A lot of the sources in this article appear to be left-wing. I can't say for certain it's untrue, but the way it discusses science as being flawed because of the rules it follows, and how it implies "anti-LGBTTQIA" and "ageism" "smacks of hierarchy, domination, centralization, and unjustified authority" leads me to believe that whoever wrote this is far too left-leaning for me to fully appreciate.

It has some points I like, such as how ordinary human relationships tend to be anarchistic. All in all, though, this article may adequately summarize modern (or perhaps post-modern?) anarchist schools of thought. It's just I don't agree with the direction a lot of modern philosophers have taken the idea of anarchism. Their obsession with identity politics as a means to achieve global socialism and rejection of objectivity in relation to truth leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

ID pol seems like identitarianism just with a larger collective formed by minority groups instead of the collective majority groups, and then both sides of the far-right and far-left seem comfortable rejecting science when it doesn't agree with their agenda, only one side calls their denial of science objectivity and the other simply calls objectivity bad because it excludes the value of personal experience.

That's what I tend to think about anarchism. I don't know that it's necessarily false, but I know that hierachies of power naturally arise and I think this natural tendency is best harnessed by structuring the order of society such that power ends up in the hands of whoever does the best job of using the power to benefit people.

I'd be interested to see how mobilizing ID Pol works in the long run, though I may not survive to see that. I figure the culture war is basically over whether or not 1984 or Brave New World is more disturbing and that in the end we'll get some dystopian amalgamation of both.

Now what would be great is if we could simultaneously tear everybody down into their individual bubbles, make sure they only see information that confirms their worldview, **and** ensure that none of them gather in groups large enough to oppose the world order, which keeps them all working and being useful to everyone else.

Now *that's* a good system, if you ask me.

No, no one controls what they think but them. That way they don't realize they're playing the game that keeps them oppressed. They voluntarily pick the news that they agree with, voluntarily oppose the science they disagree with, but never actually do enough to control anyone else.

Truth be damned. Just let people consume the reality that makes them feel good.

Doesn't have to be enforced, just presented as an option. Who would pick the dreadful real world over a virtual world of their choosing? Maybe some people... but then what would distinguish the 'real' world as being more real than the virtual world. Perhaps this reality is just a simulation too.

Well we don't spend the whole day relaxing, do we? Most people get depressed living like that. So they get jobs, work to be productive, then come home to the virtual world. Happiness from the challenge, happiness from the recreational break, and the world order is happy too because they don't have to worry about people rising up against them en masse.

I think they get a sense of meaning and responsibility from it too. And society will always find new challenges to overcome. Maybe quietly cull the population and replace them with clones of the best workers so they can control people enough to combat climate change and move out into the stars. Whatever works, so long as you minimize infighting among the species.

I'd roll a die to make an arbitrary choice, then extract as much meaning as possible from my daily activity.

I like a little manual labor. Video games and the Internet give me headaches.

Disordered in what sense? What order is it disrupting?

People commonly have desires that could not be acted upon legally, but it doesn't inherently cause disorder just to have the desire.

There's actually an interesting article which suggests pedophilic consumers of virtual child porn are less likely to make physical contact: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RLDqjHJH0q_a6Mg_nFS0jzAT6uX80IWH/view?usp=drivesdk

Had to download the PDF because Google wouldn't let me link it.

There may need to be more research though. This was just from a preliminary search on how virtual child porn is used to groom children. I was trying to find evidence in favor of making the material illegal.

I think the issue wouldn't be that it's actual children, just that loli porn could be used by pedophiles to groom children or that people viewing it could develop a paraphilic disorder in desiring an appearance only present in children.

How can you say furries aren't mainstream when Zootopia grosses millions of dollars? If you're talking about furry porn specifically, then simply saying "furries" isn't accurate.

It's a terrible word to use for a fandom, really. "Furry" can denote a vast number of things without being clear as to what people specifically mean, and then you get a whole barrage of connotations based on what people percieve.

My pet cat is furry. I can't think of a way for weaboo to apply in a similarly broad fashion.

Yes

Yes, the subculture deviates from the mainstream the more its members take the culture upon themselves as a lifestyle.

Everything changes. The right fails to preserve anything in the long run, even history. Change will continue at a pace indirectly related to the number of conservatives who wish to slow down change. Do what thou will shall eventually be the whole of the law.

It's really the only thing the right is capable of doing as a school of thought

Right, but it was said that furries were degenerate just like loli and shota, and I just don't think a film with loli and shota characters would be quite so popular among family and youth, which I why I was confused by spypenguins use of the term furry alongside loli and shota. I thought he was talking about characters, not loli and shota subcultures.

Can you point to the non-disturbing side of loli/shota?

I would say that the fact there's a side of furries who call out and denounce disturbing parts of their fandom would suggest there is a side that isn't inherently disturbing... unless you think it's disturbing or a bad thing that they point out criminal activity.

Naturally

What kind of sheep equates taking a risk to directly harming oneself?

I would kind of argue that identifying as "gay" specifically is part of the progressive attitude.

More specifically, LGBT sexual behaviors carry a higher risk of STD contraction. The people themselves don't automatically have to keep going to the doctor to avoid an STD if they aren't doing anything sexual.

Hell yeah fuck yeah what it's like to experience **T A C H Y O N**

Yeah same

Not same, but ok

Do you want to explain why the goddamn bees are dying while we're explaining things

It's true there were females in the past

So long as you give EA your money first, no harm could possibly be done

Semi

The central theme was that people should determine their worldviews by examining their reaction to narratives

It's a recurring point hinted at throughout the story. Characters within the story react to the narrative of the underworld that "humans kills monsters" and define their character partially in reaction to that theme.

Right, but the narrative can be based on scientific or psychological truths rather than moral / political ones.

What if the left stepped up their extreme anti-Trump game and are using Ocasio Cortez as a foil so that Bernie will seem moderate and have better chances of beating Trump? 🤔

His orange skin is the worst part really

Ehhh, love is just bonding. People do what they think is best for those they bond with because bonding ties their psychological well-being to the well-being of those they bond with. Bonding can be accompanied by respect, but ultimately that's a matter of the individuals morals and how they believe they should act around those they love.

Then theres philos, agape... maybe some more idk.

That was before a scientific understanding of oxytocin though. If I had to compare their concept, I'd say the Greeks were talking about moral reactions to the bonding hormone.

Man, I want a gun. Good thing I'm planning on joining the military.

I'm also looking forward to a little training with my firearm acquisition.

I'm trying to dodge acknowledging that I don't have the money for it. :v Or... well I do, but I'm not sure student loans are meant to be spent on guns, lol.

You sure could!

Their argument is so close to being coherent, but rather than showing mere skepticism of Trump's goodwill, they go straight into demonizing his actions. There's a degree to which a rational thinker could see this and say "He might be using LGBT people as pawns to take down Islamic culture." but that's not where they stop. They use that tiny bit of rationality as a stepping stone to just jump off into the deep end headfirst.

At least you're checking, lol. Nahhhh the proper response is to assume everything that demonizes the left is entirely true and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

The magazine likes other magazines

Man, you know politics has gotten fucked up when the left encourages authoritarianism and locking up the mentally ill.

Yeah, true. I wouldn't want to imply that the left is all about that, but I was commenting on mordewolt's observation of the TYT rhetoric.

Okay, good facts. Keeps the conversation balanced.

I was involuntarily held in a mental hospital once. It was the most disgusting abuse of medical authority I've ever experienced.

There's certainly a time and place for keeping people with dangerous delusions from harming others, but I don't know how accountable the system is right now. There need to be failsafes in place so that one doctor can't override the patient's consent.

!cuck

Do I have any unproven claims I haven't redacted?

:D

You have to take your views to the extreme in order to not take your views to the extreme

@Blonald Blumph you still need to prove
-prove Tim doesn't wear the beanie to cover his bald spot.
-prove AIDS wasn't invented by Ronald Reagan

I love people who are like "Racism is bad because it harms black people as a race."

If Trump hypothetically turns out to be breaking the law, then how would it not be in the interest of the state to investigate him? De-throning a harmful president is in the interest of the state, even if it's not in the interest of the individual running the state.

Is it not in the interest of the state that the people under the state uphold the rule of law?

The American state is complicated, because it allows individuals to, at various times, upend the integrity of the state while running a branch of the federal government. Maybe I've just been propagandized too much, but isn't it basically required by the American state that government authority be put on a lower pedestal than the authority of the people?

Mmh. More than likely, but it makes discerning the interest of the state harder to discern, because the interest of the state isn't always the interest of the state itself, but rather the most wealthy and influential people under the state.

Heheh, I love that comparison. I like to picture the IRS hiding in the bushes as I exit work with my paycheck and they pop out with a gun like "Hey, faggot. Have you paid the government yet?"

He talks about practical fact and then immediately gives a metaphor.

That video is almost two hours long. This would have to be the most intellectually stimulating reading material I've ever heard read to me for me to listen to the whole thing.

Added to watch later

The chat be like: "Shhh Tim is streaming"

True enough. And I can watch it at 1.5x speed to speed-listen

Woo! $1 donation.

He needs a beanie

The capitalsim is function

Tim "taller than Ben Shapiro" Pool

If only people could start a business idea for everything they think the government should do, oh what a world this would be

Okay, but to be fair, that was an FAQ that got deleted. The actual text of the document is a different story.

Semantics

People seem to think economics is capitalist propaganda, when really it's just observations about how people make choices. There's a degree to which capitalism influences economic observations, but the laws and theories can be applied to any economic system.

Ehh, possibly. I'm not sure my micro-economics textbook has much in the way of propaganda, but I also wouldn't say it's propaganda-free.

What is that, some sort of **r e g r e s s i v e l e f t** tactic?

I'll learn about it eventually

I'm not sure... that's a tough one. I don't know what limitations the constitution has on emergency powers. As far as I know, there's not a hard limit.

@Pendell you still need to prove
-prove that Dr. Internet intended to spew his shit all over the server

I definitely prefer legal alien violence

I have my doubts the supreme court will consider his national emergency unconstitutional. There's too much info to back him up. Even if it's not a major emergency, one could easily consider the amount of illegal immigration and the harm it's doing an emergency, and then there's not a constitutional statute being broken by him having a slightly skewed opinion of the situation. He's still acting to prevent harm to the nation, which is within his duties as president. It'll likely get a 5 to 4 vote in his favor.

Heheh, I wouldn't be too worried. If the supreme court strikes this down, the information can be easily be spun to keep supporters. He might even insist that media manipulation influenced the supreme court decision, or something like that, then further encourage people in the election that voting for him is the only way to make sure the wall gets built.

Of course, life will go on regardless. Whatever will happen will happen.

**But Don't Take My Word For It**

Source?

Hmm...

This André Luis guy has a point

Marx noticed a common theme in history, isolated for all the elements, put it in his own words, and urged that violent theme of revolutions to continue over and over and over again until Utopia magically occurs.

[Bitcoin Address]

What is this magic?

Well yeah, it's sexist, but it's one of the more reasonable prescriptions of sexism.

No, I use the Virtual Chedder.

!rank

Yeah, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that expressing themselves using different gender norms is important to them. I even support adults taking hormones or getting sex reassignment surgery if they so choose. However, there's something really sinister about pushing the rhetoric onto children and encouraging them to define their gender and sexuality early on.

I think we should be careful as a society not to muddle an already slightly muddled concept. Biological sex is real. For scientific purposes, there are really only two genders. It is generally better to find a comfortable way to fit into gender norms as you develop early on in life, and then once you're an adult, feel free to be weird and express yourself in weird ways. But then I'd also suggest therapy to anyone who's so adamant about literally being the opposite sex that they get offended when 'misgendered'. I'm not a particularly conforming male, but I know I'm male, and nevertheless I don't care one iota if someone calls me a girl. If anything I might correct them in a very casual manner.

Yeah. I recognize we want to treat children for various forms of illness when we can, but the risk of harm being done with this treatment makes it evil to give HRT to kids.

A kid wants to crossdress? Odd, but okay. Make sure they can still fit in and not be bullied but maybe allow it at home. Let them be themselves when it's reasonable to do so, but prior to 18 or even 21 you really can't say that a child has the foresight to know they're transgender, much less prescribe treatment that could harm a confused young person.

Just further proof the illuminati rules politics. :V <:LVA:463089670520045579>