actuality there is far more corruption and shit attached to Bill and Hillary's name than just Bill's extramarital affairs. From Vince Foster all the way to Benghazi, there is so much scandal surrounding the Clintons that they really do perfectly exemplify the stereotype of the corrupt American politician always lusting for more and more power
Ok, and? there is scandal in all of American history...name one president that didn't have scandal. I'll be waiting with your extraordinary exposition on the vague presidents where this general notion doesn't hold up: let me re-phrase: give me the piddling handful of presidents that didn't have major scandal, then explain how it's of import to this discussion: you enlighten me with your acumen.
1
-
No, you pay attention. You can tell me all you want [or he can tell me all he wants] about his legal argument, and how "it doesn't matter how one perjures himself", cause that is BESIDES THE POINT. I am not arguing that it matters: of course, legally, it doesn't matter, but you're butthurt about his perjury [thru your prying into his private life, thru Me Too allegations (or what amounts to that, at that time), making you a hypocrite, because certainly you are anti "believe the victim, believe the woman" mentality (or no? tell me I'm wrong about that)...]. Ok, I get that, that you're butthurt that he committed perjury. But the point stands: he was only impeached and not charged with any criminal penalty to his person, and didn't even step down as president, because there was nothing really that was a cause for the courts to proceed to jail him, as his perjury wasn't systematic, in a sense it was trifling. You only make it so big a concern because in retroactive condition you wish to belie more of the point of what we're seeing come to light now about inner-governmental operations: I understand that, you carbuncle of mass proportion: but I am still calling you out: a hypocrite: because with the perjury and then subsequent acquittal [he wasn't charged with a crime, but only impeached...why do presidents commit crimes, sometimes...ask yourself you silly silly person...just peruse your mind as to why they might do that...good God...], you can plainly see, his slight "crime" [being unwilling to admit to having an affair] was, quite literally, extramarital. You ONLY CARE BECAUSE HE IS A DEMOCRAT. Plain and simple. You are a party militant. Which makes you practically frothing over this: but here is the fact, the froth comes from the fact that he's a Democrat, he did things that if a Republican did you would either not care at this point [seeing as the dialogue nowadays is not about Jesus Jesus Jesus but about MAGA, which induces the sense of patriotic liberty, the American pride for justice THRU FREEDOM [the Freemason idea, of olde, because they became "progressive"], nor would you care if Trump is found guilty of perjury, and yet, nothing occurs and is acquitted [fingers crossed]. The fact is you just look like a hypocrite all the way, if you would endorse this view that Bill Clinton by way of his sordid affair was so criminal as to belay the notion of your hypercritical stance against "Demonrats" in the realm of pure hyperbole, irrational skepticism ["is water wet?"], and simple REFUSAL to take responsibility for the DENIGRATION of the Republican and Democratic ideals of an American Representative Democracy: and what's worse is what is to come if you all don't start realizing what is at stake, what is going to happen: it's worse than even the most prescient conceptions of war-faring: it is the overtaking of the rural by domination of the metropolis, the neoliberal attrition thru immigration, "safety", and capitalist mechanisms of international CEOs and shareholders of major banking firms and families [essays can be written on these factors, and how they culminate to the simple truth of Marx's predictions (but not his overall theory), which is attested to be Spengler [on the right] and Evola [independent political thought], and not just "the left" [which has evolved, no longer a clash between anarchists and "crude communists", but is now a "post-left", which can only be understood as a developing trend towards Mutualisms of different sorts, Localisms, ect. Sto-gap procedures for socialism and it's incursion: alot of which stems from the socialization of society itself, and it's paradigmatic tendencies towards orientation and direction from the State apparatus: we know these things now: but you people really have got to step up your retention and learn your conspirology [look it up] and history. Stop coming at me with this basic stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nikm5628 A: Vaccines don't prevent contraction of the virus, and do not cease viruses' mutations into other variants.
B: The vaccines were rolled out too late to prevent delta from spreading, meaning more chance that it could become resistent to the current vaccines.
C: I am not concerned what you think about me, I am not a troll, or antivax, or antimask (hell no). I am, however, concerned about the politization which is leading you people into putting out bad information, and to addressing zero matters in regards to the facts about the rush because of novel exigence of the situation (which people like you ignored for months in 2019...I didn't. I locked down), and the facts of possible serious side effects with the vaccines, and also, the lack of care for said politization. Now, like I said...if you want to not be a hypocrite, that is...get the vax now, or you are 'irresponsible'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reactionary
Not "reactionary", Piers...reactive. REACTIVE. Two different terms, Piers. TWO. Yeah, I see what you are doing there, but hold the phone a minute...a TWEET from years ago...is this not a bout of cancel-culturing? Right HERE on your show, from you yourself? And Dennis adamantly agrees to THIS PARTICULAR instance of cancel-culture...people are hypocrites, Piers. People can hardly remember what they had for dinner a week ago, let along what tweet was made years ago in a bout of cancelling...like you have displayed, here, on accident, perhaps...but nonetheless.... [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blah blah blah I'm Styx, I lie constantly
Yes, yes, Styx. Ok. But there was a "pipe-line". There are nazis-followers everywhere, and they are all parroting the same bullshit, and you won't address it...cause you are concerned about YOUR money. That's the ironic part, here. Now, is it as overblown as some people make it out to be, no...does it exist...? yes. Yes, it does. Just go on Gab. Tons of nazis there, trying constantly to self-promote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juhman Yeah, but they are still potential revolutionaries [which I think is what was suggested, and so you're quibbling over hardly anything much of distinction: but even if you were, the distinctive difference is minimal, at best]. Proletariat in the Marxian sense of the term is adopted from the same term for a certain class status, not based in a purely Marxist sense of the "working wage-earner" class [wage-based slavery], but instead that of a "lower class" based on their demerit as "belonging" to no one, so was considered "property" to the sovereign [as children are considered, as "property" of the parents: hence the name "proles"]. The terms have changed, but the meaning is still the same: peasants, were, and are still, in effect, part of the revolutionary class, because they are in the same precarious situation as even the petty bourgeoisie [consumerists, in the modern sense]; and they have more to lose, because they are outside of the city limits [most of them, as it were], and by now, most people who aim to live as such live the lives as like the bourgeoisie: and are bourgeois: hence the terms have changed, yet the meaning stays the same. Or rather, to be more precise, the "usage" has changed, while the terms are used slightly but albeit, only slightly, differently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Any Rand predicted
Something long predicted by the original accelerationist, Marx. Class struggle is tantamount with "bio-power"; just differentiated by the aspect of a back of "biology", in Marxism, which is probably to it's fault, seeing as it's totally structural and yet also eschatological, and sociological, as well, and logical, and ultrarational (which is way it makes for such virtual-fodder, and complicates things as much as it set the tone for not only totalitarianism in it's abstract, with the absolutising fascists, and national socialist Germany, in it's reflection), and also gave way to some actually 'decent' social institutions like the "minimum wage" and eventually the "pension fund" [securities bonds, which is a hijack]. You should realise as an occulturalist, Styx, that Ayn Rand predicted something any anthropologist worth his salt could have predicted, and/or any historian worth his salt. Ayn Rand is of a certain "tradition" but this "tradition" had read Marx and had to read Marx [as did everyone else at that point in history]. Hayek, remember, an admiring savant, mind you, helped to fund the juntas in Chile via the Mont Pelerin Society. Recall what happened then...and how the homogeneous [for all intents and purposes] Chile went from pure anarcho-capitalist funded idealism, at-bottom, to a socialism, and most successful one...begs the question, why is it one of the sum few states successfully "socialised"? because it's social ends that needs be met, not social needs of any other sort, not social causes, and not social patterns, necessarily, but social ends — outside "self-reliant" organisation — that is unless one wishes to see the other end of rocking "spirit" thru the wake of history — unless of course one wants to see the rise of corporatism. In the end, it is a choice between state-management, and state-worship [after the nation worship], or a self-management and a racial [or civic national, for America] deviation, at least for the mean time, and then, orient to socialism: that's the best anyone can hope to achieve.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism is only a stepping stone to misery
And yet it's what you all are trending towards, "nationalism", then socialism thru your various groupings, racial, religions, or otherwise, as you all tend towards groups, especially on the right: on the left, groupings happen almost by way of incursion, but that's only due to the spread of liberalism and Capital. Nationalisms are just waning and waxing riverbeds of socialism, and then on the left, "social democracy". "Socialism", as an idea, is one thing; as a "reform" or insurrection and revolution, is another. And Marx did reveal the inclinations towards social ends and resources [economic] made those ends most exigent in the formation of many orders of whatever creed or custom abounds. It's certainly true for Trump Populism, as you keeping alluding to him as the "Money President", right? Marx is a theorist you didn't even read, or if you did, you just glistened with your rankled fists, hackles raised, because you are American with deeply installed "roots".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KazuyaMithra Communism doesn't fix anything unless it's global. That is why Communism is really a moral system to stay within a a "social" paradigm [to put it simply]. Social, meaning, national [ie. national bolshevik, "populist unionism", which came out of the Narodniks (that is, the populists in Russia: Russians are weird sometimes); China, cultural revolution were by nationalist Chinese, against imperialist Chinese, etc.]. Trust me, the imperial thing rings true. Even the concept of fetishization rang true IN the COLONIAL PERIOD [and only then, because since America & Europe has switched gears from that, they've been instilled with a liberal attitude, have they not, about "former colonial nations"...?]. Now, Marxist theory that doesn't at the notion of "recognition" within the field of studying reification [so, no, no "biopower" and intersectionalism: that is all "form" and no substance, if injected with some substance it can explain peoples behavior, though]. And Marx didn't predict Russia, or China, as they were peasant countries: he figured the bourgeoisie would piss people off enough that class consciousness would kick in [which it kinda already was, see Proudhon: but Marx came up with the historical materialist dialectic (mirrored fancifully in, say, books like "Guns, Germs, & Steel", only in a more anthropological than historical register)...this dialectic was what Marx said was "standing Hegel on his head": now, I think there is alot of prescience to the concept altogether, the supervenience of the superstructure and base...as a poststructuralist [in terms of linguistics, as such, and signs], this makes alot of sense. But as a Traditionalist, and constructionist, I can see where people fault it. It's outmoded. It's not actually as "wrong" as people make it out to be. Even Engels' marxian anthropology is panning out, in the study of ethnic cultures which evolved ages ago, by the by. It is extremely prescient, but it doesn't cover everything, it doesn't out-do Hegelian modes of thought (which there is a left-, and a right-wing, mode of Hegelian thought that follows Hegel), it doesn't out-do Kant, though might just match him, so to speak. And when it comes to right-wing thought, even contemporary, it all comports to Marxian theory [classical, not necessarily it's incarnate forms afterwords, or "orthodox marxism"]. "Thingification" was the talk of people in crisis of the modern world [Marxian term], peoples being 'overcome by machines', Heidegger, Evola, Kaczynski, et al., at all ends, it's been in line with the same mode of crisis interpreted by the aforementioned people, and guess what...it doesn't stop there. Accelerationism is not something tended to know about before recently [nor comprehend the philosophical or critical implications of], and it got took from the world of academia, to the world of the internet, then to the world of madmen, real politicks, and NOT someone who would be connected to the academic side, clearly! as it would be people who would be considered "leftist"...but alas, point being, we're all talking about the same thing here. No one is "100% right". Marx wasn't right about everything, as I already have clearly indicated.
1
-
@KazuyaMithra Somewhere along the line, these lines get crossed not really in Marx's thinking but alas in the management of his thought process by the school of orthodox marxism: case in point: fetishization is mismanaged because of a very vague reason I'd have to think on how to reason on, later. It has to do with people's representation of themselves, their recognition. At odds with certain trends and their ends [and means], groups, races, people, try to "find" the recognition in the world around them [they project, as well], and they find only social ends, and ends to themselves [individualized representational subjectivity]. At some point this creates a representation [or reification] that 'hangs together' so to speak. This creates the ideals [and idealisms; trends of ideas and their ideals], by way of this "Idea" [or representation] which is reified, and then is concluded in action & reaction {which by and by creates an equal and opposite reaction}. So with this [in a nutshell], people deign to want their representation to be that of the past [antiquarian], or there are those who deign to reap the representation of the present [authoritarian], and then those who deign to wish of the representation of the future [totalitarian]. After Marx's time, and after the "revolution failed", I think it's save to say, people took things the wrong way.
Everyone, Hitler, included, responded to Marx. They had to read him and understand him, someway, to do that.
1
-
@OffGridInvestor Shut up, I don't believe any of those things, you stupid idiot. Marx differentiated crude communism [it's crudity] from enlightened communism [principals, extending to the ends of the proletariat struggle]. I'm not even a Marxist, per se. I'm more of a non-Marxist, than a Marxist. I do think Marxian theory [from the classical school of thought] and don't ascribe to Trotsyism or Leninism or Maoism. The NATURAL ORDER is something you couldn't tell me, I don't think. You don't even seem to realize that 'bureaucracy' stems out of 𝖑𝖆𝖜: and government stems out of the people in your own republic.
This "left-wing", "right-wing" thing is just a dubious contention. Two differing ideals of utopia. Two different representations of an ideal world. That doesn't even make sense. Races, groups and social ends, make up the divide. Not "left-wing" and "right-wing" — these are collections of all philosophies — bifurcated at two extremes, which end-on-end, stand for opposing forces of how to reach the same central 𝕴𝖉𝖊𝖆, and foothold, and political ressentiment follows. All this is amaterial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's around here 10:33 that you can really feel the palpable disdain in Styx. And that feel, is a feel I know. And he's right. People are literally allowing themselves to get buttfucked, metaphorically speaking. They will continue to well into much of this "good fight", because no one "side" is really seeing the massive problems eventually heading their way, they want to keep their heads in the sands, sort of like with the notion of pandemics...what of economic collapse, overpopulation [not space-wise, but resource-wise...leads to governments "migrating" people to other more well-off nations], and the reality of politicos and corpos [and journos, too!] complicit in forming a coalition in the on-coming socium? borders? pfftt, still gonna be an issue for decades to come. Wheee! I wonder how long the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will keep hemming and hawing to allow the pelf of the wizened corporations to be kept in coffers of lies.
1
-
1
-
These "conservatives" have their kind of redistribution. Eventually socialism will come...and to prevent it, they will fascisize or proletarianize. Give another couple presidential runs- unless the US does become more imperialistic ["more" meaning, actually imperialistic- they aren't as of right now]. And then people will be singing a tune like "we should be more like the US in England", but just not any of the social aspects- which will change, surely, if this is all done- and then people [again, for he will be a propounding volk, just the same] will misapprehend more about historical trends, etc etc. Eventually people will have to fight over various issues, immigration, being one of them, religious tensions rise, in accordance- then you'll see continued support of the consolidation of the new silk road along India and Saudi Arabia, into China- China will be the main hurdle in consolidation, and will probably be a potential spark point for war- Russia won't follow suit however, and there will be rising tensions with them, as well. All being people need to greed. It's very circumspect of CEOs to tend to people so "honestly", because, they know what they want. They aren't dumb. That's why they're the big dogs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry but the long and short of is this...these fucks are future commies. No seriously. They insist everyone "pick up the slack" "for society" and they to hell with people's wants, desires, entertainments, even. No, you're born and raised to "get to work", and anything else isn't "real". Uhh...that's commie talk. Oh and it's not just the "Trads" that are sometimes homophobic [even if that's senseless], it's also the socialists...they are not very nice people. Long history of such behavior. Of course, in the contemporary form, you see a bunch of people feign some kind of offense over racism [certainly] but also homophobia, but really, they are the selfsame hyperfocused on the details of people's lives, so....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:00 -- This is supposed to be what one is supposed to do...even in Christianity, intrinsically, one is supposed to have a "personal relationship with Jesus", not some dogmatic one. That's the whole point. People...are sometimes slow. Islam, also, has it's individualist mystic side that is very much so against the dogmatic forms the religion has taken in the course of History. PS: Getting it. Nice title, by the by. I've been doing constructive alchemy for awhile now, since coming across this channel, and it...it's a good spiritual practice, and philosophy. It helps me be creative in a world that doesn't exactly value, subjectively, my creations- that which is what drives my purpose in life. PPS: Companion piece? Noice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Communism, "Marxism", "Cultural Marxism" [as opposed to a more orthodox one- which is just more insurrectionary reactions to Marx & Engels- whom the latter is now thoroughly lambasted], then you will say you're a minarchist but [as others so foolishly lambaste libertarianism] then you'll lambaste localists and municipal libertarians as "anarchists", which are tantamount to "communists", even if they are in no way, shape, or form. And then there is Marxian theory, which has nothing to do with an -ism, per se. The hoi polloi is selfish, and meandering too, if that is your underlying point, Styx...sure they are. But they are also misinformed...they are misinformed by certain knowledge that scares them or irks them enough as to where they must deny any issue exists where they wish not to see it [or they will decline into a barbarianism, a cut-throat type of reaction...always.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bow to them, no, bow to capitalism
Yes, and witness the further dissolution of all culture, race, and creed. Hey, it got us here already, so let's just indefinitely praise it as if it didn't, just say we did, and so we can repress the notion that "we did this to ourselves, whoops!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps LGBT+ is a good bedrock for more pacifism (in a country where with the projected force it's capable of, and the training given to it's military, has possibly, even probably, the greatest military the world has ever seen, and the most materiel to use). BUT, the more people who've opted to accept the LGBT+, have opted to accept a way of life, or walk of life, that is inordinately American, individual, and free: it's saying "my little life, I want to enjoy it, and I want to have my own, my partner, and be LEFT ALONE". Only, there is no tie to Biblical narrative, no tie to any other procreative narrative, no "exigency" to go to war. Just pacifistic. You can see this in certain strains of feminism, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:50 -- Like the wee-wa-wee-wa
Ok, no, Styx, let me explain...it's really, what it is, is that........they want money, and they have nothing better to do than do what they are doing: furthermore, there is only two directions to go from here: "socialism" [whatever type] whereas you see people opting for more "social" focus [either on the left, or on the right, and here's your "fascist" connection: which has it's own convolutions, but I digress: the other direction is consolidating nations thru other means: another "fascist" connection is that the EU resembles a denigrated form of what is essentially a "fascist" supernational front, and Russia, as of now, are following suit in this "fascist" ideation, at least we can see their latest ceremonies being given a very imperial look and feel, with the various insignia [see my avatar, as it's format, the double-headed eagle type, though, was used in the ceremony], just as Trumpism and populism is gaining support and then seeing it sort of dovetail into a spiral of populist neoliberalism [hypercapitalism] mixed with a populist protectionist concept involving the notion of autarky, though this is only mostly rhetoric: so this is why the news is talking about this shit the way they are...and you the way you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Absurd, managers, businessmen, exploitation
Cultural vulture capitalism, world-federalism, destruction of national heritage, inculcation of "multiculturalism", all of these are critiques by "Marxists" towards capitalist society. Racial tensions...social democracy cropping up, consistently leading to disastrous results from not only crude communist regimes but then also right-wing reactionaries against "liberalism". What say you about this, Peterson? Know how a business works -- Well, learn to understand Marxian theory. It's not an economic system [classical Marxian theory is not orthodox Marxist theory], it's a critique, first of all; secondly if you knew how business works, you'd see the above mentioned trends as possible only thru the system of capitalism and "liberalism", that is, even from a right-wing perspective [conflations abound of ideologies and their histories, duly noted]; thirdly, Marxian theory is not simply a critique of "business" [not at all, and that overlay is silly], it is a critique of human nature: read about the concept of "false consciousness" ["Inner warfare with your self" -JP], and the concept of Capital as a mechanism which leads to the not only depressed wages of man, but the flattening of him, as well, into a mechanistic component. Both right-winger reactionaries, populists under Trump, and left-wing or even post-left "ideologies" are all "trumpeting" about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You'd be deluded to think it was so simple. Who owns what? is it the left? what is the left? can it be said that it is one thing or another, along the wake of History? I'll tell you who owns what...there are no anarchists who owns the institutions. Communists? yeah, maybe in China, or certain Luxemborgian EU influences, Eurocommunists -- do they run the institutions, yes, but only along with those houses which are, for all intents and purposes, "conservative". You need to do a bigger reading of History to even bother contemplating it, reading some book someone told you was propaganda, is serving a confirmation bias- I can't say you are totally wrong, but just vehemently lacking the aptitude to understand the concepts regarding the trends in academia, and Historical trends regarding philosophy and the worldview as existential versus one as a co-option to the governments, already- viz a viz the church, the banks, and the Hohenstaufen. What about the Kraftkorps or Freikorps? or the Okrana? how about the aristocracies fall into the Soviet Empire, in Russia? direct ties to France finance. Alot of the so called "right-wing" have had direct ties to communism? why?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Example: Adorno - instead of attempting to foster respect for black music, instead disdained it- Critical Theory has a hate-boner for capitalism, sure- indeed- but to conflate them with "Cultural Marxists" is still wrong- they have Marxist views established, but they a: disdain postmodernism [ which mars the whole thesis of the OP] and b: as Marxists they do not consider cultural a "good thing" hence Cultural Marxism isn't espoused by them- they consider it, like most things, an 'excess spillover of capitalism' [would be a brief and pithy exposition of their views]. Cultural Marxism is espoused more by Eurocommunists, which obviously still hold Marxist views. Alot of right-wingers hold Marxist views- only ones that are not totally ensconced on an Objectivist point of view- see National Bolshevism and other brands of Nationalist-Anarchic, et al, movements whom may not ascribe to the total notion of a marxist/communist mode of production or governance, per se, but nevertheless prescribe an accelerationist methodology. And those who aren't prone to accelerate one way (Marxism) are certainly apt to the other way (Dues Vult, Reactionaries, ect) -- any sitting on any fences simply resolves into a socialist/fascist type dictatorship (so it seems-- whether a Third Position or no), and resolves to emancipate land and resources from nations around them, or, they are considered Social Democrats and Centrists.
LOL, sorry but some really undefinable [within the context OP provided] subtext about "right-wing bad" is not found in that book. The book is clear some exposition (reactionary as well, after Hitler) to define why Ethnocentrism occurs, in EUROPE, of all place, the most densely packed fuckfest of a study in chaos theory, since, O, just the Dawn of Man. LOL -- you people are, sometimes, too much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Isn't that communism
No. You have a warped and ultra hyper expanded idea of what constitutes Communism. And an American style bathroom would be "free" wouldn't it? liberty-driven? no? Styx...you should read and answer this instead of reading this, knowing I'm insuperably right, and slinking away. Just lay eyes on this comment and bask in it's rightness, then tell me I'm right. You know I'm right. Communism...no...LOL, NO, you can just take any random thing and rave about it being communist, LOL. Yeah, dude, have like indie bathrooms, that's totally manageable, Styx... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL; yes, indie bathrooms, super liberty-driven and free, and also not doable by any managerial standard of operation.
1
-
1
-
It was said once that stupidity would rule the world. That saying was not wrong, apparently. I can't laugh though. Maybe years ago, sure...now...well....After looking at why the world is as stupid as it is [and limiting it to a "loose change" kind of outlook, which is overly simplistic; although not too far off] -- I can't find it funny- but I do find the humor, itself, funny. Gotta get some laughs while you can- the situ, however, is like...off in the red-zone, off the scale even, bad. Trump wasn't even the start of it, but he might be the crux unto the end. As I've said, he might be the Great Mirror.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, but is Fascist and Communist "the same", Styx. Been seeing a lot of your podunk backwoods SK-ghouls calling fascism and national socialism leftist without a hint of nuance, sincerity, intellectual vigor, historical knowledge [and thus, rationale for their conclusions], nor theoretical understanding of anything outside of "America 'right-wing' mean capitalism, arf arf". So they call it leftism...lol, wishy-washy crap that they claim leftists do, manipulating language and such. "Socialism is in the name, so it's socialism", but how? Hitler differentiated "Marxian socialism" of the democratic means from his idea of the racial weltanshuaang, two totally different senses of what it means to be "socialist" and how to get there. And Fascism, well, it's close enough to socialism that it's easy for morons to sneak this tergiversations about "fascism being leftist" being that fascism takes "social relations" to be paramount, even in regards the economy, and the state. Most of you people don't even know how to really differentiate these terms, you just "utter" things, and hope if you repeat it enough times, that it sticks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx, if only you weren't such a goof. "Muh Hitler, Muh Stalin". Shut up. You wanted excitement with Trump, 'chaos', nothing more...and you got it. Morons like you, literally believe that you would have been better off "doing nothing" when it comes to the various forces that reside at the anterior of our decisions and our choices. It's a silly "strategy" [non-strategy] that ends up putting the hook further down people's throats. Occultism didn't help anything there, not with your "libertarian" ideals, not with anything else. It's a system of understanding that goes beyond the typical, but you're making it suited for the typical, by trying to mix it up with politics. Stupid. [Youtube, fuck off....]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terminsane You people all say that and I find it contentious, at best. First of all, to note: if we look at what comes FIRST in anything, it is a social end [in my opinion], not an action, because the act of thinking precedes the act of doing, and there is a middle ground where between the thinking and doing there is a reification of social ends, which befits the inclination [the incentive] and drive to goal-oriented action; otherwise, action comes from nowhere, and that is absurd to posit that actions come from nowhere, when we know they come first and foremost from thought, and that which internally drives us to do things, to desire, and also drives us to hunger. Secondly, as a matter of philosophical weight: If capitalism is at-bottom the foremost foundation for mankind, then sociality is there as well, in the comportment of capitalism, and as a town dweller, truly, he is first to come last and from the last to come first, seeing as the social animal is the individual, whereas the capitalist animal is at odds with total self-sustenance, as he needs a market place for his ideal to be actual. A virtual "capitalism" might exist for someone who says they "capitalize" on grabbing fruit from a tree, but we both know that that is just word-play, and not really the actual form of the concept Capitalism. This kind of thing, Capitalism, is a collective act [in other words, it is global]. If this IS the case: then there is no individualist capitalism that isn't completely self-reliant, hence, no disjunction from point a to point b, et al, in terms of this self-reliance, and there is no turning point from this self-reliance even when it's group-oriented: a non-self-reliant capitalism is not "purely" individualist: an interdependent capitalism is social: collective capitalist action is global.
1
-
@terminsane All you are considering is how socialism [in your mind] operates as globalism. From the ground up, you have the say: '[W]herever a people or a race is conceived as entirely gifted with its own rationality and capable of direct appreciation of ethical and social values, it is evident that the function of the State in its organizing, educating, and dominating function from on high, must be more or less disowned. And once again a meeting point between racism and Socialism is verified, even if it be as "national" Socialism: an armed community which wishes to be free, which at bottom does not tolerate any hierarchy, which is united in its exploitation of common goods [resources], which posits the group before the individual and gives to itself its own laws according to the exigencies of its life. Thus, we hear the declaration: "The State does not create law, but formulates it only, administrates it, expresses in the form of the law that which is recognized as right, and whose origins stand however in the consciousness of the race". The distinction between positive and customary law is removed...' - Julius Evola
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, I make that distinction in my video on Postmodernism, saying that Post-Structuralists often get conflated with being "postmodernists" even if they only are in some self-prescribed or pre-prescribed fashion. Like Foucault, ok...is he really Postmodernist? I mean, if I look, on Wikpedia or any other source, there is no mention of Postmodernism; only in this silly article from "Powercube" written seemingly anon, where right off the bat "...the French Postmodernist..." No he isn't. This person who wrote that article just ASSUMES....and if/when Foucault claims it, then i'll change my mind, but that's besides the point...so we are basically on the same page, you and I, Iam Bob...by the way, are you Security Of Mainframe Bob...or...?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1: This is stupid as fuck.
2: The indian guy was close enough to the Covington kid that I bet he could practically smell his narsty breath- hence the smirking nod. Like yeah, you right. But that indian was not right.
3: Smollet point was, as it were, 'on point'. This "debunks" this whole fiasco as a bunch of junk. But they'll do this anyway and it'll be stupid.
4: I have had no subs lost- but then again I'm a nobody with people who, for all intents and purposes, do not necessarily surf, as it were...my channel page. So that's strange, it's almost like you have to be "somebody" to have things removed from your account, like subs, for example. Huh. Not at all that weird, it's not like they are targeting people or anything.
>.>
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
she was hit by the car. It's the only explanation of the observed events
No. You and Styx are wrong.
Did you miss the bit where the car drives through the crowd? You can't simply assume she wasn't hit, because we know that other people were hit!
No one is assuming anything, people have SEEN the evidence. She dropped. Dropped as in 'wasn't hit', but fell to the ground suspiciously, as if the event was too much for her and her heart just exploded, killing her instantly, as would be the case with such an infarction. Mother admitted to it, and said that that is what killed her at the scene. These reports of "blunt force" trauma, where are you people getting this stuff? Direct communication with God, or do you have inside sources, or what? Cause everywhere that even claims this nonsense admits that her manner of death has not been revealed- so what they are going on is word of mouth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I had been given a rip-roaring amount my first time trying it, and met God. No, literally, a God, like that spoke to me in big bold lettering, and gave me like this meaning to my life or something which was ___________, yeah, literally, just a big blank space; then I cried for what seemed like forever about it, and this overwhelming sadness that came along with it all- then I popped out of time distortion, and was still standing where I last was only I had unclasped my hands from the countertop I was leaning on before I entered into Salviaspace for what seemed like lifetimes on top of lifetimes...yeah...it's strong shit, be careful when meeting big booming but voiceless letter Gods. (PS: The trip wasn't even over yet, though...coming back, I was in a big circus tent and a ringleader brought me to a big game wheel...otherwise known as A TABLE. LOL) (It was great. Psilocybin is the shit. LSD is the shit. Don't do drugs, kids.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nothing to do with Russia
Yes, but these are two different stories, no one knows why you are conflating Russiagate into this...other than the fact that we know you feel really strongly about it, but...it has nothing to do with Trump's tax returns, and never did. His business ties in Russia aren't what should be honed in on; just the fact that the US HAS to expect outside "influence" in regards their own elections, because the US is...the center of the world, for all intents and purposes, Russia, in second, China, in third [or arguably, visa versa]. That is all this means. Yes, this goes towards the notion that the dems are "morons", as it were, as they keep arguing as if Russia shouldn't "interfere", which is laughable [on many levels].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most conservative parts of the world is Switzerland, The Netherlands, Scandinavia, Austria and Germany
Oh you mean those nations with socialised healthcare, and lesser gaps in wealth inequality? Surely, a lot of gold stocked over the years, helps.
And finally free stuff is not communism. Ask anyone living in a communist county how much free stuff they're getting
Yes, and you know what is totally "communism"...globalist capitalism. Didn't you know?
Conservative social security as designed by Otto von Bismarck that's free stuff
Yes, every time social democracy rears it's head, nasis go bonkers, sort of like how Americans do.
1
-
They don't have "socialized" anything. They have WELFARE
That's what morons like colloquially call "socialism" when it's you that have to pay for it. Too bad that that's the way the economy works in the US, since you guys broke off from the welfare of the establishment of your past. Enjoy that no "welfare" for yourselves, considering you'll fight the process of achieving such a system in the US tooth and nail, moron. =D
Bismarcks name for social programs not run by the church. Having a well functioning capitalist economy with many small businesses does help stacking up the gold needed to pay for welfare
Oh how naive. A functional capitalist system that stays in country...like European countries di- oh wait, they didn't.
A functional market where stuff is affordable also helps paying for it
And as the system, globalised, puts money into smaller and smaller sets of hands, it's called "socialism" by you morons, when really, it's just capitalism, in action. Factions of corporate sponsors, and consolidation, nothing more. But you're a moron. I wouldn't expect you to understand this concept.
Yes I know a lot about communism. I used to call myself one. Until I became serious enough to read the litteraturen. Globalism is a core part of communism and has nothing at all to do with capitalism. Capitalists and conservatives HATE globalism
Yes, and leftist hate tankies, too, but that doesn't solve the problem of capitalism being a first globalised, then later, global-IST affair, between all nations, and lo and behold the "communist" states [not Marxian states, but Engelsian states] falter, and socialists in South America, falter, to capitalist endeavor, you wonder how and why things centralise the way they do [by faltering systems? think about it, moron]. Think about leftist nationalism [Chinese-style socialism, Soviet Union...Chile funded by the Mont Pelerin society, a libertarian/liberalist think-tank group].
Social democracy is based on Bismarck's conservatism
And in come the nationalist savants to save the day from social anything!
And National socialism is social democracy mixed with socialism
Social things are gross, let's focus on open capitalism instead.
The national socialists pretty much copied the Swedish social democrats which Hitler deemed superior to other branches of social democracy. He were specially impressed by the Swedish Racial Biological Institute and their program to sterilize people that were not considered well adjusted
Ahh, time for the obsequious requests to sterilize the "non-well adjusted". Maybe we should do that for the alt-right, too.
Although Hitler adding socialism to the mix obviously broke the German economy in a few years. There were no one left that could produce tax revenue and the entire system collapsed
He also wanted to "stop ze Jews", and capitalism. And capitalism is "pro-social democracy" you say, huh? Go tell that to Styxhexenhammer. lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong political beliefs
Well, here's why. You live in a capitalist world. This world, being capitalist, engenders civil society...you people are too hard-headed to grasp this...so your politics are becoming outmoded. And this is being seen, not only by "the far-left", but also, by corporations. And the government, under Trump, would have to of course sabre rattle now, with China, cause that's all that "Conservatives" can do...enact various processions of hypocrisy, because they do not value "US values", of classical liberalism, anymore. Civil society is anti-"right", and thus, the "right" [it's vapors] finds itself in a conundrum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Problem is most people who graduate from an 8 year institution come out dumber than when they went in. That is what I am saying
Good point. I agree. The pyramidal system of education aims to push you out quickly while young, and put you into a diagonal temnic "meritocratic" [not truly, as it is not "vertical" but it's diagonal] hierarchy, where nepotism rules, and where, alas, at any rate, one has to prove themselves in several unrelated fields, and whatever interrelation is found, these headers aren't consolidated, leaving a huge latency in the differentiation of positions within the professional STEM fields, etc. Farming is of import, and sure, you can say you learned more from a farmer than a teacher...it shouldn't be that way, obvious. I think, and it seems to me, that there are 'work-arounds' to this, that people find, they tend to succeed, but it's because they are clever enough to find these work-arounds, which still end up being perturbing to those involved, as it takes up their time, energy, and incentive [drive].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marxism just says a: poor people suffer more than the rest and are used for their labor, and b: production is usurped by land-owners, corporations, and governments, and the workers become more and more like machines in the great operation which they serve under, against their will, or, when in happenstance they will their own oppression, then thru the machinations of their own dissolution into automatons. -- Unfortunately, this is just going to happen...willy-nilly...unless people comprehend that there is a way to move forward without objectifying ourselves for the sake of those who would defy us at all odds, whether spiritual, or material.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The material exigence calls for vacc., but nevertheless, you people are denying to yourselves, and your audiences (you, Kyle), that the outcomes of the mandate will be that some people will be having a bad time (with ill side/after effects, heart issues, is the actual cause of most the concern, that and blood-clots, rare, but of vital concern for patients), and you don't really care (to inform them), because of the expedience towards said exigency. And that's just sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:00 - Thank you, for saying that. It's true. It's very much so. I've been telling people since the beginning, Trump, the businessman, isn't the end all be all. If anything, his Brain-Trust (us) are relatively speaking, more important. Although, Trump proves me position that, all things considered (ups and downs) the US gov works best as a business, not a government. But what's new...people thought just because Trump was "more business-like" that'd it'd solve all their problems. That is a conservatarded position, like I've said for the longest while. Even Sanderites...I mean, he couldn't even hope to play ball as well as Trump did!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
16:56 -- Oh yeah, power and control...must be sexually related....Nah...I think the other guy, before you [16:20] had it right, and you're just a strudel-noodle who is either placating an authority, or reserving your power of discernment and leaving the audience high and dry with no new knowledge: and you have the nerve to say "we know" he did those fires, when you don't even have the nerve to tell the audience why...why power and control? why sex? how does this work? the audience doesn't know, they don't have degrees in your jargon or psychobabble, nor the concept of Freudian analysis: which is decidedly anti-human. It's good though, for you, that the audience doesn't know that, because then it's all the better for everyone, right? -- What, was the dogs' killings sexually motivated, too? [...] "His distorted thinking puts patterns out...."And so does the disordered thinking of cronies, dupes, shills, and snake-oil salesmen alike.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A few seconds in i'm already LMAO. LOL, this is gold, Jerry! Gold! Hey, Woody...the witch hunts been on for awhile, already. Oh and these dicks already cover for someone else, it's all a show. The pizzagate thing, on some finite level, is really about just the overall scene of evil that is all around us. There are sickos in one's midst- I refuse to believe that this kind of thing is an isolated problem in Hollywood, or concerning only so few members of the elite in Hollywood. Yeah fucking right.
PS: Pettibone has made the best Styx thumbnail, ever, yet so far. Is that a fur scarf?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You take a nations' people, and you acclimate them to their environment [including late stage global capitalism], and if they are acclimated in such a way as to preclude certain distractions, you can have, by rote exam, the rank and file of many "smart" individuals, who otherwise would need to be able to be acclimated to also espouse those smarts in ways that are unique and not just rote problem solving for a state apparatus...because it will only use one for their bureaucratic necessity, and no growth but the most "stable" [non-existent] growth takes place, save under the guise of "consolidation" [immigration, increased international concern, etc.]....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But no, Bret is right. He explains it so well. He even agrees the pageantry is ludicrous seeming but still- what he is saying is, without those "insight roles" (iao to speak) people don't really have the "insight" (that is, in the masses- so it would seem) to fulfill the "errorcorrects" (inculcation) needed to keep society running smoothly- essentially because [and this is my own theory, to add on; but he addresses the exact consequences therein, only in a sympathetic way to his own theory], here's the thing...because people will in-fight. Like he said. Call it "meme-fighting". No...seriously. Yeah. And this fits right in with the notion of religion not being an evolutionary error. But he explains that part, specifically, very well, nuff' said. We accrued massive evolutionary advantage from religion, it's what we take that for granted- essentially is his point. But yeah...uhhh...star-chambers are shit. 27:16 -- Says you.
1
-
I've been in socialism
Great, so...wonderful...you were in socialism in some backwards country with some backwards "values" instilled in a probably, if at best, uuhh some holdover aristocratic powers and some leaders after certain uprisings [which proceeded said leaders, which sprang up later] which were rural and backwards, to be frank. That is to say, 'holdovers', they were holdovers. And we have a society that is growing...more guns isn't going to help, it's not a concern. It's the fact of rising political tensions that should be a concern because a: "conservatives" are confused about the nature of capitalism [they are literally spelling out their own doom, the doom of their "culture", but then blame "the left" for "globalism" and "communism" for "globalism" too, even though were the Soviets "globalists"? no. Capitalists are though], and b: because of the fact of the growing civil society, technologies, and integration of business and consumer well-being in the service-capital postindustrial world, they confused tech-capital for "leftists", when they don't comprehend they are capitalists and nothing more. They must want social-ism to have social means to have social ends met within a social relationship between action and reaction, to stop the "deep state", and yet because of their strict adherence to idiocy they simply hand over more of their culture to the wealth of the "elite" and as "illegal immigration" is stomped down on, hardly a dent is made in lieu of the concerns of the "right"-wing: so they will simply be swayed into further fascism: this is how the "ethnic" peoples' of American descent operate. With complete confusion for what a "social" regard is, in context with their livelihoods and with their ideals, and what is "capital" to THEM...at-bottom, where they want the "cronies" of capitalism to "cut them some slack". They won't. You know it. I know it. They will never know it. They are a lost cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have the right to see your lips
That is not a right enumerated in the constitution. I understand her plight though...but alas, it's not she that has to speak, Oh, I dunno...Hindi, or something...but everywhere else, what do you find but English, everywhere...I know why she's mad about this...because she has to deal with this lack of communication, and it just upsets her and makes her want to endeavor to make everyone as incommunicado as she thinks everyone else is, herself. Americans are going thru a real rough time right now...but just think of the poor "right"-wing, too, and how much they have to deal with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trashbandit2449 >The majority
Who? be precise.
>What about those who weren't sick, and their jobs
Yeah, I said with better and quicker action in planning [in response], taking into account clear exigencies, we could have had a clearer and better response. And what's more, a virus can't be reasoned with: decisions have to be made that cut-off of the transmission thru a pipeline of this virus [which is easy to see: from workplace, to public accommodation, to homes, this is how spreads of vectors of contamination mostly contract: and then from that chain reaction, you have community spread which is how the most people get infected in any area]. As it turns out some businesses might need a helping hand, for practical and for personal reasons: but you don't want to talk about that. But I know you want to say something like "China lied, people died" [a way to cover your ass], but it's already clear Trump has already done this, too [that is, the main dispenser of the proposition has been caught in the same action and motive, too: to prevent panic: what any State would do...but the US then proceeded to lie and live the lie for as long as it could, to save face]. You are being duped and there is only a virus to blame: unless someone wants to put into evidence something that is actually viably actionable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Around 50 minutes in, dude, you already alluded to mom and pop being driven out by Walmart, that's THE POINT! They consolidate, mom and pop suffers, they lower prices than the ALTERNATIVES which are SLIM TO NONE - THAT'S THE POINT! -- Then they can raise the prices afterwards, and in this system [demand-side economics, let's face it], these standardized and normative decisions are made component by component, tech-reproducible, to a T. Goodness...what a GREAT DEBATE, no seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You want to act like this is a humanitarian crisis...so does the state, hence, opting for fudging the numbers. They'll get blamed for everything, no matter, what...if the numbers were slightly higher or lower than what you expected them to be lying about, you'd have their head, so to speak. Since they already have a major fallout from this, of course they take this course of action, it's to prevent a panic, and possibly save more lives: also people operate differently, based on their culture: that's also a given. You don't really think this is a humanitarian crisis, do you? you think this is a 'numbers crisis', because you want those numbers to make a political point. True enough. But don't call it humanitarian. That's just nonsense.
The rest of the world uses
Yes, which is why traffic in and out of China should have been halted immediately...it wasn't, not from China's end, nor anyone's end. It's a fiasco due to monied interests.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Politics is a preventative to war [typically; or it's a economy-based coercion], and Styx's reasoning is "make politics less boring". What a literal gorm take. I think people really want less boring politics, but that's not gonna serve anyone's ends, Styx. If this is just a means of alleviating boredom, then why not go to war? it's not "boring", right? Such a specious take, it's just...I guess Styx is running ragged trying to not upset his fanbase, by rambling in and out about how "fun" the uprising is, when it's been nothing but a bumpy road, and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel. Steel jobs...wow...that won't last long. This all just a band-aid on an open wound, a stop-gap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Repressed
That's the keyword here, Styx, but why, you don't make an occult video on this? why? Oh Styx...why? But it's ok if...black people are just seen as "thugs"...meh, that "analysis" is good enough, I suppose. Let''s talk nothing of the circumstances people actually find themselves in...say, did you say once that you'd rather be some kind of vagrant or vagabond or something rather than work at a McDonalds [or a Target, for that matter], whatever, because like 'fuck that shit' [essentially]? And you can't talk about this shit now, right? ideology is king...let the words just fly and what will be will be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>I hate leftist economics so goddamn much
You are just an idiot, though, so why should anyone listen to you? You are basically just blurting out [idiotically, by the by] that "any sort of high taxes, and any sort of burdensome government is all leftism" -- Whoa, how far you have fallen from being truthful. All government is leftistm, practically, to you. But that's just not what these terms actually mean...well...they mean whatever you want them to mean, I guess...but you're a liar...right-wing politicians have proposed outlandish taxes, and have proposed systems of governance that you can't support [look at the Earn-It bill, remember?]. You are simply spreading malarky, Styx.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The first guy does have a point- what is the quote about? as a white guy, it's clear to me- intermixing is not a good idea, to a certain extent, ok, some can be invited into the fold, but otherwise, to a inauspicious extent, no, it's not good. Clear and concise would be better, however, sometimes, than obscurantism. But then again, were non-Jews meant to study the Talmud? probably not. [I bet this video gets worse from this guy, out.] The second guy, he speaks of Israel as Avalon, Laputa, etc...the Platonic City Of God. This is conflation to say this belongs to Jews. Some hasidim surely have "more human" qualities, but this does not pertain solely to Jews, and of course, most Jews do not belong to the class of hasidim that actually are aware of the true clause. Screw this second guy...it's probably going to get worse, isn't it?...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is an abortion, and then there is an "abortion". Demonizing abortion doctors, for one thing, meh, not my style...more of a religious thing [ though having abortions all the time like you are some kind of baby producing/recycling factory is disgusting in it's own right and is completely amoral, any person worth their salt can realize that ] -- this shit is nuts -- yes, people go to their doctors for help-- but not the "help" that let's you have no accountability, and that, as Jones says, usurps the law. And yes, Jones mouths 'baby' because notice, the governor didn't say baby, he made a linguistic diversion into "fetus" and thus subverted the questioning. Deceptive. Then he transitions to "infant". Sickening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Astr0C0w Plus, I already explained [literally with no foul language] how a litmus test works, and how Trump represents not a litmus test but a presidential leader, who's actions are the litmus test, because it is was literally his person, per se, then every president would be "the litmus test" and that leads to what you people all say you hate: "leftism": and when that's the case, it means that you either value the usurpation of a fair elective process, in lieu of a purely opposition-based platform [making as bad as your enemy, the dems], or you are just plain uncaring about the elective process as a "fair platform" of representing Americans on both ends of the aisle. This is what you are all turning into. And I just explained it: I explained it earlier too...but Youtube deleted it for some reason. Copy everything for good measure, I cause, cause Youtube will just delete that shit.
1
-
@Astr0C0w Hey, this is your second response to me. This new Youtube comments are crap, they deleted the first time I responded to this, so, when I called you an * [apparently] I was honestly responding to your comment, as if it were literally not reading me, which apparently it wasn't, because it was deleted [and I didn't even say anything naughty, I just explained what I had above, already, and had to re-iterate that second time- you're not an * though, I take that back. Other people though, they've been assess pretty much no matter how "cordial" I am]. Boy, these comments are now vastly more like twitter; no matter-Yes, I see your point about the nature of the impeachment that you don't like, elucidated in your comments about "serving the rule of the people" [essentially I'm paraphrasing], over "party politics" and making this impeachment under some kind of politicized and/or personal grounds. My point is also in lieu with Styx's messaging in this video, which he clearly states that "by design, the impeachment is partisan in nature, due to the fact of how the governmental procedure works, in general", as in to say that "this is not going to work any other way, anyway, and it's always partisan"--this is true. Then the rest of his messaging omits what I am elucidating about the fact of his embargo on sense and real "reasoning" due to his fetishization of the "globalized" [or just "global"] market and his distinct refusal to ground any of his videos in a logic that would elucidate anything beyond this axiomatic "reasoning", of his, whereby he follows the crowd, basically, most of the populist base: which he is clearly not telling everything to. But that's neither here nor there about the "litmus test" comment, that's just merely a poor wording, like you said. But it points out the connection to the political base that Styx is trying to sublimate or manipulate, and the accrual of monetary gain for he knows there is no other alternative: the next time it'll be more "reasoning" from this, and the time after, a more "populist" candidate comes along, and he'll be there for the ride too. I don't blame him. Look at everyone, they eat this shit up; probably cause they are so fed up: yet they always manage to forget that all these parties have been screwing them, not just one...but it works, see? Most are as bad as the socialists [the so called "anti-corporatist lobby who at once are slaves to corporatists, and capitalists, too, which they say they hate but seemingly don't], because you are still saying one thing and doing another, so, a "new American future" is what anyone can and must surely expect [and that can be either good or fucked, depends]. One under corporatists. This is all one or another band-aid on a gaping wound. That's the sad part. This virus going around is probably the worst timing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are mouthpieces of the medico-military industrial complex. You made it so people now can't even talk about their own experiences with this pandemic: instead of letting people talk about their exemptions, their maladies, etc., you were complicit in allowing the media apparatus to control this information. IVM is still being used pretty much everywhere outside of the western world. The only reason, again, being a "confirmation" of "low efficacy" which is not enough to "validate" it's use - would a fine enough conclusion if it were accurate - nevertheless, you sided with censorship and foist; all because it would be "dangerous public perception" to allow vindicating information about any trials or studies, the ethics of such medicine made forbidden to the public at large, because, mainly, some foolish people self-treated themselves with it and we can't have that. It's a catch 22. You are just missing it. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuckhoyle1211 And most conservatives, by the by, would love to distance themselves from the more religious parts of your "side", but you see, it's so inconsistent, that you can't even get that right: because you got trad-caths, natsocs who claim to be Christians...you ARE as CHRISTIANS a SOCIALITY unto itself: you identity as Christians, therefore A=A, only, that is, until you define it otherwise [oh that's liberal, that's this-that and the other thing: it's not x]. There is the Institute of Christian Socialists [because they understand the underlying concept, or, they are simply an outreach to the notions actually inherent to the Christian faith, specifically the New Testament, whereby the nominal classes are supposed to be lifted-up, as it were, from their abject misery]. There are Christian Communists. Just look it up. You are so out in the weeds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:37 -- Exactly. The perception is, right now, that everything is bad...well, this is the thing, it's BEEN BAD...only now it's more evident than ever. So what does the deep state cockmunchers do? They double down and promulgate the alarmism already MADE from the realization of how "bad things are right now", when it all stems from their own decisions and policies, by the by- all these presidents and senators and politicians- and then they try and blame Trump! more openly than anyone has ever been blamed for anything the past 50-60 years! Why? Because they finally don't own the system anymore! (that is, in it's entire, ie, temporarily; or maybe rather that it is as of right now a 'loose cannon, so to speak.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TV has been dead for along time now, and the "media", such as the news, is not even the main reason- but all of legacy news is foolish for their attacks on indie journalism- it's clearly hitting them in the wallet- too bad. Even the very very infrequent "good" journos (rarity to not be a partisan hack, as well, so...), to partake, it's basically...unethical. And stupid. But yeah, TV has been getting steadily worse even with the advent of things like AMC and stuff like Netflix...and yes, Netflix too. Just another "kind" of TV, I mean, the shows, the format, it's all the same shit- only you can pick and choose what you watch easier. Ok, but...so much crap to choose from, so, big deal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I use an indie bookstore...so there isn't any review system on their website or anything...so I review via Youtube video, Styx. I'll keep buying your work, if you keep putting out awesome reading material to brush up on, and collect for when the bomb drops..."it's ok, Son, i've got Tarl Warwick to help us through these black times". "But dad, who's carrying the fire?" "Styx is, Son...somewhere out in the Americas, somewhere in the forests and trees, somewhere without literary redundancy, there is a man with iodine and a patch of Rutabaga, collecting rain water, and conjuring demons to help build settlements...WE WILL FIND HIM."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pass to BLM
Yeah, and you...you Styx are giving a pass to your raving lunatic fringe who fawn over your utilitarian mouth-piece, instead of addressing anything in any even-handed manner. When re-tards when a protesting for "having to wear a mask", you said nothing...of course. Because this is a non-issue to you. But alas, no one should be traveling far and wide, to and fro, with this virus on the spread, but it's just the dumb luck of American policing that it had to try and fuck on someone during a massive struggle against what Trump had called an "invisible enemy" [aborted conveyance of speech for an aborted pretense of faith, that is, the only means to talk to the re-tards of the American "right" [which doesn't really seem to exist, consider you have people who call themselves "right-wing", and yet do not recognise strong nationalism as right-wing, but leftist, somehow, making the whole syllogism about "left and right" rather nil of import, considering it's seemingly only a bluff or some kind of trope, like a role in the dialogue went missing somewhere, call it God, or whatever, the notion simply remains, "how do we emancipate ourselves from plight of state-powers", never considering once the similitude to the call from below the masses who really desperately need help from their violation of self-ownership].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good vid. Separate yourself from the pack. People are out for blood, Styx. This is the problem: 1 v 1 is good, but people want blood (fun but not productive), and then people want dominance (and can't see the forest for the trees, in terms of the independent content.). PS: Playing Devil's Advocate works, crash course tactic. But works. No classes needed, just debate people online for a few years, one'll learn. PPS: Fuck it, my Dadaistic content is fine. Won't get popular though, but so what, there's less ready-made/"esoteric" content that's great, so there's a direct niche, that I like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Youtube just trying to make as much money as they can before they have to close up shop. Or, if they can, they hope that they can just make Youtube some crappy TV subsidiary, and just coast off that. But then their popularity will have to aborted by foist, manually, and it won't happen naturally. In this case, well...it would have to be done for the sake of entertainment, content, and reporting, everywhere. I mean, can one imagine a Youtube, as popular as it is, with nothing but Kimmel and the like? Basically, you might as well say "America? Nah...just the socium. Come one come all, and shoot a conservative!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Calling him a beatnik is really kind of an insult to Beatniks. I mean, at least they were the real hippies and not the fake assloads of them that turned out to be yuppies who are rather now our technocrats. Beatniks really did "tune out" at the most "right" available time in US history to escape the rat-race in what was and still is totally technocratically orientated business- sort of better idealists than Bernie, who wants to keep extricating wealth from a defunct system, as opposed to making it less defunct and more stable, - an aim of realism, as opposed to idealism, which can go sour without a moments notice. But there was a time...and is a time. I know, I'm being cynical, and kind of an idiot. I'm just saying, Beatniks, they...basically were American Sufis of their generation. I mean, hypothetically speaking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyone who thought "Trump is a business man, therefore, he makes the best candidate" is missing the point, heavily, of why Trump is effective, at the very least, and at the most, cannot see the forest for the trees. Trump is not the perfect businessman by most people's standards, on the left, or right. He is a confidence man, first and foremost. I said it before and I'll say it again: Trump's Braintrust Is You. You are the important factor here. Trump is just a vessel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They wanted to. They stated they wanted to. You are just hilariously full of shit. People wanted to "take what was their's" (the Capitol Building). They literally kept shouting it out. The crude commies that they are..."that's our building"...lol, but not any other American citizen...cause they Chinese agents or some ludicrous shit, and the Trump brain-trust are ambitious Americans, not trying to emulate storming the Bastille, at all. And that's at least true. These morons didn't really know what they were getting into, trying crudely to steal the building, which, if anything, belongs to all American taxpayers, by the logic employed to try and justify the storm (which is what they literally called it). Styx...lol who do you think you are fooling? Oh right...nothing but fools, here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm gonna take it from Sanders own mouth
You going to continue to lie and conflate facts because you are less of an intellect, and more of a propaganda swill-junkie. It's true that Sanders is more of a social democrat [though not totally]...this is lined up extrinsically with Marxism [although they are revolutionary, Sanders, is not], and this is lined up with the social-paradigm of a globalistic world, where nations are living inside-out other nations, with the pretense that their race or their own "folk" is more important, overseas, than anyone whom they reside with within a countries borders, because this is how capital flows operate in order to give a leg up to even the competitors of other nations, because of the intrinsic flow of capital, and personal savings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The dark ages" usually refer to the small ice age in europe during which there is very little written information available. There is no indication that some large scale "suppression and/or excoration of knowledge" took place during that time. In terms of intellectual development, it seemed to progress at the same rate as the immediate pre and post dark ages.
Indeed. You didn't need to explain that, you realize that many people understand this basic fact, and that it's right in the label "dark ages". You know what was suppressed? I'll tell you. Copernicus's heliocentric theory was suppressed and supplanted by geocentric "hogwash" (see: Bullshit) because people had 'theological concerns' (ibid), and yes, his books were banned, this is well attested to. Everything I said was true. I never said that the "dark ages" were as "dark" as you may have thought I had let on. You must know t 's a colloquialism, and like, it's like not needed to be reiterated so often that, yes, the label is like harsh buzz, bro; but still...these things, even in their 'moderate happenstance' DID happen -- so did lots of killings and stuff over other bullshit- other "suppressing" of, well, frankly, other religions doing all the same thing. So....yeah. =\
PS: You might notice my phrasing was a play-on-words parsing what Tonixxy was saying...if all of the above examples did what they did, and he did comparing "those dark ages" with the one in reference by Styx, then i am was just exemplifying to him why it's called "dark ages". It's just a label...you could also say it was just "hard to read"...but that's especially so cause things were banned, and such. You know how many times people say "it was not even dark" completely trying to foist the notion that there was "no darkness" with this red herring of "not as violent as you think" (apologea), whilst trying to forgo the obvious nuance? Darkness obviously implies, like you said, the lack of recorded knowledge...but then again, it's even more than that you know, as I already explained, but you see why the term exists...some people seem to wanna act like they don't. And here is reason enough, but still- once more, we do have two ways of looking at things here....on the broad stroke, it's just a lack of information...on the small-scale, you have the Copernicus book ban, and Galileo affair.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, helpful, indeed, but it's still worthwhile to experiment, methinks. It's just crypto-speculation, really, lol, it's your risk, but one can get some fancy stuff if they play their cards right. Nice vidya, summery in fashion....it's funny to imagine it all falling though...which wallets have which currencies that are worth the amount that I need to buy what I want, quick, the sky is falling!!!!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@urpeon6892 Yeah, but hey, we can't be objective about this movie, cause this movie is pure evil, remember? it had no point to exist, even this controversy wasn't 'planned' or anything, nor expected...it's just pure unadulterated [???] evil that has no understanding or comprehension, there are no constitutive parts to this whole ordeal other than evil became 'released' into the world...and now we must stop it, no? [lol, by whinging about a movie but not the reality of girls growing up in this day and age, as the movie addresses outright, but the people complaining won't even touch with a ten-foot pole. Guess that wouldn't make a good video].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Where are your fellow Commies on the international stage? Poor and destitute? Even China had to adopt quasi-capitalism to survive
I must reiterate, consider the idiocy of the above statement [and you can see I'm more well read than you so, you know...as they say...shove it]. My fellows? no- first off....and how are they, poor and destitute? did you think that about the commies in Vietnam, too? you know you do business with them now, right? idiot? and also yeah, China had to blah blah blah...no shit...Capital is the machine. You...you haven't really anything to go on, you're just...someone who is referred to as "lumpenprole". You are willing to sell your time to the people who keep flooding your streets with cheap labor...good luck with that. Hope Trump gets made king or something, oh gee, hopefully, that'll "save the nation" [you can't tell me you don't see the hopeful-wishing]...but alas, if that were the case, the federalists win, don't they? and then world-federalization is next. =) You lose.
1
-
1
-
Yes that's why we need walls to keep people out instead of in
Sure. Can't argue with that.
capitalism does work well. It’s not utopia though. You’ll probably bitch until your nothing but bones huh?
No, no, you're the ones who are all bitching. Aren't you bitching? or no, you guys are just "rising up", right? right? or no? you're not doing anything...Trump will do everything you guys need, don't worry, after all is said and done, I or anyone else won't have to hear complaints from you, in the future...surely. And even now, you aren't complaining, of course.
1
-
shut up and lick the boot
What? no, that's you dude. You lick the boot. All you, and your kind, know how to do, is lick boot. You can't even address things with words, and ideas, thoughts, and facts, historical reality, the fictions of these pursuits of yours, and of others...you all lie to yourselves and then proceed to the lick the boot. I don't. I don't lick the boot of any rampant force that foists it's bullshit onto me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By the by, it should be noted [I mean, it's obvious but...well...what isn't obvious?]. Conservatism means different things, entirely, not just to different people [this isn't a cop out] but alas in different strides of history and peoples within history. To conserve American values is certainly not to be conservative in the sense of a wish to revolt and go back to British monarchy- although some people do conflate these ideas, willy-nilly, leading to some ideals that are somewhat similar to the above noted [sans the Queen, or Britain, generally]. There is no possible way that Trump's conservatism is the same as the conservatism of the past, in America. There is not a single instance within the past century. Styx, this is insuperable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vomit worthy presentation. State Capitalism is a term coined for the purposes of expressing a sentiment of "capitalist realism"; that is to say, a communist somewhere read the events of history and said "international civil society, in a state capitalism, is the best we can achieve", and then you were like "oi, that isn't real". Yeah...that's the point. Because people don't actually want self-management [they, erm you, just say you do], you want the state to manage everything instead [by way of the influence of corporations, of course, which you either mind or don't mind, yet, can't do anything about it, cause you can't do self-management, O individualist]. See, it's ironies like this that make clearly distinct the rim of the capping point to this American system of values.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandra2631 People are [all] narcissistic on some level. Given the right [or rather, more like 'inappropriate'] circumstances, instances, happenstances, whatever, you'd be "narcissistic". It's when it is 'clinical' as in, it can classified as a disorder, that 'narcissism' takes on these "more than negative" traits [that is, not only pathological, but dangerous to themselves or society, by way of bodily harm].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cracks down on free speech, disarms people
The left doesn't want you disarmed or disabused of anything alleged speech that is "disdained", alas, no, again, you are being excoriated, and alas, this just entails censorship by way of humiliation and/or transgression. Just like you have people trying to transgress posting about "the Jews" all the time, and making leading comments as to their cogitations regarding them, and their national socialists ideas, as well, and other forms of extremism, radicalism, and racism [blatant and crude], it has done nothing but led to their dismissal. That is all. You can blame, again, the corporations, for that one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EgoBrain1 Yeah, but the reasoning is also obvious that there is still mis-information in all right-wing media, typically [Styx even affirms this, Breitbart, Fox, all of them are considered as null and void according to Styx, remember that]. Plus, then Styx is also wrong about alot of things [people know that, right? right. But he never hardly will interact with those people because that makes his job difficult, which is understandably annoying, to be sure, but that's a given...a right opinion and judgement and critique would be into...why? or just making money? stabilizing the State? with erm occult books...no...the knowledge from said books will help stabilize his wallet and his words, his fine speech and wit, that caterwauling of his, it'll definitely do something to help the planet he so desperately cares about, whilst he panders his delusions about communists under the school-ground snatching up kids and posing Satanists, because well...oh well...surely, this is more helpful than...my silly insipid writing. Haha.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We need more content on Youtube. Everyone who uses Youtube should make a video detailing, even if it's for a few minutes, their opinions on such matters...look, maybe not this one...this one is sort of lackluster and, well, it's not important...but to critique these "films" and the new media, ect...excellent. People should understand that, just by doing that, you can eliminate this problem, eventually. That and make music, among other things...all the things you see in media, anyone can do it now, anyone. People, c'mon, you can take it all back. You just gotta create.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Classical liberalism is the-- the way- but look- anyone can see how to EXTRAPOLATE FROM all these other things- look- if times are..."rough"...for someone...'anarchist ideals' might not be so bad for them- but what do I mean by that? NOT INSURRECTION [it's stupid, in almost all cases presented at the current time; no rationale for it that isn't detrimental- this isn't the 1900s and even then it was an abuse] -- no, not revolution either- Capitalism can be "CRITIQUED" but only because it should be INVESTIGATED and made better. In this way, some things can be extricated (thus "superficially" in a sense, because this isn't an attempt to replace systems, but just take what works from other systems that CAN BE [if and only if] reconciled in the system which indeed provides the most abundance- which is Capitalism. If someone fell on hard times, or an entire city (see: Detroit, which is starting to get back on it's feet, I hear, if only slightly), then "sharing" and certain "affinity groups" [anarchist-talk for special interests] can be a fine and dandy thing- as long as it's in a libertarian bent, I would see no problem with people "working together" outside of the normative system to make their lives better, as long as it's to no detriment to anyone else, outside of competition. Because competition works, it should be allowed, even then. But still, simple ideas that anarchists seem to thrive on are mostly only applicable in the interregnum between systems- if one system or another were to collapse. Really, that's what it is. It's nothing to suitably "replace" anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnadams2833 Democratic Party aren't Marxist, co- I mean..."DUDE". [You are delusional, though...want a safe space?] And you "people" [no I mean, really, people- not plain 'idiots', or nothing like that...save the fact that you seriously are] think, at this point, that literally everything is left of "conservatism" which you can't even comprehend in itself. Either that, or you aren't really "American" anymore, not in the ethos of the last hmmm century. All you care about is a: money, and b: the projection of the growing Megalomania of growing metropolises into small nationalisms [and I do mean "projection"], as the demos projects the bourgeoisie "nobility" of the nation-state thru the city-states growth], onto the surrounding rural areas, which those townsfolk will probably accept: then you want to "seed out" the left, which if any group did such a "weeding out" of elements, whether if the left [say, ANTIFA] did this to right-wingers, or if the right-wing [or the "right-wing" (capitalists)] did this to "the left", this would be fascism; cause America is left or at least it always was: and in today's parlance it's simply "moved from center left to the right", simply put...it's roots are in Classical Liberalism (that's a fact), and colonialism (liberal-democracy of the growing social contracts, the growing bourgeoisie class, burgeoning the projection of the demos or the "nation-state" onto the surrounding territories [similar to how irredentism works in regards to race and territory, or "blood and soil", cf. Germany, cf. Ukraine/Russia]). The roots as such lead to the irremediable historical fact that AMERICA IS LEFT...but we are using ambiguous terms...the real terms should be about whether America has the national-faith to retain it's national heritage as a "liberal" and "free" country...or its fascisization [even if it's linker-fachismus or in other words, a leftist-fascism to combat right-wing fascism]...or some other kind of small nationalism or autonomy [cf. the riots], and possibly civil war and separatism. People say "the government won't allow this", and that's true...but either...America's hopes and values are on the line, that is, as it once was....That's America's place in time...on the brink...maybe it always was, but I don't think so...something brought it to this point but it wasn't the left. The "left" as it were, when it comes to the "center" or "center left" or what you simply call [in your simplistic means] just "the leftists" [even though that indication might apply more to movements farther left than "liberals", but that doesn't matter to you, right? right.], they just helped burgeon your economy...it is burgeoning, and it usually always is, but for the slowing down of this eventual process of what is to inevitably slow-down [oops], but for the time being, it's modernising at such a fast pace people couldn't even keep up [postmodernity], and as it were, things struck a "balance" [war is more like it, but with the fall of reason there is a tendency to blend with the older initiations of our past time immemorial as humans], but now this war is "cultural", so you call everything "left".
1
-
@johnadams2833 It's plain as day, however, that that what which you call "left" is a conflation, just like how that which the likes of the farther left elements of the left [ANTIFA] conflate Trump supporters ad hoc for "fascists", thereby, by microfascistic tendency, proving themselves fascistic in-themselves, and hetero-fascistic, at that; as opposed to auto-fascistic, of what would amount to the "right-wing" / capitalist / even an-cap, possibly...but this tendency seen in ANTIFA is strictly "linker fachismus" or "leftist-fascism"...the EU supranational union might be an example of this, too, to retain capitalistic endeavor within the containment of a demos and thus, potential for the eugenic-progressive dimension to come into play: same within China, and Russia, which are developing along their own lines, the former refusing democratisation but developing an econo-imperial inquest for the resources of surrounding nations, by force, in Asian nations, and by "economic guise" in Africa: latter becoming a quasi-monarchy with Putin at the helm in their latest parliamentary government. It's all very Faustian. And so what's next, well, what happens is that the sociality at-bottom is the core of the ethnic structure, or "the koineme", which is split along a world axis [thanks Holy Roman Empire] into a constellation of koinemes, which have forms so many polyethnic in-groups [thru phratries and intermarriage] that the despotic rigor of old tribes are retained in the ethnos which is always pretty much the living dead in terms of their work schedule...if they aren't already in dire straits...and hence you have the appeal of communism in it's most crude form, by the by,...but that's not Marx, Marx is anti-crude communism, certainly, but you'd have to know that, like I know it, cause I've read it...moving on...so these groups..which they now are merely referred to as "groups" and there are more "new groups" more than ever...are in a rather polyvalent manner...to such a multiplicity of degree that it scatters, by some point in what we call "history" the narods appear thru various means [this is the traditional societies and states and civilisations], and with that, the narods [not the "Narodnicks" in Russian History, that's just a populist movement], they, in multiplay of civilisationary and stationary forces, thru militarisation and economisations, enact several aristocratic city-states and nation-states in succession soon amassing empire over the Holy Roman Empire but not until several steps took place, like the Hohenstaufen and the relinquishing of the divine right of kings, et al., feudal/medieval history transitions into "classical" history,...and "civil society", the origins of "liberalism". Enter stage player America. Scene. The narod doesn't exist in the New World but as a facsimile of themselves, as a split narod from the Conservative British Monarchy and ethnos in the long-term, as Anglo-Saxons...And a mix of French and Dutch arrivals as well, all of you slowly incorporate into a giant federal government of municipalities [corporations].
1
-
@johnadams2833 The economy is your driving force now, in America, and the old world. Enter stage Marx. Scene. Gentile contracts himself to do a deed. He flips Marx like he did Hegel dirty to his phenomenal dialectic, out of Kant's noumenal dialectic (the a priori synthesis), with the concrete dialectic (placing the 'I' of the self-hood not in the State or Spirit, or Race a la Hitler, but no, in the 'concrete realisation of resource management and production for the HEALTH and SENSE of the worker to be a man in the midst of labor, and to reap the exact reward of said labor by associated necessary labor time and it's value as per arranged proceeding and the endeavor of the realisation of itself'. Giovanni Gentile took it a step further and placed the dialectical process in the "I" itself, as "mind". The "pure act" succeeds the "reification" of necessity [resources], tripping the perfection of the survivability and affordability of Marxian thesis into a state-worship cult of mass proportions, now en-cell'd in every orifice of any Europeanised land: all as Europe follows an Americanising popularisation, just the same, there are leftists, actual lefts, not just "the left" (ie., liberals, anarchists, Marxists, democratic socialists, anyone who's read these articles into their worldview, even. Where, in reality, everyone has read Marx...everyone has to, back in the day, to even reply to it, which they did...but alas, the point is is that "the left" as you posit it, with all those ideologies, is simply not the conceptual structure of "the far-left", and far be it by me to be ill-concerned for people who simply "think different" ["the left"] than you [in your hard nationalistic myopia], and let them be mingled in and confused with the actual "far-left" which is really just the actual left, and whom don't abide by the values of liberalism, because liberalism is strictly an issue of privatisation, which whether it be by the bourgeoisie [neoliberals, and neoconservatives], by some "race guru" [Hitler], or by some "state-worship" and incorporation of massive dispositive force for state-regulation of the public-body [Fascism, in theory: that is, as opposed to it's praxis and the axiomitising of it's evinced fixations and exigencies to achieve the mission pertaining to those fixations, usually purely symbolic (which brings me to my main point, see below), which for the most part, in the literature, is espoused by liberals against fascist conception, see Benedetto Croce, for one prime example]...Now we have the concept coming out of the alt-right of "liberal fascism", and this is because, clearly, "fascism" is a particular sort of "third position", as it were, and to apply the terminology here would be exacerbating and convoluted, but nevertheless it happens...it turns out that with this "liberal fascism" we get a backlash again of the entirety of the bourgeoisie, in a totally American fashion, consistent with it's historical appearance (seeing as nothing appears as such in Europe: hence, why for the most part Western Europe socialises, in a western fashion, save England which entails it's own monarchical values, pertaining to one of the longest lasting empires of history...for Italy and it's surrounding neighbors, see "distributism" of Catholic origin...as like in China how Confucianism still persists in the ethnic and social mores and background of the culture and even the "upper classes", the aristocracy in those regions of Europe still attain to a high degree of power...you can see this oligarchic strain throughout Europe, Russia, and into Israel and the rest of the middle east, Bahrain, etc). This "liberal backlash" is in a tendency all it's own. It's pretty much most things the alt-right says it is. But that is not the "left". It is just an American tradition, if you can deign to call it "tradition" even in the soft denotation of a "law" or "custom". America is fighting itself in more ways than one. And so is the right-wing and "right-wing [capitalists] in Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pdxshadow9819 Nice thought-terminating cliche, really quick and brief. More and more like the left everyday. "Listen to you, why, your x, ahaha", and you are a confused idiot, you have posited that you are a: a supporter of action against various groups based on the ressentiment of the actions of some individuals in these groups, b: you wish to conflate them all in to a singular monolithic force, c: you want to aim all of your ressentiment on them, and call them "the deep state", and then use the state to put their 1st amendment rights "on indefinite hold", and then you want to call yourself "anti-establishment". See, this...this is actual empty-headedness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
moo nee "Marxist media", err no [highly educated people read Marx...cf. China's most prodigious businessmen and scholars, all of whom studied in school]. But alas, also, no, I didn't say "looting and rioting is good for the country". Just that from the abstention in the "right-wing" [capitalists] and right-wing [fascists, national socialists, supremacists, etc.] in America [and abroad, thanks to Americanisation] means there is no other effective potlatch to quell the unleashing of forces which heretofore had an outlet in static conditions; the conditions are no liminally ecstatic, and they've been for a long time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usher in socialism
No, the motive is because the US expanded it's growth to encompass all these groups, and these groups are treated like crap by the right-wing, so this is politics, Styx, holy dog shit. I'm trying not to get around to insults here, but goddamn...you are being clueless, here, but it's understandable...you are an America...greed and expansionism and misunderstanding is in the nature of the American, as they force the world to grow at their rate of expansion, or lest, resources dwindle, and people die. Whoops. Shouldn't have started that expansion into "world-markets" and slavery. Now the world has grown into the civil society. I'm right. Styx, you will always be wrong, until you learn something about the facts regarding the US's place in history and in these developments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's funny how similar these instances are. But seriously,...never experienced this on my end before...until now. Now I am a literal Nazi, because I have sense...logic...reasoning...I'm not full of shit...I'm a filthy Centrist Sympathizer to some, and 'alt-right' to others, simply for insinuating that they are on a witchhunt for anyone on the right (or apparently, "center", even "center left"), because 'it's on'...Marxists versus Traditionalists. Fucking morons. PS: What's worse it the hypocrisy...that really shucks my scallops. "You're evil! You right-wingers (???) only incite violence! GET HIM!!!!" facepalm PPS: "Defend"? When people defend against ANTIFA, they're labelled as evil-doers. LOL. Thanks to the media, the general public thinks ANTIFA are "superheroes" or something. THEN LABELS, well, fuck me...people should even open their mouths, some people, let alone use labels...they are too retarded to ever get anything right! They conflate everything. And yes, Classical Liberal is also way to sympathetic, by the by, to "evil right-wing Nazism" in "Conservative" circles (??? isn't this confusing?) who want to go back to "evil racist traditional roots" ... and those "Libertarians" too, all they want is more slaves for their labor camps! (*facepalm facepalm facepalm*)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
one is based on a materialistic philosophy..and one on idealistic philosophy...
True, but they are both from the same historical timeline, and sort of conflate together: almost in a horseshoe type fashion. Or more of a "gyre", they "twist" together, perpendicularly. They are end-on-end, two dipoles. The striation is between, yes, materialism, and "idealism", but that "actual idealism" [Gentile] pretty much lapses into a "worldliness", it becomes totalitarianism, at end, and it's very...German oriented [pan-germanism].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pain killers do one thing at the level of a common prescription (ie, not heavy duty knock you on your ass, but subtle recovery doses of painkillers), and that is lower the susceptability to care about the pain or of one's pain threshold. In otherwords, you get "high" and tend not to care so much about the pain you still feel. Therefore Cannabis is as useful a medicine, in those instances, and is also, by the by, much safer and healthier, that is, if you ingest it orally. They have no real reason to create such a commission, that is fucktarded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muta, you don't know, but know you know, I mean like if you read this, that I know your pain. I actually used to get this alot. Ever had an OBE? I have...everything that is said about is true...a silver "cord" [like pins and needles], can go thru walls [sliding door, in my case], and it's really hard to not want to go back to your body [which you can still feel, so it's like you are in two places at once with this weird mental "pins and needles" like connection, and...you know the pins and needles effect...]. I had a dream once that preluded me going thru something that was elusive to me, but it happened once before...it's a whole thing...I had woken up and I kept...waking up...ever get that? a "false awakening". I would wake up again, and I kept...getting angrier...I eventually started yelling and tossing shit around [heh, literally, my broom behind the cabinets in my kitchen], I was trying to wake up my dad, and then so, I made alot of noise, end of story? no...no one woke up, but I was still mad, so this dream...this thing...stabbed me in the eye...in the left eye, my eye went blank, well...purplish-blank, and it hurt like a motherfucker...I yelled, you know, clutched my eye, and was able to wake up then...finally, I finally woke up, and I could tell this time...but damn...so the next time this happen it was precluded by this dream of a a far away distant thing coming to get me, and it did, cause in a preceding dream it came,...I have a long history of dreams with messages...epic dreams,...lots of video games [it's like my brain was so used to playing vidya at one point my dream-reality just bled into videogame-mode, it still does, sometimes, but not as often...]. So this time...I actually had to find my way around these false awakenings...for nearly THREE MONTHS...I was AFRAID of sleeping...so I know the feeling...the only time I could sleep was when I could grab a little Red & Green Mix, so I could get 'fine' in my biometrics...apparently...But it would come back, I'd have crazy dreams, where I'd literally come to some point where I recover my memory somehow [oh Lethe] and I'd be like, 'wait, this is just the thing again', and like a spotlight would shine on some part of my perception [almost like something was hiding in plain sight, some kind of EYE]...everytime , every night, I'd get a little more weirded out by this nightly event, so I'd basically be desperate not to fall asleep without having some kind of drug to help me sleep...turns out, eventually, I'd come to face my demon, and I did...I lept out into the abyss and...I realized something...the pills...I was still taking the pills...I wanted...I wanted to feel something...I wanted to feel normal...but inside....Inside.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Abstract labor
Surplus labor value? Valorization? So this you agree with. And by the way, sometimes utile elements are used against people, wrongfully, hence, why it's always useful to ask what is utility precisely? Growth -- Admittedly, Marx admits, in his more arrogating statements, that Capital was fitting to "get us here", where the means to production could be, essentially, "salvaged"- if you will- not to put too fine a point on it, I'm obviously paraphrasing. Obviously any sort of "revolution" is violent. I don't approve of insurrectionism, but this was also a contested issue in communist and anarchist thought, to an extent, it's even found in capitalist thought, now, thankfully. Isn't that grand? [*And nte. none of this is that "strange" either.] Constraint on wasted labor -- And what occurs? more attempts at world-federalization, from all angles, more expansionism, protectionism, attempts towards autarky, history "repeats itself", people want recognition [read the latest in circles on 'Reification']. Way too complicated for anyone to think thru -- Not only is that a cop out, but...manifestly ascribed to by Marx as the necessity to learn, as a proletariat, to educate yourself, because the lumpenprole would not be able to do that, due to being...essentially...lazy. That too might also be a cop-out, ironically. Alienated, from -- Not "from" but "an alienation". This isn't going away, just because the "utopia" vision is "wrong" [plus, the notion is facetious, it's not even taken seriously by communists that a "utopia" arrives from this, just a blatant misconception; also that centralized power wouldn't immediately be co-opted by the dictates of the proletariat [which is what that means, literally; eg., the "dictatorship of the proletariat"], which would then would, presumably, start all over again in their material exploits until new class struggles arose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also, there was a "dark ages" for a reason, and it's not just because of Protestant propaganda at the time...it's also due to the fact that Christians fucking suppressed knowledge and kept a political vanguard on through the rest of Europe's development, for centuries. Fucking CHRIST. (7:28 -- Sure, whatever, Styx, yeah, the suppression of knowledge didn't really happen, people weren't kept in "THE DARK", in those days...no, sure, Styx, sure.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Racism, or at least culturalism, if you want, this should be brought in: I mean, seriously, Poland, Ukraine, Germany, they are a bunch of morons, and Russia, and China, and Israel, and America, are a bunch of freaks. There is something intrinsically wrong with these people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 Yeah, Sweden is "free market"...not. They are in the marketplace, they also have major social programs. I know you morons will soon be swayed into saying that "those social programs ARE capitalism" somehow...but they never considered as such, even very recently. Yes, Sweden has social programs and a good welfare side to their state-apparatus. Something you morons [who want self-management but want the baton up your ass more so than you want self-management, cause you're hooked] would say is "socialistic". Well, we see alot of "fascistic" takes, these days, too ["get rid of group x, they are evil, then we group y wins game b so we can live life a"], so we can see these trends, too. It's ultimately hilarious...but to really see how dire American minds are...in their lacking...is immense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adlcnyc >Confidence
In a failing federal system
>Happy place
In inner cities? yeah....not usual. But they do make the most money, collectively, these inner city environments.
>Big picture
People are using the means to effect change from the bottom-up [as the on-high has failed, consistently], if some stragglers come along to try and disturb this process [whether by their own innate dissatisfaction, by their own uncaring and criminal attitudes, or whether as provocateurs], then so be it. It can never effectively color the entire crowd, unless, the fact is, the entire crowd is complicit [which they clearly aren't]. This sets a precedence: if this isn't allowed, then neither will "right"-wing rallies be allowed [clear danger to the public, plus the precedence will already be there that those who are in a crowd are all complicit with one or anothers criminality , by guilt of association], or if they were, it'd be a clear and indefensible dichotomy whereby some Americans are disallowed their 1st amendment rights, and this is will just increase tensions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is just like "SJW". The term is stupid...it's dangerous, a bit...no matter the side...and yet, now it is simply a part of the lexicon and must be used to explain yourself, at times. Language is funny. And yeah, it's not fun, this "dialogue". Shooting shit with the with right...actually, holy fuck, that's funny...it's way more fun to talk with people who'll just end this drivel, about this nonsense that hasn't worked, History is siding with those whom, want less censorship, it's that simple. Rather talk to any but the left, and that's just hilarious. How can people be so stupid. LOL
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
White people
Ok, so you bristle...so do others' when others' talk about them, too, in the same light. But you'll never discuss that, because you are pandering to mainly racist audience...and you know it, too, don't you? And yes, white people, poor people, whatever...Sanders spoke minutely out of line, but he was pandering to his audience...wasn't he? Sorta like you. Mr. "Libertarianian".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donalddench608 Who cares? What matters is how such cuts pan out. It's not making anyone much richer, and is only making the country, in the long run, worse for wear, in certain areas, and making fungible, certain other areas, of exchange. Look at the deferral of taxes, recently, in proposal. Business are shocked and appalled. The system never had and never will work on dreams and tears and lowering the taxes for your average joe. The fact that you are convinced means literally nothing but your inevitable retraction. shrug Small payout for big blow-back...eventually. But hey, enriching the already super rich is all America, the staging ground, is good for.
1
-
@donalddench608 No. I have not "the TDS". I have been a pretty middle of the road supporter of the old "drain the swamp" Trump, and since that turned out to be a lie, and since he tried to go and fuck shit up with Iran, and since, definitely, Coronavirus and George Floyd, he's been a giant let-down and his brain-trust has just gotten more debased and cripplingly stupid, whom try to justify their crap at every step of the way [to the countries dismay]. See, but what does that matter? if I'm not pleased [and trust, most of his ardent supporters have left his side] you'll say it's TDS, cause you're easily duped into buying into such language to describe the wrong targets. But enjoy that whole facade...globalism is not going away...it can't and it won't, not with you morons buying the same dog and pony show every time.
1
-
1
-
@donalddench608 I never said China is trustworthy. Chinese culture has similar problems, but for different reasons, than American culture. At least in America, the words 'be fruitful and multiply' have some meaning [even if it's misinterpreted a lot of the time]. In China it's just their SOP. Breed, consume, and their leadership is about as trustworthy as a Hitler or a Stalin. No thanks. But there are internal struggles, as well, in China, which make it not only nefarious [when it could be well-intentioned] but also completely contradictory to it's own purported values. Which is what all nations, including the US, does. But to what extent a nation's brain-trust believes in these notions, that determines the leadership, not the other way around. You have a filthy brain-trust, you have a filthy leadership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Far-left, far-right, bait
Wrong. The right-wing wants it just as much, and look at the source of this insurrectionary behavior. A black guy was mauled by a white cop, Styx. You realise what this does to the racial tension in the EGOS of these morons on the right-wing, and the conservatives, whom you don't even like...so wtf is your problem? The "left" [misfits, here] are being "baited" just as much as anyone else. They think they live in a racist country [specifically, BLM types, I'm referring to here]. And with this overliberalisation, you have a tendency now to struggle in power, usually by defiance, sort of "bio-power". BLM is unstable, and how could it not be when there are major cultural problems here, in the whole affair...you people don't want to see how you're all being led by the stick. Social ends, bio-power, social contracts breaking down, autonomism, separatism...it's all here, evinced for you to see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The BAND-AID, STOP-GAP solution to all the worlds problems [completely forgoing the conclusion of the thought-process for a reactive and morbid idea called...] socialism! has made it so Venezuela and it's people was already set on the path to destruction, just very slowly. The cover-up worked; people were convinced; and now they are feeling 'the burn'. In poor regions in Africa, you know how children are constantly born in destitution? it's because the ruinous nature of the environment and society is already the norm- and so people fuck aimlessly to relive the stress of living, and give it purpose- this is a problem- but alas, now we see in Venezuela the beginning of the trend, only not at any "normalized" level, no, it's "fresh" and "new", and so no one, but no one is going to want to have kids in this destitution, so freshly created by the band-aid simply wearing off and coming loose. This is going to make rates [demographics] plummet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Funny how you talk about "tall speaches" that's all you have really. You never seem to have a point, and you obviously can't read
I am asking you to continue, and that's funny? I don't see how. So you aren't going to give me a tall-order argument that shatters my own and is insuperable? I eagerly await your spectacular attempt.
I said "I don't think that you are as smart as you think you are." And you said that I said you were not smart. Obviously your fragile feelings were hurt because you seem to have lost your grip on what the conversation was about
I don't think so...get to the point.
But to your off topic question about religion, neither Catholicism nor protestantism are correct. Both are money making entities and have corrupted christianity in order to keep parishioners and make money
Correct. And that'll keep happening. So you still haven't evinced how I was wrong...I'm still waiting.
As to your nonsense about people "not caring that taxes will go up as long as they think the money is going where they want it to" (yes paraphrasing) you must not know any poor Democrats, because they think that only rich people will be taxed, and those people have enough money to pay for all their "free" stuff
No, they think that everyone will be taxed, and they don't give a shit. The ones who don't understand that are the sum few who are so abject that they are akin to the rural voter who simply thinks "if I vote republican they'll help me out, over here", which is not really the case. Trump was a good fit, but he's not pulling hard enough to really get anyone out of the spot they [as spread out across several states] are in. But that's neither here nor there; idiots will exist on both sides of the political aisle, and one doesn't care about taxes because they are comfortable in their metropolitan upbringing [or they are just parrots peddling for someone else], while the other doesn't care that they are constantly being hoodwinked by corporations at the benefit of a few. Trump is highlighting things that people simply aren't even willing to address, in full. Jobs are still going overseas, and this is a conflation of the two sides of the aisle into one conglomeration of an ideal: economic security. But what is also highlighted is the notion of "what's fair". Well, it's well known, and insuperably fact, that the US has led theaters of operations well out of their purview for a "fair" conception of what nations are "at liberty to do"; which has tended to have some good results for the world-at-large, but has led to the instance [like in England] of a substantial flow of immigration, hasn't it? yes, it has. Thatcherism or no, Trumpism, or no, they keep coming, and people, heads of agriculture, construction companies, etc., continue to hire illegal immigrants, at the behest of the shareholders of these groups gaining a greater profit.
Your arrogance and obvious youth, combined with your perception that all Democrats are college educated, give you away there
shakes head No, I never said anything about them "being collage educated", you are just pulling random things out of your ass, at this point. I don't approve of the Democrats, they are slimy; that's another thing, you keep insinuating I value the Democrats...I don't.
You suffer from typical college educated ignorance, you don't listen to people who know, you just believe your ideology that you've been indoctrinated with since you were a little kid
LOL, no. I quit school a long time ago.
My kids are all college educated but they were taught at a young age to think critically and question everything they were told. That's why they are conservative, because it is a way of thinking that works
You are making a lot of presumptions but this one is the greatest one. "That's how thinking works". You have the skinny on how thinking works? please, send your genius kids to the neurosciences department at the Mayo Clinic. Stat. You see, I'm being glib, because you almost don't deserve a response...I'm glad for your kids, but you are assuming everyone else has dumb kids who are just indoctrinated [derr] when that's sorta like saying that you know how everyone raises their kids, and that that is not indoctrination, when it clearly is a form of indoctrination ["let me tell you, what they'll teach you at school is tainted because they lie, and they are wrong, they don't know or don't want to know how thinking works but I'll tell you like my daddy told me...." - an example of indoctrination], and you clearly don't know how other parents taught their kids. You also presume that literally entire blocks of political struggle are just teaching their kids that "everything is free, go wild", when at once sending them to school to learn, to get a degree, to earn a living, because...OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IS FREE. You're just making this line up because you are being a parrot.
I studied history for more than 40 years, so my kids were privy to economic and government systems that work and those that do not. It's no coincidence that as civics, history, and economics have been removed from the education system, more people have turned toward the Democrats and socialism
Yes, as both the left-wing and right-wing in government continue to flood immigrants into your workforce, the notions of civics turns into social studies—and that of history and economics hasn't went away, and you're making that line up. But I digress—did you learn about Christian socialism? Charles Fourier? Hmm? Catholic distributism? I'm sure the Protestant work ethic ingrained in American society is so glorious as to be found in such a state that, now, money is worth more than the culture who aches for release....Fun times thanks to these people. Oh but...you don't really like to talk about that history, huh? just the contemporary history of the fin de siècle era, when socialists were given a push by soviet communism, and the social democrats in Germany fought the communists, and the Freikorps? want to get into when the capitalists bought off anarchists in the mining days, for insurance claims on their effectively blown-up mines? Do you want to get into any history that isn't biased in one perception favoring another?
People who think for themselves tend to do for themselves, instead of relying on government to do for them
The history of both the left-wing and the right-wing in America shews otherwise.
1
-
You are wrong because you said I couldn't answer that question, which I did, so now you're pulling the customary left wing bs of not acknowledging when you were wrong
No. You're still wrong, even right here. I asked you if you could tell me who was more correct. You amiably said "neither are correct", which was the correct answer. I didn't say you couldn't give the right answer. And then I said that you wouldn't be able to prove my point wrong: that you couldn't tell me who is more right in their assessment of what money should be spent on and [what it] should not be spent on — which is true, you haven't.
That speaks to your integrity
You're reaching.
As for the rest of your nonsense, I discovered long ago that people like you, whose ideology is like a religion, and you can't accept either the fallacy of that ideology, nor accept when you're wrong, it is pointless to attempt to converse with people like that
The ironic thing is you don't know what my ideology is, you're just assuming what it is, because that's what you parrots do. "You're a Dem, a communist, a leftist...", uhhh no...I'm not any of those things. Can you address what I'm saying, and confute it as 'wrong', or not?
So in conclusion, civics, history and economics should be taught in school in a non biased way so that people can make informed decisions about voting. You have provided no counter argument to that which can stand up to scrutiny
I didn't even disagree with those notions, nor did I even postulate any argument regarding them. You just invented this line that you and I have shared discourse on the subject by way of me bringing it up—at least that's what you are insinuating—but you brought it up, first...I didn't. I never even mentioned that "civics is x in schools"—all I mentioned was that the "reasoning" that "if you teach civics in school, Democrats would never get elected" is a foolish indication of the lack of reasoning; clearly [because civics were taught in schools in the past...when Democrats were indeed elected], and indicatively by way of fallacious "reasoning".
I know what poor Democrats think, the current economy is changing voters from Democrat to Republican because people with jobs tend to learn real lessons about the reality of taxes, social programs, and what kind of information put out by schools and the media
So you're a mindreader now? ok. Well, if the "current economy is changing voters (???) from Democrats to Republican, you've got some major concessions on the way, hopefully. Right? And yes, yes, platitudes and tergiversation about "right-wing people would never induce taxes on others...right-wing people would never engender the use of social programs [501(c)(4)s social welfare non-profits, tax-exempt, like Crossroads GPS, the organization co-founded by Karl Rove and its sister group American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, all their spending done on behalf of Republican donations and influence],...right wing people would never put out mis- or disinformation in schools or the media ["WMDs in Iraq...."], no, we are good boys, never do nuffin' wrong".
Many say they would have voted accordingly if they hadn't been lied to for so many years
Dupes.
People believe what they were taught to believe, if that belief is wrong, or based on falsehoods, and reality is different than what they are taught, they change their way of thinking
No one is saying "Democrats are right". You've been brainwashed your whole life...the American dream is a lie. But you really believed it, and that sorta goes to your point, doesn't it? So, in the 60s, the boom time in the American dream, that is, after the 20s, the roaring twenties, remember? before the Great Depression. Then you got the 50s, economy is starting to really look up, 60s, booming...hence the BOOMERS, remember? lots of money, lots of families...what happened there? were there no Republican presidents in this time-frame? Actually, it's more Republicans by a total of 'two'.
You were hoodwinked by both parties.
It's not rocket science
You could say that again.
If what they were taught was based on facts, they will continue believe in what works
That is a ludicrous oversimplification. Mussolini and Hitler's "facts" "worked" too. Does that mean they were right? You tell me. And also, you could say, "meh, it didn't work". Fair enough: did American Republicanism continue to work thru thick and thin [an idiom where I mean 'thru all odds stacked against them']? Nope. Because ideas evolve, and as the technology advances, communications tech, especially, the consolidation of economic powers fall in to smaller hands, as industry advances take on new forms whereby the expansion of the state is unbounded and, as mentioned earlier, when immigration flows in [which all parties have been privy to, in their avarice, the ailments of the rural and those who are so inclined to denigrate on such bases that their ailments go unnoticed], which it does regardless of what party is in charge, thru contemporary history, you see economies soar, which is why it [this SOP] was allowed to persist thru-and-thru, Democrat or Republican alike, because it was big business. You missed the fucking memo, ie., the actual historical data.
it's why Democrats are panicking in the US today
They are panicking because they are the most open about their expansive propensities, whereas the Republican party only expand into territory when there is a market for it, or when they can create one [cf. Iraq War, Libya...].
Food stamps, Medicaid, and all that other "free" stuff makes you less free
Tell that to the elderly. You know, you're one of the most ironic people. So, you gonna enjoy that retirement when you are ready to start keeling over? You think maybe you'd pay into something for your kids, one day they're gonna need a home, and the market isn't getting any cheaper, maybe you should will them something for their future mortgage payments, then securities-backed currencies can continue to skyrocket, and they'll be working for big American steel or maybe even big tech, and then, you can tell them how much the old bastards out there don't really need any of that Medicaid, if they get stricken with dementia, or are bed-ridden with some other ailment...pfft, who needs to deal with the elderly, the government? pffft....NO, they need to be dealt with by their children. So hopefully yours are as hypocritical as you are, and they help you out, if you get stricken with something yourself, or even if you don't, that's grand, because you've helped pay for their mortgage, and the central banks of the world international love you for it, either way you spin it. Then more immigrants come...you catch my drift.
1
-
I'm too tired to respond in full, but for now..."edit what I said about religion" nothing...lol, you're clearly confused, or just making that up. I don't operate by "editing" things that I think will change my arguments. Not even. So good try.
Anyway, as I said before it is pointless to converse with someone like you
No, that's you. You are impossible to "converse" with. You haven't addressed a single solitary thing that's been argued, and you can only come up with non-substantiated claims of me "editing" things [which is a farce, truly].
And the fact that you changed your comment to hide the "I bet you can't" shows the voracity of all your comments
What the fuck are talking about? LOL, you're mentally deranged. I said clearly: You can simply look at religion for an example: who's right, the protestants or the catholics? see, you can't really tell me, can you? - That is a direct quote. I didn't say "I bet you can't". I said "you can't really tell me, can you?", and you're clearly misremembering.
Narcissism is a terrible thing, if you have to alter your comments so you can feel "right" it's a big problem. You're still wrong, and now you're a fraud also
Empty words coming from you. I didn't alter anything, and you're either a liar, or a dumbass. I edited my post to fix some typos, and if anything, I added this to it, following the aforementioned statements: But the question is, who is more right in their assessment of what dictates should be followed in regards the education of a voting block, when they disagree on what money should be spent on and [what it] should not be spent on - I have to remind you of what was said, cause clearly you aren't capable of having a comprehensive memory conducive to an intellectually honest discussion; which wasn't had. And you still haven't proven anybody "wrong", so...again...what now? another claim of me dubiously editing something? what now? what fiendish thing did I change to somehow seal the facade of my big long winded posts detailing all this dilemma? boy, I must be so clever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You touched on something very nicely, Styx. The left right now, has no principals. It fell apart after the notion of "coming together" became hyperbole, and literally became dangerous [ie, not just a wont to "stop wars" and such things, but a literal "overcoming" of humanities typical behavior, eg, hardwired traits]. They just talk out of both sides of their ass, they literally will say things, strings of things, and they'll be inherently self-contradictory, even at a surface level. It's insane. Incredible, even. This just goes to show the facts of human nature, in general. And hopefully, there be weeded out some of the actual thinkers on the left, who can hopefully try and shepherd the idiots out of their depravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@z3r0_35 No. Where are you getting this information? Nah, don't answer that, just wondering. Ex-socialist? FDR was a socialist? no. Not at all. He inspired Fabian gradualists who are not quite Marxist, well, actually, not at all, but...he certainly didn't impress actual Marxian theorists. But in regards to the encroachment of economic globalism, well, that is capitalism already. Anywhere that didn't want to stay capitalists was attacked... literally - Just because at one point in America socialism was popular, doesn't mean that a: those disenfranchised by the outcomes of a poor socialism were the visionaries of current US politics [not by a long shot, what, not for another 30-40 years would it be before the Reagan era, from that point] and b: it doesn't mean that it was tenable as a self-managed socialism - not a mixed-model, not even state-socialism, not any of that. But self-managed socialism. [Also, the Warsaw Pact? what does that have to do with anything? yes, they had to fight anyone who wasn't capitalist...Russia, China, Vietnam, you name it.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, I think Alex Jones doesn't have a grasp on how violent people are...with or without religion/"beliefs". Throw babies into fires....uh no evidence exists that isn't contentious bullshit. A entire report should be done on the "consensus" of the academies from their beginnings and see how much the church influenced public perception...the German Idealists, for example- Masonic Lodges in Rationalist Germany, anyone? and they will continue to- who do you think is pushing all the communistic bullshit- Catholics and Protestant Zionist WASPS. But let's not talk about that- nah...it's not important. But yes, in South America there was brutality -- but in other places like in Indo-Europe where they took entheogens, and plenty of tribes, peaceful ones, in proto-Mexico and around the South Americas, they did too, and were fine- this is an example of taking one sample, and extricating that from that one sample, the findings can be adopted to all samples via the example of their use of hallucinogenic drugs- something humans have done...forever...even the Churches of the world. There are examples in the Bible of people being 'given things to eat' where they basically then proceed to trip balls. So Jones...Please. Stop...just slow your roll. You're just talking out your ass on this one very fine point. Do go on about inter dimensional beings though.
1
-
1
-
Plus- probably a good thing but- none of you have experienced blood lust, right? good. Because I'm sure that that's a thing. Probably would explain the amount of slayings at that temple. When people do horrible things, if they feel they have permission, especially, then, they will do horrible things- because their psyche will infuse with the situation at hand, and especially when reinforced, people tend to follow. Communism...Nazis...The Mayans [or whatever] -- why are you guys just skimming over this obvious fact? that this is common and not just a "special occasion", but only a "different one". The crusades were different, too- nothing else like it- for example, the crusades, people like to talk about it, there is quite alot known about it- do people look back on that to denote the bloodlust and go "see, aliens". Well, "God" isn't an alien...right? Jones? Jo-diggy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People have to start learning to steal the imperial map of the Death Star, and going into missile the core, instead of trying to shoot at it's exterior, futility. And yeah, when it comes to 1: voting: 2: illegal aliens, and 3: constitutional precedence, and 4: legalities, the US has many fantastic conundrums. Remember Obama dog whistling that illegals wouldn't be able to be stopped from going to voting booths, and the right thought that was terribly egregious, and said he was saying that illegal aliens are "able to vote", even though that isn't what he said? remember that confusion?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fuck, Styx, this is annual? you're gonna be covering more shit like this, eh? So Elizabeth Warren thinks that there are kinda like nations-within-nations, eh? like these Indians, they are independent, to the point where we will create giant gaps in the nation, at their behest. Goodie. PS: Yeah, I've tried telling people, the progressive era in the US, that's the beginning of eugenics. Not Germany-Hitler.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mianfeng4406 The simplicity of the situation is easier to explain: capitalism will centralise...always...and forever. So whatever detriments people find in that e.g. nationalistic, liberal economic, fascist, detriments...it won't matter to capitalistic endeavor. Civil society is the totality of capitalist endeavor. Eventually, labor will be much more important than even any "right"; the morality and legality of "rights" and the labor of society and that of the state, are all at odds with one another. If you value love, marriage, family, freedom, you're gonna need to take into account [as with social justice warriors and their sense of justice] the sense of equality, fraternity, liberty, happiness, and solidarity: lest people will resort to nationalist, fascist, socialist, and communist means to meet the ends people wish to meet, as you put oh so delicately, by their own accord - even in collective groups. Mutuality will be the defining factor of people's choices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll just put plainly, that if this kind of trend continues, we can expect to see fighting. I'm surprised I haven't seen more break out- it's a testament to how cautious and/or patient the right-wing can be. "White culture" is America. Any other way, and there should be some push back, you know, get your gun, and whatnot. Screw this "your culture is evil until we get more immigrants in here, to give it some good" - seriously, I don't even give a shit that it's nefarious, right off the bat- cause right away, it's just that it's nefarious, it's just fucking DUMB. And it's see-through garbage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx is a fucking moron, apparently. He had a knife in his car? Ok...did he grab it? no...ok, so case closed, Styx is an official boot-licker and hypocrite. The entirety of the "right-wing" right now, are hypocrites about this: and as a final note: you're so "far gone" [but no, not the meme...I have nothing to do with any meme...my actually opinion is this...,] you "people" have lost your humanity...and truly, this is not just an opinion...you're really such hypocrites, to such an immense degree, you've forfeited your status as a human being. You are all just losing the plot of any kind of sense-making reality, in what you say, and what you all do...the hypocrisy becoming so overwhelming, that you literally do not deserve to be free. You only deserve to be treated like animals. America should be cordoned off from the rest of the planet, and possibly burned up. Really. Seriously. It'd not only be well-deserved, at this point, but it might be the only thing to stop this dark force of evil incommensurate with humanity, that is the "American spirit", from swallowing the whole world up in stupidity and ignorance. Aimless vengeance aimed only the edge of it's snail-like ambit, grotesquely sliming up from the well of deep despair from which it was wrought, in the depths of some hell unbeknownst to moral man, born of some deviltry of unconscious drive and the sediment of screams, wreaking havoc on everything it touches, wallowing in it's own self-love, poisoning the surroundings with the decrepit unknown presence of it's very existence, so depraved, teeth sharpened to a fine degree of theogosis, like a creature who knows nothing but a maligned precipitous fall into death, and the unbecoming of everything on this planet earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usher in socialism
No, the motive is because the US expanded it's growth to encompass all these groups, and these groups are treated like crap by the right-wing, so this is politics, Styx, holy dog shit. I'm trying not to get around to insults here, but goddamn...you are being clueless, here, but it's understandable...you are an America...greed and expansionism and misunderstanding is in the nature of the American, as they force the world to grow at their rate of expansion, or lest, resources dwindle, and people die. Whoops. Shouldn't have started that expansion into "world-markets" and slavery. Now the world has grown into the civil society. I'm right. Styx, you will always be wrong, until you learn something about the facts regarding the US's place in history and in these developments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're never going to have utopia bullshit
Marxism isn't about utopia...if you didn't read Marx, you shouldn't talk about it. Neither should these "marxists" [insurrectionaries]. Marx said communism is the NATURAL OUTCOME of capitalist endeavor, and not something that is "utopia" or something to "accelerate", but it is an insuperable inevitability, in Marxian theory. Marxists who try and foment a revolution are reading the Communist Manifesto very shoddily, and are taking to crude communism, which Marx ultimately warned about; and he abjured the manifesto, eventually, as well. His ideas culminated in the idea that Capital was like an automaton that took on a life of it's own, and so, this was a calculus of human endeavor that was almost eschatological. This isn't to excuse these marxist insurrectionaries, but it does explain them, and how they are also just as wrong as you are, Styx...typically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Trump is done [hopefully not till after another run and success], the left will simply take all the nothing burger they've contrived to hurl up at every moment these past years, and just equate Trump to "just like all the rest"; you watch. The fact is: this is the socium of affects. This isn't even "traditional" politics, not...not underneath the current facade of said politics. To people, in their minds, in their motivations, not politicians themselves, but people in society, in general, are all moving towards the socium. The left, however, are just accelerationists. They wish to compel the socium of affects to incur upon the modern world sooner and sooner, quicker and heavier. While the right-wing are simply fed up of this incursion, some more than others; all being patient in degrees. 7:24 -- Oh well, fuck me, basically we fuckin' agree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bulldoze the postmodern crap
You mean the modern crap. There is not alot of "postmodern buildings" that aren't collages, or some other kind of singular institution of this sort. You don't see them often enough for them to be prevalent. You're talking about the "blocky buildings" of MODERNISM. Not postmodernism is. There is a difference you aren't able to comprehend, apparently, Styx. But it's...ok...most no one is intelligent enough to understand this flagrant difference. They took down a church, replaced with an orb -- Except that that didn't happen. So you're buying, hook, line, & sinker, bullshit, to feed a lie. You want modernist buildings? you've got plenty of them. The predominant look is modernist, you fucking flagrant, Styx. You're just feeding into the notion that right-winger loonies think the "blocky buildings" of cities are an eye-sore, whom wish for classical architecture back [or so they claim, because they are just being fucking parrots]. So no, Styx. Still wrong. And you're gonna keep being wrong. These people claim that Roger Scruton is a voice of reason...he mixes up modernist and postmodernist architecture. I can tell this is also what you're doing, simply bu repeating what you've heard from word-of-mouth. Styx...it's stupid, and you become stupider for it. Postmodernist architecture ranges from normal looking, to idiotic, but that doesn't change the fact that you are talking to, for, and repeating the word-of-mouth of, idiots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've seen a giant lizard emerge, cartoon-like, vivid and colored bright colors (like an Aztec motif almost, only very bright red and green and gold, not any black) in the same state of contemplation- I used to experience tons of stuff like this, it recently condensed into normality at around the time of considering factors within certain practices, their ends, and whatnot. Now things are more "normal" then ever. Funny that, and ironic. But yeah, I used to do lots of drugs, too. LOL
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx, it's sad, you should do a real actual video on the history of what you believe communism and fascism and all these things are. Just talk about facts- I would rather look at the groups funded by outside groups (like the groups in South America), and call them "insurrectionaries" instead of commies [that is, instead of making the "distinction", eg. using propaganda tactics and saying that that's the sum and suss of all Communist thought and history...you know that isn't true]. The communists were anti-globalist capitalists, that's for sure...and Marx couldn't be said to have been a global-communist, per se, either...just that his conception of the world would come to pass, eventually [as an eschatology of Capitalism]. This is theoretical, and probably a prototype of oscilliationism. But alas...get into the nitty-gritty of the concept of communism...and do fascism, too, that'd be able to clear up alot of confusion in your audience, in your ranks - Styx...seriously...you know that most of the garbage put out there is just specious. We all know the times back then were "bad times", especially in Europe...we know these are "European problems" [old-time politics & religion]...we both know that you are just hard-lining communism, effectively, into the trash-bin of history, without actually sussing why they even persist as anything but a psyop. Will you now?! Will you explain the psyop? or no?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:30-- The media are sticklers for haranguing Trump with over exaggerated hyperbole? oh and why don't they do that with Bernie Sanders...must be because you, here, in your echo chambers, where you literally just espouse nothing but the same tired rhetoric day and and out, are already covering the lambasting and hyperbole concerning Sanders..."he's a commie, a fool", yet, look at the right wing proletarianizaze, call for economic security, wane in support of their corporate masters...and you have the gall to call Sanders' plan "communism"? You're just a liar with no sense of historical evolution, no sense of accuracy, no sense at all, Styx. You've lost [if you ever had any] your marbles. All you do is talk mad shit out of asshole. All your "right-wingers" and "left-wingers" are all...garbage...and liars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fakery really put a dent in what otherwise would have been a fruitful occult science. Russia took up the mantle, though...supposedly, in their "occult researches". And the US, too. But still, the psychical implications are fascinating, and so is the concept of PSI, and the like Spiritualist tendencies that follow in it's hypothetical implications, even from back in the day, when humorism, or seances, were popular.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a bit hyperbolic, but it is kind of ironic, it's really sort of like de-stalinization, really, but active de-stalinization- if it was a "stalinzation", in reality, he'd be memory hole'd, but he's not, he's just been clipped because this cameo will upset retards on Christmas, and it's [a] market decision, Styx. Where did you lose your objectivity, Styx? [The gripe is with the person, and it's because of that that they made the decision to not upset retards...you know this...there are a ton of retards who DO NOT LIKE HIM, why not just discuss that?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is about Floyd. It's about how Floyd was murdered, and black people have seeming had enough of this. They have had their own ethnos ingrained [forcefully, I might add] into the narod under western powers. People say they "don't belong", on the right-wing [truest scum of American life, if there ever was one]. Well, maybe on some level, they don't. They can try, but I don't think anyone would be taking things lightly, if, say, white kids were being killed all the time by black cops. No, then, you'd see more conflagration...or, if not...it'd just be more proof that these people just wouldn't care if they lived in a totalitarian nightmare. They'd just "take it", like good little boys.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PS: Yes, indeed, a true skeptic, actually, in fact, does say "the jury is still out". That's a good thing- indeed. And also, indeed, Styx, I mean, the Vikings got to Greenland, right (or Iceland)....so why not North America? It's not out of the realm of possibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Postmodernism made this alienation...? no, you are just...LOL, no. Just no. Alienation is either a fiction [according to the premises you're outlining in this video] or it is an issue caused by crony capitalists who use socialization to further their goals of expansion and consolidation. The actual volks who know history are not falling for this. Plus, Postmodern-ITY is a symptom, not the sickness. Postmodern-ISM is the response by PHILOSOPHERS to WARN THE FUTURITY OF SOCIETY that these problems were underway...they WARNED YOU. And you all, lacking knowledge, treat it as those who would say "Nietzsche was the father of nihilism". No, he was the harbinger of a warning. Just the same, postmodernist philosophers warned you all...they are not your gender guru sociologist academics, and until you can fathom this, you'll always be...WRONG. But you are right to point out that it can be changed, and must be changed, from the society itself. It won't just "go away".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And example of stupidity:
>The left has always refused fact unless it advances political agendas that benefit them.
Uhh...that goes for every group in existence. You think there are some altruistic supermen out there fighting for multiple political agendas? don't political agendas tend to conflict with one another?
>Idiotic reply. Of course political agendas conflict with one another. Got stupid? That is precisely what makes them POLITICAL AGENDAS. The topic being expressed is that the left almost always refuses irrefutable fact and instead preferring anecdotal evidence to advance their rigid ideology. The right often falls into the exact same refusal of reliable evidence when the outcome effects their donors and big business. Been following politics for 45 years. Nothing amazes me anymore than the stupidity of people like you.
Uh, my stupidity? Yeah, and you didn't say any of that at first, did you? No, at first you left a comment that suggested that those who "always refused fact unless it advances political agendas that benefit them" are "the left"... and not as you suggest only with my prodding, both sides. Now you suggest both sides, correct, nitwit? How do you know I wasn't ascertaining the same exact thing you just described, and instead of leaving a pithy non-entity of a comment no one is gonna read, I'd rather bring out the actual notions you wish to espouse, in full view, by questioning and deconstructing your clearly lacking pith; because you failed to mention how it's not just "the left" that does the exact thing you describe, but the exact thing you describe is INTRINSICALLY [as per your choice of words] applicable TO ALL political sides. Hence why I had to ask you to clarify, because otherwise, your comment would not only be specious, but also lackadaisical and stupid as fuck. So stfu up, gormtard. What I was saying was, there is no group that vies for anything BUT their agenda; so to imagine people delineating any other kind of action or choice is retarded. Which is why your comment was lacking in your attempt at brevity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good video. (There is a nice line, here, [looking at ideological blinders] from this video's content, to The Babadook.) (PS: Tangent? Culinary Materialism is NEVER a tangent.) (PPS: Did H-man win? no, but pretty much, these people, they are not "racist" but "Racial"...yes, indeed, they are "Racial". All for one and one for all, for them. The biopower of a mass peoples whose race is of mass import, but whom can't differentiate themselves: I see this more on the left, sometimes, then on the right....)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PS: When Tarl Talks About Tech, it's a good thing. More, Styx, improve your Techno-speeches, for the sake of enlightening mine (and everyone elses) brain. I am a knucklehead on programming stuff, but there is that new Zachtronics game, holy shit, you can learn how to program AND have fun! But yeah, it's immense, programmers, cheers to you, out there, too.
1
-
1
-
Redistributionism [or some kind of reciprocity] is what everyone is clamoring for, even on the right. They want their incomes to be supplemented with whatever can garnered, in the various industries catered to outside of the service industry (which continues to make headway in international markets, and provide little income to their workers); nothing but more taxes arrive (inevitably), they foot the bill for such services, and get to keep to that small redistribution (of socio-industrial clout), when the actual market buckles enough, you then will stay in the median wage, and the only gainfully employed people will be in government, that is, if this all keeps up. Trump isn't doing enough, but he's at least trying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As Curtis Yarvan puts it: "America is already a communist country", only it is crude communism, and obviously the powers that be are a: making the most of things [$$$] and b: stalling for time, and c: slow-rolling people down the primrose path. But if you jungle-heads knew anything about anything, this was merely a prediction. Ya'll wanted it all to 'go ahead' [even colonialism, right?], and now you're here, welcome to civil society. People are not going to make sense anymore in America, America is dead, and you killed him, Columbia is dying, she's poisoned right now, with fascism and national achm SOCIALISM. You be the judge, America, caput mortuum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. -- Yes, everything is anthropic, all is projection of structures, and/or text, and/or conceptual and
experiential memory. PS: I have to get Occult Philosophy For the Modern Age, wheels within wheels, oscillation and of evolution...sounds similar to the Vortices Of Existence in my own thinking- which is similar to some other things i've read too. Gonna have to get that. AND Voices Of Our Ancestors. PPS: You make some very good points. Even this whole crazy "no-gender/muh gender" phenomenon can be based on this nostalgia...frigging people have messed up sex-drives (libidinal currency is cheap now) because they're raised to concerned for that much more than their own autonomous interests. And yes, the "cold war" never ended-- I always took the term to mean that nations, which are warring eachother, stave off direct attacks of attrition, for development of more and more ordinance to use in a massive strike, and save the attrition for afterwards- and nuclear crises- that too. Proxy wars, through other puppet countries, or using puppet cells, they allow for the continued grand chess board movements, and at a constant stream, which allow for the 'development of ordinance'- not only making corpos a huge amount of money at a large clip, but also, allows them to research more and develop more at that selfsame clip, so that they become more powerful...all for that World-Island in Eurasia. LOL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Intergenerational gaps is in the long-game for Fabian Socialists
Oh and, presidents don't define everything, Styx. Trump has been doing well...so? He isn't "all of America". The nation of America will never take a stance other than the same it always has [seemingly, but I could be wrong]. So hence, it's not Trump that should be worried about...it's any single president, one to the next, that should always be worried about, if the standard in America is "well, he won't start WW3" -- great...so he's even more covert? doesn't bode well for anyone who "lives in the real world", lest they will admit that it's moving in directions that they can't control, and at least just be honest with themselves about the "power structure" of the economy, and stop complaining about how they don't see enough of it in their wallet...you all can't stand the idea of a fair distribution of economic wealth, so again...you should just admit you have no control, over anything, let alone yourselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It doesn't make sense in the first place
Well, that's bad-blood and blood feuds fuel the region...it also fuels you and most of the USA. "Muh commies are ruining da world, we shuld kill dem all! remember da Holodomor!" [yeah, no one likes Stalin, except people who literally were fed...they are remembering something most people didn't experience]. But this is what happens, I suppose. So what say you, Styx? Nothing, of course, but...rhetorically speaking...isn't this, uhhh, sorta like that? Well, there's your answer as to "why it happens" even though it "doesn't make sense". None of you people make sense. You're all delusional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mloftus8618 Ivermectin makes no money. So you are wrong on that front. The "grifters", as they are called, are playing the same game as every other pusher of ideology. What? they have to keep their opinions secret? in a society which advocates that you get by best by marketing yourself (cf. Hasan Piker)? Fact is, just by "being" the way they are, and saying "I got sick and took this, and it didn't kill me, and was given to me by a medical professional", I don't see the problem with that: save for, maybe, if I was extend an olive branch, it's problematic, at least, from the standpoint of being braggadocious: but that's about it...it's not "helpful" , but like I said, even by just "being" what they are, someone who will "try anything and see what works", they prove that the vacs. isn't the end all be all of treatment. And medicine is about treatment (cf. gender reassignment)...not JUST about cures. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardgrier8968 I don't have a problem with vaccines. How they were used, and how state ethics were conflated with medical ethics (thus canceling actual medical ethics out), though...that is a different matter. A: people were selfish, only thinking of themselves, and weren't thinking rationally, and didn't consider they data and the changing processes in considerations of said data, as such, producing confusion, chaos, and political upheaval, mostly for the sake of their own political axe to grind, using the notion of a bothersome public perception, and the material exigency of CV, as a cudgel.
1
-
1
-
Styx, not only shit posting...but videos! Video hosting, dude, it's the best form of communication, available, bar none, for the dissemination of information (lol, semination) -- I keep telling people they should lose the shyness and get to cracking out some videos, even if it's just one or something, about the current affairs! Share your opinions people, it'd get things moving quicker and you'd show more support as the brain-trust for Trump!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rural-Socialists ≠ Metropolitan Socialists
Styx, you never talk of the metropolis; you realize that's where alot of left-wingers reside, right? and then there are plenty of conservatives, too. But alas, in Vermont, you've got a very different civic body than in, say, New York [look at NYC and then look at the rest of the rich areas of New York, lots of conservatives], or say, California ( shudders ) .... But yeah, isn't this oversimplifying things, by just touting this same line of "socialist, bad, capitalists good", I mean, you talk alot about rich corporate cocksuckers, but...well, wtf, man?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, I don't need to watch that shit. I don't even have to screen it to "see what is happening in the world", these days. Dude, I just watch Styx in the morning, or if busy, I'll catch up with the news via the Styx, or teh net...who cares about TV. Netflix even, mostly sucks- mostly. Making music, games, short film, there are great animators, creative people abound online, even just here on Youtube. Fuck these old hags.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariusbrandon2617 No: "The noun is derived from Middle English orient, oriente, oryent, oryente, oryentte (“the east direction; eastern horizon or sky; eastern regions of the world, Asia, Orient; eastern edge of the world”),[1] borrowed from Anglo-Norman orient, oriente, and Old French orient (“east direction; Asia, Orient”) (modern French orient), or directly from its etymon Latin oriēns (“the east; daybreak, dawn; sunrise; (participle) rising; appearing; originating”), present active participle of orior (“to get up, rise; to appear, become visible; to be born, come to exist, originate”), from Proto-Indo-European *h₃er- (“to move, stir; to rise, spring”)"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thehonorablereverendaddiso1943 [T]here really is no "right-wing". The "right" are just brainwashed [gibbering] capitalists, whom aren't really "capitalists" [they can't be, but wish they had the means to production], and why is this? Why are they not even "really capitalists"? because they want self-management. They think this is a trait of a "free-market society", and don't realise this is actually a trait of socialism. They want the "self-management" part of socialism [which makes them potentially dangerous if they fascisize] with all of the capitalism that comes with it [in their own mind, that's how it works], which is why they are [slowly] fascisizing. They are witnessing the result of proletarianization, at-bottom, in their income, their "culture and environment", and they blame "the left" and understand naught that the blame goes to global capital...they might be able to say as much, but they don't understand the implications. Capital always goes global...if it stays isolated, it turns into a sort of socialism or a sort of fascism [depends].
1
-
@thehonorablereverendaddiso1943 I like the working system, thank you very much, you imbecile. But if you morons facisize it's all over for America and "American values". And if BLM continue to inspire the run amok [and if they get conflated with ANTIFA, which really is BLM inspired by now, tainting what was already tainted with a microfascism, even more], I should think that things will continue to change in the way of emancipation of blacks and the underclass, and with that, the inspiration to fascism. Either way you cut it, it's not looking good for America, because they never really stood for their so-called "American values". And that's partly on you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bang
Damn it, Pat, these woke corporate nasis TEAR ME UP inside...I need a Percocet to calm me down, Pat.... reaches out hand - Damn it, Pat, I losin' my mind, Pat! I don't wanna go to hell, Pat!, c'mon gimme a couple, or a handful, whatever, DAMN THESE CORPORATIONS! reaches out hand
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A stateless communist society cannot exist
Says you. A stateless capitalist society certainly, by the same ostentatious merit, "can't exist" either, even though, surely it can...it just won't work well for anyone as a whole. Communism, however, confronts the problem, at least. You, what you do it this: you start juntas in Chile...then they turn socialists anyway, after all the capital flows are received. Then they become rich and profitable. An-cap, but not an-cap...see? you call them socialist? why? because they self-manage themselves, that's why. A stateless "state" can't exist. But on that note: Marx never posits a "stateless" Communism. Ever. Anarcho-communism is never posited by Marx and is only critiqued on the ends of it's perceived jejune and vulgar status, to him; which he posits is a "crude communism" and fundamental misunderstanding. Again, read "Private Property & Communism". You are simply spreading a conceit, one which is uninformed.
1
-
I think that "Buddhists" have failed at keeping their origins [some schools more than others] -- Dukka [I believe it's called] is a more complex concept than 'mere suffering'. I know you probably know that Styx, just putting that out there. I find it interesting to strip all the new stuff out of modern Buddhism and just get to the core of it. Then again, I also believe that merely coming back as another human [probably, yes another "you" but no memory and new body and circumstances] is most likely, and also, very cool, and sad, all at once. And the realm after death, the "waiting room" so to speak- yes, this too. If one might persist enough in this place, while alive, they can see some pretty cool things but it's not...them, per se, which sees these things. Just an extension....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can extrapolate from what he said
You know, Ana should try having, like maybe getting, uh, Slavoj Žižek on, because, to extrapolate on some sliver of 'the Real', which Cenk admits there is a tiny potential "issue" with. This is a rather philosophical question, that Ana is being stubborn on, and not actually really extrapolating anything herself. But this is expected, given the decorum and the ideals of the cast there, being politically oriented, and merely so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rome, not Christianity. Fuck, Christians don't even know their own HISTORY. Who bashed the Catholics with the printing press, Reformationists, who started the meme about the so-called "backwards sorcery" of science being developed around the time, BY MUSLIMS AND CATHOLICS. Christians can't even help but fight themselves! And they want to lay claim to all invention...those inventions were made by your more pagan counterparts, and that's just ignoring the fact that civilization came about from PAGANS, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, ect...so please...this meme must die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They were ANTIFA
I don't see this panning out. Can't wait to see it, though, if it does. "We believe these people conformed to the idea of ANTIFA, so hence, they are honorary ANTIFA members, posthumously." - Don't see it happening, though. Maybe. Who knows. Either way, there were more "social" causes of the era that were befitting to call "socialist", and as you said, even Ted had to be considered a progressive in his time. Because "social" things do not automatically = BAD EVIL COMMUNISM -- It's just a concept. Social things =/= corporate things, for one strict and obvious example. But you people love corporations more than the sociality you all belong to. Cause you're sick in the head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Missing the point. They got addicted because they were in pain. Do you know how easy it is to get addicted to pain meds? Do you know how bad pain can get in old age, especially having busted your ass for thirty years or more? The 'free syringes' help addicts from derailing their home life into the streets, making the problem more all-encompassing. People should be working on better drugs to help people with pain, that are less addictive and less liable to make people become addicts with mental problems on the streets, or at home. How do you stop the drug problem, over all, is the crux of the issue. That would take social programs, or it would take a culling. Either way, when you're old and grey, you'll be in pain. The decision to take medication for it is a personal one, so....but nevertheless, that is the cause of the problem...the pain people experience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nothing artistic about it
Well, that's subjective, it is literally the most shlock, crap, genre of movie out there [adult comedy]...it's intentionally in bad taste. People should be outraged. But literally, this film is not a: avoiding things that are actually in the real world, right now, and b: not really exploiting children, literally; just figuratively they've crossed a line, or in way, this was a 'last straw to break the camels back', as it were. So whether it is, say, removed, or not...banned...that's one story...maybe it should be done? but not one would be having this conversation otherwise if this movie didn't exist: and then, well, if there is no actual legal criminal intent found in the movie, or even negligence...right?...then what can be done? other than for people to take the reality of the situation as it is in actual real life, seriously. shrugs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Netherlands, Nordic model, etc.
Styx, you do realize that you are, here, talking about a European model. Yes, Bernie Sanders has a platform that is radical, and would lead to systemic changes [ie. it would lead to further changes, and then more changes down the line, ad nauseum, until something "new" could be "gotten right"]. The European model is simply put, "decentralized" -- But what arises out of this, then? The European [supranationalist] Union. You are missing the bigger picture here if you don't see the obvious trend: you don't talk about the conflation between all these facets of "right-wing" and "left-wing" mentalities...you used to..."these terms have mostly lost their meaning", and "neolibs and neocons are alike"...remember? Well, that's more important thatn ever, with what I see people saying these days.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was Obama it was Bush
It was the US administration of government powers. You're splitting hairs, acting like Trump can't simply be a shoe-in. You are acting oblivious...intentionally? Seriously, who is running things there? Do you hold no one accountable who "is currently in office", but hold those who aren't currently, accountable, so that the US has plausible deniability in it's endeavors? cause that's what it seems like. Like the people [the government, the people] of the US seem to be complicit in this...almost like they don't even know how to reign in their own government. Is Trump really doing this, now? I don't see it. I am not seeing it, Styx. Honestly, it all seems the same to me...regimes inside of regimes, with no accountability...Prince Bone-Saw type shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are alot of traditions, old ones, where the men will dress like women, for various different reasons depending on the group. Usually for a rite of passage (becoming a man, one must be aware they are still effem, before the rite, then after, the clothes get replaced by warrior attire, etc), and then for the fact of a luciferian counter-balance, almost, it seems- at least in more advanced societies in certain regions; the notion of "here the Shaman" or insert whatever special title here "he can do unnormal things" -- and it adds a bit of "noise" to the overall ethnos, and gives a counterpoint to the usual interplay within a group. Heck, your explanation seems fitting, doesn't it? "Don't get too sauced or you don't know what you'll get!" This sounds like rationale to me!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nanotubes have been found Cytoplasms. Essentially, everything from the ground up, biological, or otherwise, is a form of language/communication. It is information. So yes, Technopropaganda can be more adept [haha, nice wording] than linguistic propaganda, as it would emulate the organon of logical inference. But a mix of both, that's even more effective [if coordinated properly, that is, without conflating the two types of propaganda together, willy-nilly]. And gestures, too- signifiers, essentially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
National Socialist is the bread and butter of the elites...and stupid people fall for it. Sorry. Fascism, Ok, I can see. It's got a "stick-together, no matter" ideology, prevalent for the time, and it's quite been "evolved"... same with National Socialism. It's evolved to the point where it's nearly gaining the upper hand. And Russia is already hot on the heels of that next challenge of overcoming them, with their New Russia, Eurasia, KGB-lite, Capitalist friendly foist, we're undergoing right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, so the comments are about how this one guys action means that all religious people are condemned [oh wait, just Muslims, not anyone else, even though there are groups like Creation, and the like, who advocate for violence in the name of religion, and who persist in such rhetoric, and yet, no one addresses this]. A bunch of vapid, empty-headed whinging morons think they have "something" to say, but say nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Civility is "far-right". WTF...LOL, sometimes I just have to laugh, so this is one of those times.
I really hope people can see this is insane, eventually. PS: Anytime Styx has been...emotive enough...to seem angry, and has made a video with views that insinuate a violent attitude, he's second guessed their validity; literally, each and everytime. Admirable. (Still nice to see those videos, up, though, lol, just not on the Styxhexenhammer666 channel.
1
-
1
-
facepalm Fucking Canada. PS: YES, the hippies became yuppies because their "counter-culture" was a sham. Lies, basically. Communism is a fucking lie. The "hippies" proved that before...and now the new hippies are much more realistic in endeavor. Because they don't base their idealism on fuckin' Communism and Marx. PPS: And yes, mention something online, then it's like, wait, I never saw anyone talking about this/like this before...it's pretty funny. 19:41 -- That is so annoying a trend, like people do not GET IT, they are clueless...also, that Cenk impression, LOLOLOL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A laser is basically a delivery system. It can destroy. It can transmit. This is nothing new or surprising. It's being delivered here, through another form already, called wireless broadband. Look, this is just some bullhonkey divisive bullshit to scare people into thinking they target the public with heavily expensive equipment, out of huge laboratories, because then people will buy MORE BULLSHIT, and they then become more PLIABLE. Please people be careful what you ingest...you are what you eat. And that is, you are what you listen to, also. I mean, let's face it...if you just read this entire message, even if you disagree with me- aren't you more SCARED now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, now we're looking at collective bargaining...no...this isn't very scientific. You can see there is still higher rates of infection, post-mask, it's right there on the graph. It might not have significantly increased in the whole of the populations' infection rate: but it certainly would have prevented some individual cases, because it's simply put, going to swerve particulates, and thus, lend to some protection against direct contact [with these particulates]. Masks were never a full blown solution, but what was, halting travel, which could have prevented a lot of deaths, wasn't even considered. Collectively, human beings are completely unworthy of trust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As soon as "white people" were blamed as a monolith, the game against "the man" was thrown; and objectivity, lost. No one would do this without being part of a ruse, or a dupe. it isn't even logical, it's fallacious, but it succeeds in the minds of the duped, because of it's hint of truth; the facts of history are true. Democracy at the behest of everyone, even those who do not politically give credence to such things, is not democracy, first off- and secondly, it becomes a farce, which leads people to see it as such, when the value of democracy is not even upheld by so called "democratic thinkers" and activists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, before Trump was elected, this was a distinct possibility in my mind. 20/20 Document video holds all KYEs. (Although, I'll admit, it seems Islam, at least temporarily, is off the table as a cause for conflagration...for now...it's just, the two old big dogs, as usual, Russia and the US. So stupid...all because of this game from the left, really...IDEOLOGICAL SUBVERSION, I GUESS!)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doesn't it look like some people made a plan, thought it would work because people were so duped and stupid, and it didn't cause they waited too long and the internet fucked up their plans to stupify people into submission, but they've got nothing to lose but go ahead with it all anyway, because there's no reason to not forge ahead, as they can still accomplish SOME of their goals- think of it like a 100 year plan, but more like several 1000 -- and yes, perhaps before this was simply a survival strategy, but still the advantage has slowly, over time, been gained....it's just now the internet is providing an informational roadblock. I think that's what's occurring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fear is an emotional/hypothalamic response. Threat recognition and response calibration are logical considerations related to existential continuity. There IS a difference
See? You are shook. What difference? Where? I see none. You just confirmed what I already said. Danger, the fear of threat, the threat of damage - either monetary, property, or physical to your person - is the driving force of your 'right-to-ought' arguments, but yet, there is no influx here upon your rights- you just think there is, because you're obsessed with the federal concept of government. The antifederalists warned about this rising tide. It's easy to see. Consolidate, the CEOs should rightly say, if only, if only they could get everyone to settle on an agreement- they ponder.
Alright Mr. Or Mrs. Invincible. You have fun
Have fun being corralled and trammeled in like cattle in your CEO-made mindfuck land.
1
-
I have no belief in "rights", or in anything else
It's doubtful many people would agree with this response, for themselves, in their heart of hearts.
I recognize will, the intelligence to shape it, and the skill to focus it
So basic shit. Got it. The left has that too. Will, that is; and the...well...maybe they could be lacking a certain intelligence, but so does the right-wing, so, I'll say, it's more like an intelligibility that can be shaped...and skill? well, you can have focus, as much as it may wax or wane, but this theory of yours isn't "skill-based", is it? Where is the skill involved?
"Rights" are for those who need the help of others to enforce the abstract decrees of paper documents: deeds, wills, contracts, etc
Yeah, and most people rely on them, because they aren't coordinated enough to do otherwise, that's why a constitution was drawn up- because it was the only sensible thing [seemingly] to do.
I seek no "rights", only the knowledge and means to perpetuate my genotype
Yeah, you and everyone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MAGABeard I am academically informed because I read subjective opinions to parse them with what I see as objective [witnessed and held] fact. I am not even academically informed, per se, I am anti-academically informed. My main man is Julius Evola, so with everything you said, you aren't but preaching to the choir. Socialism is the shadow behind all movements of self-management, whether "racial" [National Socialism], contingent on capital [cf. Chile, and the libertarian think-tanks and financiers of the juntas which led to the an-cap Chile, and which turn into socialism, afterwards], whether it's contingent on other factors [supranational EU, whatever other cultural and economic factors], etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kingy B Yeah, and? He's was poor [and this goes against him by way of conservatives ocking him for it, as well, calling him "lazy" and calling him "good for nothing" - "didn't accomplish much", etc., forgetting that it's nearly impossible to play ball, that is, unless you deviate into "crypto-nationalism" [I suppose you could say; some terms can be rather extenuating to use in such interchangeable terms, but what I mean is that it's not quite "fascism" (actually, the left in ANTIFA circles, in America most peculiarly, are as fascist-seeming as the more fascist Fascists' in Greece, whom actually fight Grecian ANTIFA literally annually. Not to mention Italy, too; it's strong there...but point is, I'm sorry to digress,- it's called "linker-Fachismus" in some "academic circles, which is quite prescient...everyone said themselves, "they are the fascists, not the alt-right!"- well, partly true, look it up, "linker-Fachismus", or "leftist-fascism". Because fascism is a really funny thing you have to study a bit to know what it actually entails...more than "ultra-nationalism" which is sorta the watchword of the left when it comes to "fascism" as they typically understand it; they obviously would not agree with Habermas; but it's part and parcel to the same regime- they are just a different milieu, coming at the reformist activism of this kind of regime from a "leftist" position, that is to say, in this case a "inside" and "without" position, viz. the notion of "super-rich people" and there's your point about Sanders, by the by, that though, and also the notion of quasi-anarchistic forms of "social democracy" revolution, or in other words "Communism". But you see, if they don't think they are "fascist"- which they are being because they are trying to force reformism by way of "symbols" and "speech", even to the point of "so-called" "microfascism" ["you can't walk this street, with that red hat, you don't belong"], and you can see from this the reverse of the right-wing "type" of fascism that occurs when "inside" and "within" the "national-body" [the race "typically"- but also the "civic body", in Russian this is called the 'Narod', the "people", whom the Narodniks before Soviet Communism won the day in Russia, were also known as 'the Populists'], which supposes not only to keep aristocratic ties [but NOT in the Narodniks of Russia, because they acted more like what turned into the National Bolsheviks out of the revolution]- the "first" third position fascism indicates a wont to back away from these ties but retain the traditions of them- and note that Mussolini was a socialist, card-carrying, before he was a fascist, card-carrying. Whereas, say, National Socialism tends toward a "biological-race" model, informed by eugenics in the then progressive era, so-called...Fascism tends towards the "civic-body" of the "nation-race" or the "citizens" [from the root 'citoyen'], and discards the empirical model [at the time] of eugenics and opts for "Rome", essentially, as their model. It's almost similar to the USA's inception but their revolt was much different and their constitution [the best!] much different, inspired directly by many characters, many many, but typically, and that is to say, down-the-line-between two sides, (not referring to the civil war, no) and that is the federalists and the anti-federalists, in fear of the arising of a new monarchy approaching from the federal-government's insinuation against any defense opposing the sort of divide that would cause the issue. All very legal bafflegab for most people, considering it was the aver that the constitution was not totally sound and conterminus with their (like the Narodniks!) 'anti-aristocratic beliefs', which they "feared" would arise again, as I mentioned. Racial matters aside from these 'constitutionalists', but more like radical Christian Americans...this is the crux of the issue at hand now, though I'm not worried, it's not really "kicked off" yet. With the Libertarians [Hayek] and his think-thanks financing the juntas in Chile, the eventual coup of the "nation-race" was inevitable, proving not only various matters, but even still yet, showing the "evolution" of this thought-process, which was warned of by Engels, but surely. But as you can see, the shadow of Race and of Socialism looms in the shadow of tender-floating finance Capitalism and the casino mentality of the case of the American minimalist-mind, and mooching off "black families" no less, well, they are mooching off you, but you won't see that national debt go down, trust me...not with all this on your plate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are someone to judge, though. All this stuff is "art", it is just badly done, badly explored, badly imagined art, that serves no purpose other than to inflate egos and deflate the intellects of aspiring artists, who get told that this drivel is worth something- it only is because these people are obsessed by their own farts. But it is art though, due to the notion of "expressing" something via some kind of medium...it's just that that art can be really really awful and meaningless. For example: A shoe is art to a shoe maker, and textiles art to a shirt maker (someone who makes fucking shirts)....but the monologues that go along with this pretentious shit, that's not the art; they say it's the item or object that is the art...but really they get it wrong when they say that, too...it's the making of something that is the art, the item or object afterwards is the product of the artistic process, which we also deem to be called "art". Taking something, like a shoe, and calling it art, that doesn't work...conceiving the shoe as some sort of basis to make a sculpture, and then making some ready-made out of shoes, that'd be art...simply displaying a shoe and calling it art, that's rubbish.
1
-
Good job quoting Stuckists, because they are "modern" art that doesn't suck. And certainly, art SHOULD pertain to beauty, but it is not the standard. Sometimes ugliness of the human condition can be exposed in art, look at "War Art", for example. Also, to nte, alot of art is based on "design", overrated, but sometimes a splotch of red on the wall looks Kitsch, and sometimes people like it, cause it makes the room they put it in stand out. PS: Would internet memes be art? i've seen some dandy ones, really talented works. Would that be postmodernism? would that be a "nice" manifestation of postmodernism? What about Dune? postmodernism at it's finest? Is Catch-22? A Clockwork Orange? You realize these are all postmodernist works, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Saudi government has been doing this the whole while. Wasn't Canada in the news for similar concerns regard the Saudis? Oh yeah, that's right, but they were lambasted for it, because the Prince got mad. Oh well, knew people would be torn on the issue, as soon as the Canadians were lambasted for sticking up for the rights of people (according to the UN, which isn't the Saudis at the head of...well...whatever) in that dysfunctional bastard country. Strategically, ally with them, ISIS was a plague- stability in the region was chaos- but politically and fiscally, why the fuck would they be anything more than competition and the purveyor of the worst human rights abuses, even up to and including executing AMERICAN JOURNALISTS. Travesty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DahjerCanaan I am not debating that. You are still being a fool, thinking that simply 'dismissing' is, in itself, an argument. It isn't. I am saying that you are pushing this political front, being deceptive, among other things, and they are calling your bluff. MAPs [so-called] are an aberration, but nevertheless, even if they try to persist, they will be weeded out by society, as a whole: because no one accepts them: this is why you are so clearly and obvious conflating things, either as a kind of tactic to force the issue (presumably, onto the streets), or by sheer incomprehension. More than I'd worry about the 'groomin' gays', I would worry about the "Love everyone", "Do whatever makes you happy", "Be the change in the world you want to see" craption game. But you are being nihilists, yourselves, you want to "totalise" [abolish] the gays...how crude, for so-called 'libertarians'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Holy shit, this video is full of good stuff. Yes, the moralizing of the 50s and shit, you can blame alot of that past moralizing for the notions of rape we see today. "Payback" isn't a valid reason for accusing anyone, though, of course. But it is true that in the past people would hide rape, and this can still be found echoed today- only now we have a bunch of people willing to jump the gun, so to speak, so they can see if they can fix "men" in their ways- forgetting that women also rape men, and also are sexual predators (as such, if we're just generalizing here), and they are also promiscuous (let's not go there....)....so fuck that shit, it's nonsense, no one is willing to budge an inch, here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xavier Azhar What? I'm literally making counter arguments to all your comments and you think because I don't like your viewpoint that automatically makes my nonsensical
I read what you posted. You are assuming I said something about a "message", I didn't. You're assuming I am attempting to assert something ambiguous about said "message". I am not. I have only said that what is seen in the videos are just public sex, or something indicative of that, and not "rape" like most are pooh-poohing about. You are assuming that by me asking people why 'they' think there is some kind of "message" or "romanticizing" of rape is me, in and itself, making a comment about a message in the video; I don't think there is a message, except a potentially very abstract one, one that includes, as I've detailed above, the notions of sex, public sex, eroticism, what underlies the pretensions of the videos concept, etc.
You said that did nothing wrong so I told you what they did wrong
Speak English, man. "You said that did nothing wrong so" you "told me what they did wrong" - I think what you meant is "[I] said they did nothing wrong so I [you] told you what they did wrong". - And did you? You seem to be confused.
You're asking me what my opinion is about "a message" and I never said anything about any message [not before, not at first], or anything along those lines. I just described the videos above, and there is scant evidence for any sort of overt message [other than "sex is good" and "making babies is good" (meh, overrated. Babies are terrible and they smell bad)]. I didn't even say "they did nothing wrong", either. I am actually not saying anything about any of the morality involved in your viewing of the videos. This is why I gladly deigned to only watch portions of the video and not listen to any of the subject matter's critique from the host, who is clearly trying to ween his audience into a "douche a day" format for new content [even if unintentionally...which, hey, it works, for a bunch of gullible people who just have nothing better to do...like me]. I don't care about the morality of people having sex in public and for a Tiktok video no less, with some silly "bad guy" narrative [something we see in movies all the time, ooo, spooky!], nor do I care about the morality of such tropes being displayed in such videos - I have stated, however, that kids shouldn't even be on these types of platforms. Period. - That being said, what you people want to overlay onto the content is fascinatingly prudish, though.
You said people are only hating becayse they don't like sexual things, etc, so I commented
No, I said you were prudish, and insecure, not that you hated sexual things.
You finally answered my question about what it portrays and yet you're still missing stuff because you have such a simplistic viewpoint
You couldn't even bother to indicate what those things are - besides, even if you did, I couldn't care less about your morality play: the Tiktok video is a Tiktok video, raunch and fundamentally dumb shit is par the course on Tiktok, and lo and behold, most of the internet.
And don't @ me with that "in my opinion shit either". I want to know the objective view that the majority have come out your mouth, which is" these skits are horrible for what they portray and are super awkward/ disgusting
"In my opinion shit" - what? - It is my opinion - I am stating that very matter of factly [so to speak] because you would be the one [I figure] that would think this has anything to do with me...it doesn't. You can go and make me your enemy, though, cause you people and your starkly one-dimensional hive-minded takes are graft for the of sake views, clicks, and "opinions" [don't give me that shit, you say? but please, don't give it to me either, you cur]. You think this video is so bad? please, prey tell, how is it so bad? you tell me. Because like I said, the skits are obviously shitty and dumb, as par the course for material on the internet and especially Tiktok content. That's obvious - what isn't is people like you and your stark reaction. That is some obscurely fabled shit, it must be - please do tell the story of your wise truths, O enlightened one....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IncredulousMisanthrope Here in this era especially, we consider asking enough people or considering the views of the majority on what's normal to find a "Crowd truth" (Socha and Eber-Schmidt). So when I referred to the norm, indeed I referred to how the majority behaves. What is exceptional becomes the abnormal. Your viewpoint was hence by this definition something I'd categorise as being "abnormal"
The irony here being that by considering the exceptional as "abnormal" you'd have to consider "The Crowd" abnormal, by defintion.
Your take on things remind me of Positivism, more specifically I reckon that Kant was a positivist like Karl Popper and August Comte (I can't confirm this)
I might be making positive and declarative statements, but that doesn't make me a positivist. Kant isn't a positivist, haha, but that's still a nice guess. Kant comes way before Comte and other positivists. Positivism is STUPID. And an outdated model of the world. Kant is a transcendental idealist at some level: but after Pure Reason he steadies into what can only be described as Kantianism. Empirical realism and indirect [naive] realism is a sort of interpretation some scholars have. Fact is, there are all kinds. The German Idealist schools response to subjectivism [cf. Kant's response to Hume] is STILL being debated, to this day. You haven't proven anything by just recognising that, yourself.
What I am specifically going for is a post modernist take on things, or intepretivism if you may for reasons I'll explain soon. We live in an era where "truth" is relative, as a matter of fact, it always has been. Except, due to the effects of globalisation, the understanding of truth being relative is more prominent, as stated by a sociologist called Kakutani (2013). She specifically referred to how the world is rapidly considering relativism due to how objective reality is impossible to interpret whatsoever
Interpretivism is already covered in Kantian studies [cf.Realism and Antirealism in Kant's Moral Philosophy], seeing as Kant had made strides in works in law and jurisprudence, which is what interpretivism is in all respects, about. It is about how social groups cohere in their notions of "truth", and therein, the law and jurisprudence of a land [now grown into a globalised notion of such jurisprudence and socio-collective concepts of law]. There is nothing in postmodernism ignored by Kantian studies. I don't just refer to Kant, though, because he happens to be useful here, I am specifically referring to the transcendental psychology (and not the particular psychologism of my opinion of anything) of how subjective thinking operates. We do not REQUIRE crowd thought to interpret things, even if there is a tendency towards a uniform correctness underlying the "truth of crowds". After all, not everyone is a scientist, so, this for example, would be unreliable work for the "truth of crowds", typically.
Not until more people observe what science is, and learn it's epistemological limits. Also, note, every philosopher and scientist gets critiqued by others: this is called discourse...it's not been dissuaded into silence yet.
Ever wondered why I took a social idealism based stance? Well...I had "science" to back it up...
Quantum physics? Well, seeing as we haven't the faintest idea how quantum reality pertains to neuronal function [yet], nor does this quantum reality seem to impinge on our sense-data, our perceptions, our observations [save in the wave-function collapse of "observation", but we both know we aren't talking about "crowds" here, nor "truth", are we? just relative truth]. What seems to be more relevant is the ideas we hold, as a society, no? That's where this argument is going, no?
1
-
@IncredulousMisanthrope What is true is indeed objective reality, no denying this. But our cognition fails to capture the pure essence of objective reality due to our notions of prioritising certain "objective" information to back up our beliefs on what should and shouldn't be true, which is our subjectivity (subjective truth)
Yes, but my cognition doesn't fail to function as if it works. You want to walk back your words about "assuming things"? no? You don't, right?
To us, we find such content (the video) as distasteful
What are you, The Borg? "To us". I am a "you". Like I said, you don't comprehend what "abnormal" really means. Even being "globalised" is "abnormal" to the foundational [and not orthogonal] norm or normativity. What is truly exceptional is the norm or normativity that is constitutive of normativity itself, therefore, not the foundational, where things merely cohere together as what is "normal", it is the "abnormal" vis-a-vis the EXCEPTIONAL which constitutes the overall and ideal "norm", which is, like you said, subjective - the "objectivity" of it's self as an object is constituted in it's WHOLENESS. And considering that finite feature of what constitutes the "abnormal" and the whole, that is, subjective being, and given that one must consider the "other" in subjectively cohering with other rational agents, that is, the "outside" of one's subjective being, one must consider Reason, and by that Reason, consider the "truth" cohered (I should even say inhered) in the matter at hand [the discourse and also the semantic-space of language].
But I reckon most people will find such content abhorrent
I already find such content abhorrent, just not being of a stark and fable-driven reaction to what you think you ought not to be witnessing in what is inevitably bound to be trash, given the platform and the culture it resides within. And then you [well, not "you" specifically, mind you, with me, I'd say you're not as crass and moronic as some others, but still not really making a point] - you and others - are all set to be really offended at something YOU THINK OUGHT TO BE considered "like rape" but what I find has more reasonable explanations [other than herp derp it's Russian] and also find that as distasteful as the content is, it's not THAT shocking, not that "vile", not that "gross", as you people are making it out to be, because of your inherent sensitivity to the issues you perceive are exemplified in the video[s]. I have stated that I find the result of such affectations to be "abhorrent" myself, because seldom do I see such hypocrisy. I view some of the content on this very channel to be crass [dildo challenges?], much of the jokes being made to be crass, in effect. And yet you people see some Tiktok videos with some 'dude-bros' making the obvious 'dude-bro' gestures of open public sex in a feigned way [resigned to fantasy and fiction and acting] as an ACTUALLY FEIGNED APPROACH to induce, slyly, a "romanticising" and affect of "rape" and "sexual abuse/violence", when it is merely your own prejudices informing this attitude and opinion? when obviously the people who made the video were not SERIOUS about their portrayal, nor were they taking any exception with the act of sex as a form of unwanted approach, or abuse, in a word - but instead were evoking the image of a meme [hentai villain] (at most) overlooking what is FEIGNED sexual desire [for the content of the video is fictional], and all while you (and others) overlook the obvious joke, and the obviousness of it's non-seriousness, and it's fictional conceptualising of events, which have no tie to "rape" in the video, but only pertain to a meme about how certain character archetypes matched with the scene of openly avowed of and consented [implied, that is, by the gesturing towards more sex and the lack of disavowal] sex MAKES the joke, and also garners a reaction from people who'd be offended by such a joke? and it's such a non-funny joke, too, yet it still worked. That's on you people. You people helped it along. Lol. Here in this case, the majority agrees with the idea that such content is immoral, while the minority says otherwise. Both may be right or wrong depending on interpretation Who cares what's moral or immoral [in this instance of free expression in an artisic medium (badly done)]? like I said, you people are being prudes...you want it to be moral? but...that's not how jokes, nor how Tiktok, nor even how sex works...you think sex is moral? gee. That's a whole can of worms. So if you consent to sex, and then you have a kid [let's just skip over the pregnancy part, sorry every mother out there]. Is it moral to have the kid? given the immoral world we live in? The kid surely doesn't consent. So? are we done?
The language part you mentioned may also be contested. Language itself has no meaning. Yes there is a structure, but individuals themselves form meaning and purpose to such words to suit their ideas (Symbolic interpretivism, George Herbert Mead). An experiment for instance by similar interactionists highlighted how people formed their own narratives through a simple "yes" or "no" replies, which further strengthens my point that people make up their own meanings to fit their ideas
Language itself has no meaning, this is true, but I didn't say language inherently had meaning - what I said was that for apperceptive-rational agents and intelligences to have access to communication they need a rational space of discourse to use, which is inherent in language. This is getting too long...can we finish this now? Do I have to get into how we indeed function on input-output functions and that KANTIANISM still deals in this very subject...so....
Lastly, truth is again...subjective. Your interpretation of truth is no superior than the rest. According to Jean Baudrillard (1996) we live in a post modern world, where reality and fiction is merged via the media, creating a condition known as hyper reality. Here we feed on representations of information (eg:- texts, transcripts etc) which are no more real than the other as they are viewed through a subjective lens. Even objective reality, I reiterate is viewed through the same lens
I am not interpreting "the truth", I'm interpreting a video and your moral outrage in response to it. And you clearly haven't read Baudrillard. I have. He uses 'pataphysical whim to extract an encapsulation of 'hyper-capitalism' which leads into and resolves into 'hyper-reality', which, in his eyes, is...not a good thing, but a nightmare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It only affects law abiding citizens
So? more guns that move across the border, even if "legally owned", because criminal elements own "legally owned" guns. Duh.
Criminals can use a gun to commit crime in any state. Restricting movement of guns shouldn't restrict gun crime, because guns should be available in every state
Yes, work backwards from the logic that police use to ultimately protect themselves -- because all that matters is the 'right to ought'. But alas, there is probably rationale for why the laws work as they do now.
No state should be able to restrict gun ownership, because of the 2nd amendment. That's the point
That's a fairly discarded "point". Plenty of contradictions in the constitution, itself, & when regarding law- look at the 14th and the 1st? no conflict? nah. Right? No private sector conflict of interest? Well, but of course, there is. Also, states rights would predominate in cross-border jurisdiction. You are thinking of some magical fairy-tale land where the US isn't actually composed of separate states [with individual states rights] and where America is just a giant confederation.
Criminals break the law to get their guns. Law abiding citizens should be able to have their own guns
Yeah, and they are. You have to make an argument...not just utter platitudes.
The 2nd amendment makes this a non-controversy
There already is no controversy, save the shit you "conservatives" are making up [you're really federalists].
Anything who pushes for gun control is going against the Constitution, the majority of the American Public, and common sense
No one is doing that, ultimately. Not at least on the right-wing. The right-wing in America wants to further bolster their gun rights, but don't see a way to legitimately set that precedence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Education isn't enough, anymore. It's not enough that we're doing all we can as a society, and that we all have regular lives. We all need to band together and mobilize according to needs of the few. facepalm And we need to suggest and bloviate constantly about how much the poor and disenfranchised need all of each individuals undivided attention- all without differentiating any gradient of who actually needs more, and/or what is specifically needed, per person, nor allowing that the government do it at it's allotted pace, as it's BEEN DOING FOR DECADES NOW- and instead, we need MORE programs, (if they weren't effective enough then, well, NOW, with even MORE homeless, it'll work somehow- you just need to get personally motivated and involved! Workers of the world unite!1) and we need your hands in the game- sorry, if you have a family or your own life to worry about...these people need your help, what are you, some sicko?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem here in this doctors professional opinion (in the video, ya?) is he offers no counterfactuals in his examples, leaving them a bit thin and oversimple. There are plenty of people who opted for careers, got degrees, and do work in a field they are comfortable in, and literally have the hobby of playing (even an exorbitant amount) of video games. And this is another problem with this perspective: it's strictly conservative. It seems even almost like the Dr. Yeomans, here, is this notion that people have to be in advanced careers, everywhere, in every which way, which doesn't really make sense in reality: in reality, there are limitations in resources, and in the "worth" of certain types of employment. Why he mentions none of this isn't beyond anyone to understand [hence why I am opting to write this]. But most of the comments, here, sadly, seem to be just as limited in scope. Personally, I think people even in careers that are not "really careers", like Uber drivers, and office employees, who literally do, say, Telemarketing, they aren't necessarily wrong for having an inner life that doesn't comport to reality, I mean, logically following the notion that Dr. Yeomans thinks that people should (ideally) all have successful careers, and be doing exactly what...needs to be done? (???) erm, or what is...Good? like the Platonic Good, like the way "things should be" if people weren't ignorant (ie., narcissistic)? I mean, is everyone who doesn't have a degree, has a part-time job, lives at home, and likes games someone with NPD, or does society just have a problem with people not "idealizing" what society is, to them? [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turtleking4331 I'm not the one who claims to have a free country, ideally, [who sells it out to neoliberal forces abroad, globalistically, and neocon forces at-home reap the benefits, and continue to hire Mexicans as their laborers], and then when ever an actual revolt occurs [to free people from oppression], you pussies whinge about how it's the left doing all "the rioting", and things never change...on the left...on the right, racists never change, and on the "right" capitalists never change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, but the thing is Styx, is that you are too gormless to understand where you are at. America is selling out. It always will. That's capitalism, for you. They need to get everyone, all ethnicities, etc., on their 'buying side'. You get it, yet, stupid? Now. There really ARE nasis online and in America...natsbols too. But you keep denying it, because it's overblown...but that doesn't mean it's "bullshit". It's not, cause it can't be, cause it's actually true. Maybe if you were more honest...but that's never gonna happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PunkShockRock Both on the left, and the right. None of you know what you are ever talking about, none of you know the positions actual academics take [it's hilarious, cause the left always loves this "trust the experts" crap, but then refuse to listen to theorists and philosophers, at the top of their class: or, you guys just don't know your references, or have outmoded ones, to support your hypotheses]. The right is worse, in this regard, but the left, too, does this. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joe1940 Just the get the terms right. You are business nationalists, autarkists, slowly turning isolationist and the next step is fascism: whatever kind it is, "American fascism", whatever, even if you want to imagine "it just can't happen here", and "we aren't the fascists, you are" - you ALL are potentially "fascist" or "crude communist", or "tankie", [as per the respective "side" you take, these terms are fungible when you really break down the situation].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are blind to your own chicanery. Ecclesiastical History of the English People can't be Historied nonsense, because it's Christian and they'd never remove and replace, oh say, Gaelic Gods with their own saints, right, because they're pure and holy? dude you're not even close to being correct about anything but your own predilections brought on by the most authoritarian bulwark against 'otherness' that has ever existed, a plague residual from Judaism. And you believe that because your texts told you something, that it's "all venerable"? YOU DO know when he wrote it. It was much time after the consummation of Pagan cultures by the Romans, who had had similar celebrations on similar days, and thus the conclusion was made. I don't necessarily even care- what your point in bringing up the etymology of Eostre is irrelevant, and doesn't even regard anything that Styx or I has said- your trivia means nothing.
1
-
1
-
Give me a break, your ecclesiastic propaganda doesn't impress. Why do I need to take a class in formal logic? because I insisted that your comment had substance to it, when it didn't, without me having read your idiotic course material? That's not me being illogical, you idiot. You should postulate the argument, fool, that is, whatever from "Schaff" it is you want to postulate, otherwise, you aren't making a valid argument, you're making an appeal to authority (ipse dixit), you stupid insolent gorm. PS: What language do you think is relevant? Why is the language relevant? What does the language have to do with what Styx said? He said that Easter has to do with Eostere, which is wrong how? you dumb thundercunt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, quite a few people do not realize that after you quit cigs, your risk for all the shit that comes with it, dramatically decreases over time. People. Quit your cigs while you're ahead. PS: And yes, the scheduling, now, doesn't makes sense, for pot; since they admitted that it has medicinal properties. Did they forget, after so long denying it, how their drug scheduling system works? Do they just don't care anymore...old news? I think they should now proceed to changing it to schedule 2, no? AT LEAST, across the country, that is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Love muh billionaires who are otherwise impartial to my existence, and me, theirs, but I'll say otherwise, cause it's good pandering
It just warms your heart AND makes good financial sense...uhh...except so far...still hasn't done anything to help anyone on any serious level, and they still don't pay their fair share into the tax system which makes everyone have to pay into infrastructure costs, and bail-outs of all kinds, subsidies, and these...these things are bad! but letting billionaires flood your streets with police and itinerants and migrants, to keep you from...hurting yourselves, and the precious system! you wouldn't want to hurt yourself, would you!?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What you shouldn't be allowed to do is call for the extermination of an entire race of people. Just my opinion
Happens all the time. You don't think people have table talk about so-and-so race would be better off dead? This doesn't only happen in public, you know. But hey, don't take my word for it, just look at history, I guess. And no, no one should be espousing the determined destruction of an entire race, or anything. No shit. Which is why when people do say things like that, it pushes buttons. Every race does it. So every race, in their stupidity, gets involved. And you think that critiquing some sacrifice isn't going to lead to more of the selfsame table talk and references to the "Doom" of one race or another, in private? Of course not. Which is why people should really grow some thicker skin, especially online, where there is a relative anonymity. Or just 'bite the bullet', as it were, and start to criticize the bulwark of most of the unjustified sabre rattling on the world-stage. It comes from the desert, and it comes from desert religions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reminder of insuperable fact time: The USA was progressive "leftists" out the gate! how do I know this, you ask, oh reader? Well, it's easy! The US fought against the [obviously conservative] British monarchy, and what about? well, mostly about authoritarianism and money! just like the left does [only know they've assimilated racialism in their tool-set]. This is because history doesn't play our games- we play it's game. We don't make it's rules [and assign things, black and white, to "dustbins of history", no matter how badly we want to believe our claims make it so, whether Styx, or Marx], it makes our "rules". They bend and break. At one moment the right-wing are left-wing, the next, mutatis mutandis, they flip. National Socialists were what? Fascists were what? both were considered "right-wing" and yet both have socialists tendencies and predilections. Communism is just that, communism, but it's all in regards to basic human anatomy, sophomore historical premises, and the fundamental primacy of philosophical thought- all of which culminates in everything you see today, from the forms of the Good, to the forms of what we called wicked, evil, tormenting, et al.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. No one "talks" like a Democrat, without putting up policy positions. Democrats don't have a "style of speech", you muffinhead. You dunderbrain. Now, when the right-wing elements of American politics were claiming at all levels that Obama was "not a native born American" before you had a show of evidence, was that not the same thing as what you're all raving about [willy-willy, ignoring your own compulsions to proceed the same ways as the left, impeachment, fake news, "shut it down", etc.], wasn't it actually just the same as that? I'll answer for you, since you can't be trusted to be realistic or honest...the answer is an unequivocal "yes".
1
-
I don't recall the Republicans impeaching Obama over the oddities with his birth certificate or his other violations, unlike Trump where Democrats voted to impeach over lacking or no substantial evidence
"Unlike where Democrats voted to impeach Trump"? I never said that, gorm. You're trying to flip the argument, which is stupid, cause that's putting the ball in my court. But thankfully, for you, I didn't actually say that. And, recall [if you dare] the many attempts to drive sentiment for impeaching Obama; which is what I said; I never said that they roundly impeached him. That would have been dumb, just like how it's dumb that the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump; "disrepute" is all one needs to even make the claim for impeachment, that doesn't mean that a: these things alleged can be proved, and b: that that exculpates Obama or any other president who has had controversies, from being used as a cudgel between such claims of "disrepute" and actual charges. So no, they didn't bring any articles of impeachment into juridical inquiry, but that's not what I alluded to, what I said was that you all drum up "impeachment, he should be impeached", just like the Democrats do, when you want to get your way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
have you ever stopped to think to yourself maybe people don't care to entertain anything you ask
Have you ever stopped to think? I never asked anyone anything, idiot. I have made statements. It's up to you whether you want to actually address them, or not.
you are a presumptuous, condescending and ignorant person who just throws around insults at people calling them names
You are also presumptuous and you are ignorant, that's for sure; and I can probably be more condescending than you, sure. Marring ridiculous statements and idiotic "memes" [very poor linguistic programming, in this instance] is just fun. Sorry about that.
then you sit here wondering why nobody takes you seriously and won't engage with you
Not really, it's all merely for rhetorical effect, that I insist that you actually engage with what I've said, rather than perusing very haphazardly what's been said, and like most other posters- who've addressed me, but not what I've said — have done, and that's to simply call me a "democrat" or call me names, or say "I'm wrong" with no argument to suppose just how I'm wrong. You've done nothing but this, just the same. Typically, you cannot actually address and refute anything I've said, otherwise you would have already, instead of trying to insinuate how mean I am. =(
Also, You use quotation marks for quoting someone not bold
You use quotation marks for lots of things, not just quoting someone. There are "air-quotes" too, you know. Plus, this way that I do it, makes the statement I'm addressing stand out, so people can identify it. Frankly, I have my reasons for using bold.
1
-
1
-
Not talking about impeachment. I'm talking about your actions as a constituency and as proponents of party politics, which pertain to the same tactics used, on both sides. That's the hypocrisy.
If your point is about one party slinging mud at another, you would be better served by considering to what scale
Scale isn't the relevant issue. It's that it happens at all, that's the issue. Sometimes you gotta wonder, who assassinated Kennedy? These people all work together. Hence...as a Trump supporter...I can't really engender too much faith in any of these parties. Trump is, essentially, an outsider, and even he can be usurped and used. It completely and utterly depends on factors that people like you or I have zero control over. If he really is a maverick, he's got a lot to prove, and a hope to inspire, down the line. That hope does not reside with the parties...period. They didn't have that "hope" until Trump....
But there's a huge difference between doing something, and kicking an idea around and ultimately deciding not to. In fact, they are opposites
Ok. Doesn't seem to be working out too well for the Democrats.
a fully partisan political action to delegitimize an election that has happened three years ago
What? You are acting like this is unprecedented. It's not. Trump is just a very big face for the scene. Nixon had more of a long face...not such a fat one, like Trump. My point is that Trump stands out more, most things do, nowadays, given social media as a presence, etc. But this isn't the first time people took seemingly "delegitimate" action against a standing president because of partisan political hack-jobs. Either on the left, or the right.
At least Republicans hold themselves to the standard of EVIDENCE. 'Rats do their shit on nothing but feelingz
See, at least Morpheus got the point. But alas, when the Republicans were clamoring to impeach and remove Obama from office, the only "evidence" they had was circumstantial and not truly evidential but more like a feeling or assumption, which they then tried to prove afterwards, after they already made the claim...and did they succeed in finding evidence to prove anything? nope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx, you FINALLY noticed (or made mention) of the insuperable homophobia and even racism [carefully hidden, but less hard to spot, still, than the aforementioned homophobia] within the left's ranks. Orwell, for example, had ties to forces connected to MI6, apparently, and which forces collected his statements; and one can see a repertoire of various influences the left would have to denounce, nowadays. The left comes from a history of abject hatred, in many degrees.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All the other systems don't
Socialism soaks through all the lands of outside nations- it is it's own Lebenstraum, it is it's own employment of ATTRITION in order to gain the resources it needs, but it does it through propaganda, all through this destruction of hierarchy and culture/heritage- in order to absorb immigrants and displace the native population/workforce, for the sake of efficacy in the face of LOW-FUNDS and RESOURCES: call this the "band-aid" or "stop-gap" effect.
"State Socialism", obviously, requires centralization, it has been delineated (according to history, anyway), at least by Historical Standard (see: Trotsky); but yet a global effort (aka non-Globalist World-cooperation) is the best course of action— this suggests that borders & finite controls on population, with minimal government intervention (the most minimal to approximate the smallest force required to implement a state-guard against monopolies & immoral business practices)...'.
Social Democracy starts up [and you can see the results, it is seen right from the second and even first world war, in Germany], and the reason why is the "ideal" end of making people more or less "democratized" but globally considered [hence, "social democracy" is leftist in the regard that it "transcends race" to "fend for the worker, the poor, the disenfranchised", whatever], & that is part of the selfsame "band-aid effect" I elucidate above:
The "taking away" of sovereignty starts above: but you can now see WHY it happens, and why capitalists coordinate with "progressives" all the while: you can call it "anti-white" [it is] but it's also a part of a vaster problem which is contributed to by "globalization" [cf. above on "social democracy", and also see "multiculturalism"]. There is a means of "denial" and/or "exit", but you'll always be dragged back to this same song and dance, and it won't change...because of the synarchic trends therein "globalization"; which leads to "globalism" [which is actually just a way to discern "global concerns" about cosmopolitanism].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Notice that the entire documentary is tailored to the notions presented by the psychiatrists other than the guy in the chair who was admitted to have especial insight; even though a part of his interview is used as a soundbite earlier in the presentation, while later in context it pops up in a way that a: doesn't tailor itself to the notions of the other psychiatrists [who are trying to blame Berkowitz's sex life] and b: doesn't use the same premise to a juridic decision aimed at his "sexual needs", per se [and their criss-crossing with violent tendencies], and instead looks at the role resentment played by pointing out the race of the couples he targeted, emulating the couple he was adopted by, and then in the afterimage [, of the motion blur, ] of a past he never knew, he sought to alienate them as he was cast out, by pain of death, because he was feeling that much anguish and fear and turpitude, and he chose the path in his life to kill, maim, strike fear and anguish back into the heart of the society that he blamed for his parents' being unrighteous, and then emulating the very act, in his mind, was taken by society itself, to abandon him [retroactively] by being the sort of people he imagined his adoptive parents as, which reflected on the missing past which haunted him, and which he propped up in the mirror as 'society itself' with him in it "programmed to kill" "an outsider" "a beast". He saw no way out, and would be called, surely, a coward if he had killed himself...or had just been nobody, a statistic. This surely, was also relevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders in a nutshell, through my old assessment, as an outsider: Bernie wins, America will either have to change their entire way of life, the metropolis will continue to grow BUT all while the rural becomes more disenfranchised (see the Red States and Blue States and their respective income, tax rate, etc -- rural is getting vamped, and the cosmopolitan elite like to say "see how much we do for the rural states who can't run as well as us; who can't contribute as much as us") -- or option B: Bernie wont be able to play ball anyway, and very little changes but only the worst proposals are passed [as a rule of thumb, generally], and people end up getting fucked by simple-minded bullshit that doesn't pan out. First off, it's probably likely, that latter scenario -- and secondly, America changing it's entire way of life, that'd also include not only infrastructure, but literally...everything. People would have to give up a lot...people would likely revolt, given the standing people have right now (imagine people might be less likely to be so socialistic now, than in the future, with enough of this ludicrous branding they keep doing- basically Communism-lite/Globalism-lite). I've said this since the last election, and this still is the same case today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@northernwatch534 You've already claimed several as your own: really your question should be: why didn't you "cull the herd". That's what you really are thinking, no? well, it's the logical conclusion to your sentiments. You are a product of your environment: Capitalism has brought [and kept] the cattle: not even "white capital", but simply capital, in general, which is a world-wide phenomenon. Don't act like you just figured this out, that it's "opportunity": for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, world-wide - meaning that the poor from the less rich places want to move (or eventually have to) to the more rich places, often times just for work: look at how the cities grow and expand and give metastasis to the rural (the Ruritania). This is all just part and parcel to the nature of Capitalism, it seeds itself everywhere and delimits everything but itself until only it's delimitation of itself lends to it's reduplication in the model of whatever suspends or delays it: it captures it: the nomad, the itinerant, the sedentary, the migrant, the rural, the city-folk, it captures everything, every ideology, fascism, Marxism, anarchism, "traditionalism", ancient ideals, and it puts a false-face on them all: it is pure avarice for the projection of self onto all-things: and worse yet, you can't have it, of course not: you want social ends, at least, more than you probably want riches, endless riches, but those with endless riches do not want you, do not care for your social ends, your feelings, your belonging, your caring, to give to you what you think or feel you need, it only gives you what it thinks and "feels" you need - in a sympathetic tone, it wants you to give you to itself. Always and forever. It is Mammon, it is Satan, it is Original Sin [or it might as well be]. It was forewarned time and time again, and it's a feud that will last a life time, because the greed of a few, a synarchy, will determine Capitalism, and capital flows, not people trying to meet their social ends; to buy food, clothes, take care of their kids, their family, their home, their jobs, etc. etc. Forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SocialismForAll I'll just reiterate what I told someone else, who wanted to argue quibbles about some piddling nonsense:
Engels is actually a perfect example of what happens in the contemporary moment when Communism unfolds from a proletarian state of mind, apart from a duly aristocratic one: neither of which are anymore or less scrupulous. Marxian theory is sound: Engels interpretation of Marxian theory is nothing but a form of naive realism. It's one of the best examples [other than in the current political moment right now] of the arbitrarization of tendencies and things in general [something Engels would gathered easily, even if in his naive way: as he would have pointed out the objectification of things into people and people into things, and the conversion from quality into quantity, and visa versa]. With Engels, the contention that "Marxists make everything into a economism and into a materialism" is a sound one, that holds water. But Marx, himself, was more circumspect than that. He quite duly noted, for example, that Communism would come from Capitalism itself, and thru it, to be more precise.
1
-
@SocialismForAll There are, of course, major differences. Engels is a proponent of Marx, but misapprehends where Marx ends and he begins: he misrepresents Marxian theory. They diverge in their thought by the time Engels has written The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. His understanding of science, also, was not only not up to snuff, but just made too primary in the comprehension of a "nature" of things, and henceforth, his conception of socialism and of reality, and how to interpret that reality. Social realism in a complete naivete about the construction of not only the world but our concept of it: unlike Marx, whom understood such things. This places Engels in a much different category of what is conceivably sound in the early Marxist period.
1
-
1
-
@smjfg THe high-school dropout, who flubbed Hegel, and then took up being an industrialist, helped Marx [after Marx received some interesting erm "grant" money, I suppose] to foment a "scientific and utopian" [within reason, I suppose he meant] form of socialism (that is, radical democratic socialism, or Marxist communism) *and form of an understanding of Capital: thankfully [???] editing vols. 2 & 3 of Das Kapital, he could only do so much with his huge aspirations to promote Marx [after Marx died...], wherewith he propounded about his takes (which would now be considered pseudo-science) about the "scientific" socialism he espoused, along with Marx's vision of the capitalist system, along Hegelian lines, I might add: this naturphilosophie of the time, in Engels, was, of course, also in Hegel: but Hegel was much smarter than Engels [and Marx, too].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Left-wing economics
A misnomer. Marx never wrote about any theory of economics, per se, it should be noted, at least. Socialism comes out of Christianity. And the precursor to Marx [ostensibly] was Christian. But Marx simply conceptualized critique of the economy and states and government for the sake of the workers [then proceeding from that, Soviet Marxism, etc., Neomarxism later, following Orthodox Marxism, after Classical Marxism, which is the principal works and ideas of Marx- ignore Engels, if one must]. Marx would certainly despise the EU. Marx despised Socialism [rightly so]. Communism was extant during very trying times, where alot of people were already warring. Crude Communism was written and warned about by Marx in essay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fellow students? I think they should all be sent back home. People should be allowed to discuss how the world is changing drastically before their very eyes, and they should be able to do so, honestly, and without harassment. But of course, since these changes ultimately effect everyone negatively, in the long run, especially those with "class distinctions" in mind [which is odd, because these are usually the people], or with distinctions of culture, or history. Because the world is so absolutely dire in it's affects right now, we should be able to state "look and see!" and discuss whyfores and wherefores. But it's not allowed...because in the socium of affects you are double-plus good if you screech about people who see and warn of these changes to their lives and their nations, because you have to be told that you are evil for not pertaining to the socium as the ultimate good. And every single soul brought here from shores afar will consistently defend this type of behavior, because people like Soph evinces the TRUTH. And the truth is that these people do not belong here. They belong in their own nations, fixing them from the shit-holes that they are. Not coming to the New World to shit it up with the socius' progress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AnAZPatriot No one was talking about your kids, either...that's another thing. Of course kids need to be exposed to germs to have a healthy immune response...you also don't want them to have an immune system that is developing to have a immune repressing reaction to something, like influenza. Or CV. So why did you think we were talking about that? you're going off of strawman arguments, my guy. No one has to wipe anything down unless they want to minimize the risk for themselves, personally - businesses doing such things were doing so out of over abundance of caution, there isn't any data to suggest it's necessary, and it's going to be phased out soon. And the only reason I have to mention that is because you did...so...again...why? I literally agreed with you...but the only thing you could do was be hard-headed about your BS, and then look...YOU ARE THE ONE with the strawman arguments, [I repeat]. It's ludicrous. lol And I say the experts are unreliable...but so are you, my guy. You came up with all this shit that you thought you could confront me with, here, and it all are things I either agree with, never brought up to begin with, or both, and you just brought it all up cause you're mad about how people responded [to CV]. I'm with ya, but you're also still being an idiot. All I am saying is you didn't have the data about the Cold being helpful in protecting against CV. You don't even know why it does...you haven't mentioned why, at least. So please. Save your diatribe. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bruno Darkhorse all commies use capitalism to enrich themselves while denying others from using it to enrich themselves... duh
You should call yourself 'Dryhorse', with that dry bourgeois sensibility. So...when are you going to take down the elite champaign socialist Fabian Society? Never, right? You like their veneer of exploiting you and using valorized [your surplus labor value transferred, basically, and essentially, via the LTV transfer rate which Austrians are always trying to "stabilize" to it's "natural rate of interest"], so you'll alienize the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised [in colonial history- anything more than that is a bit of farce if it's propounded in this bourgeois sentiment of "intersectional power politics" (anti-Marxian, for sure. Many a noted Marxian theorist don't approve of postmodernism, nor of these gendered notions of how to progress society)...]. You will continue to feed the "false consciousness" of the ego, as it were, propounded by slim "insights" from schools of libertarianism and "conservatism" [though, dare not read Evola rightly, that would be a sin!]...you'll stick with these Christian notions because it's baked right in [like Zionism] to the very fabric of your social mores, but again, you can't really realize what makes up those mores more than what you only slimly want to know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, Muta, don't get involved in politics- don't get involved in economics, either- don't get involved in civics, at all, just allow everything to be co-opted by...politicians and corporations...gooood idea. It's bad to label people- but people do- people also think that they own things they don't own, by way of the fact that nations are intertwined. At one point, nations didn't exist, empires existed- it seems like people want to go down that road, again- on one "side" you have synarchy...on the other, you have "imperium". Truly, one is tantamount to the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amish point, very funny, some weird strain of anarchistic-religiousity can maintain such birthrates, and be protected by the auspices of the strong, more so then with any strain of SOCIALISTIC philosophy. Huh. And finally, yes, this is the thing...Europe and USA, different. There, real simple. In the US, you can't jackboot around and stir the public...it's just not possible, for a reason. Good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kristoferlarson There is no personal responsibility, and there is no national responsibility, not without self-management. And this "right"-wing fakery doesn't approve of self-management and will fight any attempt at it, tooth and nail, like the hypocrites they are. The contract any has with their employer, by the very nature of the contract as is, isn't fair. Nothing is fair. What is fair about the expropriation of your valuable time, siphoned for some big-wig to make more money than he'll ever fairly pay you for, in terms of the profit he extracts from you, and everyone else like you, who works under him? Ask Styxhexenhammer what he would do if he had to work a "real job", as it were. I remember at one point he said he'd rather live a vagabond life or die, than work on some shitty wage job. Just for example. You wanna talk about debt slavery? what about it? capitalists love it. You, presumably, are a capitalist, right ["are you making the argument that the contract you have with your employer isn't fair"]? well, then you don't mind debt slavery. There is no other option. Capitalism isn't capital, and nothing is being "capitalised" on, and nothing is capitalising, unless it's by profit motive. That IS capitalism. Not "crony capitalism", but all capitalism, by function. You want to see civil society meet it's maker, then see to it capitalism is halted. But you can't, so you won't. So you won't get anything you people want, and will just butt-heads [maybe worse, as things are looking now, certainly worse] with "the left" as you continue to look more and more like them [their worst proponents] everyday. You ain't fixing this problem with putting more black people in jail or in the grave, nor white people: or...or if there is any attempt, it's not going to be pretty, and it will be based purely off of a tergiversating from this current Republican brain-trust, away from issues of 'debt slavery' and into issues of "national interest", which the world over knows about...knows all to well ["I'm non-interventionist! wait, the wind turned, now I'm interventionist again!"]. Either Americans sort their shit out, or...you spiral into chaos. It isn't some fucking black guy's fault, nor is it because he had a knife in his car, nor because he was on drugs, or any lamebrained excuse. It's because your system of governance and societal structure is fucked up beyond all repair.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong political beliefs
Well, here's why. You live in a capitalist world. This world, being capitalist, engenders civil society...you people are too hard-headed to grasp this...so your politics are becoming outmoded. And this is being seen, not only by "the far-left", but also, by corporations. And the government, under Trump, would have to of course sabre rattle now, with China, cause that's all that "Conservatives" can do...enact various processions of hypocrisy, because they do not value "US values", of classical liberalism, anymore. Civil society is anti-"right", and thus, the "right" [it's vapors] finds itself in a conundrum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BobBelson I don't endorse any of that crap. Wtf are you talking about. What's ironic is that mostly it's you people who are committing to this 'cultural critique' shit, at a clip...me, I'm not a fence-rider, but I'm not playing the field, either. You called me a "victim culture identity", but that's you people...you people take this shit too far, just like the "loony left". You're all just mindless drones, to me. So I sit back and watch the show...doesn't mean I'm not gonna have any commentary, though. But Americans, it must be told, are typically like this...so critique away, cause I can't say there isn't any merit to it. But calling China "communists" and calling it a day ["it's all da communists, guyths!"] is just really low-brow idiocy.
1
-
@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093 Keynes died before the CIA was even created
Yeah, it was the OSS then, fucktardo. Still, that's what became the CIA. I forgot to mention that.
Let us also not forget that supply-side 'trickle down' economics were a school of economics that was OPPOSED TO Keynes
You're overstretching with "opposed". They didn't oppose him, they modified him. Keynes is demand-side economics, out of the neoclassical school of marginalist econ., which is a modification of Austrian school econ.; Chicago School, London School, are all connected thru Keynes' style "trickle-down" demand-side econ., only they use supply-side econ. because of obvious trade relations stakes in the global market supplying the ends to this economic planning, whether you agree with it or not- it serves the ends of what kind of economy these schools tend to promote. It's all inherently out of the same reactions to the Austrian model being flanked by Marxist theory, and other injunctions against these schools of thought. So no, you're not even wrong. You're just omitting a bunch of shit. And about dates and stuff? nobody even mention dates, but you. So yeah, wow...obviously the OSS hired Keynes [Mephisto], and NSA connections also run rife with these selfsame links to affiliation. So, I forgot the CIA was called the OSS, then...so fuck off. The rest of what I said is accurate, and I defy you to actually confute the above noted subject matter. Go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@therealcirclea762 You aren't really understanding how a strawman works. But look, l'll explain to you something: I didn't make an argument. You said posted some placard [Keynes vs. Hayek], and so I said some fact, and then you fetched an article from an interview with Hayek, explaining his political views and sort of insinuating why he did help supplant Chile's government for the one people will now call socialist [rightly, they have it half-right, at least; because Chile has a strong racial bond it was easy for them to be, basically, anarcho-capitalists [pure clanship, esprit de corps, weltanshauung in a racial self-hood of selbst, or a volkish self-management]. People call it socialist because of this. Because all social ends are considered at both bottom and top levels of governance, that is public and private. As this liberalism takes, socialism and capitalism blend naturally, as achem "certain people" predicted...I won't name who, but...it's certainly ironic. Nevertheless; Keynes is a poop head. Liberalization in the business sector runs amok into neoliberalist cosmopolitanism [glocalization is the nearest thing to a workable exponent of this globalization: no one will take to that anyway, because it's still too confusing: proving the liberatarian ethic and anarchist ethic to be ever the more hard to accomplish]. Globalization and globalism [civic society, or international, cosmopolitanism] are both extensions not only of this neoliberal [the safety trend not only of progressivist "power blocs" but of, literally, human resources...cf. The Democrats and their voting bloc. It's all there, as you probably well know. And neoconservatism is stuck in the oil gouging wars of the middle eas-y[sreal], viz. the "war in the middle east" [Delta Forces]. This causes a feedforward mechanism of interventionism, "spreading democracy" [ops], and obviating catastrophe for the sake of the war-machine: aka, the oil companies. It's all there. Have you anything to add?
1
-
@therealcirclea762 You are adhoming, here. I just said something [not an argument], you got mad, but you thought some clipping [copypaste] would suffice to yawn at me with, and then you got uppity some more and actually started adhoming me [, after I called you an idiot, oops. You are one though: that isn't an argument, but...What argument do you really have...you posted a clipping as if it was an argument, that's a thought-terminating cliche, at the outset]. And I elucidated both Hayek's views and my own in my last response and you didn't even comment on that, actually: in essence, not only evading, but also committing the thought-terminating cliche fallacy: so I know you are mad and all, but at least try and comment on what the actual subject of the response entails, not just "herp derp, I can't fathom you, I'm baffled, but who needs to listen to you, I am automatically right by posting this clipping about Hayek's views! as if he knows them...*yawn*" Well, I do know them. And that is how what I said connects. But you dodged that discourse so you could ad hom me [ironically]. In never ad hom'd you, until you ad hom'd me, already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a feeling, it's an imprecation [if foolish or haphazard], it's also compunction, too- it's psyche- it's pneuma [which is in the most literal sense a physical thing, but only in it's action, that is, you can see/feel/hear it's pressure]. This is "Being". This can be "touched on", but not really...not fully. It is "Death" to do so. In other words, it is a state of Being, of consciousness and perception intertwined with the will to persist in such a state [or falter and either slumber or go into some kind of madness]. On the one hand, you have the "sinister current", and the other, "Being".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Politics, in and of itself, is such a corruption. It, like money, corrupts everything it touches, making people vie, vie for things that aren't real: and what's worse, these fools, make things worse, instead of better, believe whatever nonsense they need to to "push through" the effort [to believe? yes, to merely believe their own bullcrap], an what is "true" simply begins to lack and sort of relevance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Similarities & Differences Of Fascism & Communism:
Right now the "antifa" people are a threat to American sovereignty. This
"Anticenter-Fascism" [linker-Fachismus] is not good for the country. It's growing (on both
the right [national socialism in it's racialism] and the left) because the left keeps insinuating
itself in debacle after debacle, pissing off the right enough for them
to become "rampantly individualist" from the base of the 'center-right'
on the political spectrum, and thus separate from the left entirely—a
bifurcation.
Which is by title alone extensive in it's nuance, because it is this that is actually an attempt at the impossible; that is to say, the two divisions share in remarkable quality the
essence of what both sides want to achieve, yet vary in the goals to
achieve for themselves- and that's still putting it simply. Yet the
Fascist strives for (thus in likemindedness they strive for) what is
essentially an antithesis to the Centrist model, given the current
political spectrum. It's revolutionary, it's tendency is to be
disdained, it involves a massive disproportion of violence (throughout
history, this is a fact)—and it revolves around idealist solutions that DO NOT WORK
for long term success, unless they were to enact a virulent (and in
this day and age, possibly world-ending) war—the selfsame as the
Communist, which aims for non-violent coercion [save for the composite forms of 'crude communism', the Soviets, Chinese Imperialists, Pol Pot, etc. in other words "extremists", in the tone of Zionism], in the striving for autarky (whether they achieve that or not History tells us is an
entirely different matter); that is, whether collectivized, a la
Communist existence, versus, "more independent" a la Fascismo
methodology, for the state.
Now notice, there are two distinctions here:
One:
Fascism focuses on "independence", and there is a, let's call it,
"rampant individualism" of the Fascistic flair—and yet they at most
collectivize the labor's wealth at the very highest state levels—in
order to fund it's activities, all while maintaining it's self-providing
state. It relies on everyone's "individual" effort, but no less than
"everyone's"; similar to....
Two: Communism focuses on "collectivism" and there is a notion of the state being abolished and
the individual being insuperable in importance, a la Fascismo—but
without the import of the state—thusly requiring, in theory, no one to
supplant one another in their collective importance. Thusly, like the
Fascismo, they are needed in a collective state to provide the
necessities of the whole of the individual- this is what the Greeks
taught, at some point, I do believe—point is, that it eventually
requires something akin to a state, and as the line somewhat goes,
eventually you just call what is quacking a duck- and yes I'm
paraphrasing- this is a walking, talking & LAME duck, this
attempt to stifle "centrism", as if the mere notion of Centrisim weren't
just "preventing collapse of contemporary society". Something we should
aim to preserve.
[This last part (at "point is") is definitely a snap at statism as anymore than the social requirement, period: nothing akin to a imperialistic state apparatus, but the State often adapts that form. And the social requires the economic at that end, but that means that the conversion from socialism and/or anarcho-capitalism (in a given racial/national body) and then into either totalizing it's pursuits of resources and juridical/legal components or absolutizing the universal imperative of racial/national or religious directives: which then lead to a contradiction: this is why you see such forms taking place in Russia, as of now, and in China, still yet].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Benjamin "Musslini and Hitler agreed with certain aspects of Marxism, ergo they're the same as Soviet Communism"
I didn't say that. You are misreading me. I never ever said these words you've jettisoned out of your head. I was actually trying to make the point you just made: it was DIALECTICAL [cf. Giovanni] of their ERA [Fin de siècle—which I would have gotten...and given the opportunity, here it is...]. And I know about Hegel. That's the point, Hegel WAS a CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DAY — Precisely, why Marx and Hegel and the German Idealist school following after Kant, and then the phenomenologists after Husserl, like Heidegger, et al. are so prescient to understand in their fullness. NatSoc is basically retarded unless you're actually German, then ok; or you plan on being the only national base around; and fascism is just a trend: it's more proper to human nature, in my opinion, but...that is to say, in a more operable way, than say, NatSoc, which is basically too extreme. It's not serviceable, especially, under "capitalism" [that is to say, the means to production]. The "race" needs must control the production, and the customary law become non-binary to the law of other peoples, when the "self-hood" of the race [or weltanshauung] takes on "it's own meaning" and significance, as it were [which is what the fascists wanted to, but in a different sense, not so much based on the science at the time, biology, etc.]...point is, people are trending towards "self-management", either way you go, any which way in the triad espoused here, Marxism, Fascism, or National Socialism: they all converge in Socialism [self-management] of a kind that is differentiated from the status quo, as it were, or if you will, the "trend" of capitalistic endeavor as it stands [crony capital- and that's within "liberalist" ends, as well, which is the synarchy which contract their flows of wealth into "state" socialism, and whence comes the idea of "capitalist-socialism" or "gradualism" [cf. Fabian Society]...you can also see this trending ideal with the MPS [Mont Pelerin Society] funding the juntas in Chile: which become, again, SOCIALIST [or at least they are called socialist, but they are only socialist in on sense...they are "self-managing by race/nation" [the difference between "civic nationalism" and "ethnonationalism" is bound to the difference in "socialism" in state democracies, or pseudo-democracies, and "Socialism" as in "national socialism" [race-based self-management]. Where am I wrong?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ootmaster1 No. You oversimplify because you are vague and dumb. Communists were, like anarchists, and socialists [Blanquists, especially, when it comes to insurrection] were fighting the powers that be [capitalism], and Hitler [who was also fighting erm the "Jew" AKA capitalism] just fought the communists on ideological grounds: against democratic socialism, and for "national socialism", that is, the self-hood of the race as the weltanschauung, and biology as the transcendental category [as opposed to fascism which had it's own racial theories, and opposed the communists on similar grounds].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ootmaster1 Yeah, they saw it as being oppressive, and their serfdom was unwarranted, especially under the harsh regime, so they wanted to modernise, when their crown wouldn't: they took control, sort of like the Americans did in the colonies of the British. They also were irredentists [like the nasis], which was par the course of the era [resources, land, growing populace and labor force, etc.]. Shut up, you're a know-nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Look, i'll even be honest here...it's partially not my fault...but then again, it kinda partially is...I never voted. I mean, I just grew up sort of disillusioned with the whole she-bang so...but my God, the world doesn't just not stop getting worse...the only reason i'm not still apolitical (aka, another way of saying "I played devils advocate"- my hardline stances have never changed, I just hate talking about this shit, mainly) is because the stupidity does not stop getting worse. Actually, it seems to be at it's apex, but everyday a new evergrowing zenith is approached, and I just don't see it slowing down...Canada is ONE OF the worst offenders, too, in our administration, and some of our more bereft population...it's a stinker. I'm going to have to start voting- which just sets me up for more disappointment, OR, I pull a Carlin and say, fuck that, i'm not taking any of this monkey onto my back...but that seems disingenuous. Damn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Visual is the most important factor in a movie...story is secondary, like the Music, but like the Music, it fills in your imagination with what needs be supplemented, because it can't represented by the purely visual medium- not that you can't tell a story with purely visual means, though that'd be rather abstract. But film itself IS a primarily visual medium- you need to drop the CGI and the cheap videography Hollywood- and the actors, GET RID OF THEM, they are boring, and the actors of yore that were any good, they're old and deranged, for the most part, now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There was never that censorship, the Youtube stuff, even the notifications stuff...just a funny meme...lol, people didn't understand that everything is collated in particular ways to prevent traffic jams and miscounts. LOL, but Styx is right, the meme was more powerful than the truth, wasn't it? well, then again, all people had to do was presume that Youtube had a rationale for the way things were dealt with, handled; a sort of analytical triage, which is what it was...still not perfect, though, I still end up NOT getting some notification bells for some Styx videos until either way late, or sometimes not even at all. Booo-urns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PS: I still despise most anyone online, most people are stupid. But through talking with a very nice, intelligent (and ultimately hilarious) conservative dude, I learned something about my ways...I might be a cynical bastard who is practically apolitical, and hates people's stupidity, including mine own- but hey, people have their own self-interests, just like me! who can possibly stop that? no one can. People who do, just want to see fighting break out. It's sad. We have people who just want to get by conservatively, and then the revolutionaries who are just so far up their own ass, it's hysterical, their motivations and actions and HYPOCRISY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Going into the Middle East made the US allies...now they have to support them, to some degree, being the superpower of, well, the globe, really. But if the US hadn't have ever gone in in the first place, to haul in Saddam...yes, exactly, none of the shitshow with ISIS, with Syria (to the same extent anyway), ect...the Middle East is now a mess because MUH MONETARY NECESSITIES! but when a conflagration of death is approaching with no real windfall for the US...*silence*
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Liber-fascists are angry and fearful, fearful of being compared to fascists. They live in a fantasy where, in this fantasy, there is a lack of fantasies (in which the being of 'lack' IS their fantasy, precisely) where evidence and argumentation can't occur. In this fantasy, the non-liberal-fascist is the enemy to the defender of the self, the defender of the Market which is the greatest proponent of the Individual. So therefore, communists, environmentalists, feminists, et al., equals fascist, which also equals to non-liberal-fascist. Thereby we get communist/socialists = fascist. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, I know, it's retarded garbage- that shit might have been edgy in the 70s but it's outdated...Feminism came up with that shit, too. Sure it's of "postmodernity", as in the era...but I don't see how it pertains to Postmodernist philosophy, at all- and postmodernism IS a philosophy. In and of itself, and within Architecture (as alluded by Styx, and I am actually, upon thinking about it, leaning more towards Styx's opinion regarded that), and within Literature (often misattributed to writers whom don't claim to be 'postmodernists') -- I guess what Styx is saying is fundamentally true, but no one even talks about the conflation going on here. I ask people to name me one Postmodernist philosopher that ascribes to "patriarchy", or "32 genders" that isn't also a VEHEMENT Feminist/Gender Studies Guru (which is more like Sociology, don't you think? Conflict Theory/Critical Theory...Structuralists/Post-Structuralists...all of these things get conflated to mean "Postmodernism", but I defy anyone to tell me of any of the OLD (late 50's, early 60's) Postmodernists, or tell me how the theory of Language Games is wrong (the Feminists and Gender Guru's love that shit, and people love debunking it, because you CAN deconstruct language...but NOT Biological FACT...HAHA, THEIR fuck up- they don't know of what they even speak! And the "skeptics" don't even realize they are tackling this with Language Games to PROVE their assertions (that Biological Fact is not able to be "Deconstructed"- not by the means they wish...they can only hope to assign Gender Roles LINGUISTICALLY, but that's it...(and the law issues, if you are thinking i'm anti-Peterson-fucking-telling-them-to-fuck-theirselves, you'd be wrong; that shit, legally speaking, disturbs me. But the morality involved also does to- I dislike vehemently hateful and vile people, on any side of any debate.) Sorry for the ramble- the only way to get my thoughts out on this subject, it makes my head spin. I think the WORD Postmodernism is STUPID. Anyways, Metamodernism is the new thing now, and people should focus, at LEAST, on BOTH, and have a dialectic debate about the merits of disabusing people of either/or, for the sake that they are the most prevalent. Modernism is also ATTACHED to Postmodernism, intrinsically, I might add. It should all be critiqued, but NOT CONFLATED- just like fucking White Nationalists (whomever they may be) shouldn't be conflated with Supremacists or Nazis;...the logic i'm applying there is the same I apply the absent-minded misuse (or OVERUSE) of the damn stupid word Postmodernism. It's just Stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richg2620 And it's just more of an expense. See, what people don't realise is, that, and it's true, and they know it...but can't seem to realise it...is that whatever happens, big-wigs win. We are just herd animals, at this point. We are being told that COVID-19 came from somewhere, is natural, and we don't know where it came from exactly, but we know it came from somewhere "natural". Ok. But boy, what timing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What you are calling socialism, is something we've had in Canada. That is to say, "socializing", in Canada, has been a priority. But it's never been actual "socialism", as per the definition of the economic/political ideology. But you said it was sinking into "socialism", not me. I said it was not, and thus far, the only "socialism" that's been had is the "socializing", that is, that "sociological awareness" (if you will), that's ever been the priority in Canada for the past few decades. Ie, minority rights, ect ect. So honestly, I don't see your overall point. The free trade effect? What is that? The entire globe was running under a similar priority regarding international trade. Not just Canada. Canada will have the same sort of rebound (if they play ball) as the US has recently undergone. If they don't play ball, however, then I can see where the previous deal might bite us in the ass, retroactively, in a sense...but that isn't the sky falling, either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're an idiot, talking about how it's bad people sacrificed their young, and at the same time, praying for nuclear death. OK. You don't think awhole lot of child death will be occur with that at hand? (Do you care if they die as long as it isn't by hand?) And no, Nords didn't sacrifice their children, you idiot. They'd rove the villages of who did. Not all tribes/clans were copacetic to one another's values. Also, the Binding Of Isaac, the eating of the Body and Blood of Christ, are all premises within the Bible that pertain to the sacrifice of one sort of another, of a persons body, or child. It's a theme therein the religion from the outset...and the roots of that religion are even more bloody. You don't know shit, Mr. Herzing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@semi-consciousamerican-joe2481 Actually to be clear, Bannon has been quoted as saying he wanted the left and right to "band together". Now, that is, under his paradigm of what "belongs" in America, to be sure...but it's true that he has stated such things, and in a sense, he has prognosticated...sorta successfully. Now the right-wing are acting like crude communists...only they can't admit it and say "capitalism is bad, it's the problem", they just can't...they will storm the Capitol Building, though, cause the "elites are trying to brainwash us", or something like that, which is true. They almost get a bunch of shit right, and then flop when comes down to the facts as they stand: the next stage is socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bza6874 Maybe because this 'education' is teaching you the wrong things, such as socialism not being bad
Socialism is such a dense topic, there is utopian socialism [Charles Fourier], there is the an-cap Chilean "socialism" funded by the libertarian think-tank associated groups, and the "socialism" attributed to the likes of Che and so-on. There is European socialism. There is the race-based self-management of National Socialism. There is the aspect that becomes twain with socialism, called "social democracy", which is really the worldwide affect of the "symptoms" of socialism accruing in a world-wide capitalist economy, where all trade is tied to international banking systems. How is "bad" to learn about these things? fact is, you are being lied to all the time. Might as well learn about the entire scope of what you are being lied to about. I did. Didn't need to go to school and waste my time or money. I just read.
Nobody who has experienced socialism would want it
That's just a contrived presumption based on nothing but word of mouth. People living in Europe, in socialist countries, seem to have no problem with their non-revolutionary socialism. And it is a symptom, so to speak, of an ailing governmental system that is sought by it's own people to be refined: they do so because it is in need of refinement, even if it's taken to the left. Because some of these nations can't compete on the world-stage, the opt for socialism, anyway.
The only people who want socialism are naive people who have never experienced it, and who are indoctrinated in universities
That is completely uninformed. You're making a huge sweeping judgement based on nothing but propaganda. Plenty of people experience socializing, so hence they experience the trends of socialism. They experience the need to strike, and to form unions. Sure, they become corrupt, but like everything, things are corrupt. Why shouldn't people do what they can for themselves? because they aren't provided for, why should they sit on their hands? just because you said some words?
If you can't see Bernie for the fraud he is, you are probably going to have to experience it the hard way. Just wait till he endorses Bloomberg or something, like he endorsed Hillary
Fraud? how? He's been utterly consistent, even in his "supporting" other candidates which he says he "keeps on eye on" [at face value, I have no reason to doubt that, seeing as is as centrist as they come, for a socialist] seeing that he is an American-borne "self-described" socialist, when really, he's more of a social democrat...which makes for just as much bureaucracy, but is not quite the same thing [even if people allude to it as the same, which is just more misinformed or prevaricating propaganda]. It's best to be clear on these things, they are all effects of a wider picture that people refuse to see the historical precedence of, because they are lied to, and told to 'just wait, your salvation is coming'. Always. It always is "just around the corner", but it never is.
Bernie Sanders does not want to be president, he wants to make a few bucks with his booksales
Meh, so does Styx? Is that so wrong?
1
-
Susan C. Only because of the fact of the dumbing down of society, in general. You too. People are losing themselves...for many reasons. Social media...minimalism [these damn screens]...lack of social connection...lack of incentives...behavioralism isn't working, and social engineering is driving the social engine still, even as it's exposed, because people don't realize the intrication of the complex systems they live in, as the population is the size it is. As such, things complicate in the realm of ideas, the ideograms, political ideologies, and then some...the real crux in the pedagogy [outside of the current pedagogy of the damned (the internet) and the pedagogy of the oppressed (see the book of the same name, Pedagogy Of The Oppressed, to see where, not social justice, but "socialism" enters into the Prussian system: to combat this, system exemplifies Common Core curriculum to mainstream the core system of education, which ties it even further into the pipeline into work-life, the factory, the government, the medical apparatus [big connection in the whole thing, is this portion of the medico-military industrial complex], and what is worse the military co-opts the nomadic forces [the "pioneering" ones in America—in Europe, the "proletariat" is a fitting term, if you understand where it comes from (the French Revolution, essentially, and then it's expanded on by Marx)—fact is, this is important stuff...American's revolted and had a revolution, too, just at the same time as the communists started to roll-out their programmes—and of course, this was not just done by Marx, the ideas here also evolved and this ties into the notion of the Marxian dialectic, and Hegelian dialectic, Kant, the pan-German idealist school, which is in Philosophy 101, prelude to Nietzsche, usually (of import, the idea of the "eternal return")—of course, all of this ties into the arguments of the schools of Scholasticism, medieval Theology, and down into the basic tenants of Christianity]. The nomads are faced off in the rural against the metropolis [the Megalomania expansion of urban gentrification—which is not just a "racial issue"], and the State-apparatus is, thru these economics systems in place [out of the Austrian schools response to marginalism which was a response to Marxist critique—which is now primarily in a Keynesian mode, thru out the globe] and thru 'globalization' [and 'globalism'], thru all this, it [The State] is very reductionist. The core of any critique can come from here. The thing is Foucault, and his theory of biopower. A good theory, but brought out [and critically examined] by Delueze, it's made more constructive, and with the Bateson model of the "plateau" or "double-bind" [which primitive societies find themselves locked into, against the modern world] and the Baudrillardian notion of 'code' (overcoding, decoding, coding, of 'signs'—which ties into 'semiotics', which is the part of 'semantics', the logic of communication, in other words; which ties into 'linguistics', of course), he creates a system which even can be overlayed onto the Traditional system of Evola (which is noted by esteemed thinker Alexander Dugin, in Russia). The thing about Foucault is that his biopower took off so strongly, which was warned of by Deleuze and hence was critically deconstructed in his main work I'm referring to here (which is so much more than even just that but let's not prattle on much longer...Marx, Freud, Kant, Spinoza, et al. All of these are important in philosophy, as well as other fields). This 'intersectionalism' is a form of postmodern virus, borne out of this Foucaultian schematic. See? I learned you up some. You just got a free quasi-lesson in philosophy. Now look up this stuff, read it yourself, and you don't need to go to school, per se.
1
-
ecky1965 Socialist countries in Europe.......have I missed something
Yes. Here's what it is. Yes, there are countries in Europe [even in the midst of populist movements for Le Pen and Rutte, et al. is there a 'leftism' to their leadership over there], which are socializing, you could say. Socializing is just another way of saying 'self-managing', really; and of course, anyway, that's what 'socialism' essentially means, after all, is "self-management" in the economic/labor force of business and government. That's why the 'National Socialist' is called 'National Socialist', because they tie this theory to race, and they are done with it: hence the phrase, 'if it wasn't for me you'd be speaking German'.
1
-
1
-
ecky1965 At least you are posing an actual argument. Good. When I said that socializing is what 'we are doing', it means that we are in a civilization, no? Well, what does 'socialism' mean? Essentially, boiled down to it's basic dictum, it is 'self-management'. Literally, look it up. Why do you think National Socialists called themselves that? Now, you can say it's all a big conspiracy, or that historical facts are just immensely interesting. Or...what? Am I wrong? Do you not want more 'self-management'? Cause that's what socialism entails. It's not just 'an economic system'. In fact, before it ever was one, it was merely an idea.
1
-
ecky1965 Socialism is a less extreme form of communism. Both have the state firmly in control, the state being those in control and not the proletariat
Pretty overcooked and boiled-down, cookie-cutter understanding of the concept. I elucidated how the concept ties into National Socialism by way of referring to it as "self-management" [again, look it up, the term "self-management" refers to "socialism", and to National Socialism by way of the racial aspect of Hitler's theory of biological race]. And "both have the state in control" is inaccurate. Communism should have no state control, at ends with it's final teleology. We know that's not how it's imparted in reality [it's really an eschatology, just about]. Socialism has a state because everything has a "state". An economy entails a "state". Within neoclassical economics, classical economics, it all entails having a "state body". The next arguments can only go to Rome...the plebians...the socius...etc. Anthropology. But after the "city-state", you get into very so-called "primitive" societies. This has eluded you?
If anything those traits are anti civilisation and anti social
So it has eluded you.
Could you point out a European country, which as you put it is "socialising"
Netherlands. Sweden. Et al.
1
-
1
-
ecky1965 The Netherlands and Sweden are not as you put it socialising. They are market driven economies and politically are moving more to the right as all of Europe is
Have you seen a prison in Denmark? Have you seen what kind of [socialized] healthcare they have? Dude, you are so confused as to think that nations can't use a capitalistic endeavor in the market-place...of course they must, because capitalism is a world-wide phenomenon. Derrr Herr...
Are you American ......I only ask as Americans usually have a poor grasp of things over here
No one has a poorer grasp of how America works than Americans themselves, it seems. I know plenty of non-Americans that know the law better than most do who want to talk shit, but guess what...you wouldn't know it. It's like the Soviet Union...you know, America went through all sorts of counter-measures against 'teh communism', right? Just for sake of money, but hey...the freedom for money is much better than your freedom from tyranny. It's good, also for the culture [not]. Or so I hear. And yeah...most of you are kinda looking for "racial" national socialism, but those more centrist-conservatives are still stuck in the loop of wanting to "go back", as it were...some of you supposed "monarchists" even...let's assume you aren't that far gone...even in the most "tame" conservative few, you, I presume, want to see the "immigration" issue solved...the Wall, as it were...well, that certainly might improve the "illegal immigrant" situation, and political tensions [and racial] will continue to rise, so more and more so people like yourself will be swayed towards national socialism, either way; or otherwise, more towards social democracy...anyway, if you don't go as far as to say, 'I will not go so far and remain somewhat democratic in my national stance', the nationalism either gives way with the pacifism [as nationalist ties are drawn from symbols of exchange in war, aren't they? sort of, historically speaking. That can change, but would you divulge how you'd do that?], and then with that ekes further into that dreaded ghost of communism [which the national Bolsheviks were all about, by the way...]. If not that, then unless you put up a literal bar to migrants becoming citizens, and even eventually bar travel into and out of the country [heavily effecting tourism, obviously, and thusly the economy], what then? Surely, you will value your states material infrastructure, and your governance will continue to shift...what's next? If you don't head towards racial self-management, and self-governance, what of some kind of self-management, like some kind of socialism? well, then you'd be Europeanizing...on the other hand, if Europe continues against this postnationalist end and the supranationalist union of the EU is superseded by economic dread, then they end up Americanizing: which just goes to the overall point. Eventually, you will have to make a decision. And you might choose to become "anarcho-capitalist" in the endeavor against the "globalized world": for the economies sake, mind you, not your "culture", not Tradition, certainly, but some "new thing" altogether...will it trend towards national socialism, or socialism? or a will you go from American representative democracy to merely monarchy, or fascism [you do know Mussolini was a socialist before he was a so-called "fascist", right? and that is all the same reaction and response to the liberalized civil society [internationale], or what in Ancient Rome would've been called the socius]? See the thing is you're gonna have to make a choice, and it'll eventually be made for material reasons...either economic or because literally techno-capitalists are driving technology so automatic and bizarre that you'll be spiritually striving to defeat them for the fact of your culture [which is the material side to the race, that is the spiritual self, or Selbst, if you want]. You'll have to choose.
1
-
ecky1965 Indeed ...you know nothing about our way of life in Europe
You haven't indicated how so.
How's that socialising working out in Venezuela or any other country stupid enough to get involved with it......
Now you are just making strawman arguments.
Strange how eastern European countries who were once under the shackles of Marxism are now the most conservative states in the union
Not really...because that is why the Soviets did what they did. If the KGB saw your comments [which, let's face it, they have some on the inside, but I can't say for sure, and thank God for that, I wouldn't know shit, and / or which Five Eyes state agency, but no shit Sherlock is all I got to say]...if they saw your comment they'd laugh at your misapprehension. The Soviet Union, was never about your Americanized ideal "freedom to" pioneering the "new world order", eventually: but it was a "freedom from" the necessity to compartmentalize with the Americans and abroad, so that they could self-sustain their own economies. Now, I'm sure most of the KGB are not only retired but also of a change of heart, so I'm not trying to insinuate Russia. Things change. But you literally know nothing, apparently, so you shouldn't talk. Why did the Soviet state grow? because it had to, that was it's motive. To self-sustain. The idea was put thru the Bolshevik strainer, if you will, but it became as it did, the Soviet Union [which I'm sure you know nothing of de-Stalinization, but whatever]. China is a different story altogether, but Europe under the Soviet 'oppression' was simply a strategy and tactic for what the Germans would call, in their decisive action, 'lebensraum': the major hindrance to America's own is the notion of 'democracy', which is built right into it's national fabric: representation in a democratic fashion [by election, and vote]. The notion is that this can be cheated...ahhh, back to the crux of the issue, you problem with state controls...well, who likes them? I don't. But you know, I'm Americanized.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Styx, when you sound like an idiot, it's the worst of the worst. Trump is the divisive, cynical, candidate...from 2016, on, you know it, I know. Maybe your blithering audience doesn't but...we do, you know? right? Right, dawg. Biden is, at best, "the law and order candidate", now. His idea of unity and Trump's idea of unity, and your idiot audiences idea of unity, are all differing. And unify American with what notion? being against the LGBT community for some reason? religion? What?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Narods & nations alike proffer from conquet and disaster and migration - hence why you see what you see now. It is foisted by our "owners", to speak bluntly. -- Narods [races with the thinnest connection to the ethnos and previous koineme (common language), ie, original passionarity of the races] exist solely because of the aforementioned things, whether by hook or by crook [by allowing such things or providing for such things]. Nations are just the tool of the civil society [ie, liberalism and in it's newest most global form neoliberalism (somewhat after the era of 1st wave Marxism and during and successively after the world wars and the cold war and as you can see it's still going on now) the platform and foundation for world federalism and the oncoming socium [see: socius, Rome] - See, Rome never died, you know. But hey, don't take my word for it, just look at yourselves. In the mirror. What is more likely, a world government through leftism or a world government through reaction- oh wait, both are just as likely outcomes. But who controls who, and how many of the populace can be allowed any station in either the socium or the empire? who can say....The ethnos [the ethnocentrum, sans passionarity, eg, 'not missionary'- the "tribe" ne plus ultra (qua the agrarian central river quadrant of the first primitive hunter-gatherers, before the nomadic tribes of the narods) is the shaman and the chieftain, and warriors, and peasants (before merchants) -- this is before passionarity leads to the nomadic and missionary levels {viz. religion as well} (and following the civil society, the philosopher-hero, artist-hero, etc), there you have only the shaman to coordinate and banish the 'New' from the 'ethnocentrum' (completing Lack with Abundance), to incorporate new elements into the ethnocentrum and ethnodynamics of the centrum. Then enter 'ethnokinesthetics', the chieftain wants to explore and gather more resources- the beginnings of slave labor can be seen here as humans replace steer in implementation (also the beginnings of proto-kings and proto-queens {& proto-princes, etc} and the 'shaman-hero', to preserve the ethnocentrum from such 'movement' as to push towards passionarity, which breaks the ethnocentrum and leaves it open, wide open -- as you can see].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Although masks are sort of a no-brainer. The left actively works to undermine it's messaging, here. Treating people as collateral works both ways. Both, ignoring when people have dire side-effects from vacs., and promoting a fear-based clime, with incomplete information; and when ignoring the factors which underline a case of CV, which make the disease more serious for an individual. [Youtube, this comment is clear, legal, sane, rational, and actually explains a position...you don't like it, therefore. Too bad. Post it.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People seem to like to complain, but then not know or care what they are complaining about (it's odd). I say, I'm going to laugh, when, they have more, I'll laugh, and more, I'll laugh some more...more wants more. And until people can tamp back their want for more (and stop being at odds with nature, even human nature), they can keep getting more and more, and keep suffering more and more, and I'll keep laughing more and more. [...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good. Because anyone can do that. But people complaining about it is stupid. Everyone who is not making their own content, to respond to users, ON YOUTUBE, a VIDEO SHARING and hosting site, a SOCIAL MEDIA site, where people, in the hey-day, responded to other users THROUGH video, and then actually addressed COMMENTS, is not using this site PROPERLY, and is just HANDING IT OVER to the MSM, on a golden fuckin' platter. Fuck Kraut. He's one stark raving idiot. There are how many users on Youtube? Let's rack their servers, I frankly, don't see why not, if this is the expectations we have of content creators, as it stands now. PS: people still want "professional" youtube videos...they still want highfalutin production to cater to their eyes, instead of information to cater to their ears- and the truth hurts the ear that wants entertainment above information. It's surely a bigger issue than you're giving credit. People DO NOT WANT CHANGE. They never will. Sacrifice of anything, even the piddling, is too much too lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fanatic platform
Don't you think government should be pitted, basically? where is all the money gonna go, then? I mean, you said, "they'd take their money", because they only give a fuck about their money, not anything else. Nation, people, whatever, they don't care, right? so why would they stay in a government that's been pitted, turned into a machine-like entity, then taken over by religious fanatics? What is good about this potential scenario, to you, Styx?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. Any actual leftism is anti-authoritarian, and is pro-self management. Right-wing thought entails hierarchy and "nationalism" [a nation-state]. Styx is, as usual, wrong, here; and he is just spouting Americanised bullshit about "leftism", because he's "right"-wing libertarian [a capitalist], which doesn't actually ascribe to actual right-wing thought [reactionaries, fascism, national socialism, monarchism, aristocracy, et al.]. Left-wing thought is all oriented around "liberating" from these things. What Styx thinks that the left does the opposite, which is actually not true. It is the "right"-wing [capitalists] who confuse the left-wing notion of liberty, with the right-wing notion of hierarchy [hence, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, synarchy]. This is confusion. The capitalists [the "right"-wing; Americanised populists notions of "centrist"-right (minimal state, supposedly) and a "far-right" (whom actually ascribe to fascism and national socialism, yet no fairly little about it's fundaments and it's reality, outside of the Americanised notion, within the European sphere), whom confused "capitalism" from anything but "elitism", and claim that the "elites" are "leftist", even though they are regarded as conforming to what is considered "anti-establishment"; from this the "capitalists" claim that "crony capitalism" is "leftism", because the "left" [liberals] are conveniently conflated with the 'far-left', when clearly both the 'far-left' and the 'far-right' are anti-establishment; only the 'far-right' are actually proponents of an ethnostate, completely out of line with American, so-called, values. The capitalists have made civil society what it is thru "progress", but not only that, "colonialism", oppression, exploitation, growth and expansion, across the every ocean. It's the capitalists who made everyone established in a central composition of nation-states which all vie for their own elite status, which is reflected not mostly in the people of the nation, the lower-classes, but instead, the immensely influential [eg. stars and starlets, big-wigs, politicians with monied interests at their speaking gigs, and behind closed doors, etc.], the "elite". The "social contract" assures this rote paradigm. Styx is a liar, or is severely confused, or delusional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:40 - But you just admitted that the US shouldn't have been there...so how was France wrong? And earlier you just admitted to not wanting to be the world police, but admitted that there was no other choice, considering the energy pipeline in the region. "The war-mongering's dried up", my ass it has. If the KGB were still active [???] and making moves, everyone would gung ho for war. Yet, what people want, still, is decentralized practices concerning their wealth [so they don't feel it's being used for things that don't concern these people individually] but concerning their liberty, however, the social ends of the right-wing paradigm now, are less concerned with being duped into war for oil, and are more concerned with being duped into war with "homegrown enemies".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everything said in the beginning portion is spot on. Look at my channel. I don't give a fuck about "having a character", personality accounts for several of them, they just don't always flesh out. Anyway, who gives a shit, some viewers are better than no viewers, if I had tons of viewers I'd make better content or I wouldn't deserve those viewers. And what makes content "better" is subjective, but some objective values are in place: be real: be serious to proportion of your channel: use meta-interaction like editing [to a more proportional degree in bigger channels, but still]: use the comments [for smaller channels]: categorize and diversify [to proportion], etc. It's about proportion to weight ratio: how serious is your statement on this platform: but take it seriously. It's almost like what kind of content you do defines your place on the platform, unfortunately, but that's just the way it 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
-
These fucking leftists know nothing except the AGGREGATE of the nation, in terms of stats, ect...they only understand how something is good for "everyone" (and we all know that that just means lower living standards for everyone to make "equality" happen), and they only look at the AGGREGATE of "how well a nation is doing" (some of these people being postnationalists, which is funny) ... their idiocy stems from the fact that they don't look at the BREAKDOWN, on individual basis (ie, per state, per capita, ect) and thus, are constantly informed by lies which serve the ultra-rich (ironically, for the left) and which serves the government apparatus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Video falls off at around the mid-point. Yeah, yeah, runners in American politics...absolute shitshow...yada yada yada, you all buy it and lap it up everytime, right wingers can expect to see no changes, ultimately, no reform, and this is just business as usual, and we are all just supposed to twiddle our thumbs and accept that dummies should have a say, all the time, in this political process...when ultimately they are the festering boil on the ass of this political system. Trump populism is going to wane, unless he does something drastic...people are holding onto hope. Styx encourages you to avoid thinking critically. Do that. Don't think...just get to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Runner Girl And just think, because of this theory, people like him wants to kill people for, basically, simply living—as people do in capitalism—simply living in civil society, and wanting to have the same affordances as everyone else [that is, opportunities and rights], by the law, according to the lives they themselves lead freely, as individuals, and as families, and as in-groups: and all these people do is try and live democratically: and these nutjobs want to fascisize [the country, along with them, as well], and literally "kill the socialists" [which Mussolini was, before he was expelled from the party, in Italy: just some food for thought], because of the very problems they feel have been foisted onto them "by socialists", all of which has been, really, foisted onto them by capitalism and the opening up of world markets into developing countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I WILL grant that, you are correct. My main contention is his semantics (after all logic and language are intrinsically tied, so...), I question his use of the term and conflation with so many other fields and schools of thought, that do NOT pertain to postmodernism. But the issues he is addressing are dire, indeed. We all, at the very least, know him for the whole "Misgendering" debacle. So i'll admit it...yeah, my beef is mainly semantic. But it's an important distinction to make, it's making a huge conflagration of misuse, of the term, and of many another term's conflation with the term. Marxism...peh...Um...no. It's not the SAME as PoMo like so many people suggest after listening to Peterson. Other than that, I love his lectures, like I said. (Maybe some people, because of the schools conflation of terms, TOO, are to blame just the same? I've said it before, and now again, if I study Marxism and I conflate that with the capitalism I am critiquing through that Marxist lens, I am not really correct in asserting that that "Capitalism" i'm critiquing is still "Capitalism" after running the study through such a Marxist lens of thought.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Repulsive
Yes, but is it illegal? No seriously; should it be made illegal? I remember a scene from the movie Big Daddy, any remember that horrible shlock? remember there is a scene Adam Sandler and the kid actor take a presumed piss on the wall? is this crossing the line? I ask because this is an actual question [and not just outrage and confusion]. Most adult comedies are a: schlock [and hence, bad] and b: are erm 'adult' in content. Mostly [that is, erm, always, in Hollywood film] there is care taken to not put children in anything 'they can't handle' in terms of the knowledge of certain adult themes, and such things like that; obviously not anything more than that, and that isn't the case that that is occurring, take your mind out of the gutter if you went there, I mean 'knowledge of thematic content' not 'can they handle being exploited'. Obviously not what I'm saying...but no, this really is interesting: I already don't care to even try and watch the movie because most adult comedy shlock is just crap anyways, and is bad, and in bad taste. But is this movie doing anything illegal? if no, then what is the outrage going to accomplish and what are the goals? to get the government of France to make stricter rules on what is allowed to be put into script and film?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's pretty much intrinsic, but the thing is, it's not really obvious to most people; and then besides that, it's not the easiest way to learn or discuss the occult, because it's seemingly so mundane (politics, I mean). Yeah, surely I would not want to see Styx lose touch with his fans that want more of that material (I don't think it'll happen). Just because, you know, I think these things are going to happen politically regardless, so i'd just personally like to see more, erm, inference to the occult outside of the mundane sense, so as to not lose that focus on this train of thought Styx has put out here. I am so fascinated by it, it would be sad to see it all go towards the sort of mundane battlefield of politics and to see it go towards those trying to reap the benefits of having this kind of discourse, albeit, without the real intent of Styx's occult message (ie, via his appearance's online), or regardless of that, ANY occult message, being on the forefront of the discussion. See, THAT discussion would be infinitely more interesting than anything else...but then again, we're talking some intense shit here, altogether. So my thought would be, if I was Styx, to take baby steps, at first...as not to, erm, disperse the audience. LOL (Did I need to make this long-ass comment...Yes, it needed to be done.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alex_Fahey You are unable to make a point. Please try and make one. You interjected yourself into the convo, which was about Keynsianism being "communistic" [a falsehood]...thence comes your rhetoric about "indoctrination, college professors, and the education world", from out of the conversation that you inserted yourself into as interlocutor [and I, as well.] It was already connected to the notion of an "intervention", via the State-bodies control over the institutions of "college professors and education" [in a free country, I might add], because those bodies are under an economic system that we are all debating about. So either you are inserting yourself in the wrong debate, or you are confusing yourself, and confusing the debate for something that it's not. So you should make a point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PPS: Best argument i've heard in a while, so from what I understand, basically, 'so many guns, war driven genocide? no worry, too many guns' -- and yeah, you could say the Army wouldn't do shit, i'd say on principal too, but also on the token that because everyone is armed, it'd be a lose-lose situation. LOL. I love America. I just hate what it's...been reduced to by propaganda and lies and greed. Now is the best timeline, now it's time. I thought "they" would win. Now i'm not so sure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The media getting blacked is perfect poetry, because people are blacked by so much disdain and alienation and their entertainment sucks anyway, as does their news and analysis, which is all lies; so this way, people have less stress, when doing independent media, and then not to mention, more fun actually doing it, if they do it themselves- or, in other cases, just merely interacting is doable and thus, extra fun for even the impartial viewer- this why they can more realize how to work better in such an environment, regardless of whether they decide to take action to change it further, back, to what they feel was more preferable in
the modern era. Screw the modern world. Why should we have to modernize, can't everybody have a good time?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Red
LOL. What now when I [funnily, right?] tell you that I'm not "red" [whatever that means: I'm sure you think that's clever or something...reds under the bed...it's highly unoriginal...see Styx's earlier videos, before the leak of the Kindergarten Satanist Club bullshit, when he decided that "reds under the bed" sounds better than "satanists under the bed". But alas, no. Not a "red". Communism is an eschatology. Nothing more. Orthodox marxists [insurrectionist/"revolutionaries"] misapprehend classical marxism, anyway. But that's neither here nor there [you're probably clueless on the difference]. And Marx excoriated "crude communism" as well, the envious notion of "state communism". But again, that's neither here nor there- it should just be pointed out that while I have a greater comprehension of Marxian theory than you, that doesn't make me a "red" either. Crude communism is warned against because it's nasty. It's vindictive. So...yeah. I wouldn't say I'm anticapitalism either, just anti-crony capitalist [like Marx was]...wholeheartedly, I believe [like Marx did] that capitalism was the only way to accrue the technology and the infrastructure needed to support the masses; but alas, that the masses are abused [by powers that govern them] is, well, part and parcel to pretty much all Marxist theory, and all reactionary theory, as well. There are even fascists whom incorporate marxian theory into their manifest SOP for their groups. This is all to highlight how multivarious the facets are, in theory, of political ends that need to be addressed, and even on "the right-wing", where people slowly are proletarianizing or equally turning reactionary [which is what led to Soviet communism, the reactionary mode of revolution, to usurp the state, as opposed to abolishing it]. Now since I'm not "antistate" I can't be a communist, but alas, I see that communism, in theory, and in practice, is an eschatology, and hypothetical "end-point" to civilization based on a psychological and sociological reading on economies and social cycles. You probably don't fathom this. But again, alas, it's to point out how complex the situation is: so again, can't really be "red", here, "bud". As the linker-Faschismus rapidly facisizes, the tensions will rise, another clash will ensue, but I won't be there. I'm not stupid enough to get involved with such confusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
centralization is one of the trademarks of these failed systems of government so even there you are making yourself the fool
Keep trying, your insinuations are lacking. I wasn't making an argument about centralization, so you're making what is called a non-sequitur argument, which is fallacious. But alas...centralization is a trademark of all forms of government...you gorm. Empire, which has less focus on centralization- even if it is still centralized in the form of political/hierarchical power undertaken, the economic powers are left more so decentralized. The only completely decentralized form of power is anarchic, or communist [Trotsky, the purveyor of "permanent revolution" (which is why not many people like him, even Marxists in his day) promoted decentralized communism]. You are lacking alot of pertinent information and are drawing really overly simple conclusions based on a lack of reasoning and historical knowledge. But alas, even worse still, you are arguing, essentially, for anarchist "society", a non-centralized government is no government at all. A de- centralized government still has it's powered centered in a power structure, but the economic and productive powers of the people, therein the society governed, have more liberty to produce what [and how] they wish. This is the actual instance of reality that you're trying, painfully, to oversimplify.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People need to learn to have fun on the internet, and stop being pusillanimous whinging fucks. If someone is saying something you don't like, here's a plan, tell them to fuck off or get vivisected you zika fruitloop. It's charming, it really is! Yes, the comments are cesspools, it can plainly shocking...IT'S FUNNY. GET OVER IT. And if someone is saying something egregious, you correct them and call them a moron, welcome to the internet! PS: Spam here, though, it is kinda cumbersome, LOL. But that's Youtube for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leftists will rabble rouse
Rightists also "rabble rouse" in case you didn't notice, rabble-rouser. But also, the left, at this point, outside of government that is [which we all know is a scam] simply want to engender more peace and security for the "lower classes" despite where they might be in the world. We all know this is a pipe-dream of utopia, that they are trying to emulate...but nevertheless, the right, they do this too. Just in a slightly different fashion...they don't call on government to do such things, they just either don't give a fuck [but say that they do] or give to the donation services [of their corrupt agencies]. The right-wing are just globalists of a different sort. They don't "globalize" for the sake of bleeding-heart liberalism, but they do it for the money. What's is more grief laden? does it matter? they both suck, because they are both globalists, of a fashion. The real "anti-globalists" would be those who stand against cronyistic 1% super cocksuckers. Period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AI robot swear points, tech monopolies, in-fighting, ideographs of many sorts, coalitions burning, oh my, another day on planet Earth! And people watching Kraut, that was the first mistake. Who watches that nitwit, anyway. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 16:26 -- If you worked on the assumption that you were wrong, that'd be cataclysmic. We all hold our own truths to be self-evident, until they are proven not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blah blah blah
Make a video about how you and your audience cannot self-manage their nation [nor can the white race self-manage, no selbst for you!] and need to rely on municipal corporations to manage things for you, globally? Why not do that video? Or make the video endorsing what your audience really wants? but then explain to them the ins-and-outs [of what they, in their no-brain having way, want] so that people can clear the air, and the shit out of their brains? Too challenging? For a Big Youtuber, like yourself, so many subscribers...it's just out of your league man. Like everyone else, you need to lie and pander, and can't just make good content, per se. No, it needs to be done a certain way...with no regard for any substance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
9:50 -- At this point there are 2 USAs. Conservative-liberal, and leftist. But the conservatives don't like being liberals, anymore, so there is more like 3 USAs, all with different agendas...no wonder the rest of the world is weary of US politics, lest they are convinced that "the right-wing uprising cometh", which you don't even really support in that light, Styx. You're more a of a classical liberal, being a libertarian, than some foaming at the mouth "conservative" [ostensible "traditionalist", but not really; more like a fascisizing base of hard-headed Tradcaths and super-fascists, or even National Socialists].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ludicrous. Yeah, it's called Virology. Viruses tend to mutate. They can also mutate in the direction [becoming more lethal]. Sky News is literally either retarded, or fear-mongering. Viruses still need to be addressed, and not IGNORED, because people will die...people have died. People have been taken out of their daily life and their jobs. DUE TO GETTING SICK. Now Sky News wants to tell their retard audience that they were right, this was never "an issue". All those people who died, were BOUND TO DIE, because who cares? that is what they want you to think, and this is what a lot of you morons actually think, out there, right? Disgusting "nationalists" [who don't care about the sons and daughters of their nation...so ostensibly "nationalists"].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We were talking about the rights that are assigned in a constitution. "Divine" right isn't granted some mass of organism, when it hasn't a soul. The soul is the given personality and character of the human- your "human rights" (as attested to by the UN charter, to not be wholly ironic, but to point out a potential inconsistency, for future reference- hereby delineated as the notion of "the UN having no authority") begin there, at the stage where you are indexed as a "human type". It is not given at some "soul stage" before birth, being bared in the womb, or when "you are unborn" (whatever that means). I means, when you are birthed, or at least at a certain stage of conception (ie, not inception of the "child" in some "spirit form", or insemination of sperm to the egg, not at all...but instead...), eg, when the "fetus" develops a conscious mind in it's own soul, or "given personality" or "given character", that is to say, 'with the ability to think', whether by maintaining thought [in the formative stages], or even in the early stages of development when the mind retains a sense of self.
1
-
No, Ben McKean. Not a tall. Study fuzzy and/or paraconsistent logic [ie, non-classical logic]. You friggin' "Scholasticists" should keep up to date with the literature on Logic, before talking about the subject. I know old stuff is cool, and shit. But logic, as you so highly prize, is not something that has denigrated...that is, afterall, if you trust the math. You do trust the math, don't you? study non-classical Logic. PS: Addressed to Bobert Blumenthal: if granted by a constitution it maybe revoked by said constitution Show me where the king and/or high-priest is.
If you have to be conscious then as soon as you lose consciousness you lose all rights. Same for self aware. If you are unconscious I can do what ever I like to you by your logic.
No. That isn't how laws work, nor the constitution of the United States, nor any constitution that I am aware of in the first-world. Your logic is...inconsistent. At best.
1
-
If no king is required, then what the fuck are you complaining about? Jesus isn't here, man. You see him? are you king? are there more than one? oh wait, you don't need a king. Ok. So then there is what problem? Also, no, the constitution of the USA is based off of the Magna Carta among other things, many sources of interest, actually. And if you are only human when "x" (whatever that means, because, you know...you haven't informed anyone what that means- nice try though, you sound really smart), but not when "not x", then that means that the "law", as you say, doesn't apply; that'd go with any "law", as is explicated in the posited facts, verily. What "law" could be applied to the "non-human", as you said. What you want to say is this: there are "hidden rights" I apply with my ethics, these "rights" are applied to the "unborn" (non-human entities) qua formless cellular mass of concocted matter, with no consciousness, and no conscious, and thus, no mind, nor personality nor "human" quality to speak of. I say to you: where is your right to make such rights for such formless entities? What about other formless nonhuman entities? how about AIs? you wanna go down that route?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Any Rand predicted
Something long predicted by the original accelerationist, Marx. Class struggle is tantamount with "bio-power"; just differentiated by the aspect of a back of "biology", in Marxism, which is probably to it's fault, seeing as it's totally structural and yet also eschatological, and sociological, as well, and logical, and ultrarational (which is way it makes for such virtual-fodder, and complicates things as much as it set the tone for not only totalitarianism in it's abstract, with the absolutising fascists, and national socialist Germany, in it's reflection), and also gave way to some actually 'decent' social institutions like the "minimum wage" and eventually the "pension fund" [securities bonds, which is a hijack]. You should realise as an occulturalist, Styx, that Ayn Rand predicted something any anthropologist worth his salt could have predicted, and/or any historian worth his salt. Ayn Rand is of a certain "tradition" but this "tradition" had read Marx and had to read Marx [as did everyone else at that point in history]. Hayek, remember, an admiring savant, mind you, helped to fund the juntas in Chile via the Mont Pelerin Society. Recall what happened then...and how the homogeneous [for all intents and purposes] Chile went from pure anarcho-capitalist funded idealism, at-bottom, to a socialism, and most successful one...begs the question, why is it one of the sum few states successfully "socialised"? because it's social ends that needs be met, not social needs of any other sort, not social causes, and not social patterns, necessarily, but social ends — outside "self-reliant" organisation — that is unless one wishes to see the other end of rocking "spirit" thru the wake of history — unless of course one wants to see the rise of corporatism. In the end, it is a choice between state-management, and state-worship [after the nation worship], or a self-management and a racial [or civic national, for America] deviation, at least for the mean time, and then, orient to socialism: that's the best anyone can hope to achieve.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@That grey area No, but you are an idiot, "boyo". There isn't any fantasizing in my comment. You are just an idiot. You don't know what the concept of theory is. You don't know what the concept of hypothesis is. You don't know what a political ethos is, actually; you think it's a system, but a "system" pertains to states, laws, rules, SYSTEMS...you don't like systems, but you conflate systems with ETHOS. Political science is made up of both, moron. This is why you are an idiot. Also, you're an idiotes, too. I mean ἰδιώτης, Greek for "private citizen": that is, one who doesn't partake in city life [or politics] and hence is an outlier. That is what all you morons want for yourselves, all at once begging for self-management: well, the state isn't giving it to you, because you haven't, at-bottom, risen up, and subjected the state to your abjuring of positive law from customary ethos. You do not comprehend even the words that are coming out of my mouth. Because you are an idiot. But this is just a fact. Or, if you can comprehend it, and I'm just projecting [wink, wink], and wrong about your lack of ability to apprehend concepts: then the insuperable fact is that you just don't want it. You don't want to rise up and take what is "yours". You are too fragmented. Too atomized. No social ends that anyone can agree on because the ideogram which fosters your security in ideology restrains you from actually making a collective effort against global capital: all that you get is more of the same, and more and more, and get told to wait, and you wait, and nothing changes...have fun with that.
1
-
1
-
@That grey area America, with unique characteristics that actually make socialism its anti thesis. We have evolved past the antique that is socialism but socialism, like all things irrelevant, keeps trying to force its way, to make itself relevant. However it can never be relevant again because the only way it can even become part of a modern western society, is through trickery and force -- LOL, no. America hasn't that many unique characteristics. The fascists wanted a "return back" to Rome. America is just Rome version 2.0. It's a republic fell to empire pretty quickly, and it wasn't "The left" that did it, it was early presidents that did that [no argument can really be had here]. The left just developed out of that; see the Kennedy era. You are not unique in terms of socialism. That is because you are in wont of self-management and control of the state [that is, you do not want state-management and corporatist structure]. This is had with socialism. It's called national socialism. You people just don't want to call it what it is. You want, at-bottom [the nation, the race] to take control and you presume to pertain to the self-management of your nation [collectively, as a group action] thru the state which you control [you the people]. That's what you want. It's all conflation. Especially considering linker-fachismus [leftist-fascism], in America; ANTIFA, who don't even fight fascist groups, per se, but fight their for corporations, in the long run, by vying for people like Bernie Sanders. The irony is rich.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Youtube has always demoted videos for upload times, because it obviously creates a bottleneck if someone is uploading too much- it's like, just let them upload it, but don't put it in people's feeds, simple....been happening for a long time- surprised everyone thought it was malicious, clearly it wasn't. But still, I don't care, I say, upload as much as possible, I'm always watching this channel, and don't need to be "notified". (But that's just me.) Youtube should not be demoting videos for their titles, though...that's too much. I like long convoluted titles with obnoxious vocabulary to fend people off from watching the thing, anyways!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@katerinatheantired These people need to be stopped, they only understand "all or nothing", no nuance, no long term consequences
You to. You are willing to throw out the book [American values] for the sake of "fighting back" this "enemy" you've made for yourselves by not attempting to understand your own countrymen, and by having a lack of nuanced understanding of both where they are at, and where you are at ["right-wing" hates the establishment and the elites, yet keep placating to them, as usual, the same old story: again, a lack of nuance]. You are "all or nothing" against them. You are just the same as them, on all these counts.
1
-
@katerinatheantired Stopped
That's a relative term. People want to see "the left" get theirs, "the left" is the "enemy". Whether you want certain criminals "stopped" or not, that's not the main preempting, here. The autonomous zone, in it's making, is akin to the taking of a federal building by "boogaloo" types, like in Oregon. When these people do this, these "boogaloo" types, you will cheer. All the same. What you mean by "stopping criminals" is one thing...what the collective "right-wing" [and actual right-wing reactionaries, fascists and national socialist] means by "stopping the left" [which is always conflated with criminality, in toto], is to totally stop them, stultify them, foist them into action, and then ultimately kill "perpetrators", when things "get bad enough" [things are pushed far enough]. All the while you all are the "left" now..."right-wing" [capitalists] people claim fascists and national socialists are "leftist" now [even though reactionaries even in the modern form are always right-wing, by definition], and yet, also claim to be "the masses against the elite" [volkishness], and also claim to be anti-corporate monopoly [but yet engender the corporation of the US Federal Body's institution with more and more power, which concentrates more power into these monopolies, which you will call "left", but are just drives of capital flows], you also claim to be anti-state, but yet you can't make way for your own autonomy or self-management. You are a walking contradiction.
1
-
1
-
@katerinatheantired Yeah, you shouldn't be sure...you are just signalling, you can't communicate with language input anymore...you 'have language' but haven't the input. I'm not you are? not...I said much more than just "I'm not, but you are, neener neener". But you need something handed to you on silver platter, or maybe even put in just the right way, so you like it...a safe way, perhaps. But you are fascisizing just as much as you are proletarianizing [or under-going proletetarianization, rather]. AS SOON as 'capitalism' is mentioned [or anything actually right-wing, or what you consider "leftist", OR anything "left-wing", in general, whether it's actually left-wing or just a conflation of it with fascism and/or national socialism (please, tell me you are one of the sum few who'll still call fascism and natsoc what it is...right-wing...you aren't, though, are you?). But look, you have no arguments...I have postulated mine, you can go and tear them apart at your little hearts content!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Primitive Communism theory
Posited by Marx as in an society egalitarian social relations and common ownership, like Çatalhöyük, literally, Styx, you rabid indigestion. Engels expanded on the theory [and Marxists orthodox], that's what you are talking about. But everything adds up, and you are just being a doofy. Çatalhöyük has strong evidence of an egalitarian society, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found in Paleolithic cultures.[36][37] Children observed domestic areas. They learned how to perform rituals and how to build or repair houses by watching the adults make statues, beads and other objects.[19] Çatalhöyük's spatial layout may be due to the close kin relations exhibited amongst the people. It can be seen, in the layout, that the people were "divided into two groups who lived on opposite sides of the town, separated by a gully." Furthermore, because no nearby towns were found from which marriage partners could be drawn, "this spatial separation must have marked two intermarrying kinship groups." This would help explain how a settlement so early on would become so large.[38]
From Wikipedia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm starting to see a clearer picture here. People complain about "corporate socialism", and I can see why. But here's the thing: clearly any kind of socialism works better than capitalism in regards to social projects, social endeavor, and in regards to nationalistic endeavor - there is literally no excuse to be against it as a so-called "conservative". The entire thing is a lie. American "conservatives" preach against socialism, yet, in every way, they are given a better productivity - and what's more, at-bottom, these "conservatives" want and need social ends to be meet in order for them to be pleased [yet, they just do not realise this]. These "conservatives", alot of them are "Christian": they preach to "care only for Christians" and just "screw everyone else", screw civil society, screw it all, it's all for them only...the Vatican doesn't even purport to believe stuff like that, anymore, but that doesn't stop the American "Christian". They are socialist in the worst possible sense of the term...they only care about THEIR OWN, and that's it...like the nasis, they only care about their "racial" society, those ends which pertain to THEIR OWN SOCIAL GROUPS, and "SCREW EVERYONE ELSE". BUT YET! Yet they keep trying to promulgate this praise for "Capitalism", which they claim has been usurped by "cronies", so they claim to "hate socialism", yet they don't realise that it is capitalist and CAPITAL ENDS which have driven all roads to Rome, NOT "leftists". And they claim now, in some circles, that "fascism" and "national socialism" are "leftism" and only "leftism". They don't understand that civil society was opened up by the "classical liberal", either. Notice that one thing is consistent here...America. America is a walking/talking contradiction. There IS NO "right-wing" in America...just populists who conflate national socialism with leftist, and then claim that their nationalism and socialism [their "Christian" or "western" driven society, ONLY] isn't exactly national socialism [because they don't hold to or understand any racist "theory", they only pertain to racist ideas that have no backing in any sense, none at all, it's pure malice and instinct]. There IS NO "conservatism" in America, in these circles [what are they "conserving" when it is what they praise that got their country to where it is, that is, to a place "they can't accept". Well, it's just the thing...they are so supremely abject and/or confused that it doesn't matter...rhyme or reason doesn't matter with these people].
1
-
1
-
1
-
Canada and the US came about the same way, and thru different means became slightly different but ultimately similar countries. Shitty and turbid example, Styx. But whatever mang. Let the world work together, and screw the people who ultimately don't want to do so, and who actually prefer war and terror and mayhem and ruin. So basically, it has nothing to do with Canada, per se- nor with England, per se- nor the US [before Trump was inaugurated], per se. It has to do with soft-approach incursion by marxists and neoliberal corporatocracy in an attempt to foster world-federalism. Don't promulgate war-games with Canada, we should be allies to the nth degree, Styx. We are right next door, and are your closest blood brothers, that aren't across the pond.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1