#copy-pasta (Discord ID: 382984642300477444) in /r/SargonOfAkkad (Sparta), page 1
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.
50 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
```A fact is something which simply is, not something which aught to be. Someone killed trump in effigy; true. Someone killed trump in effigy and that is wrong; no, that's false. It's just something that happened, and if you want to say something that happened is right or wrong, I will automatically disagree with you, because it's categorically false. It's just something that happened, and any opinion you attach to it is ideological.
Just like if you say the holocaust is wrong; no the holocaust is just something that happened. Saying it's wrong is ideological.```
```I am outside of the inane endless struggle of humanity. ```
```Just like if you say the holocaust is wrong; no the holocaust is just something that happened. Saying it's wrong is ideological. ```
```No thanks. I'd actually like to live forever. As long as there's things to learn I think life will be very interesting. I think if I knew everything, I would probably transcend the need for things to be interesting anyways.```
```Gender is just a false dichotomy. If you google the definition of gender or look up the world health organization definition, it will tell you that it's a social construct. That means that the way people behave is given an arbitrary societally defined definition of gender, and it's totally subjective. Anyone can behave as one gender or another regardless of their genitals. Men can behave like women, women can behave like men. I personally think we should just get rid of the concept of gender and let people behave however they want, because then no one would be oppressed for simply expressing themselves in a certain way, and we wouldn't have to worry about all these unnecessary concepts. It's different from sexuality too, because whereas in sexuality you need to have these labels so you can identify who you can be partners with and not guess who's straight and who's gay, you don't really need to know what another person's gender is.
```If you have a moral, that's basically you imposing your subjective reality onto an objective world. Other human beings, in spite of having subjective perception, are objectively existing beings. Every human being's thoughts objectively exist, and a moral is a command of someone else to change the nature of their reality (which is to say the nature of their being). Since each person can have a different view of what reality is, each person can have a different view of what morality is. Since everyone can have a different view of what morality is, there's no way to say that there's an objectively true morality. Furthermore, the objective reality that exists outside of our heads obviously doesn't care about whether or not we're moral, because it created a world which is profoundly uncaring about our survival. It created a world where animals are basically in a food chain to survive; there is obviously no morality built into the world.```
```I don't really like text chats when it comes to having real interactions with people. Any time I interact with someone it's always better when it's in person. Every time I go to a chat room it's pretty much the same nonsense. I get along much better with people in person or in voice, because there's always a bunch of nuance which can be picked up on which makes everything more sincere. Online it's just a bunch of people who say stuff to you they wouldn't say to you because they're behind the mask of anonymity, and they don't actually see you face to face so they can't make real communication. In text chat, I don't really let along with leftists or the right wing, I'm always sort of in this undefinable purgatory in which I seem to piss off whatever group I'm a part of. I don't really have that problem in person, because people can see the expression on your face and know when you're being honest or fucking with them. When people can see that you're being honest then actual dialog can take place.```
```I just think it's funny that people think the end of net neutrality will be a good thing. Net service providers aren't going to be making the net better through free market competition, they're going to be throttling the speed of certain websites and given arbitrary jurisdiction to limit access to whatever websites they want. Our government is already incredibly corporate controlled, this will just be the last step to an orwellian nightmare where the government controls all the information you receive. There won't be "better internet service", whatever internet you know right now that you love, will be royally fucked. You'll have to pay for "packages" of certain websites, like youtube or whatever, and other websites you like may become incredibly slow or just cease to exist for whatever reason. Right now you can access any website online for free, and the websites can make you pay if they want; that is true free market capitalism. What is about to happen is corporate oligarchy.```
```Here's how morality works. Morals are taken as objective truth by religious people who get their morals from god. Other people get their morals from people who take the law to be objective, yet not religious. Others still see all morality as arbitrary. Now, if the law was based on christian moral law, that would mean that people said the law was passed down from god. God obviously doesn't exist, and human beings wrote the bible. It's not hard to create a society where you realize that there's a necessity to not have people murdered, because that just makes sense if you want to have a society. So if you're an atheist and you don't believe in god, if the world really was as Jordan Peterson said, you would have to inherently desire to rape and murder people if you don't believe in god, so that you fear him and don't do that stuff in fear of punishment. That's the only way that his argument could work, is if it were truly impossible to not rape and murder people unless you fear punishment, and if you had to have rules passed down from god for them to be objectively true. Since morality isn't passed down by god, it's invented by man, and since human beings can not rape and murder even if they don't believe in god, it's obvious that god isn't the absolute source of morality and you can't say that atheists are operating on "christian metaphysics.```
```I'm okay with it, I embraced it. You know, there's a lot of research around, it really goes on to show that pedophilia isnt as abnormal as people think```
```Listen. The white race is the best. Look at what we accomplished. And I say "we", because even tho I am a basement dweller working a dead end job, I do share the same amount of melanin as einstein and michealangelo. Which means that I can take credit for their accomplishment without actually having to do anything myself. That is why I am a race realist. Because it allows me to appropriate other's achievement.
```Horse cock is fucking mediocre. You know why?
Because it lacks complexity. Canine cock has that glorious knot
"But horsecock has a flare!!!!" Yeah and after it cums its soft. Who wants a partner with super short stamina? "But the flare keeps the cum inside you!!!" For what? 15 seconds!? A knot does that too, for much longer, and its in just the right place to press against your prostate/g-spot. So with each one of your lovers heartbeats you can get propelled further into pleasure.
Or what about the luscious curved taper of a dolphin or orca? Thick at the base and the taper makes it an easy adjustment for beginners wroldwide. Not to mention they're PREHENSILE.
And hows about the barbed feline cock? It takes some getting used to for sure, and its not for everyone. But those barbs can really take you to the next level, the pain mixed in with the pleasure is exquisite.
Look at snakes and sharks! There's two dicks to play with.
Dragons have bumps and ridges, tapered and knotted, and every combination between!!!
Alligators and crocodiles have dicks that are literally ALWAYS erect.
And don't even start on size. Last I checked, sex isn't all about the dick, as a matter of fact you could say the cock is less than half of the important part of sex.
Horsecock is just glorified, uncomfortable, human cock, with no merits other than size, and thats a pretty fucking weak merit for this lauded "god of all cocks".
It is best that human beings simply destroy themselves and the planet they live on. This is not a pessimistic view, this is a realistic one, perhaps even optimistic because it would mean that an evolutionary mistake would be purged from an otherwise beautiful planet.
```You know that feeling when an argument someone is making is so dumb that you no longer want to engage with that person? So I was saying I find it funny when a socialist who lives in a capitalist country hates free speech. So this person starts joking about the marketplace of ideas, or whatever (the reason why I think socialists hating free speech in a capitalist country is ironic wasn't to make a point about the market place of ideas btw). So I say "You're a socialist living in a capitalist country who hates free speech. Is this a true statement?" Then the conversation gets even 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.
They start trying to tell me that it's a prescriptive statement. So I try to tell if person x says "I hate free speech" that is a prescriptive statement, it is one based on opinion, not fact. If someone says "person x hates free speech", then that is a fact which is true about that person, therefor it's a descriptive statement. So the person I'm talking to says I'm going on a "mindless pedantic tangent".
You know how sometimes when you're talking to someone who just makes you sick because they're so stupid? There's not many times when I just straight up wanna tell someone they're a moron, but this would be one of those times. People online wanna tell me I'm going on a mindless pedantic rant when I fucking study this concept in philosophy. Sometimes you just want to succeed in an argument with someone, but other times the level of discourse is so bad, you really just want to block the imbecile so they don't give you stomach pain looking at their degenerative diarrhea.```
```When people argue that private entities controlling speech isn't a "free speech" violation because it's not controlling speech under law, I wonder, why is it okay that private tyrannies like facebook, twitter, and youtube have the power to silence leftist voices (which they have), as opposed to public tyrannies? Isn't that one of the reasons we're socialists, because corporations are private tyrannies in which the workers are slaves to a system where your only choices are "worker or owner" and have basically the equivalent of choosing paper or plastic bags at the checkout counter of a grocery store? So you're okay when private entities control speech, but not when the government does it?
Private entities control massive amounts of information, if you don't care about the principle of free speech, on public or private platforms, you could easily be thrown into a 1984 like situation where we have a "ministry of truth" which only shows people propaganda - approved speech; and a ministry of justice, which probably wouldn't take too kindly to your revolutionary views. Private platforms like youtube, facebook, and twitter should be public platforms where anyone can say whatever they want, because it goes both ways. You can't say you want to censor fascists and then believe that you won't be censored if you disagree with the status quo.
I get really nauseous when I hear leftists talking about how they dislike free speech, many of whom are literally socialists. Socialists pretty widely agree that if there was a revolution capitalists would have to be killed because they would try to violently resist socialism. That's pretty much a call to genocide, and yet socialists say that it's wrong to call to genocide different races (which it is), and they think that they somehow deserve special privilege because they call for genocide for "the right reason".```
```I genuinely hate the whole Antifa bullshit with punching Nazis. Punching Nazis is apparently only like 1% of what Antifa even does, but I see so many socialists defending that bullshit. So if you want to set the precedent that it's cool to punch people you disagree with, you're also saying it's cool for others to punch people that they disagree with. So you're saying that there should also be more attacks on lgbt people, minorities, socialists, etc. Because according to your logic it's okay to punch people who you disagree with. No, fuck you, you're just a stupid thug who wants make the world a more dangerous place for everyone in it.
Btw, I think Noam Chomsky was right when he said that Antifa is a massive gift to the right. When people see the way that Antifascists behave, they usually think that the people doing the aggression are the ones who are wrong. When people see leftists performing violence it just instills the idea in people that anyone who wants radical change in the system is violent and scary. Can you blame them?```
```Forget about imperialism and exploitation of third world countries through military expansion and shipping jobs over seas too.
Forget about the crashes that happen every 10 years and the tens of thousands of people who die because they don't have health care, forget about the mountains of student debt.
Forget about the massive refugee crisis which were caused by America's foreign policy, toppling foreign governments and creating unstable regions.```
```I find it funny when people are against free public education even in capitalist countries. Because when they're not they're saying that trickle down economics is where they want their money to go. They're saying that they think the tax dollars should be spent on war, and tax cuts for the rich. There's a reason why people pay taxes, and it's so that the money can be put into programs which support the people living in society. When that money is squandered, that's a poor use of resources. Btw, did you know that it would save trillions of dollars to switch to a medicare for all system, because right now we pay for profit insurance companies with our tax funded welfare programs? Did you also know that the tax cuts Trump made for the wealth would have actually covered wiping out college debt, or tuition free college, and many other things?```
``` Btw, did you know that 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 4% of people born into poverty leave poverty, and 80% of the stock market is owned by 10% of people in the US, and 40% of those stocks are owned by the top 1%? Feudal society carried over so many aspects of slavery and underclass, now we just have the illusion that people can rise out of it to become the owners. John Steinbeck once said that the reason why Americans didn't embrace socialism is because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionares. And before you say that communism kills people, authoritarian communists kill dissenters, and there have been libertarian socialist experiments which were often crushed by capitalist countries before they could take off. Socialists like Noam Chomsky say that it was a small victory for socialism that the USSR fell.```
```Trickle down economics is what has caused all these crashes. After Reagan left office we started seeing economic crashes for the first time since the new deal. When there was low wealth inequality and strong labor unions, there was a strong economy because the middle class was thriving, and people were able to buy back the products that capitalists produced. This prevented economic crashes. When businesses began deregulating and the amount that the people on the top were making skyrocketed, and the wages for the middle class stagnated, we started to see crashes. That is not even to mention the fact that capitalism is unsustainable, and is destroying the environment, which I mentioned up above. 80% of forests are gone, we're in the 6th mass extinction of animals on earth, there's a thing called the runaway greenhouse effect which is what happened to venus, and there's almost more plastic in the ocean than fish.```
```What we need to do is switch to a non growth based economy, and that is something that could only happen if we had democracy in the work place, aka get rid of stockholders. One of the biggest reasons why capitalism needs to expand is because when people invest in a company they expect to see their profits grow, they want to see a return on their investment. Also, larger industries often need to grow so that they can push down prices with competition, and drive other companies out of business - if a company doesn't grow in capitalism, they're often doomed to be driven out by someone bigger than them. No one embraces this model of capitalism more than Jeff Bezos, who says explicitly that the bigger company will consume the smaller one. We need to switch to a non-growth based green economy if we have any hope of saving the planet from capitalism. We also need to end not only greenhouse gas emissions caused by fossil fuels, but meat consumption, which it turns out is just as big of a polluter as fossil fuels.```
```Gender is a social construct, it is dictated by societal norms. Because gender changes from generation to culture, with some generations saying that women can't wear pants, and the next saying they can, it's clear that there's no real ground for anything being specifically male or female. If something is based on such weak grounds then it can't be considered an objective basis for categorizing people, and many of the norms that are enforced by binary gender are in fact harmful to people. The idea that men can't express themselves how they want if they're more feminine in a lot of places, parents being afraid that their children will be gay because of negative stereotypes and lies about trans people; these are all ways that gender oppresses people, along with every issue of gendered oppression throughout history. I agree with Mary Wolstonecraft, that gendered oppression comes from looking at men and women as separate things, when really that notion is based on nothing concrete, it's not scientific, it's been around even before the days of Christianity. It's just as much of a stupid cult of an idea as Christianity too, because gender is a totally unscientific myth. In fact, modern scientists are rejecting the idea of binary gender as well. Read some Harvard articles on what trans identity means.```
```The NPC meme was a right wing reaction to neoliberalism that has oppressed us with capitalism for years. From developing countries being destroyed by IMF free market reforms, and EU imperialism forcing immigrants to flea their countries and run to a european ones away from war and poverty. Both the neoliberal media and the right are confused of the problems in the world, so instead they use identity politics to blame it on a certain group of people instead of the system itself. Nationalism is distraction away from reality and follows petty idealism and thinking that only one group of people belong to their own countries. Nationalists often claim that nationalism protects tradition however this is a blatant lie as we could see that nobody in Nazi Germany and Italy has nostalgia, however in Russia people are very nostalgic for the USSR. Socialism protects tradition, nationalism destroys it. Both the right and the neoliberals are NPCs.
```I was just thinking about this article by Scientific America titled "The Personality Trait That Is Ripping America (and the World) Apart." I really wonder why so much of the lgbt community, particularly the non-binary community, which I am a part of, is so pre-occupied with that gross sort of political correctness that doesn't allow differing opinions or use of words considered verboten. This behavior isn't an exclusive trait of the lgbt community, as there are those like myself, and a few of my friends who do not fall under this category. I'm going to try to apply the knowledge I gained from the recent Scientific America article I read on how the traits agreeableness and antagonism might play into this trait.
It would seem that the article lays out about 4 general characteristics within agreeableness and antagonism dichotomy (agreeableness being only one of 5 personality traits, generally regarded as the norm for all people). To quote the article "Agreeableness (the opposite pole of antagonism) consists of two main aspects: politeness and compassion." For antagonism, the article lays out the two traits "On the other end of the pole, people with low levels of politeness (antagonistic people) tend to score high on measures of aggression, whereas those with low levels of compassion tend to score poorly on measures of empathy."
The article also points out the ways these two traits, antagonism and agreeableness are not mutually exclusive. To quote the article: "While politeness and compassion can come apart—e.g., a person can score high in compassion but low in politeness—politeness and compassion are strongly correlated in the general population and both aspects together comprise the overall personality domain of agreeableness." I will cover this much more in depth further down the road, when we go into more depth of the differences between these two things (I will take up where we left off from here with an @ symbol).```
```According to the article, agreeableness isn't exclusive to right wingers or left wingers. /To quote the article/ "Research shows that both liberals and conservatives are agreeable, but they are agreeable in different ways: the politeness aspect of agreeableness is associated with a conservative outlook and more traditional moral values, whereas the compassion aspect of agreeableness is associated with liberalism and egalitarianism." /More commentary from the article./ "Politeness reflects the tendency to conform to social norms and refrain from belligerence and the exploitation of others, whereas compassion reflects the tendency to care about others emotionally."
Those who are more antagonistic are more likely to play into populist messages like Brexit and Trump, which could be considered demagogue rhetoric. To quote the article "In particular, antagonistic people found an anti-establishment message arousing, whereas highly agreeable people found a pro-establishment message arousing." [While the article does point out that there are reasons why demagogue rhetoric besides just being antagonistic, such as being left behind by politicians economically, it does seem to display a neo-liberal bias, and ignores left wing populists like Bernie Sanders entirely, who do not use demagogue rhetoric]. The article says that those who prefer a more status quo message are more agreeable. To quote the article "In particular, antagonistic people found an anti-establishment message arousing, whereas highly agreeable people found a pro-establishment message arousing."```
```Now, to take up where we left off (here I will signal the @ I said I would earlier), the compassion and politeness aren't mutually exclusive. The article says that politeness is generally associated with being pro-establishment. Being pro-establishment, I just mentioned, is not an exclusively left wing, or right wing phenomena. A left wing populist can use polite anti-establishment rhetoric to garner the support of left wing populist ideas. But, as we mentioned earlier, to quote the article again, "While politeness and compassion can come apart—e.g., a person can score high in compassion but low in politeness—politeness and compassion are strongly correlated in the general population and both aspects together comprise the overall personality domain of agreeableness." How would you explain left wing populists who are less polite, but high in compassion?```
```This article seems to suggest that the right wing tendency of in group and out group preference is exclusive to right wing ideology. To quote the article "Prior research has shown that high authoritarians express less tolerance towards out-group members and support populist parties with a right-wing host ideology." Now, there is a very clear tendency in the left wing to have a strong in group preference, high in authoritarianism as well. These left wing authoritarians are often considered "SJWs". SJW stands for "social justice warrior". These are people who prefer language policing and constructing safe spaces where opposing ideas ren't allowed, in order to create a more agreeable environment (although some safe spaces, such as those for lgbt people, are more acceptable, given some people just want a place where they won't be harassed, or have their identity come under scrutiny, so they can be with people who understand and sympathize).```
```I would consider myself very highly egalitarian and liberal (I am more of a left wing socialist), yet I would depart from other left wingers who are very high in politeness. I would say that this is not because of being belligerant, as the article proposes (to quote it again), "Politeness reflects the tendency to conform to social norms and refrain from belligerence and the exploitation of others, whereas compassion reflects the tendency to care about others emotionally." This is where I think the left wing authoritarians mistake honesty for belligerance. I care about the search for truth through open dialog because I care about philosophical dialog, which is where everyone can have an honest and open dialog about what they think, so that an actual understanding of ideas can be reached, instead of a simple conformity of ideas through dogma. I don't think actual reason and understanding can be reached through group think and conformity, what George Orwell would call a "thought crime". I think this is why left wing authoritarians have difficulty having discussions with others. They didn't reach their opinions through logic, they reached them through in group preference. This is why they are more concerned with tone policing, as opposed to reaching mutual understandings between each individual.```
```This tendency of left wing authoritarians to be very high in agreeable traits such as politeness, and compassion, might not even be called "polite" in a standard view of what it means to be polite. They may, in fact, be quite impolite to people they disagree with. Because they are concerned with politeness to create an in group dynamic, more like creating a cult of ideas instead of having an open dialog and arriving at conclusions through logic, they may behave quite aggressively and rudely to those who they disagree with. So in this way, the politeness dynamic can actually lead to quite a negation of what could typically be called "polite". They actually become much like those low in empathy, and high in aggression. Polite dialog can take place between people who disagree, but those high in politeness can become much like those who are high in antagonism when their in group, cult ideology is threatened.
This may be why I, as a person who is strongly dedicated to left wing ideas, and the lgbt community, have that rare diversion from the typical combination of politeness and compassion which exists in the agreeable personality trait, in that I think politeness is often mistaken as "agreeing with everything one says", when really I think it can also manifest itself as showing patience with those who have different opinions. So 2 new tendencies in the politeness aspect of agreeableness should be established. 1, would be people who are polite because they are part of a cult of ideology, and 2 would be people who are genuinely respectful to those with different opinions, because they are able to regulate their emotions better. The tribal dynamics of the Orwellian politeness arise from tribal dynamics, which result from a desire for emotional fulfillment through group acceptance.```
```I reject the cult of political correctness because I have the capacity to listen to others, and not lash out (although sometimes even I have no patience for what others say, and resort to a more simple, and easy form of rhetoric, which is the in-group, out-group tribalism distinct in politically correct SJW circles). True politeness is when differences in opinions are respected, and engaged in a rational, calm way. However, because I have this rare desire for individualistic thinking, non cultish group dynamics, I am rejected by many left wing groups who have the more common combination of Orwellian politeness [and if you remember George Orwell's 1984, the politeness was more of a creepy zomby quality, in which everyone was secretly stressed as hell because they were afraid they would say something offensive], and compassion.
I believe that if we are to escape the tribalism of our modern day, we need to reject wholeheartedly the SJW, Orwellian politically correct politeness, and adopt an individualistic politeness, and compassion. Through compassion for others, and the elimination of the in-group, out group dynamic, we can strengthen the bonds between people, and possibly achieve a less hostile political atmosphere, which has been made painful by the demagogues, and the SJWs. The SJWs are the opposite tendency of demagogues, which is another thing this article did not mention, showing a very clear bias for not only neo-liberalism (as it displays in it's negation of even mentioning left wing populists), but also in it's negation of in group preference left-wing authoritarians, by saying that in-group authoritarianism is only a right wing phenomena.```
```Before I begin, I would like to say that I am not a collectivist. I have a very individualist ideology, in that I think a society which forces collectivization necessarily needs everyone to be on the same page. That is why there is often a tribal group dynamic in left wing organizations which is against free speech, and does not allow free, individualistic thought.
Now, that said, some of the basic problems of capitalism would be inequality, environmental destruction, and the inherent unsustainability of a system which must always expand for it to exist. That is aside from the inherently less enjoyable quality of the work place.
Inequality is present under capitalist systems where there is great wealth gathered at the top, while tens of thousands of people die because they don't have health care, millions are under student loan debt, and the first world exists because of the exploitation of the third world. To expound on the third world argument; the first world consumes many resources, so much so that it would require many planets for the third world to operate on the level of the third world. Yet, instead of sharing the wealth of these first world countries with the world, companies ship jobs over seas so they can pay lower wages.
This takes us to the problem of wages, and why the tendency of the rate of profit to fall will necessarily lead to the end of capitalism. In a world with finite resources, a system which must expand indefinitely, cannot grow indefinitely. Especially when faced with peak oil reserves, and global warming which threatens aggriculture, water supplies, and coastal areas. Capitalism, when it cannot grow anymore, will collapse, and we will need to adopt a sustainable system.
Capitalism's toll on the environment - whether it is because of solely capitalism, or industrialization in general - has been massive. Capitalism requires growth, and it, as well as heavily industrial communism are unsustainable. 60% of species on the planet have gone extinct, there is now global warming which threatens to destroy the planet if we do not eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in 12 years. That is because of the greenhouse effect, in which gasses build up in the atmosphere and cause the planet to retain heat. If the planet reaches a critical temperature, it could enter the runaway greenhouse effect, which is what wiped out venus's oceans.
Now, I see the problem with collectivization. It leads to a society which is Orwellian, and...
```Normal masculine and feminine traits are not exclusive to one biological sex or another. There is information coming out that trans people's brains resemble the brain of the opposite sex. However, there's also evidence that the body itself is not strictly male and female based on chromosomes, but that there are mixtures in each person.
That said, the sexes do not regulate behavior. One can be masculine and be a bit feminine. If someone feels that they do not fit in with the norms of masculinity or femininity, this is because their biological, emotional preference for behaviors that are restricted by society, such as wearing a dress, are negated by cultural norms.
Since you are rightfull concerned with what is factual, and what is not, then you should agree that cultural norms should not determine a person's personal preference based on emotion. There is no evidence that trans people are "mentally ill", that is the same thing they said about gay people. The reason that trans people commit suicide is often because they feel they are trapped in a body that does not conform to cultural norms of what it is to be male or female, and this can exaccerbate sadness and alienation.
But not all trans people feel dysphoria either, I would be one of them. Sometimes I wish I was cuter and more androgynous, but that is not because I am mentally ill. That is simply because of my innate biology. And mental illness is a subjective measurement, one is only ill if their condition negatively effects their life. Since trans people's biology is not inherently negative to them, but it is their relation to culture which makes them feel ashamed of their identity, they cannot be said to be mentally ill.
```I don't take empirical facts to be everything, for there are rational facts such as mathematics, without which we could not understand the empirical. Take perception. We can see what is in front of us, but we cannot see it's underlying structure with the naked eye, without the use of tools. This is Hume's problem of induction. We can only observe what is true based on what we repeatedly experience. We may say that the earth will continue to revolve around the sun with some certainty, but 100% certainty is not possible.
Hence, even one who says they don't believe in god cannot say so with 100% certainty, but the odds are so low, that they could easily purpose that there is a tea pot circling around the sun, which you would need an electron microscope to see. Reporting claims which are unfalsifiable are not irrefutable with certainty, because they are unfalsifiable. But we can reasonably dismiss what was asserted without evidence, without evidence.
This equasion was based on Maxwell's equasions of electromagnetism. Einstein realized, because of using a rationalist equasion. The speed of light, in which electric and magnetic waves are in perfect sync, was an equasion, which he used to build off the findings of the Michaelson Morley experiment. They said that light must reach the earth at different speeds depending on the direction of the planet's rotation, they did this using interference patterns using a precision instrument known as the Michaelson Inferometer. Now, without the rational side of this equasion, nothing could be said about scientific thought.
This is why it is silly that scientists today reject the rationalists, such as Descartes. They have a point, there is a disconnect between what we can observe with the senses, and what we can know rationally.
The two work hand in hand, always, in science.
You cannot say empiricism is the only thing that matters, otherwise you negate science entirely.
If skeptics of today understood skepticism, they would understand Hume's problem of induction.
But they are not skeptics, they are materialists, which have been around for thousands of years.
It is nothing new.```
``` I would disagree that people are not naturally equal, given the is/ought divide of Hume. We can say that reason is a slave to the passions. What one prefers, is automatically separate from what something is, simply because that is how it exists. If we are to say that the universe will experience heat death in a few trillion years due to entropy, this is true regardless of if we want it to be true. In the same way, a person's intelligence, or their condition, is only preferable relevant to an individual's emotional preference. That is why I always say that IQ is a meaningless measure of worth, because how a person acts could be preferable, or not preferable.
To elaborate further. One cannot separate an is from an ought. For one to say someone has "worth", this claim is an ought claim. It is one which is relative to emotional preference. Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Objective means "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." If one is to say they find this or that trait preferable, then they are making a subjective claim, one which is according to personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. That would make it an "ought" claim, because something someone feels ought to be, cannot be what something "is". What something is, would be objective, which means not influenced by personal opinion. So, to say someone has worth, that would be an ought claim, because you're making a claim about preference.
```But if there's economic growth in the third world, it cannot reach the level of the first world. Even mainstream centrist sources like CNN report this, but de-growth theorists report the same thing.
Environmental climate change has a 99% certainty rate among scientists that it is caused by industrialization.
Communism is a bad system, probably much, much worse than capitalism. However, a sustainable system, one based on worker co-ops, could be much better. I would highly recommend reading Bertrand Russell's Proposed Roads to Freedom. The most beautiful thing about a worker commune, de-growth society, which is based on community co-operation, instead of wage labor and profit, would be that much less work would be required. If you had a society, in which production was meant to sustain, not simply to grow, you wouldn't have so many people with unnecessary jobs, simply producing to earn the right to live.
This could lead to an explosion in creativity, intellectual pursuites, and Einstein on every corner, as they say. The beautiful part about it is, we may not have an option to to turn towards this goal, and achieve it. There are people who can explain why this society, as opposed to the beurocratic state run socialist societies, would lead to a much higher quality of existence, likely much better than I can.
```I am happy that you are listening to me, and not simply lashing out like so many leftists, who cannot engage with ideas when they are too philosophical, and make them question their underlying way of thinking. Many people get into politics simply for emotional validation, and group acceptance. Philosophy undermines this, because it makes people question their basic beliefs. Collectivists cannot account for the paradoxes of collectivism, and it is shown in the way that they are unable to even address arguments sincerely, and turn to character assassinations, witticisms, and tribal shaming.
```Capitalism has been the best method for growth in the first world, but it would take several planets if the third world sustained itself at the same rate as the first world. Capitalism is, however, unequivocally amazing for free speech and free thought and expression. Through my engagement with thinkers such as Bertrand Russell, and Noam Chomsky, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that we can have individualism without forced collectivization. It is the only way that we can be truly free.
```Union membership was highest when the united states had the least income inequality, and the longest run without crashes, which came after the new deal. Although, ultimately, I think that capitalism is not sustainable, and something will have to give eventually, when the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, coupled with the end of growth due to environmental factors, causes it's collapse.
```It would seem to me that under collectivist ideology, no one can have differing opinions. This is why communists and leftists are often some of the most belligerent people imaginable. They arrived at their conclusions through a sort of in-group bias, because it conforms to their emotional preference. I, too, am left wing, but I have tried to adopt an anti collectivist model, while still contemplating the critiques of capitalism that leftists normally do. I think that if we are to arrive at a compromise, we could say that ideas should be allowed to be free, and forced collectivization is wrong, and I say this as a non-binary person [meaning someone who sees the categories of male and female as cultural constructs which restrict behavior] who wants to reach out to those who are equally against collectivism and the SJW modality!```
```Most trans people, also, don't want to debate their existence. Being trans doesn't give you a degree in biology. My trans friends and I, often just want to be in peace. This is something to note, which may help you understand why it makes me tired. Trying to justify my existence through rational argument, when I've seen no evidence that invalidates my existence, but also to similtaniously need to give evidence when the science behind brain science is preliminary and shaky, and points towards arguments in favor of trans people, is one which many trans people find tiresom and Sisyphian.
```Happy new year, and remember, the government doesn't exist. It's just bunch of atoms that we attach symbols to because homosapians construct symbolic concepts like "civilization" which only has meaning that we create through our concept of reality, which is constructed entirely by our own mind.```
```A border wall, is in my opinion a hostile action. Walls by definition typically built to defend a location or settlement, implying that those outside of these walls are hostile and enemies that want to kill you. By putting such a structure on a border, you imply the same towards the entirety of the country you are building the wall against. It implies that the entire country is an enemy out to destroy you, and you need to put a Wall to defend yourself and your people. For this reason it is immoral, because it is not true or right to judge the entirety of one country under one assumption and the actions of a few. Furthermore, it is not just any country, but one with multiple bilateral deals of cooperation in commerce and criminal justice. It is immoral and unjust towards Mexico, because it would represent as the equivalent of a diplomatic "fuck you", and greatly damage the relations between the two countries.
```Fucking communist faggot just won't stop.
I literally mentioned how I told someone talking shit in poor English in the comments of a trump rally to properly learn the language before pissing on the leader of the country
And Commie dickless over here decides to dispute my fucking citizenship
over my choice of pejorative
I defend my fucking president, whether I like him or not, and this cunt questions my fucking citizenship
IN TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING SERVERS```
```Fapping to trap porn is the least gay thing there is. If you fap to gay porn, that’s 2 guys, and that’s 100% gay. If you fap to ‘straight’ porn, then that has a woman, sure, but you’re also fapping to a guy, which makes it 50% gay. But a trap is like half male, half female, and thus a trap with a girl would add up to 75% girl, and thus only 25% gay. 2 women would be ideal, but that would be a lesbian relationship, which brings it around to gay again. If you fap to furry porn, then it’s in a weird gray area, where if it’s people in fursuits, the same rules apply, but if it’s with animals, I would think it depends on said animal’s sexuality. Then there’s consent. If a person doesn’t consent to something, but the other person does it anyway, that makes the other person stronger, and thus less gay. Let’s say that means they’re about 50% less gay. If it was gay rape, that means that it’s now 75% gay. If it’s straight rape by a man, then it’s 25% gay. And, if it’s trap gay porn, than that’s 12.5% gay. So technically, yes, rape trap porn is the least gay porn there is, but that’s still looped in with trap porn, hence why fapping to trap porn is the least gay thing there is.
```I am a survivor of sexual assault by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2011. I have remained silent because I was afraid to speak up, but my brave fellow survivors of the #MeToo movement have inspired me to comw forward. I was working as a chef de partie at a Taco Bell in the jefferson valley mall the night of july 4 when I was first approached by AOC. She appeared inebriated, and made multiple unwanted comments, including "ay pendejo you got a fine ass, fucker". I smiled and allowed it to go on because i was intimidated. She groped my rear and my penis/ balls over my pants several times. I asked her to stop, and she called me joto or something. She then ordered me into the handicapped bathroom stall. I wanted to say no but her future power and status as a congresswoman intimidated me. She made me lie on the diaper changing station, where she proceeded to violate me with a cheesy gordita crunch. She partially insterted the food item into my anus and ate from it. She then jacked me off using the gordita. I wanted her to stop but was too scared. Shamefully I ejaculated and went back to my shift. Having survived the assault, i soon quit my job and moved out of state. It is not easy for me to share this story.
```I can only try to express how silly it is that we devote our perceptions to solving the same puzzles we have solved a thousand times before, moving around the same blocks, all in the name of capital. We figured out how to open the handle of a door, and walk up the stairs, and go to school and follow rules, so that we could then stop there, because our consciousness had been enslaved to the capitalist, who took hold of perception so that he could profit.
So much of our lives toiling at menial labor, when there is more than enough resources for us all to hardly work at all. I can hear the retort right now... BUT WE NEED TO BUILD ROADS AND SCHOOLS SO THAT WE CAN ALL SURVIVE! Yes, it all comes back to survival, doesn't it, but does the imbecile brainwashed proletariat really believe that everything in our society serves a purpose? When it would take 4 planets of resources for the third world to consume as much as the first world, and 64 people own half the world's wealth, it makes you wonder how much of our time is spent idoly slaving away, just like in times of ancient greece when they had slaves, and the masters spent their idol time in pure thought and extacy, while the slaves toiled away at their expense.
It's pathetic that my fellow white men don't actually understand the white lifestyle. You are simply not white enough. I live in a white mansion with white doors, white walls and white windows, the funiture are obviously top tier as well, white table, white desk, white chair, white book shelf to put all my white books like "The White Man's Bible" and "Building A Whiter And Brighter World" written by a white men called Ben Klassen. I hire white chiefs to cook me amazing white food, my favourite dish is pasta with white sauce and white sausage served on a white plate. My sex life is so fucking white it's snesational, I have white girls wearing white lingerie to massage me with oil on a white bed, then ride me til I burst all my white cum inside of them. Every morning I wake up from a white bed, eat white food while wearing white clothes then sprayed a fuck load of white cum in a white girl's white vagina, such a exquisite white lifestyle ! But despite how enjoyable my white mansion lifestyle is, I do love to travel to non-white countries with my white friends on my white private jet, just so we can spread our marvelous whiteness to the world.
50 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.