I'm not just trying to piss him off when I talk about him having been radicalized by a white supremacist, you know. This has become a foundational belief of his ever since he heard it from Molyneux. Molyneux is a broken record about this point. It justifies all of his hatred of the left, and explains why they are so not worried about fascism (because they don't know what it is, and fail to realize how much of it is something they actively strengthen). Baal is literally talking about himself when he says the far-right are not conscious of the misinformation they spread in order to radicalize people, that they are not trying to deceive people. Baal isn't trying to deceive anyone with this, he strongly believes it and has no conception of the consequences of this narrative. People with this belief are seemingly unable to unlearn it because it's a pillar for their worldview, everything else crumbles if it's not there.
Btw, if you watch one of Molyneux's latest debates with this guy called Rationality Rules, you will see one of the best examples of Dunning-Krugger and cognitive dissonance on a similar point. It's probably what Baal would have looked like if we had debated Cheran on camera when I confronted him with the fact that you can't have capitalism without capital circulation/accumulation. It's a shame that he was banned from Youtube because almost all of his regular audience turned on him in the comments section lmao. Now there's just the one from the other guy left.
How crazy it is that you talk about "my radicalization" when in fact you are the most radical person on this entire site, you want a revolution with all its rivers of blood that will follow, you want to imprison disidents who attempt to fight the paradise and you look up to dictators who enslaved the population and had the blood of thousands in their hands, I don't fear a bunch of racist bikers who have meetings in basements, I fear the horrors that you, ideologues filled with good intentions, will usher into this world.
Dam, taking ridiculous strawmanning and hyperbole to new levels. Maybe Loco doesn't agree with me on this but I think he is quite close to a pacifist, and the positions i've read from mark bray and gelderoos (both tolerate violence in activism), are actually not that far from ghandi, although they might not realize this as well. More importantly it's impossible for me to take anyone seriously when they get hysterical if loco supports very minimal level's of violence from dissidents, when no one on this site who does this seems to care about structural violence from a political system that's killed hundreds of millions and threatens the whole eco system. Imo no one can seriously claim to be opposed to violence before critiquing the structural and political violence of their own system, that's actually a standard pacifist position as well.
The word 'pacifist' is so meaningless, like so many others today, because people are so hypocritical and uncritical of the way they use a term (we live in an age where hypocrisy has a very little cost if any, since everything moves so fast, and civic responsibilities are nearly non-existent). I am probably more of a pacifist than just about anyone, including those who self-identity as such. The ultimate form of pacifism is the refusal to enter into a hierarchical relationship with any living being, which is the philosophy that I try to live by. I refuse any role of leadership in a group setting. I refuse to give orders or commands to people, I refuse to kill animals including insects unless my survival depends on it. But that's not to say that I embrace a slave morality, I am not going to just turn the other cheek forever if I am under constant threat or attack, and I am willing to take what is necessary for my maintenance and development.
I agree with the activist philosophy that embraces a diversity of tactics, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to personally engage in all of them myself. It just means that I will not condemn those who do. And if I did engage in the "violent" ones, that wouldn't make me an authoritarian, because there is no authority behind it-- no usage of institutional force.
Baal can call himself a pacifist and sleep like a baby at night, despite his support for extreme violence at the dinner table, his violence online through slander and various forms of bigotry, and his violence in the workplace where he denies democracy to the people who make his business run. His brand of "pacifism" and "liberty" is one that doesn't blink an eye at the fact that 14 million Yemenis are expected to die within the next year from starvation, entire ecosystems are ravaged and the world is rapidly turning into a desert due to the profit motive, but statues of rapists and murderers being vandalized is truly criminal. Problem isn't that we don't have enough pacifists on the planet, it's that we have too many of those kinds of "pacifists", like we have too many of those Christians who think that somehow Jesus' message was that you should "get yours".
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 04 2020 18:06 Loco wrote:
I agree with the activist philosophy that embraces a diversity of tactics, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to personally engage in all of them myself. It just means that I will not condemn those who do. And if I did engage in the "violent" ones, that wouldn't make me an authoritarian, because there is no authority behind it-- no usage of institutional force.
Recently I'm struggling to support activism as it doesn't seem to ever lead to anything without the use of violence. I can't see a single non-violent activism that has changed the system or status quo. Perhaps the protests started by Rosa Parks... segregation was removed and it was a huge step forward, but it didn't radically change anything, perhaps I'm expecting too much in too short amount of time. And even those protests are founded on a lot of blood beforehand.
Even today where information is spread in an instant, events of brutality continue happening without much repercussion.
The idea that activism can only change something through brute force is even more frightening.
"We must now realize the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future. I am running for president of the United States [U.S.A. flag]! #2020VISION" - Kanye West via Twitter
Public Relations:
happy july fourth?... (what is this world that I live in?)
They are just as stubborn as you, and just as foolish in thinking that history is a story of moral and material progress.
Yes, social sciences are definitely a hot bed, but not mostly for radical politics, it's mostly center-left identity politics. The stuff that goes well with capitalism and its interests in diversity. The universities don't churn out anarchists, and they are also not run by Marxists (yes, that is a conspiracy theory, which has an origin story in Nazism).
I agree social sciences focus mostly on identity politics but they are just a nod away from socialism and thats why ther is a huge overlap, the majority of these majors favor socialism over capitalism. Also agree that that they are being machiavellically run by Marxist or jews or something is a conspiracy theory.
I've actually spent quite some time listening to alt-righters and Neo-Nazis directly. A lot of times they are radically honest with what they believe and what they want to do. A lot of times they were pretty explicit about their intent to consciously radicalize people, even if it involves lying to them, such as lying about believing in free speech
Which is something I've been saying for a long time, nobody is a bigger fan to censorship than nazis which is why is baffling to me that the ones most concerned about them are building up their own favourite weapons "Hey beware, here come the nazis, so lets normalize censorship, also while we are at it, lets hyperfocus on race and start a Helter-Skelter" lol.
You can keep lying on their behalf and misrepresenting their aims if you want, but it doesn't seem like a useful thing to do, it's easy to find out that you are wrong. I would also say it makes perfect sense for some professors in university to try to radicalize their students. If you are fully aware of what is going on with climate change for instance, you want people to take radical action.
As I've said before I dont think you or leftist truly care about climate change, it just plays very good in your koyaanisqatsi view, the goal is the end of the free market, this is why you all turn a blind eye about nuclear because if we were able to solve C02 production and avoid climate change but without the revolution you seek you would be deep down disssapointed.
I don't think my views are extreme at all, they are not rooted in hatred or gaining power over others, and I'm not interested in deceiving people because I am not interested in deceiving myself. I can see many times where I have deceived myself in the past and I am always on the lookout for it. The only dangerous form of radicalization is one that's based in self-deception.
The road to hell is paved with good intentoins, the worst attrocities in history have been done by people thinking they were pursuing a greater good.
And that's libertarianism in a nutshell. The paradox for which you have no answer, just like the delusional tankies when reality doesn't match up with their airy-fairy theories. It seems they can't read Marx properly, just like you can't read Adam Smith.
A socialist calling libertarianism a pipedream is wild lol.
Sorry bro but the REAL libertarians don't infringe on other people's rights by demanding that they wear masks during a pandemic. You're a tyrant.
Haven't I've been saying that people are stupid?
I wish mask use was compulsory the same way I wish nazis couldn't spread their vile ideas, but freedom is far too precious and must be protected even at the cost of allowing these people to use their in foolish ways.
LOL, says the mini-tyrant who commands his army of workers who have no choice but to obey him nearly every single day of their life, for most of their waking hours, unless they want to risk to starve to death. By "justifying for the common good," do you mean this kind of justification? "I create jobs! I give them good working conditions! It's all voluntary. I took the risk, it's normal that I am paid for it!" [/url]
Your bitter view of labor is so warped from reality, you imagine some 1800s moustache villian cracking the whip at the sweaty workers all in black & white lol.
My dad worked all his youth, saved up enough money to start a a business with a couple of workers he arrives earlier and leaves later than everybody and now employs about a dozen, they all care about him and he cares about them, some have worked with him for a long time and are now old and with health problems where a young man would be a much better choice, but they are still employed because as i said, he cares about them as any fucking regular boss does, 99% of businesses aren't a heartless and faceless corporation.
If you developed a skill and worked in a small company with a good boss and you were treated fairly and you were proud of your work, then you would feel different.
You remember me of that guy you posted a while ago, Thought Slime, (I follow him on YT after you recommended him), and he speaks about his work experience which is basically working in canadian food franchises like Tim Hortons and the bitterness is so palpable, and of course a depressed man with no skills working in a faceless corp with shitty bosses isn't going to enjoy it, and I thought the same thing, if he learned a skill like carpentry and worked in a shop and had a good menthoring and a good boss his views on work would be drastically different.
On July 05 2020 03:09 RiKD wrote:
It's clearly PR for his album and other projects but his album and other projects are PR for his run. What are the odds of Kanye winning?
Edit:
The odds are currently 50 to 1. Who among us hasn't been one outted?
If I think about it I actually prefer Kanye to Trump and Biden. That's fucked up.
Hey the new candidate is a succesful entrepenur and not a career politican!
-Sweet, who is it?
Donald Trump
- FUCK
Hey the new candidate is a successful musician and not a career politician!
- umm... ok I guess, who is it?
Kanye West
- FUCK
Why can't we get an normal businessman or some random metalhead with a random math PhD instead of these clowns :<
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
hiems United States. Jul 05 2020 15:27. Posts 2979
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On July 05 2020 09:55 Baalim wrote:
Why can't we get an normal businessman or some random metalhead with a random math PhD instead of these clowns :<
As one of my professor kindly put it - a politician's job is the most ungrateful job in the world if you'd do it morally, its practically devoting yourself to the needs of others while yielding the most power in the country but not taking advantage of it, while people still mostly dislike you. Meaning it would be a really rare thing for a non-dipshit to be a politician. Now think about how much people management happens until you get to the president spot in the USA.
Popper managed to persuade me in theory that a bi-partisan politician system is much better than a multi-party one. Yet in practice it doesn't seem thats true
On July 05 2020 09:55 Baalim wrote:
"As I've said before I dont think you or leftist truly care about climate change, it just plays very good in your koyaanisqatsi view, the goal is the end of the free market."
Yes, you've said it before, and it didn't make any sense then, and it still makes no sense now. Let me explain why with a simple thought experiment.
Imagine that you woke up tomorrow and you live in a world that obeys different laws than the one we currently live in. An alternate reality. In this alternate reality there is a God-like entity that has revealed itself to you and proven to you that it has what we would call supernatural powers. Perfect omniscience and the ability to do whatever it wants. Now imagine that God-like entity came to you and said "You have a choice between keeping the free market, and dealing with its natural consequences, or guaranteeing the continuance of organized life on earth, and whatever might necessitate that to happen. You can't have both. Make your choice wisely. I will make your choice come true."
Which would you choose?
This is not a trick question, and it depends entirely on what you value. But the point is, the closest we have to this God-like entity in our world is scientific certainty. And there is nothing that science is more certain about, and feels is more urgent to talk about, than the topic of climate change being an existential threat to organized life on this planet. So every single thing that you say on this topic is rendered meaningless. It's all mental gymnastics to avoid this fundamental truth. No one should care about why you think your personal feelings about the messengers should matter more than the actual truth of the matter. Except, of course, people care, because this cognitive dissonance and the externalization of the problem onto the psychology of select individuals that you are suspicious or paranoid about is a fundamental reason why things keep getting more and more out of control.
We can go a step further to demonstrate just how irrational you are about this topic. Imagine there was a futuristic robot that came to your home and said, "if you don't put a small amount of work or funds towards my maintenance so that me and my kind can keep existing, I or one of my descendants will burn your entire family alive at some point of my choosing in the future, possibly in a future generations' time, or multiple generations." Imagine that your response is, "I don't care to give you any amount of my money or labour because I don't think you care about my family, I think you were programmed by a leftist and you are just going to burn them alive at some point anyway." This is the structure of your argument and it shows just how paranoid and selfish your line of thinking is. You have fatalistically decided already that this robot is ill-motivated and its kind is programmed for killing your family, because of an intrinsically ambiguous and flexible 7 letter sign onto which people can project whatever they wish: "leftist".
Also, the free market has already decided that Gen 4 nuclear isn't commercially viable, and there is simply no time to wait for it to become viable. This has nothing to do with radical leftism.
"If you developed a skill and worked in a small company with a good boss and you were treated fairly and you were proud of your work, then you would feel different."
I would be able to say that I am relatively less oppressed than people with worse situations, but I would not be able to deny that I am operating within an authoritarian framework which remains oppressive towards me, or vice versa if I was the boss, that it is oppressive of me to deny "my" workers their self-determination. I would also go even further and say it's also oppressive towards myself as a boss, because I would be denying my full humanity by insisting that I need to be in a position to own and to rule over others. I believe this false sense of superiority and the idea that I deserve this position would do something to my psychology that prevents me from living a fuller, more liberated life.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 05 2020 14:32 Spitfiree wrote:
Kanye is the meme vote though.
I believe that title belongs to Vermin Supreme. Except he actually has good politics. I believe he went from being a right-wing libertarian to being an actual libertarian, i.e. social anarchist, in most recent years. Because, you know, when you actually believe in liberty, you can't stay a right-winger without the most extreme of mental distortions.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Kanye is simply trying the good ol' split the vote strategy where he's going to help Trump by getting the black vote which would otherwise go to Biden. He probably isn't even aware of that.
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Jul 05 2020 20:04. Posts 2233
my feet have more DNA in common with my hemorrhoid than they do with Loco's feet
feet are a social construct
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On July 05 2020 15:49 Loco wrote:
Imagine that you woke up tomorrow and you live in a world that obeys different laws than the one we currently live in. An alternate reality. In this alternate reality there is a God-like entity that has revealed itself to you and proven to you that it has what we would call supernatural powers. Perfect omniscience and the ability to do whatever it wants. Now imagine that God-like entity came to you and said "You have a choice between keeping the free market, and dealing with its natural consequences, or guaranteeing the continuance of organized life on earth, and whatever might necessitate that to happen. You can't have both. Make your choice wisely. I will make your choice come true."
Which would you choose?
What a bizarre and confusing way to frame this question to the point they are not answerable, how would removing the free market look like? does that mean some form of global socialim or what specifically, what about the consequences of that, any guarantees or not?. What does "continuance of organized life on earth" even mean? does it mean that no species will go extinct, for how long does this deal last? what about evolution?
Why not make the question you want to ask and that is, if this entity would trade avoidance of climate change but you have to put capitalism what would you choose?
This is not a trick question, and it depends entirely on what you value. But the point is, the closest we have to this God-like entity in our world is scientific certainty. And there is nothing that science is more certain about, and feels is more urgent to talk about, than the topic f climate change being an existential threat to organized life on this planet. So every single thing that you say on this topic is rendered meaningless. It's all mental gymnastics to avoid this fundamental truth. No one should care about why you think your personal feelings about the messengers should matter more than the actual truth of the matter. Except, of course, people care, because this cognitive dissonance and the externalization of the problem onto the psychology of select individuals that you are suspicious or paranoid about is a fundamental reason why things keep getting more and more out of control.
Did you just say that there is no bigger scientific certanty than climate change? LOL
What am I saying bout this topic that is meaningless? I'm saying that while the timeframe and potential consecences are still unknown, given what is at stake, Climate change should be tackled seriously and as fast possible and the way to do with is by transitioning to the cheapest clean source of energy we have, that is nuclear energy.
We can go a step further to demonstrate just how irrational you are about this topic. Imagine there was a futuristic robot that came to your home and said, "if you don't put a small amount of work or funds towards my maintenance so that me and my kind can keep existing, I or one of my descendants will burn your entire family alive at some point of my choosing in the future, possibly in a future generations' time, or multiple generations." Imagine that your response is, "I don't care to give you any amount of my money or labour because I don't think you care about my family, I think you were programmed by a leftist and you are just going to burn them alive at some point anyway." This is the structure of your argument and it shows just how paranoid and selfish your line of thinking is. You have fatalistically decided already that this robot is ill-motivated and its kind is programmed for killing your family, because of an intrinsically ambiguous and flexible 7 letter sign onto which people can project whatever they wish: "leftist".
You deserve an award for being the worst person at making analogies ever... what in the fuck was that?
Also, the free market has already decided that Gen 4 nuclear isn't commercially viable, and there is simply no time to wait for it to become viable. This has nothing to do with radical leftism.
oh the market has? lol please elaborate.
Interesting since even very old gen reactors yield a much better $/W than solar or wind and are actually viable for a world-wide scalle while the other two aren't.
Your stupid anti-nuclear stance shows that what I"m accusing you of is true, your objective is eliminating the market, and every solution who doesn't you won't support.
I would be able to say that I am relatively less oppressed than people with worse situations, but I would not be able to deny that I am operating within an authoritarian framework which remains oppressive towards me, or vice versa if I was the boss, that it is oppressive of me to deny "my" workers their self-determination. I would also go even further and say it's also oppressive towards myself as a boss, because I would be denying my full humanity by insisting that I need to be in a position to own and to rule over others. I believe this false sense of superiority and the idea that I deserve this position would do something to my psychology that prevents me from living a fuller, more liberated life.
You don't rule over willful participants in a mututally beneficial agreements.
"Oh but you are threathening with starvation" No, nature threatens all alive beings with starvation, to not starve needs work, the Leopard needs to chase its prey to eat, the squirrel has to gather and save nuts, and you also have to work, if you want to grow your own food, please go ahead, our society currently has more efficient ways to provide food, so if you wan't you can join in and perhaps your skills can yield you even more food that if you directly produce it, but if you don't want to work for your food directly or indirectly don't fucking accuse others of threatening you with starvation, you are not entitled to other's work to feed you.
Species-wise we should've already been far away from the threat of starvation due to how developed we are, yet millions of people are still threatened by it. If you want to compare us to animals, please go ahead, however don't for a second think it makes any sense whatsoever. You're supporting a system which forces millions to have to migrate due to climate changes and wars, a system that destroys cultures and ecosystems and all it cares about is profit, while it labels social warfare as communism. It's like beating down on someone and then yelling them to get up or you'll beat them more.
I'm not opposed to nuclear but having watched this debate definitely made it less of a clear cut choice and your framing of leftists are not concerned with the environment but actually just pretend to be concerned with the environment so they can end the free market is an incredibly dumb take. Again, one that has been addressed before, but it seems like you either don't remember or don't care. either way it makes engaging with you feel pretty pointless.
On July 04 2020 15:40 Stroggoz wrote:
It's quite a well known fact that there is more genetic diversity between black people than white people. And that is because the human species spent far more time isolated in different parts of africa (hundreds of thousands of years), before they spread out to the rest of the world. So yes race is a social construct, racism has not been around for that long. I don't think you will find any racism in any book printed before 500 years ago.
Wtf? The bantus conquered most of subsaharan Africa except for very few tribes that are different now like khoisan there are no well known facts pls... only dogma we are not even scratching the surface of any of this stuff science changes all the time much of it is now politicized and anyone going against dogma will not get funding or have a job look at Watson. Those are also theories not facts.
Also your point makes no sense what white people? the caucosoids? that includes middle easterners and people from India seems like more diversity to me but who cares anyway whats your point? the race with most diversity wins? Didn't read thread so ... ok I will go back
I'm not opposed to nuclear but having watched this debate definitely made it less of a clear cut choice and your framing of leftists are not concerned with the environment but actually just pretend to be concerned with the environment so they can end the free market is an incredibly dumb take. Again, one that has been addressed before, but it seems like you either don't remember or don't care. either way it makes engaging with you feel pretty pointless.
I was actually looking for it yesterday with the intention of re-posting it but thought it was pointless.
Arguing with Baal is basically the fight scene in this clip, he is already too satiated from the trashcan, nothing more can get inside him, and he just fucking hates the glasses even more:
There is another clip I stumbled upon yesterday though that is pretty infotaining. The guy who takes the "nuke sucks" position is some kind of anti-SJW liberal so really a perfect source for Baal but lol I wouldn't hold my breath.
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: 06/07/2020 15:02
0
hiems United States. Jul 06 2020 16:06. Posts 2979
Damn guys, he found another youtube video to post. He got us again.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
Like, Baal, just try to answer the following question.
Why do you think a person like myself is not a fan of capitalism? For reference, I live a life of reasonable success, monetary and otherwise, in one of the world's wealthiest countries. My parents are also pretty wealthy, and I've never really lacked for anything. In terms of the global hierarchy, I'm pretty damn far up. Why does a person like myself oppose the system through which I am thriving?
Contact Users: 776 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 18:01
United States. Jul 05 2020 03:27. Posts 8992
