I don't really think you guys will ever find common grounds when you're virtually only generalizing very sensitive matters.
Yes, prevention of crime is the best shit possible. Yes, prevention of anything bad is the GTO. No, it cannot work well in the real world with current technology. What we can do is have some sort of rules and investigations in each case as an individual instance without bias. The issue is, this could open doors for major abuses, thus we would have to think about mechanisms to deal with that as well.
I'm not generalizing shit. I've even given a formula as to what kind of escalation of violence I support under what circumstances. I couldn't be more specific. I've even explained my view of the necessity of dialogue/community regulating such "major abuses" that are always a possibility. That's why I'm done with the subject, because I am being baited to repeat the same things over and over again to a brick wall. It's not for lack of trying to get through. Some people just don't care about trying to understand other people's ideas or bettering their own positions, they are simply addicted to the drama, that's what they argue for. The strength of the wall (their immovability) represents how weak what is behind it really is.
Baal's immovability and the way he deals with ambiguity and difficult challenges exposes that he doesn't have a coherent philosophy and he has nothing to put into action. Being a consumer sucks, it's not meaningful, but that's all he has as an atomized individualist. That low-level anger and despair from the meaninglessness of his life is what fuels these senseless mini-battles where he feels like a warrior fighting the evil "broad leftists" who are ruining the world. It's pretty sad that in a world where we could have so many enriching adventures and relationships, people are reduced to this.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 20 2019 21:18 Loco wrote:
Honestly you're daft with your "stop dodging". First of all you have framed this question deceptively from the beginning, you mention Muslims and Islamists, but you never qualify which kind they are (i.e. radical or not), effectively creating a false equivalency between them as if there were also two kinds of Nazis: "peaceful Nazis" and "Radical Nazis" -- an utterly laughable idea. You have been called out on this by Drone and I but you refuse to acknowledge it. I would expect this deceptive strategy out of a white nationalist or supremacist, what is truly sad is that I know you aren't one, you are just repeating the talking points that they or their useful idiots repeat to serve their interests.
Moving beyond that obvious manipulation, I answered your question (as if it had been properly formulated) twice already. I said I was done discussing this subject with a brick wall, but I'll be nice and repeat the short of it: I said there was no difference between white supremacy and radical islamism and that when they both organize, they have to be stopped. I even answered it again albeit indirectly when I ironically mentioned that I supported your passivity with regards to suicide bombers in this very thread. That's a clear yes -- I am in favor of pre-emptively stopping violence, with violence if necessary. It's amazing how little ability you have for logical deduction. Do you need it drawn up on a board so that you don't ask me again in a week?
I mean Islamists (believe in the spread of Islam in all the world ruled by a caliphate/sharia).
If you sanction punching Islamists in the streets, lets say in the UK where there are many, don't you think people will simply beging punching regular muslims too?
Nice equivocating there. Saying "thats not right" is still not standing up for anyone or anything. It doesn't say what you would support doing in that situation. And if you are suddenly drawing the line at harassment to justify physical violence, you are being a hypocrite, and anyone can use the exact same slippery slope fallacy that you always use to justify how immoral you are.
Not right meaning illegal, meaning police should be called and I'm also fine into taking the law into your own hands in certain cases so punch in the face gets my seal of approval too.
It's only a "retarded video" because it sums up every single argument you've made in two minutes and laughs at how mindless you liberals are.
I'm a liberal now? thats a new tag, you love your tags dont you?
That's cute how you added what you think my social class is (you got it wrong), but you didn't include yours, only the fact that you are a Mexican. You play this deceptive identitarian game and critique it on the same page, even mentioning "oppression olympics". How sad it is to be so little self-aware.
I'd consider my family uppder middle class... so are you low class? doesn't matter a gardener has a better wage than upper middle class families in Mexico.
I dont play the identatarian game, I couldn't care less about my nationality, but its retarded that you talk about the safety and "the real world" when you live in one of the most civilized and safe countries in the world and I live in one of the most violent countries in the world.. are you going to tell to people in Zimbabwe how they don't know about poverty or too?
On June 20 2019 23:01 Loco wrote:
That low-level anger and despair from the meaninglessness of his life is what fuels these senseless mini-battles where he feels like a warrior fighting the evil "broad leftists" who are ruining the world. It's pretty sad that in a world where we could have so many enriching adventures and relationships, people are reduced to this.
On June 21 2019 01:26 Baalim wrote:I mean Islamists (believe in the spread of Islam in all the world ruled by a caliphate/sharia).
Islamists aren't all violent and they don't all believe in revolutionary action to implement those things so it's a false premise.
If you sanction punching Islamists in the streets, lets say in the UK where there are many, don't you think people will simply beging punching regular muslims too?
Violence is extremely unpopular in modern society. People have been conditioned to accept the definition of violence and terrorism that suits state and corporate interests. This means that the pressure to conform and act non-violently is a very strong motivator behind people's actions and people who stray away from non-violence pay a strong social cost. I am not worried about slippery slopes because history shows that people who engage in anti-fascist action cease to do so when fascist threats are eliminated.
Not right meaning illegal, meaning police should be called and I'm also fine into taking the law into your own hands in certain cases so punch in the face gets my seal of approval too.
It's not very anarchistic to call the police, let alone for such things. I think in this particular instance, if the police was called, they wouldn't have done shit. He would have just played stupid and said he didn't do what he did, and he wouldn't have felt less safe to do it again next time (or do worse). Now I think he's going to think twice.
I'm a liberal now? thats a new tag, you love your tags dont you?
The version of free speech you defend is the liberal one. (You've admitted that you don't believe in absolute free speech, like the right to scream fire in a movie theater). It's just right-wing liberalism of the Rothbardian kind. But of course when traditional conservatives are demonetized for encouraging harassment and bigotry, you have a problem with left-wing liberals who you think run these corporations based on their values (they don't).
Rothbard called himself a liberal when he wasn't stealing the words libertarian and anarchist from us, so I'm just being accurate, even though his liberalism was quite extreme. Then there's the horseshoe theory which is a really stupid one-dimensional centrist/liberal theory which you just endorsed, remember?
It's kind of funny to think that while you push a repackaged Rothbardian philosophy, you also believe in the horseshoe theory. Meanwhile Rothbard had this to say about it: "Only extremists make sense, while eclectics and moderates are entangled in contradictions". How coherent
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 20 2019 13:21 Stroggoz wrote:
I don't really think Dick Cheney is that different from the norm. I look at the new york times and see paul krugman arguing america's adventures had good intentions. People like to point the finger at cheney because he masterminded the iraq war, and it is easier to push the responsibility onto someone else rather than point the finger at yourself. It would be more accurate to say our society is sociopathic overall and institutionally than just the rich people that run it.
If you look at say the two people that founded google, it is only a few rationalizations between being the global spymaster and being a search engine without advertisements.
To address a few things in your blog:
Occupy Wall Street did accomplish a few things:
For one it exposed a lot people that previously had no part in politics to a lot of different ideas, and they got a taste of political activism.
Secondly, it brought wealth inequality to the discussion table, which was previously a pretty taboo topic in the media, but became something of mainstream discussion in the media afterwards. I think occupy could claim some credit for this.
Every progressive social movement in history has had it's detractors, so to say you don't agree with parts of feminism is not really a criticism. I'm sure there are probably no feminists that wouldn't say the same. There is still some way to go, consider the fact that child rearing is mostly done by women, is an invaluable contribution to the economy, and does not get paid. While financial speculation is bad for the economy, mostly done by men, and can get you paid obscene amounts.
It's a matter of scale. Scalability of harm. But, it's all fucked because the system is fucked. If we fix the system somehow than there isn't this institutionalized sociopathy. I once was at a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and there was a speaker telling their story. He talked about sticking up grandmothers in front of her grandkids for $100 maybe. The Iraq War was all about selling units. It ensured a lot of weapons to be sold and future very large engineering and construction contracts. It is no different to what happened in Flynt. That piece of shit Jamie Dimon puts that stooge in office so JP Morgan and Chase can secure a bunch of jackpot favorable investments for a needless pipeline that ends up poisoning an entire city killing many. They are manufacturing suffering in heinous ways all for profit. There are countless examples. I know you know this.
Yeah, I think Occupy can claim a lot of the success Bernie had as well but we need to scale this up somehow.
I really don't know much about feminism. I am trying to learn more. I would consider myself an intersectional feminist but I am sure there is more to it than that.
No, I don't really blame them. Most are pretty annoying though.
"Most black women are pretty annoying" would be considered racist, you have double standards because you see the world through a opressed/opressors lens which just make you huge hypocrites and have to cope with the obvious self contradiction by redefining words, "racism isnt prejudice based on skin color, racism is prejudice + power".
Good'ol horseshoe theory, left and right alike playing the identity game and both believe you have the moral imperative that justifies violence because you are saving the world, maniacs.
At least some black women are pretty annoying. There is a loop with poor black males and capitalism that isn't so great. I don't like poor black male culture either but that is what capitalism has continued to institutionalize. I never said racism is prejudice + power but the whole point of the blog post was to explore intersectionality so their is a connection between racism and classism. It's the same playbook and it stems from rich white males under a capitalist system.
You are a maniac for being ok with Nazi's organizing and forming solidarity. We should let ISIS flourish. No need to eradicate them from Raqqa and Mozul and the hearts and minds of the Iraqi, Syrian, and Muslim people worldwide.
I dont want communists organizing and forming solidarity but I dont want people punching you either.
Your argument isn't different than people who think that evil zionist jews control the world, its just racism.
Communism is basically a private property less, state less, money less society. We've had those in the past. From most accounts they worked out pretty well. There has not been communism in the modern world. Firstly, the black book is not reliable. Secondly, capitalism has caused more deaths than "communism" ever did and capitalism is heading for the extinction of humanity.
I doubt I'll be punched for liking Karl Marx especially when I basically talk about it with no one ever in real life.
#11 and #12 are the Koch Brothers by the way.......
On June 19 2019 17:45 Spitfiree wrote:
I kinda stopped reading at "carnism is the root of all evil"
I said it is a root evil. Dominance and oppression starts with animals. .
I'll stay this upfront - I haven't read any anthropologic research about it but I'm pretty sure that carnism is a natural development of our survival instincts, thus our instincts are evil by default. What that means is even if we fix that, we would be lying to ourselves if we ever believe we're "good" when doing anything since our core wire is evil
You've been pretty brainwashed though, thinking there is a white male privilege. Even in the USA where that's an actual topic statistics completely destroy that thesis. This is a very lazy argument and honestly it just another retarded propaganda by yellow media that managed to get into the roots of western society as something relevant, while there are much larger issues to solve. What Baal said is true, statistically, if your face fits/is close within/to the golden ratio you're much more likely to have a much better life, then again I trust there're no ugly people, just poor people that don't exercise, except in cases where something has gone wrong genetically/health-wise
There is a difference between dominating an animal because we can and it tastes muy rico or whatever and having reverence for an animal and hunting it for survival. I remember on many occasions I defined my masculinity by eating a burger or a steak or whatever. I used to go camping with a bunch of guys and we would literally get high and feel powerful by eating 24 oz. prime rib cooked by an executive chef in the group. It's all really silly and sad. It's literally bloodthirsty to sit down and eat a rare 24 oz. prime rib or bife de lomo jugoso or whatever on many levels. Then we'd trawl for sick sluts or prostitutes or whatever because we are men, manly men. Wake up and fish. Smoke cigars. Lift kettlebells. You know how you kill the fish right? Well, easiest is to just throw it in a cooler and let it suffocate. Manly men. I caught more fish than you. Manly men. I did more meters of a farmer's walk faster than you. Manly men. Chocolate duckfat bacon. Manly men. Then we drive double the speed limit on the ride home and listen to progressive metal. Manly men.
If carnism was a natural instinct I'd expect children from many different cultures to want to kill animals to eat them rather than make friends with them. I would also expect people to make good arguments in defense of animal exploitation, rather than the desperate attempts they make to soothe themselves.
Even if it was a strong force within the psyche, due to evolutionary reasons, it couldn't be nearly as strong as sex, yet few people make a defence for rape and the inability to control their sexual impulses.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Or it could be that our ancestors had days without food, thus meat was a fast source of stored energy. We were simply trying to survive for the majority of our existence as species, thus it makes sense this is deeply rooted in our instincts now. The urge of sex is pretty different since you restrain yourself but still search for someone to have it with willingly. The oppression of the desire for meat would virtually be a constant - agree that, again, without empirical evidence it makes sense that is way weaker compared to other instincts
That being said, I've said it countless times that I could easily be swayed to become a vegetarian due to moral reasoning, but I'm just hypocritical and lazy to put efforts in that.
Carnism isn't defined as oppression and abuse of animals, but using them as a source of food. Obviously, one goes hand in hand with the other nowadays even for industries that use the animals to produce goods for them e.g. milk, but it's still important to make that separation as the second could be fixed rather easily if efforts were put towards that direction.
@RikD sounds you had problems with your ego and so did your friends. I find that way of life disgusting. Again, quite hypocritical but hunters are just fucking retards imo, all of them. Killing animals for fun and ego purposes is borderline psychotic (Loco probably gonna make an argument of whats the difference between me and them since I consume animals, have thought about that a fair bit). Most fishing men I know release the fish they catch and do it as a hobby which relaxes them, which I can understand to a point and they also do it in a way which doesn't really hurt the fish so minor impact on the ecosystem
Last edit: 21/06/2019 08:48
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 21 2019 10:32. Posts 5296
experiments in moral psychology suggest it's a natural instinct to make arguments about doing something because it's a natural instinct. I.e we make ad hoc justifications for our moral impulses.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On June 21 2019 07:46 Spitfiree wrote:
Or it could be that our ancestors had days without food, thus meat was a fast source of stored energy. We were simply trying to survive for the majority of our existence as species, thus it makes sense this is deeply rooted in our instincts now. The urge of sex is pretty different since you restrain yourself but still search for someone to have it with willingly. The oppression of the desire for meat would virtually be a constant - agree that, again, without empirical evidence it makes sense that is way weaker compared to other instincts
That being said, I've said it countless times that I could easily be swayed to become a vegetarian due to moral reasoning, but I'm just hypocritical and lazy to put efforts in that.
Carnism isn't defined as oppression and abuse of animals, but using them as a source of food. Obviously, one goes hand in hand with the other nowadays even for industries that use the animals to produce goods for them e.g. milk, but it's still important to make that separation as the second could be fixed rather easily if efforts were put towards that direction.
@RikD sounds you had problems with your ego and so did your friends. I find that way of life disgusting. Again, quite hypocritical but hunters are just fucking retards imo, all of them. Killing animals for fun and ego purposes is borderline psychotic (Loco probably gonna make an argument of whats the difference between me and them since I consume animals, have thought about that a fair bit). Most fishing men I know release the fish they catch and do it as a hobby which relaxes them, which I can understand to a point and they also do it in a way which doesn't really hurt the fish so minor impact on the ecosystem
I suggest you watch Earthlings or Dominion Spitfire. It shows what's really going on and not the nicely marketed and packaged animal products you see in the grocery store. It shows you what's REALLY going on. It's easily to rationalize consuming dairy products or eggs but if you REALLY see the process it is truly disgusting and sad. Not to mention even if the cows were as happy as possible they are being treated as commodities and you are consuming baby cow puss.
A friend of mine just went fishing with his son. They released the fish but the fish swallowed the hook and was super fucked up. So, in reality his son had some joy in catching a fish and now the fish will die a slow painful death. Fish swallowing hooks happens all the time. No matter what it's a traumatic experience for the fish all for some entertainment for the human.
We were just being manly men and eating steaks and powerful, dominant manly men and eating BEEF is another loop. Niggas be watching Conan the Barbarian and turning that line about dominating opponents and hearing the lamentation of their women into an ethos.
Yes, I am taking those into account. Tyson Beckford is very privileged. That doesn't mean he doesn't/didn't experience racism. He is also still extremely lucky upon extremely lucky to be that good looking and also discovered.
attractiveness has far stronger correlation with economic status than race
I don't hate white people or even rich white people. It's just the way the cookie crumbled. My dad is a rich white male. My brother is a rich white male. I used to be a rich white male (I didn't tell you guys I transitioned.... My new name is Rachelle... bad joke....). I know and have known a lot of rich white males. I don't hate these people. These people are complex beings trying to live The Good Life just like anyone else. It's such a complicated topic. You get raised in this "competitive" world and compete and get told this and get told that and you watch Fox News and read this and that it's out of their control but you can't tell me that Dick Cheney is not an asshole and I could sit here for probably literally an hour listing rich white assholes. I could not do that with poor black women. Even though the amount of assholes as a % could be (probably is) the same. But, what is causing assholes?
because there are far more white men than black women in the US, theres also a skewed distribution in notoriety making that even more dramatic, but if you made that same excersize im Congo you would get opposite results.... also as a counter to Dick Cheney I give you Condoleezza Rice.
You are judging people based exclusively because of the color of their skin and gender, that is by definition racist and sexist.
It's scalability of harm though. I have heard countless stories of poor black women robbing people for crack cocaine but think about what the Koch brothers are doing. White men rule the world. They are the masters still. That isn't being racist that is fact.
"The oppression of the desire for meat would virtually be a constant "
I mean, that's silly. I haven't eaten meat or animal products in years, do you seriously think I repress the urge to eat them? Do you imagine that I have wild dreams where I fantasize about it? That's what you'd expect out of someone who is repressing something, or being deprived of something. I haven't been sexually active in a few months and have sex dreams or at least some kind of erotic desire nearly every day, you know how much I dream about animal foods? Not at all. I don't dream about food at all because I eat plenty of it.
It's so easy to test that hypothesis... you can test it on yourself. I can tell you you're imagining something that doesn't exist. We evolved to seek high density calorie foods, period. We mostly ate plants and we have many more copies of amylase genes than other primates because we evolved eating tubers. (Potatos don't run as fast as gazelles, believe it or not.) We don't actually have any physiological adaptation to eat meat. A minority of human beings have evolved the ability to digest lactose and that's about it.
It is just a habit and a cultural preference. Once you lose that habit most people actually find them disgusting, especially if they know where they are coming from. The thing that gets most people off the track is social pressure, it's not some innate desire to be a bloodmouth. 'Carnism' in fact is a term that was coined by a social psychologist who looked at the way we justify those habits and preferences, and it ain't pretty.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Racism is almost always defined by the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It's not defined by "judging people" by making a statement about the generalized privileges of different ethnicities.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 21 2019 17:12 Loco wrote:
Racism is almost always defined by the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It's not defined by "judging people" by making a statement about the generalized privileges of different ethnicities.
Intellectual dishonesty 101.
So if someone says: "those cunning jews control all of the media and shape the public opinion, they are the problem"
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 22 2019 17:47. Posts 5296
On June 21 2019 19:12 Loco wrote:
for your enjoyment rikd:
resonates with me a lot, except i quit my first job after 6months and didn't spend my 20's doing that. I would get this look of extreme disapproval when asking for legally mandated breaks-your not really expected to ask for employers to abide by the law here; that's 'entitlement'.
when i was at university there was this fat guy in my class who would walk to unversity and arrive at 6am. (2 hour walk for him), looked like he never slept at all. He took 5 of the most difficult classes you could take, and worked at KFC for 3-4 hours a week at a random time they would designate with 24 hours notice and sometimes his shift would be one hour long. usually he would work at some ungodly hour like 3am-4am. He drank like 2litres of coca cola every day purely for the caffiene, until someone told him caffiene pills existed. (he told me about this crazy revelation). I asked what his parents did for a living and he told me they were both doctors lmfao.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
United States. Jun 21 2019 03:49. Posts 8534
