hiems United States. Jan 15 2020 01:51. Posts 2979
@ rikd
I dont care if you exactly fit some definition of hikikomori or not. as far as i know some of them do go outside but thats not really the point is it? i think hikikimori is a good way to describe both of you.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
Last edit: 15/01/2020 01:57
0
hiems United States. Jan 15 2020 01:57. Posts 2979
LOL. BRO you dont need to blog about your fuckin life 20000 posts this IS YOUR LIFE. lol.
im not sure what your point is here.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
4
PoorUser United States. Jan 15 2020 02:26. Posts 7471
On January 13 2020 21:06 Loco wrote:
Firstly, it would depend on what the link between the person making the testimony and the victim is, as well as what the behavioral disorder is. In some situations it can undermine a witness's credibility and in others it wouldn't. You can't discriminate against someone who has an anxiety disorder for instance and assume that they are disconnected from reality just because that's a behavioral disorder. I don't know enough about bipolar but assuming the person is properly medicated I assume they couldn't be discredited solely based on that either. If they were in a manic episode that's a different thing. Either way, there are experts who make those decisions, and those experts are not you.
this is correct. also worth noting that insane is a legal term, not a psychological term (i.e. no classification in the dsm).
On January 14 2020 06:55 Baalim wrote:
I remember disagreeing with Drone, he said he would lie/deny race IQ differences to not give ammuniton to racists and his intention is good and the results might be immediatly better, clearly the race-IQ thing hasn't given any useful fruits in terms of science but it fuels a lot of the ugliests forms of racists, yet I chose truth, the same in regards of climate change.
not sure if i missed a race-iq conversation, even if not i'll just pop in and say 2 things because they are just worth saying re: IQ and tend to be misrepresented:
1)(almost) all of the field agrees that iq isnt a measure of intelligence (or that general intelligence as a construct isn't super meaningful...whichever way to conceptualize it is fine). IQ tests in clinical psychology are used to predict short term academic achievement and job performance. while they do that reasonably well, people who give technically correct but highly creative answers are generally discriminated against in the results (just one example). also IQ tests dont really measure social, emotional, musical, kinesthetic, etc. intelligence. IQ is fluid, not static and fluctuates a lot, especially in childhood
2)regarding race-iq gap - there is a gap between african american and white males in the usa. i forget what it is. maybe 8-10 points depending on the study, population, etc but i tend to hear it inflated in general conversation. people at the top of the assessment field, and really most of the field of psychology are attributing these differences not due to biology, but to opportunity/circumstances. i.e. african american people face higher levels of poverty, reduced opportunities growing up. i think this makes particular sense when looking back to point 1 we recognize IQ not as a measure of genetic trait but as a mix of biopsychosocial properties that bias towards academic history. aside from having high face validity, this idea has a lot of traction due to converging scores between white and african american individs in similar SES+geography populations (i think while the score narrows there is still some small difference --it could probably be explained away by harder to quantify aspects of being a minority regardless of ones situation but now we're getting into "you cant prove it isn't arguments so it's less interesting but it's still a thought). could also look at cultural biases in tests. sometimes that can make a huge difference...the current WAIS (IV) is actually pretty good in that respect though. WAIS V should come out any time now and it will be cool to get a look at the normative data.
You didn't miss an IQ discussion, it's just some baggage left over from Baal's indoctrination into the Stefan Molyneux cult from way back. But instead of being like Stefan Molyneux and acting like he's aware of a "tragic truth" that was "so devastating to learn about and is so difficult to discuss", he was just presenting it as a thought experiment, as if it's still open for debate and the whole thing isn't easily debunked. "It's just a thought experiment, but I would stand for the truth while you lefties wouldn't" ... such a lame game to play.
It's also pretty rich of him to say that he "chooses the truth" on the topic of climate change, when he was saying shit like this 12 years ago:
On March 07 2008 16:54 Baalim wrote:
God we just had the coldest winter in the world in like a century FFS..... and people still say "well THAT is global warming you see, extreme climate changes!!!!, if you are freezing ur ass its global warming, if its hot its global warming... its its template its also global warming!!! oh noesss!.
When will humanity stop predicting its own demise, its some kind of fetish.
... and although I'm sure he's now realized the idiocy of the previous position, his entire ideology and overall attitude still hasn't changed -- it still relies on the premise of negative externalities not being that much of a problem, and he still promotes this false idea that people have a kind of mind virus that is leading them to irrationally think that the world is going to collapse. The denialism has just taken a new form and any sense of urgency on this matter is met with the knee jerk response that people are "trying to change things too fast and ruin the economy for their own agenda".
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 15/01/2020 03:44
0
hiems United States. Jan 15 2020 05:26. Posts 2979
On January 13 2020 21:06 Loco wrote:
Firstly, it would depend on what the link between the person making the testimony and the victim is, as well as what the behavioral disorder is. In some situations it can undermine a witness's credibility and in others it wouldn't. You can't discriminate against someone who has an anxiety disorder for instance and assume that they are disconnected from reality just because that's a behavioral disorder. I don't know enough about bipolar but assuming the person is properly medicated I assume they couldn't be discredited solely based on that either. If they were in a manic episode that's a different thing. Either way, there are experts who make those decisions, and those experts are not you.
this is correct. also worth noting that insane is a legal term, not a psychological term (i.e. no classification in the dsm).
On January 14 2020 06:55 Baalim wrote:
I remember disagreeing with Drone, he said he would lie/deny race IQ differences to not give ammuniton to racists and his intention is good and the results might be immediatly better, clearly the race-IQ thing hasn't given any useful fruits in terms of science but it fuels a lot of the ugliests forms of racists, yet I chose truth, the same in regards of climate change.
not sure if i missed a race-iq conversation, even if not i'll just pop in and say 2 things because they are just worth saying re: IQ and tend to be misrepresented:
1)(almost) all of the field agrees that iq isnt a measure of intelligence (or that general intelligence as a construct isn't super meaningful...whichever way to conceptualize it is fine). IQ tests in clinical psychology are used to predict short term academic achievement and job performance. while they do that reasonably well, people who give technically correct but highly creative answers are generally discriminated against in the results (just one example). also IQ tests dont really measure social, emotional, musical, kinesthetic, etc. intelligence. IQ is fluid, not static and fluctuates a lot, especially in childhood
2)regarding race-iq gap - there is a gap between african american and white males in the usa. i forget what it is. maybe 8-10 points depending on the study, population, etc but i tend to hear it inflated in general conversation. people at the top of the assessment field, and really most of the field of psychology are attributing these differences not due to biology, but to opportunity/circumstances. i.e. african american people face higher levels of poverty, reduced opportunities growing up. i think this makes particular sense when looking back to point 1 we recognize IQ not as a measure of genetic trait but as a mix of biopsychosocial properties that bias towards academic history. aside from having high face validity, this idea has a lot of traction due to converging scores between white and african american individs in similar SES+geography populations (i think while the score narrows there is still some small difference --it could probably be explained away by harder to quantify aspects of being a minority regardless of ones situation but now we're getting into "you cant prove it isn't arguments so it's less interesting but it's still a thought). could also look at cultural biases in tests. sometimes that can make a huge difference...the current WAIS (IV) is actually pretty good in that respect though. WAIS V should come out any time now and it will be cool to get a look at the normative data.
yes, lets just pile on the liberals to support loco and his crusade of cunty logic.
about race/socialism:
its not just about IQ which suggests jews/asians/whites have higher iq than blacks/hispanics. asians/white people tend to have children at later stages in life than their black/hispanic counterparts. if your look at age groups <18, and 18-early twenties, there is a clear skew towards blacks/hispanics. This has absolutely nothing to do with race. the ability to plan/delay immediate consumption and wait to have children until they are at an appropriate age to do so is important in determining success. no one is coerced into having kids at an age when they are not ready to do so. this has nothing to do with racism, but has everything to do with cultural trends. this also further increases the rates of single motherhood among the black/Hispanic communities which are also important in determining success.
is there also not a gap between whites/asians/blacks in professional sports? are black people just superior human beings? why not have affirmative action in professional sports then if we are going to allow blacks/hsipanics to get into colleges/corporations with lower performance standards?
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
I dont care if you exactly fit some definition of hikikomori or not. as far as i know some of them do go outside but thats not really the point is it? i think hikikimori is a good way to describe both of you.
So who cares about definitions that don't describe me. Is it just a gut feeling? A delusion is more like it. I just got back from dinner with friends. I would have liked the night to continue but most people work early so the group ended up dispersing. I would like to do something like that most nights interspersed with dating. This is not equivalent to hikkomori life.
On January 15 2020 01:26 PoorUser wrote:
not sure if i missed a race-iq conversation, even if not i'll just pop in and say 2 things because they are just worth saying re: IQ and tend to be misrepresented:
1)(almost) all of the field agrees that iq isnt a measure of intelligence (or that general intelligence as a construct isn't super meaningful...whichever way to conceptualize it is fine). IQ tests in clinical psychology are used to predict short term academic achievement and job performance. while they do that reasonably well, people who give technically correct but highly creative answers are generally discriminated against in the results (just one example). also IQ tests dont really measure social, emotional, musical, kinesthetic, etc. intelligence. IQ is fluid, not static and fluctuates a lot, especially in childhood
2)regarding race-iq gap - there is a gap between african american and white males in the usa. i forget what it is. maybe 8-10 points depending on the study, population, etc but i tend to hear it inflated in general conversation. people at the top of the assessment field, and really most of the field of psychology are attributing these differences not due to biology, but to opportunity/circumstances. i.e. african american people face higher levels of poverty, reduced opportunities growing up. i think this makes particular sense when looking back to point 1 we recognize IQ not as a measure of genetic trait but as a mix of biopsychosocial properties that bias towards academic history. aside from having high face validity, this idea has a lot of traction due to converging scores between white and african american individs in similar SES+geography populations (i think while the score narrows there is still some small difference --it could probably be explained away by harder to quantify aspects of being a minority regardless of ones situation but now we're getting into "you cant prove it isn't arguments so it's less interesting but it's still a thought). could also look at cultural biases in tests. sometimes that can make a huge difference...the current WAIS (IV) is actually pretty good in that respect though. WAIS V should come out any time now and it will be cool to get a look at the normative data.
There are two types of IQ, fluid and crystalized, I remember that JBP mentioned that basically you could take 100 randomly chosen questions from all fields (math, history, language etc), and that you would get very close to the result of an elaborate crystalized IQ test, so indeed it seems very crude and incomplete in regards of what we all can do as humans, however it has strong correlations with many things like economic success, it is the best quantifiable measure psychology has, although the bar isn't set very high.
I don't think we've had a race-IQ discussion in this thread, but I do remember Drone saying that.
My personal views regarding race-IQ its that it doesn't seem that important because as you mention the measure is crude, there is a lot of noise, methodologies suck and there are more variance from individual to individual than from race to race and it also hasn't served for anything positive, also I find it funny that white supremacists latch to this while they are absolutely eclipsed in these tests by their arch-enemies, the jews.
On January 15 2020 02:25 Loco wrote:
You didn't miss an IQ discussion, it's just some baggage left over from Baal's indoctrination into the Stefan Molyneux cult from way back. But instead of being like Stefan Molyneux and acting like he's aware of a "tragic truth" that was "so devastating to learn about and is so difficult to discuss", he was just presenting it as a thought experiment, as if it's still open for debate and the whole thing isn't easily debunked. "It's just a thought experiment, but I would stand for the truth while you lefties wouldn't" ... such a lame game to play.
Oh sure I was presenting those ideas as though experiments because I'm in reality a closet nazi right?
I didn't even mention lefties, I specifically mentioned Drone because he said so, I guess you are projecting here because you would do the same thing.
It's also pretty rich of him to say that he "chooses the truth" on the topic of climate change, when he was saying shit like this 12 years ago:
... and although I'm sure he's now realized the idiocy of the previous position, his entire ideology and overall attitude still hasn't changed -- it still relies on the premise of negative externalities not being that much of a problem, and he still promotes this false idea that people have a kind of mind virus that is leading them to irrationally think that the world is going to collapse. The denialism has just taken a new form and any sense of urgency on this matter is met with the knee jerk response that people are "trying to change things too fast and ruin the economy for their own agenda".
false idea that people like to think the world is ending... yep because people have not literally wrongfully predicted the end of the world hundreds of times, in fact 4 times these last 2 decades alone, every religion has a doomsday book and we have thousands of movies, thousnads of bunkers in backyards, yeah where do I get this false idea.
You claimed that in 19 years civilization will end and you claimed that the ONLY way to stop it is that the world leaves capitalism, so basically you are saying civilization will end with a 99%+ certainty, you are no different from a hobo with a doomsday prophecy written on a cardboard.
I on the other hand think that given the evidence suggest and what is a stake and the unknown results of such a complex system it would be wise to act on it in the most cost-efficient and archievable way
On January 15 2020 09:42 Baalim wrote:
Oh sure I was presenting those ideas as though experiments because I'm in reality a closet nazi right?
No, it's a lot more likely that you were simply unaware that you were promoting dog whistles. For instance you once promoted the same kind of thinking about "ethnonationalism", (which the term itself is a dog whistle) and you said that "if it turned out to be the answer", I wouldn't support it because I'm "too dogmatic". What it is in reality as of now is that your thinking is confined within a very limited space with these right-wing talking points and you lack imagination in the ways that you promote your perceived superiority over others, so you still use them, albeit with a twist.
You claimed that in 19 years civilization will end and you claimed that the ONLY way to stop it is that the world leaves capitalism, so basically you are saying civilization will end with a 99%+ certainty, you are no different from a hobo with a doomsday prophecy written on a cardboard.
No, I did not. I claimed that it will be out of our hands by then due to the nature of feedback loops. This doesn't mean that the world will end. This is just a lazy misrepresentation and I think you were manipulated by the media due to AOC's exaggeration. Like I said to LemOn, lying and fear-mongering is not necessary, it's only counter-productive. The crisis is obvious and urgent enough and we should speak the truth about it.
false idea that people like to think the world is ending... yep because people have not literally wrongfully predicted the end of the world hundreds of times, in fact 4 times these last 2 decades alone, every religion has a doomsday book and we have thousands of movies, thousnads of bunkers in backyards, yeah where do I get this false idea.
Let's be clear, the topic at hand was whether or not the evidence shows that you are the "lover of truth" that you claim to be. I provided evidence that 12 years ago you were openly denying the reality of anthropocentric global warming by confusing the weather and the climate. You had no interest in the truth then, as you were merely parroting a right-wing talking point ("we just had the coldest winter ever, obviously it shows that climate change is a hoax''), and you have shown that you have no interest in the truth now either. All you have on this topic are talking points and cherry-picked data and a refusal to acknowledge that the logic of capitalism can only ever make the problem worse.
The false idea isn't that "people have always thought the world was gonna end". The false idea is that you imply that all people are the same, i.e. climatologists are no different from religious fanatics. I wouldn't be surprised if you came out one day and argued that George Soros is funding climatologists once you actually pay attention to the models and their implications. I imagine that if you are still so ignorant on this topic after all this time, the denial is only likely to get worse and the conspiratorial thinking will have to become more overt.
"There’s an old saying that “the proof is in the pudding,” meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it’s been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.''
[...]
"The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.
The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
“The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming"
And what are those proven-to-be-accurate models suggesting it will look like in the future? Let's have a look.
"An animation of a GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) climate model simulation made for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, showing five-year averaged surface air temperature anomalies in degrees Celsius from 1880 to 2100. The temperature anomaly is a measure of how much warmer or colder it is at a particular place and time than the long-term mean temperature, defined as the average temperature over the 30-year base period from 1951 to 1980. Blue areas represent cool areas and yellow and red areas represent warmer areas. The number in the upper right corner represents the global mean anomaly. "
The uncertainty of the models isn't uncertainty about whether or not the situation is dire, as you attempt to paint it. It is uncertainty about exactly just how fast and how dire it is going to be very soon. This is a terrifying animation to be sure, but it is using data from the 4th assessment (made in 2007) and the models have only improved since then. The pattern with newer studies has been for a long time that they had underestimated XYZ effects/factors and it will only be getting worse than predicted. For instance, here's an article from yesterday saying what we knew has been true for a while: (https://phys.org/news/2020-01-climate-paris-goals.html)
"New climate models suggest Paris goals may be out of reach
"New climate models show carbon dioxide is a more potent greenhouse gas than previously understood, a finding that could push the Paris treaty goals for capping global warming out of reach, scientists have told AFP.
Developed in parallel by separate teams in half-a-dozen countries, the models—which will underpin revised UN temperature projections next year—suggest scientists have for decades consistently underestimated the warming potential of CO2.
Vastly more data and computing power has become available since the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections were finalised in 2013.
"We have better models now," Olivier Boucher, head of the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Modelling Centre in Paris, told AFP, adding that they "represent current climate trends more accurately".
The most influential projections from government-backed teams in the US, Britain, France and Canada point to a future in which CO2 concentrations that have long been equated with a 3C world would more likely heat the planet's surface by four or five degrees."
Which part of this is something to be optimistic about? Which part of this suggests "progress"? You realize that a 5C increase is an extinction event? There are models that predict as high as a 7C increase over the next 75 years from that article. Civilization buckles around 3°C, which if those models are accurate, is the absolute best scenario, and it doesn't even account for certain feedback loops/unknown emissions from thawing permafrost, clathrates, etc. or even the Global Dimming Effect.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
"A year of extreme weather events and mounting evidence of global heating have catapulted the climate emergency to the top of the list of issues worrying the world’s elite.
The World Economic Forum’s annual risks report found that, for the first time in its 15-year history, the environment filled the top five places in the list of concerns likely to have a major impact over the next decade.
Børge Brende, the president of the World Economic Forum, said: “The political landscape is polarised, sea levels are rising and climate fires are burning. This is the year when world leaders must work with all sectors of society to repair and reinvigorate our systems of cooperation, not just for short-term benefit but for tackling our deep-rooted risks.”
After a month in which bushfires have raged out of control in Australia, Brende said there was a need for urgent action.
“We have only a very small window and if we don’t use that window in the next 10 years we will be moving around the deckchairs on the Titanic.”
Oh and while I'm going down memory lane as I was in search of your climate denial quotes, here are a couple other gems I found:
On July 10 2010 20:35 Baalim wrote:
Tien you are a fucking idiot, i am a capitalist and i believe effort should be rewarded but tell me how in the fuck you self important son of a bitch have made any bigger effort than an african man working 12 hours a day that can barely support his family?.
Its not about a welfare check its about not fucking destroying our neighbor for our benefit, want to help the starving people in the middle east?, dont write a check... how about not invading them for decades and steal their oil? how about not sanctioning cuba and iran sending them into poberty? how about you just stop stealing the natural resources of south america?
Have you ever wondered why do you know the name of the president of Venezuela but you dont from Bolivia, Peru, Nicaragua etc?... well its because that crazy son of a bitch decided to not allow USA stealing their oil anymore so you are bombarded in the news like he is a bad bad man... yet you wont hear a whisper of the other bad man in fucking Honduras.
Of course we are responsible for the state of the world right now, who else is? do you think the people in Gaza are responsible for them or you are for enabling a government who arms Israel that is committing genocide?.
Its unbelievable people are so near sighted and egoistical while we funnel the entire wealth of this planet to the top of the pyramid and we are willing to ignore this as long as we have food and a flat TV.
On July 10 2010 21:23 Tien wrote:
I'm not arguing right or wrong.
I am not saying we are not responsible.
I'm saying that it is inevitable.
And I'm saying the 1 billion humans that are living in 1st world conditions don't give a crap. And they don't.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done" - Leonardo da Vinci
So yes my friend, not caring makes you responsible too and also questions on so many levels your humanity.
Funny how times change, and how in the last year you have viciously attacked me for saying things that you used to say, even some that you were putting in bold.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 15/01/2020 19:44
4
PoorUser United States. Jan 15 2020 17:48. Posts 7471
On January 15 2020 04:26 hiems wrote:
yes, lets just pile on the liberals to support loco and his crusade of cunty logic.
i dont drop by this thread much so i dont know who is on what team. there was simply a dispute over the law (what type of testimony is admissible in court). since its part of my job to know that law, and read a whole lot of it recently, i figured i'd just state objectively what the law would allow. party affiliation or whatever rhetoric you accuse whomever of is well, not relevant here.
On January 15 2020 09:22 Baalim wrote:
There are two types of IQ, fluid and crystalized, I remember that JBP mentioned that basically you could take 100 randomly chosen questions from all fields (math, history, language etc), and that you would get very close to the result of an elaborate crystalized IQ test, so indeed it seems very crude and incomplete in regards of what we all can do as humans, however it has strong correlations with many things like economic success, it is the best quantifiable measure psychology has, although the bar isn't set very high.
yeah largely agree, though most modern iq tests (WAIS, WISC, woodcock etc.) claim to measure both fluid and crystallized IQ (and both are subsumed under general intelligence[g] which is what those tests measure), so the distinction isn't useful insofar as one believes those constructs to exist and the aforementioned tests to measure them. i never had any idea what jbp was on about anytime he tried to say anything meaningful about iq (though i dont think most people did)
On July 10 2010 20:35 Baalim wrote:
Tien you are a fucking idiot, i am a capitalist and i believe effort should be rewarded but tell me how in the fuck you self important son of a bitch have made any bigger effort than an african man working 12 hours a day that can barely support his family?.
Its not about a welfare check its about not fucking destroying our neighbor for our benefit, want to help the starving people in the middle east?, dont write a check... how about not invading them for decades and steal their oil? how about not sanctioning cuba and iran sending them into poberty? how about you just stop stealing the natural resources of south america?
Have you ever wondered why do you know the name of the president of Venezuela but you dont from Bolivia, Peru, Nicaragua etc?... well its because that crazy son of a bitch decided to not allow USA stealing their oil anymore so you are bombarded in the news like he is a bad bad man... yet you wont hear a whisper of the other bad man in fucking Honduras.
Of course we are responsible for the state of the world right now, who else is? do you think the people in Gaza are responsible for them or you are for enabling a government who arms Israel that is committing genocide?.
Its unbelievable people are so near sighted and egoistical while we funnel the entire wealth of this planet to the top of the pyramid and we are willing to ignore this as long as we have food and a flat TV.
On July 10 2010 21:30 Baalim wrote:
On July 10 2010 21:23 Tien wrote:
I'm not arguing right or wrong.
I am not saying we are not responsible.
I'm saying that it is inevitable.
And I'm saying the 1 billion humans that are living in 1st world conditions don't give a crap. And they don't.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done" - Leonardo da Vinci
So yes my friend, not caring makes you responsible too and also questions on so many levels your humanity.
Funny how times change, and how in the last year you have viciously attacked me for saying things that you used to say, even some that you were putting in bold.
Lol great find :D
It might appear that I've shifted to the right way more than I actually did because as a contrarian you are mostly the adversary, but it only took a couple of weeks of your abscense to start fighting with Santafiry against his retarded conservative bullshit.
I still hold most of those ideas, I'm against Israel's expansion, what they've done to Palestine is atrocious (antisemite arabs are also awful though), I think the US should get the fuck out of the middle east and that they can't ask Iran not to build a nuke when they hold over a thousand.
When I support "sanctions" I've said many times that I mean stopping trade, not an economical siege, forcing others to stop too, I just find immoral to lets say import shit from North Korea that would help finance their government.
When I mentioned the money funneling I meant the US military, contractors and bankers creating this Roman-style profit-seeking invasions around the world, and from 2009 to this date I say fuck the US military industrial complex and fuck bankers.
The reason I have more money than I should in Bitcoin is because its a bet against bankers, finance rent-seekers and banks, balaclavas, molotovs and circle drums are no threat to them its only wishful thinking, Bitcoin is how they fall.
I think thats the problem with debate specially amonst people who love to argue like ourselves, we spend way more time on our differences than our similarities, the problem is that we don't see eye to eye in some very core values like freedom of speech or the initiation of violence.
Baal is mexican currencly plummeting like the chilean peso with the new mexican government? Since the communist coup attempt in october (still ongoing) our currency has lost 15% ofi t's value
Coups are also planned, popular uprisings arise spontaneously as a reaction to the corruption and repression of a government. Could it have been any more obvious that the uprising was spontaneous? What other conspiracy do you believe in? Maybe it's all happened not because of the corruption and authoritarianism of the government you defend, but because communist witches have been casting spells to make people angry against their government? Hang the witches!
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Call it however you want it, too tired to talk about it. Criminals destroying public/private property and burning churches, protected by the left's media and judicial activism
On January 16 2020 12:31 GoTuNk wrote:
Baal is mexican currencly plummeting like the chilean peso with the new mexican government? Since the communist coup attempt in october (still ongoing) our currency has lost 15% ofi t's value
No, "the best president in the world" according to Loco turned out to be somewhat fiscally conservative and is just another corrupt center-left president, he calls for austerity and he hasn't printed any money which is very surprising but I applaud it greatly.
He had quite a rocky start:
- He turned the already broke Social security into univesal healthcare, the conditons were already very poor and now are even worse, there are many protest regading lack of medicine, kids with leucemia not getting their chemo has been
- He lost the support of the militant left and the cultural left, he cut the budget for arts & culture, so all the pseudo intellectual lefties and artists are against him, and the militant left (EZLN) promised to stop his Mayan train project and that is going to be interesting because I assume it would be very easy to stop with terrorism acts in the middle of a jungle.
- He freed El Chapo's son, the leader of the biggest criminal organization in the world was captured by the military and the president gave the oder to free him to "keep the peace in the city", obviously the president is in the cartel's payroll.
- He freed corrupt politicians that were in jail, the head of the teacher's union who was in jail for corruption (basically Mexico's Jimmy Hoffa) and other heinous reviled politicians.
- 2019 was Mexico's most violent year ever, his policy of "hugs, not bullets" clearly isn't working... and yes that is literally how he calls his security policies and how he purposes dealing with the cartels.
So he is an awful president but seems responsible with the money printing machine, so our currency is stable.
Contact Users: 891 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 09:00
United States. Jan 15 2020 02:26. Posts 7471
