#serious (Discord ID: 486385308951379968) in The Right Server, page 14
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
let me see it
where is this drawn from
lol so tell me a marxist country that was capitalism on steroids
the USSR was never capitalism on steroids
i want you to tell me how the USSR was capitalism on steroids
or that the workers got treated even worse and that conditions were terrible
cite the same liberal sources you hate
im not going to refute a point if you dont prove it
it is by nature bunk
the claimant substantiates a claim
i am asking you to prove your points
and no china is not heavily capitalistic
the only video links you have given are of jesus movies
what is this supposed to be
tell me why the USSR was capitalism on steroids
none of these things are pointing me to the reason why the USSR was heavily capitalist
in fact i can tell you why it wasnt
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html <---- this is completely unsourced
but onto a real point
how can a 5 year plan in a ML country be
how are five-year plans done by ML states considered capitalism
no one cares about the 25 points
almost none of them were fulfilled
so you are capitulating from any actual information on the wellbeing of soviet citizens and the results of their *pyatiletkas* being so terrible
you do not argue
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html this is not a criticism against marxism
no sources whatsoever and manipulating a system to fit a talking point
its just like using this
9 and 6 were completely retarded
9 did not apply to Röhm and the SA during the night of the long knives
For number 6, who determines who has “fitness and capability” ?
What a joke lmao
Inability to comprehend his own position and therefore unable to defend it, probably
He just copy pasted the 25 points for his entire argument lol
do you realize that 1776 and NatSoc are completely incompatible ideologies
you put them side by side very frequently but they're completely different
also Marxism is capitalism on steroids lmao
that's one of the coldest takes I've ever seen
why do you ask
only the female mind could claim polemical attributions to their effeminate unsourced ramblings
you linked wikipedia and an unsourced attempt to link Marx's work to the US and ran away from any attempt at debating the "capitalist nature" of the USSR and pyatiletkas clearly being not capitalist
and when i called you out on that you copy pasted your own words that didnt even have to do with the USSR that you spoke about vaguely a few minutes prior
you link a wiki on Marxist-Leninism
@Chilliam Ace no context or direct primary sourcing to back any claim
yeah and you don't think me being a marxist-leninist
who has already posted documents about the marxist-leninist state of the USSR not being capitalist
would know about marxist-leninism
it wasnt an argument because: `you linked wikipedia and an unsourced attempt to link Marx's work to the US and ran away from any attempt at debating the "capitalist nature" of the USSR and pyatiletkas clearly being not capitalist
and when i called you out on that you copy pasted your own words that didnt even have to do with the USSR that you spoke about vaguely a few minutes prior`
you said marxism is capitalism on steroids
you cannot change this to mean anything
youre not even talking about your original point again
you cannot stay on topic
you run out of straws to grab
what the fuck is a civic socialism
you dont even know what socialism is
i am waiting for you to tell me why marxism is capitalism on steroids
a corporatocracy is not anything near socialism
tell me why it is socialism
tell the socialist why bailing out private enterprises that entertwine themself with the state
and on top of that tell me why marxism is capitalism on steroids
you did not tell me why
you are evading
do it now
tell me what socialism is
do not change the argument
tell me why bailing out private enterprise is socialism and why marxism is capitalism on steroids
tell me why bailing out private enterprise is socialism and why marxism is capitalism on steroids
Was Pinochet a socialist when he bailed out the banks in 1981 when he departed from free floating exchange rates? @Chilliam Ace
@PebbЛe so, to be part in a religion, must we all know a thorough understanding in the theology behind it?
or, to be a follower
why would you consider yourself a Christian if you become a Prot and not understand the point of reformation from the RCC
if we understand the Bible, and at least to find some meaning in what we believe, why question it, if others already have
because why would you seek to find some meaning and be infallible from ostracization as an individual when the universal structure of teachings has been transmitted through instruction and consecration since Christ himself
why would you consider yourself a Christian if you ignore the entire structure of Christianity
and read some dusty parchments
because, we assume that the people who do go into theology and attempt to understand the entire background of a religion will do it for you? are those people, then, the only true followers of a religion?
what do you mean
when the basis of the apostolic church is `people who do go into theology and attempt to understand the entire background of a religion...for you`
and prot churches dont have any teaching of tradition or history
they are decentralized bible clubs
are you saying that we aren’t influenced enough by the people who do study it then?
I guess that is a major flaw in current protestantism
the idea is that prot churches dont teach anything relating to Christianity but feelsgoodman tier reconciliation with their daily sins out of the bible
If we assume that this is truly what protestantism is, why would we need to defend
it if our lives are based around it
i did a dumb
its apostolic Church that Jesus started and has history and tradition stemming for 2k years or decentralized prot churches that rhizomatically extend and break canon and continually fracture the meaning of Christianity
so are you saying that to keep our minds and thoughts unified, we must all delve into the history and tradition of what Jesus intended the church to become?
and question when our branches lead us off that path
The church should belong to the central body that succeeded Christ and the apostles as intended
so the early church that Peter “began”
the Church that Peter held primacy over and that the apostles consecrated their successors for
what we have now is only because we did delve deeper, to seek more meaning in that tradition, that history, that we were left with
No the early church that Christ began when he established it with peter at its head
which Peter spread
we had to do it to prevent the entire system from falling apart
Socialism would be nationalizing the banks
muh government do thing? that socailsm
carl marks said government to do thing
why never respond
he might have gone to sleep at 10pm like a normal person
he was in voice earlier man I saw him in there
he bailed out the banks in '81
I'm most likely wrong about this, but Sigmund Freud's work mostly depicted the minds of sluts as well as soyboy-manwhores, while also advocating for the conversion of EVERYBODY into a masturbation-addicted mindless soywhore/dykeslut.
You mean his stages of life?
Where one related to a specific part of the body
Oral stage, phallic stage,etc.
Not just that, I'm talking about EVERY piece of his work relating to how, according to him, the entire human brain is driven purely by the desire for sexual pleasure, which INCLUDES his "Stages Of Life" idea.
And people's mothers
He had quite the fixation on people's mothers being the reason for their psychological development
He really liked some motherfuckers, that's for sure.
Back on topic, it's fucking sick.
Well he was right about the oedipus complex
Yes, but of all the things to name them, why would he make them all pertain to sexual acts?
Especially if it has to do with CHILDREN DEVELOPING?
He saw the body as a pretty damn important part of psychology and the idea of cognition wasn't really prevalent at his time.
He was physical with his ideas instead of metaphysical like the idea of cognition today
That's understandable, but why wouldn't he name them as `Consumption`, `Expulsion`, and `Desire`?
The oral stage was consumption basically
That's what I meant.
It makes no sense to give a deeply sexual name to non-sexual events unless you explicitly have a fetish for those events.
Again he identified consumption with insatiability as a child
Not that it's correct
But it is what he thought
About the sexual parts I would have to dig up my memory
I think the phallic stage was penis envy
Wasn't there not just penis *envy*, but also penis *aggression* and penis *compensation*?
(I haven't studied Freud as hard as I probably should've before making these statements. I'm assuming phallic aggression is sexual frustration and/or the desire to rape and that phallic compensation is self-explanatory.)
He used penis envy to describe woman's behavior
I don't think he was a pervert though
Just by the title, the idea of "penis envy" seems like a very accurate description of the main principle behind female homosexuality as well as bullshit such as "female-to-male transgenderism".
And phallic aggression is about puberty yes
Where the desire to reproduce comes into mind which makes you feel weird at first
Would it be bad if the beginning of puberty in a developing male DIDN'T involve being confused shitless?
I think he said that it causes you to be confused shitless
Because you have yet to adapt to it
Like the first time you start getting erections
Mhm, so does that mean, according to Freud, not experiencing angst in your early teen years means you failed to go through puberty? Is it problematic if somebody *didn't* experience disturbance upon achieving their first erection?
Probably how he would interpret that
That was his style
To say because of x stage
He is called the father of psychology because of his observations with patients and relating it to a specific cause which modern psychologists do today but with a better understanding
I already knew that. The reason I started this discussion was because I was suspecting Freud was a diddler. (or at least a closeted diddler)
In other words his views are a stepping stone
Well being a surgeon doesn't mean you like cutting people up lol
he did out of research not pleasure is what I am saying
That makes sense, yet I still can't wrap my head around why he couldn't come up with ANY names for the early-life urges of consumption, expulsion & excitement that didn't involve cocks at all.
Well there were biblical words for that
But that was not the point of his studies
Are we having a debate about if freud was a pedophile?
Yes, yes we are.
Geez that's a question
Probs but he did found modern psychology
Then the neofreudians came around
Which shifted to behavioral theory I think?
oh yea conditioning
Classical and operant conditioning were behaviorism
Which was tested with animals
I thought it was Skinner who started behaviorism wasn't it?
Was he a neofreudian?
Turns out he wasn't one
He came up with the conditioning theory
Watson came up with behaviorism
Sorry to shift topics quickly, however, the previous points lead me to yet another disturbing corner of psuedoscience-in-the-name-of-promoting-degeneracy:
John Money. The bizarre man that castrated a kid and made him get fucked by his sibling (while both kids were toddlers) just to prove gender wasn't aligned with sex.
How the fuck did he manage to go from predator-with-a-god-complex to being rated highly credible by most of Academia?
Was that before ethics were a thing
Sounds awfully extreme
Born in 1921
Tranny book published in 1969
Gender was a made up term in the 50s I think
the David Reimer stuff is still very controversial
Really? I could've sworn it's cited almost everywhere by trannies and cis-allies
Oh it was a made up term in the 50s to identify with "one's self"
NO it's not.
Most transgenders don't site MOney.
They'd site judith butler or Serano and the brain chemistry differences in transgenders
which is pretty hard to argue agianst
It is a false distinction between one's identity and biological sex though
Dressing as a girl doesn't make you a girl
No but having the brain chemistry of a female might.
I doubt that is the main drive
Grey vs black matter precentanges in a transgender persons brain are aligned with the sex they idenitfy with
so whether or to what extent gender is a social construct isn't really the issue
But yeah MOney was a monster
No arguments from me on that
Well then the conclusion is that it's a biochemical problem
Or a social problem depending how you look at it.
It's the problem of which came first the chicken or the egg?
Damn, I must've been living under such a fuckin rock.
Social problem is an understatement to political correctness today
It's rather unanswerable unless you can make studies without any societal influences.
Geez not this lol
Sorry when someone says pc i check out no matter who says it
Fine cultural Marxism
Again no idea what that means.
that's even worse
Just take Marxism and apply it to everything, not just economics @Somedudewithaname
That's cultural marx
It's better than postmodern neo-marxist
No one does that though....
marxism is a complex economic critique
pebble would probably have some choice words to say about people calling something Cultural Marxism
It really does focus on class conflict based around economics
Yet again, pay attention to the tenet of `Opressed VS Opressor`. Apply it to EVERYTHING, not just the poor & rich.
What is inherently marxist about that?
Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness.
That's more hegelian dielectic than anything else
forgive my spelling i could not be bothered to care lol
I mean I guess.
If we just mean marxism to mean anything that talks about opression.
It becomes Cultural-Marxism when you have nogs and spics revolting against whites while claiming that the property of whites was rightfully owned by minorities and was taken by whites.
In other words multiculturalism
Without revolutions, it's just regular postmodernistic intersectionality.
Intersectionallity is not post modern
post modernism rejects all the categories intersectionallity tries to define
marxism, interesctionality, are modernist ideas
Ever heard of doublethink?