Truth Discussion Time - Page 87

So, China is halving their meat production and then just getting all the meat they can from the U.S.? So, they aren't actually reducing meat consumption? Of course the U.S. will take the dirty business.

On May 11 2018 00:52 Loco wrote: + Show Spoiler + ROFL thread material but since it's also on topic... (refers to this if you don't know) Edit: Might as well add this one... photographed on campus. This is pretty lazy... nothing quite like propaganda that cites Kanye West. Or maybe it's a case of knowing your audience?

It's funny you should mention Kanye West. He is calling out Bernays and linking to "The Century of the Self" on twitter.

I'm posting again because it's so important:

The "Real" Dangerous Ideas

On May 10 2018 23:43 Loco wrote: I'm perfectly ok with you calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist (and labeling you as such). It describes a specific ideology which is what a political label is for, even if the term itself is oxymoronic when you look at it from a historical perspective. It's not like it's my opinion, it's empirically true. I do lol when I see anarchists calling an-caps "ayn-craps" though. What's this "you haven't shown me" argument about? Like I should be the one to stimulate your imagination. You have all of the information/literature in the world available at your finger tips. It shouldn't have to be funneled through me, should it? It's your job to seek challenges, not mine to bring them to your door and force you to have a serious look at them. Or at the very least, I'm limited in my ability to do so. How much of the anarchist literature did you look at? How often have you gone to anarchist gatherings or forums to challenge your views? From your statement it looks like this doesn't matter at all to you. A ruler is someone who "owns" (rules over) private property and who decides who can use it and who can't and for what purposes. A propertarian is a ruler, his scope is just narrower than a monarch who is an absolute ruler. He doesn't have to threaten to kill you. Now, how they came to own things is an important question to address. If there is no God, which you and I agree about, then there were/are no God-given rights to own anything. So, we are the ones who are making the rules. Historically, those rules have served kings and conquerors (and later colonialists/imperialists). Can you give me some examples of private properties that were initially obtained without force/aggression/coercion? I can't really think of any, so I'm curious to know how is it that you reconcile defending private property rights and the non-aggression principle. If it's true that private property has been obtained through force, then it's also true that defending the arbitrary rights of propertarians to own things is an act of violence against everyone else, whether this defense comes from the state or from privately owned police forces and courts. To what extent are we biologically wired to seek personal gain? By gain I'm assuming you mean ownership and accumulation. And who is the "we"? All human beings, regardless of culture? These are the types of specifics I was asking for clarification about.

I'm perfectly ok with you calling yourself an anarcho-communist even if the term itself is oxymoronic, its not like it's my opinion its empirically true... If this is the quality of argument you bring to the table I will respond in the same manner.

The "you havent shown me" argument was a response to your condesending comment about lack of imagination, so far your ideas seem poorly concieved and narrowsighted, thats what I mean with "you havent showen me".

Loco playing diccionary with "ruler" again, how fun!, I wont engage in that retarded point, so moving on... In your utopia, people eat food (altho I wouldn't be surprised if it were a bretharian one lol), you have property rights over that food you are about to ingest, if not, then I can take it away from you just before you take a bite, and if you dont allow it then according to you, that is violence.

People can own things they produce or buy, that doesnt make them rulers and them defending their property doesnt violate the non-agression principle in the same way self-defense doesnt violate it either.

I said it's oxymoronic from an historical perspective. Just because you don't care about that perspective doesn't mean my statement wasn't true. You can show how it is in fact not true or you can simply concede the point.

It's very hard to make arguments without caring about having some common ground terminology. I don't care to debate the definition of a word so long as we agree with what it broadly means, or else we speak past each other.

There are no property rights in an anarchist society. There's just personal property. You use what you need and if people need something that you no longer need, you don't hoard it. It doesn't benefit someone else to take your food without your consent, the social dynamic of a self-organized anarchist society would make them outcasts. And since everyone shares the same common tasks for the functioning of the society, it makes no sense to try to make others starve, it would just mean more work to be done with fewer hands.

In what way is it akin to self-defense to defend property when that property has been acquired and conserved through violence and exclusion? That was my question, which I'm putting forth to you again. It's not like everyone was given a property and they all participated to establish a social contract that says that it ought to suffice and should not infringe on other people's property. In our world, land was not peacefully given or shared, it had to be taken from somebody else in a "might makes right" manner first. There was aggression involved for sure, so why and when do we no longer care about aggression? When we haven't shed the blood ourselves?

Ownership of the means of production does make someone a ruler if they are excluding the people who produce things from having control over anything.

When profit is all that matters. Enjoy seeing what you support.

On May 21 2018 19:14 RiKD wrote: It's funny you should mention Kanye West.

Kanye West is an utter buffoon who has never had a single interesting thing to say. He played into the hands of the reactionaries and now he shares an Adam Curtis video that basically shits on all of the people he has associated with and his entire career without realizing it. He does the same thing in this video at around 23 minutes by unknowingly advocating for socialism by saying "all the best talent in the world needs to work for the people" and also by comparing us to ants (reminds me of another confused person around these parts). The entire video is worth watching though, he does a good job exposing the usual right-wing suspects and connecting them to their shared sugar daddies.

Oh man, he is killing Candace Owens rofl. Also, I love the right's use of the term "hit job," "hit job piece, "fake news." It makes it lose all meaning but it's also a negotiation tactic. If someone starts at "hit job piece" and it clearly isn't it's almost as if it doesn't even dignify a response but if it goes unchecked many people will parrot "hit job piece" and then it's just a mess and polarizing. Even if the piece is completely factual and unbiased it's been branded "hit job piece" by the right and it's fucking ridiculous.

Rofl, he's killing Charlie Kirk too. hahahaha.

"I've got some Glycoghen right here" ROFL

I had seen that before but I forgot about it. Fucking hell man. This shit is great.

"These fucking clowns...." rofl.

Koch brothers are the worst. I don't like wishing ill will on people but they are basically THE guys fucking up culture in the USA.

On May 22 2018 11:11 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 21 2018 19:14 RiKD wrote: It's funny you should mention Kanye West. Kanye West is an utter buffoon who has never had a single interesting thing to say. He played into the hands of the reactionaries and now he shares an Adam Curtis video that basically shits on all of the people he has associated with and his entire career without realizing it. He does the same thing in this video at around 23 minutes by unknowingly advocating for socialism by saying "all the best talent in the world needs to work for the people" and also by comparing us to ants (reminds me of another confused person around these parts). The entire video is worth watching though, he does a good job exposing the usual right-wing suspects and connecting them to their shared sugar daddies.

I think he does realize it or he is doing like a re-level. Saying he isn't using Bernays tactics but actually using Bernays tactics. I mean he is basically doing the ladder but is he conscious of doing the ladder? I can't tell which one it is yet. It is similar with his clothing company Yeezy. He has said he wants to make it a charity but acts like "well, let me just make my first billion and then I'll make it a charity." It's the same with designing houses. "Well, I will design beautiful houses for poor black people in Chicago (but let me make my second billion designing hyper-luxury homes.)" He'll talk about the charity and the socialism, the freedom, the love, the empowerment, the brotherhood and then act differently. As Morin says: Action kills intention. As Sartre says: We are a sum of our actions.

I find this to be an interesting song:



Lyrics:

+ Show Spoiler +

That was 5 years ago. So, he's aware of being a slave to stuff. He said in an interview if he ran for president he would mix Trump's campaign with Bernie Sander's principles. I think he is an interesting person who has said some interesting things. Perhaps, a buffoon but a buffoon with a lot of influence on culture.

On May 22 2018 09:43 Loco wrote: When profit is all that matters. Enjoy seeing what you support.

and I suppose you enjoy watching all the rest of the animal experiments sanctioned by the government, also all the deaths caused by the state and love watching the deaths of millions under socialism

what in the fuck?

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.............................

wha?????

what?

who? what? where? why? when?

It also got me thinking...

How much to take it in the ass? Average sized penis, rough sex? What if it was one of the Koch brothers? What if it was George W Bush? What if it was Dick Cheney? They would essentially be raping you except for the fact you agree to get paid x amount.

I don't think I could really sit on a beach somewhere and it enjoy the money (certainly not within a day or so). I would have to go Jesus with it and make it a sacrifice for the good of the people. I think it changes too whether or not everyone knows about it. Say, the number is $1 billion. How do you explain that? It's similar to winning the lottery. If I won $100 milly in the lottery I would want to change my name and appearance. Only close family would know. Meh, anyways, enough stupid hypotheticals.

the worst thing is that the employer of the rapist is the one who has to pay because apparently they didn't monitor they employee well enough lol

that white male privilege in action

actually yeah. Happiness is not a description of how objectively good your situation is, but more about how good it is compared to your expectations. White people are much more likely to have lived privileged lives and are used to being judged as individuals rather than as a group, so when they fail (which might well have systemic explanations behind it), they see it as a reflection of their own individual failure rather than as society having fucked up. Black people (correctly) see their failures as a reflection of never having had a real chance, white people to a much larger grow up with a 'the world is your oyster' mentality. Then suddenly being 50 years old and losing your job and feeling unable to make ends meet and provide for your family ends up being a much harder hit than if your life was always like that.

So this really is white male privilege in action, just the other side of the coin.

I mean this is a huge simplification obviously. I'm sure a significant part of the uptick is explained by the opioid crisis. But I 100% see this as an extension of 'the happiness equation' - happiness = reality minus expectation, which also means that expectation > reality = depression.

Where I grew up it was mostly white. Especially if you took all honors classes it was kind of like a competition of who was going to be the doctor, lawyer, or engineer. I didn't want to be any of those things. I wanted to be an entrepreneur and make more than all of them. I was making six figures by the age of 24 while they were in school going into debt. I felt on top of the world. If I keep this up I can go into the 10 year anniversary make it rain and jizz on a table cloth. I never actually had that thought until just now. I'm not really a high school anniversary kind of guy. Where am I going with this? I don't know. Just thought I'd share some details about a suicidal white guy like me. Today, my expectations are very low and I am much "happier."

And let's remember that individual expectations are very much shaped by your family and society as a whole. It's also a bit misleading if you don't account for age in the graph. White men are not the predominant victims at all age ranges.



Anyway, this is also in part explained by the concept of toxic masculinity that Baal discredits reflexively. Feminists have been arguing since the very beginning that toxic masculinity negatively affects male mental health (which of course is a predominant attitude/behavioral pattern in white men due to privilege):

"Men who adhere to traditionally masculine cultural norms, such as risk-taking, violence, dominance, primacy of work, disdain for homosexuality, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status, tend to be more likely to experience psychological problems such as depression, stress, body image problems, substance abuse, and poor social functioning. The effect tends to be stronger in men who also emphasize "toxic" masculine norms, such as self-reliance, seeking power over women, and sexual promiscuity or "playboy" behavior."

That seems to correlate well with the fact that it's older men (75+) that are more represented and they are much more likely to emphasize the more "toxic" norms. Men are also more likely to succeed in their suicide attempt, probably in large part because surviving an attempted suicide is the ultimate unmanly thing. It sure doesn't paint a global picture about mental health. For instance, suicide attempts are between two and four times more frequent among females.

In other "truth news," US Army vet Michael Prysner goes over the "facts" John Oliver presents in his recent video on Venezuela and those that he (maybe deliberately) ignored. Prysner spent a month in Venezuela during the height of the protest movement in 2017, covering the riots and economic crisis. It's worth hearing his perspective.