whiic (Discord ID: 294576818181373952), 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.
10,388 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/42 | Next
Copypasting my rant about Tim being completely illiterate about UBI here:
Yeah. I ranted on another Discord yesterday how insanely upside down Tim "gets" what UBI actually is.
He talks about UBI competing with taking a job in McDonald's making McDonald's having to raise the salary of employees, just to keep them. Which is inverse of the typical left-wing argument against UBI: it allows corporations to pay less because the pay is subsidized by taxpayers.
Basically, socially conservative socialists tend to argue against UBI because they frame it as corporations benefiting from tax money. And although I disagree with them if that invalidates UBI, they are at least more correct about the facts than Tim Pool is. But I cannot really be surprised by a kigger not knowing how money works and what incentivizes and disincentivizes people to work.
He claims that having few hundred dollars for every citizen disincentivizes working (and it does to a very, very small amount but not much since living off such amount is miserable, it's basically just to ensure you wouldn't starve) and in argument against UBI, actually presents a valid critique toward Finnish existing welfare system that tortures unemployed people with paperwork, unneeded re-training (run by consultation agencies who get paid by government), etc.
Finland even has a phenomenon where companies lay off people, and should they not get a new job immediately, they need to go to the welfare agency to prove that they are an active job seeker (rather than a leech), they get unpaid traineeship offer that is required to take in order to have any social security. And the welfare workers send you to "train" in the company where you worked as a paid employee for years, "practicing" the job you earlier got. It's just that rather than getting for example 2000 eur from your employer, now you would get about 1000 eur from the tax-payer. The company would get you as a slave.
And this is what Tim Pool agrees with, because "UBI is socialism". And the sad part is that very few in the center understand UBI. Only far-lefties and far-righties do... and far-left opposes it because it's not equality of outcome (as you can still affect the bottom line by choosing to work) and far-right opposes it because they are ancaps and oppose every welfare imaginable (even if UBI is by far the least disturbing form of welfare to the job market since it does not compete with working as you can actually keep it even if you work).
In a perfect world, one might hope centrists would understand how UBI works (just like many who are economically far-left or far-right do), but realize they don't have the reasons they have to oppose it (i.e they are neither ancaps nor communists). But no. Centrists just seem to run in the problem of being too dumb to even understand what UBI is.
@H3llbender I don't really get the difference between NIT and UBI. That said, all conservatives I've talked over the internet call me a commie for supporting NIT/UBI... even though Finnish ancaps (reluctantly) support NIT/UBI because why it's not go-die-in-the-gutter welfare model, it's the closes to that that there could be.
I guess it's the idea of paying even the people unwilling to work that grinds the gears the most, despite existing welfare systems also paying to the unwilling, as long as you play the system correctly and pretend to be willing. UBI is openly OK with unwilling to work getting paid, which causes moral outrage.
Usually leftwingers oppose UBI, though because a non-automated income redestribution is more "caring" and has more "heart". Because UBI cannot intervene if you use your money on drugs, etc. Basically, leftwingers want a nanny state where the state pays directly to the housing company, directly to the grocery store, etc. via means like food stamps.
Basically, left wing thinks that bureaucracy is love.
And the (low quality, emotions before facts type) conservative on the other hand opposes NIT/UBI because "you shouldn't have a welfare system at all". And they ignore that there **already is one**, and UBI would be to **replace** the ineffective old system.
But they treat it in vacuum: because UBI is not full ancap mode, they reject it. They only accept total abandonment of welfare.
Hence, the current, ineffective bureaucracy hell prevails to see another day, because the hard ancap let-them-die-in-gutter is unelectable agenda to run on. And bureaucracy wins with the help of ancaps.
@H3llbender Yeah. I think a proper UBI would be like 600-700 euros/month giving Finnish living costs. It would not be lavish living.
Hint: current welfare via bureaucracy gives 1000+ eur/month but only to the gamers who know how to play the system.
This idea that only libertarians that are libertarians need to be ancap, is the cancer that ensured these libertarians will **all be autistic** without concept of gray area.
@H3llbender Well, minarchism (i.e small "L" libertarians, thicc libertarians) are also pretty much co-opted by ancap thinking.
They are just ancaps who allow for police. Even they reject: roads, welfare, etc.
@halfthink Halfthink really suit as your name.
How is private police different from mafia, btw?
@DefinitlyNotInsane - NL What prevents private police from stealing as well?
@halfthink And different mobs didn't fight each other over turf? How is private police competing against each other different from mafia?
@DefinitlyNotInsane - NL Did morality prevent the mafia from operating?
Title of "police" means nothing without some formal power granted to them.
And they are just human. They are just as easily corrupted as mafia itself.
And even if we assumed it did exist, what are the rights granted by that higher existence?
@H3llbender Which are the natural rights? Which rights did God give us?
For example, many (even libertarians) think copyright is natural.
I think that's the biggest load of shit I've ever heard, to argue copyright monopoly as a natural right.
Because it's "property". Property of an idea. Or word.
@halfthink But isn't all property kind about positive rights?
For example, is any land you circle with a fence "your land"?
Well, some would fence of more land they can work with, just because it's expected that free land will run out, and being too greedy allows them to sell it with nice profit later, when there's no land to grab onto.
Basically, Molyneux land ownership logic stopped working a few hundred years ago in USA, and was already outdated much earlier in Europe.
Land use tax is probably more just way to tax than income or trade tax is.
@H3llbender And if there's nothing wrong with Georgism or Geo-Libertarianism, what is that makes it annyoing?
I know it annoys hardline capitalists because they like to think land as property the same way niggers were property once.
But what makes Georgists the most annoying?
@H3llbender Same role? As in threatened some part of capitalism, just like slavery abolitionists did?
I mean, threatening to release a type of property (whether it's land or niggers), it annoys the owners.
I'm a Geo-Libertarian, btw, despite being a land-owner.
...also Rand supported copyright because she was a selfish bitch who wanted monopoly of her writings.
@Unwound Well, that applies more to copyright than to land. And you can modify the land, but you didn't create it.
On the other hand, if copyright was a legit property, what is the libertarian argument against Cultural Appropriation?
Nah, I was asking against. But I was particularly asking it from @Unwound because he said "own work that you produced? how absurd" and I found it a particularly retarded thing to say.
I'm definitely against intellectual monopolies, as they aren't even tangible goods but just ideas. You cannot own an idea, if you cannot even own a nigger.
I don't think art will die if copyright did.
Whether it's painting something on canvas, mural or Sistine chappel, copyright doesn't even come to it.
And lots of digital arts is released on other funding models to begin with such as Patreon.
Considering it's illegal to take photographs outside, with a known building on the background, behind your friend, I think pressure to destroying copyright is already past the point of salvaging copyright.
And the CP promoters are just pushing more and more dystopian levels of protection, more dystopian levels of monitoring, and more dystopian jurisdictions for both police and private investigators. And extortion letters, etc.
@Yuukimaru Some countries in Europe has copyright extended to architecture. And the consider the copyright to belong to the architect, not the photographer.
Same could be said about fixing the EU.
Yet both the copyright holders and EU resist being regulated or fixed. Of course they do. The critique is coming from outside.
To check whether you have the right to take pictures of buildings and art placed in public areas, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
Both EU and copyright are jokes separately. You don't even need to combined them to make a joke.
An hour long commentary? What makes it worth listening to?
@ihereou How does "bestiality" agree with "lolicon"? Your meme is broken. Here, have some toes.
Well, the meme about handshaking is with two entities agreeing, and handshake being labeled as the thing they agree on. So "Canada" (as an entity) and "Bestiality" (as an entity?) agree on "lolicon".
Canada and "bestiality" agree on getting rid of lolicon?
Hmmm... I'm probably out of the loop. So Canada has legalized bestiality?
That's rather weird, considering animals are at least... real.
(Meanwhile banning lolicon despite not involving actual humans.)
There's this funny dilemma of many countries allowing child marriages (or polygamy) even if illegal under country's own law, if formed outside country's borders... and even if the spouses aren't legally allowed to have sexual relations.
Who's Monica Rial? Some voice actress? (I watch all my anime subbed, so fuck her.)
Also, what controversy is she commenting about?
>Because all people have the right to tell their opinion.
But I'm not obligated to listen.
Like I said, all shitlordy types should make their primary effort to tie blood emoji to Ebola-chan.
People like halfthink is why libertarians are a joke.
Private laws... lol. Tells a lot about libertarians spergy side (the ancap retards) that they call judges work as "just giving their opinion". Sure, consideration is required but they make the consideration based on the law. In anarchy there's no law. You could have a private judging executing someone based on ugliness of a garden gnome because **why the fuck not**. Why would you need a written law when you can have private law (i.e you just give an opinion).
You can argue that of course make it based on NAP but **dude, that's just an opinion**. You could also have anarchotyranny (in a different sense that it's understood under statehood). You'd probably have EULAs that would not only just be legally enforceable but carried out privately. Small print declaring you give their child to the land owners rape dungeon, along with all your other belongings. Why the fuck not.
halfthink already proved that a libertarian society would not defend liberty, when he said animal fuckers would be shot, despite not violating NAP.
So... killing in general not a violation of NAP?
This is why ancaps are practically falling to the deep side of the pool... from two different sides, simultaneously.
Yeah. All the ancaps really want is summarily execute other people for whatever they come up with. Some seem to limit it to NAP violations (threat to life, health or property), others would execute perverts as well for crimes against morality (no NAP violation involved).
@halfthink You halfthink again. Weren't you going to execute pedophiles and people who has partaken in beastiality?
You do know animals don't take part in NAP considerations?
Also, you do know pedophilia itself is just a thought crime, and child rape is an action that A) not all pedophiles do, and B) is done by non-pedophiles as well?
Btw, can you explain the image you just posted.
Who do you think "all fuck kids"? Jews? Or do they call others as all fucking kids and using that accusation as blackmail?
And if Jews themselves fuck kids, how is kid raping "blackmail"?
And people still don't understand why ancaps come out as cringe.
halfthink, but you don't support the state, so you probably do want to fuck kids.
@Wynter Skye That might work as well. But as an Ebolite, I'd personally use the blood drop emoji to praise Ebola-chan.
Imagine actually thinking Mueller is going to find anything on Trump, ever.
They just want to drag it into 2020 election.
He argues against postmodernism, but his entire word salad argumentation for "god" and "Christianity" via word redefinitions and nonsense is postmodern itself.
I'll probably listen to that stream tomorrow. Too few people debate Peterson on his God delusion.
Because Jordan needs to be debated on it, even though debating Peterson on it is very low-hanging fruit since he's a bad apologist for the subject.
Jordan's argumentation on god is weak because he doesn't even believe in one.
Oh, god. His redefinition of truth is the most postmodern nonsense since ever.
I checked the channel and immediately thought it's just halfthink being a retard and everything being ancap vs libertarian self-destruction.
Then I saw: "Well Marx is misunderstood"
Just reminding why the left wing is hella cancer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFlMoAasW4A
Annoying or not, it's our duty. Preferably with a large rock or sledgehammer.
I know bashing lefties is manual labor but someone has to do it.
Says a guy who thinks left bashing is just annoying.
So, which camp do you belong: Alt-Right allying Metokurians, or 2nd Wave SJW (anti-anti-SJW)?
Or are they both the same? I think they pretty much are.
Alt-Right doesn't even have the virtues of actual conservatives. They are whiny identitarians pushing their own failings on "The Jews".
And they've formed an uncanny alliance during the last year.
Extreme bullshit? Is it really that wrong to compare Alt-Right to BLM?
I think they are both pretty much the same game, different teams. They themselves admit as much.
They want to play the same game of identity politics.
I was not talking about Isreal or Trump.
I was talking Alt-Right and SJWs. Alt-Right blame "The Jews" on everything of their own failing.
Much like SJWs blame everything on "institutional racism and patriarchy".
I don't consider Alt-Right as part of concervatives. Retard.
@halfthink Yeah, and Alt-"Right" is white SJWs.
@Chiharu You're the biggest retard on the entire chat. You've not understood anything I've argued, and strawmanned everything I've said.
When I claim that Alt-Right is not actually conservative because they don't promote responsibility of their own actions (instead blame The Jew)... you twist that to me saying conservatives blame everything on Jews when that's exactly opposite of my point.
How does pro-Brexit connect with Alt-Right? Brexit is about secession. Alt-Right is not inherently secessionist but ethnonationalists.
**IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M BALDING! SHUT UP!** <:NPC:500042527231967262>
Now I'm going to delete that tweet and make internet forget about it. Undox myself.
I still don't understand the greed of venture capitalist. For example: Patreon has received around 100 million in investment from venture capitalist, and only recently has Patreon started to give proper returns (they provided transactions of 500 million dollars in previous years and expect to do 500 million dollars in 2019 alone - that's some serious exponential growth). Out of that 1 billion, their cut is 50 million, so for 2019 alone 25 million bucks and I would expect 2020 would be much larger than that if exponential growth would continue.
Yet, suddenly the venture capitalist want their money back ASAP and getting 25 million bucks per year out of 100 million investment is just not enough.
I'd **KILL** people for that interest rate.
The investors are probably going to crash Patreon, leading to investors going to lick their wounds when their excessive greed has pushed Patreon to a multi-channel network model that is highly unpopular.
Which is a good thing. I'm going to laugh when Patreon crashes. And the venture capitalists would also be at the suffering end.
Actually... maybe the venture capitalists aren't in the suffering end if they aren't basically purchasing a part of the company but just provide high-interest loans. Except of course if they drive Patreon to bankruptcy before they get their money out. And they'd get their money out if the granted extra time to pay it out, but since there's many loan givers, one choosing to extend it would only mean the other vultures would get their money and the ones extending might be left to lick their fingers.
I'm curious what sort of agreements those investors have come up with Patreon. And why did Patreon take so much money when they are just in transaction business, and most of marketing of Patreon has been done memetically by Patreon's customers (because otherwise they wouldn't get pledges). How did they waste so many millions of dollars?
Is it perhaps just lefty California hipsters not being, perhaps, the best people to handle money to begin with?
I still don't understand why @Timcast thinks why Democratic establishment needs to be replaced with people like AOC, when he still goes to support policies that Crowley would likely have supported. It's funny.
Also, while 3 billion tax break is not automatically lost money (since losing Amazon HQ may cause 10 billion in lost revenue), it's still unjust favoritism for **ONE** company which is not given to other companies.
Even as center-right / centrist libertarian type, I cannot support corporate favoritism even if it produces result. It's corrupt as fuck.
There is an argument to be made that corruption does produce wealth, but if so, why not support the *establishment*? They are **masters** in corruption, thus the best ones to uphold it!
Seems like Tim wants to have the cake and eat it too... which is typical leftist.
@halfthink Lies. The libertarian left in reality don't denounce the commies.
Yeah. **Exactly** that nonsense. They blame any attempts at communism to be rightwing, and continue to support "anarcho"commies.
Like Tim has admitted: left support diversity of tactics. They can have a peaceful protest but they don't separate themselves from "separate" black block tactics.
It's always the same: they never kick out Antifa types from their demonstrations, but they like to cry when they get water cannon from the police.
I don't think blacks care, but niggers might.
There's a difference between blacks and niggers, and I want to remind of it as often as possible.
Don't care. Orange Man Bad. <:NPC:500042527231967262>
Address the problem instead of responding with stock imagery.
If you respond with stock imagery, you admit everything correct, and just claim that the alternative is worse (without giving specific examples).
I'm pretty sure such "extremely unlikely" scenario already exists in Chicago and Detroit. Also, pointing to unequal protection in current system to make things even worse is rather a splendid cop-out.
I'd also like to call out the hypocrisy of calling non-anarchism for demanding perfection, when the ancap side demands 0% taxes or it's theft and tyranny.
Imagine the hypocrisy of demanding 0% taxation, or everything is statism and totalitarian socialism...
Meanwhile, in that uncomfortable reality the non-ancaps don't actually demand perfection (like you claim they do). They just want to avoid a total disaster.
...meanwhile you argue against anti-monopoly measure. Irony.
I think I'll rest my case since you haven't addressed any of the points presented, only quoted go-to arguments, which only ancaps and communists have at hand to give **regardless** of the topic at hand.
You are autistic ultimates, logical absolutes of you own positions.
Neither of you accept any reality check. Both of you say: true X has never been tried.
So, you are actually using the Dark Age feudalism as "positive" example of anarchocapitalism. **IMAGINE MY SHOCK!**
Seriously, fuck you. Even communists have better ethics than you.
They are naive and deluded but they are not sociopaths.
Why am I suspicious that you are actually a communist making the *worst* imaginable arguments for anarchocapitalism?
Go wank in a sock, commie. You don't fool me.
At least you admit being a commie plant.
Top left would be -10 and 10. The joke is that halfthink is 14.88 and -14.88, i.e **Fourteen Words, HEIL HITLER**. (8th alphabet is H, hence HH is Heil Hitler.)
Even without reading Qu'ran, I could have guessed. Because Muhammad was (according to the scripture) so white he was self-luminous (read: white as fuck).
Of course Shaytan would be a nigger.
More information on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOM4GrqElw
Tim Pool is a dunce on economics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbdT0X8sL0
Tim Pool being a dunce on eminent domain as well: https://youtu.be/0VFtbR1fmgg?t=507
Thinking that when facing an invasion, you could eminent domain to build a wall. Like you can build a wall **WHILE BEING ATTACKED?**
(Also, isn't USA already invaded by illegal aliens? Meaning condition is already fulfilled.)
His second example isn't just dumb (like the first one) but outright shows how dangerous Tim's ideas are.
He literally talks about eminent domain being justified if government was to seize **ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION** (i.e establish communism).
So eminent domain is OK when communism. Yeah.
Somalia is a hellhole. Somalis were the primary source of economic leeches to arrive to Finland prior to war refugees from Iraq, then Maroccan "Syrians" during recent years.
Somalia has been a hellhole even before war in Iraq. If it's now growing faster than others, it's because it's national produce was close to absolute zero for a great long time, with warlords implementing anarchocapitalism on the populace.
Somalis are receiving tons of globalist welfare. Money, food, building projects. (Not that it helps. Arguably it hurts the local markets.)
He can point out rape jokes against males is toxic masculinity because directors are mostly male (especially directors who include male-on-male rape jokes), ignoring that they are also feminists (because they come from Hollywood). Also, later in the commentary, he switches victimhood of prisonrape away from men, to "transwomen", i.e when men are victimized, it's still misogyny (even though in reality straight men get raped more brutally than bitch boys who partake in feminine role voluntarily).
The reviewer does however promise a follow-up of tropes about female predators, but considering how much in-line with feminist viewpoint the first part was, I'm curious how hell tackle the other half... of if he'll tackle it at all and used "handled in another video" as an excuse to not touch it as all, since "dealing separately" is feminist codeword for not dealing with it at all.
I wouldn't necessarily call prison rape jokes inherently toxic either, considering comedy can be the only way to deal with tragedy, be it for the teller or the audience. And prison rape jokes using falsely accused as the one in threat of being raped can be critique rather than approval of prison rape phenomenon. I cannot really comment on how ubiquitous people who have been raped in jail is among general male populace is, but I do know that USA has the highest prison population per capita, combined with high population in general, leading to millions of active inmates in addition to all the ones who served their time...
...and that USA is one of the places where male-on-male rape is seen as part of the justice system (where as in other second and third world countries, prison guard brutality replaces it).
And prison guard brutality would probably be closer to being actual justice, as they'd be motivated in brutalizing the trouble makers for making their job harder. The system where the troublemakers rape and punish the weak, is inverse of justice. The worst of punished don't get extra punishment from being raped: the get reward by getting to rape people.
So basically, congrats: North Korea has more justice than USA.
**WHAT! It was that Jonathan MacIntosh all the time?** No wonder everything felt like pushing the blame away from Hollywood, and onto evil comedians, as well as pushing male victimization away and onto "transwomen". Also, no actual critique of female predator will come, unless MacIntosh will call out as these portrayals in the media being false as *real women don't rape*.
Also noteworthy that he has viewerbase half of Sargon, despite being just a sidekick of Sarkeesian, and 97% approval rating on the video. Meanwhile "feminism is dead, anti-feminists are cringe" say majority of anti-feminists themselves.
Yeah. You can tout all the feminist talking points (just avoiding or reducing number of callouts to "feminism", "misogyny" or "toxic masculinity" directly) and probably around 97% would agree with it.
Except that they whilst abandoning equality under the law for equity of outcome, they aren't consistent on even that. Otherwise they would not just demand female draft but demand equalization of combat deaths. And they would force women to die at work, etc.
> implies that women should be executed to obtain equal outcome
You cannot have the cake and eat it too, AOC. Women need to face the execution squad if you want equal outcome.
Life expectancy gap need to be corrected if under equality of outcome model.
I'm quite depressed with the state of mainstream "pro-freespeech" and "pro-journalism" organizations. In Anglosphere, there was ACLU turning against free expression after having already defended KKK in the past (yet now probably cares more about transfeelings than free speech of not-even-serious shitlords), and pro-journalists calling for censorship.
From my perspective, I didn't know if to laugh or to fume with anger when Suuri Journalistipalkinto 2018 (Great Journalism Prize 2018) candidates were announced. They are in four categories: Year's Hit Story, Year's Journalist Activism, Year's Book, Year's Journalist
Each category with three nominees.
Year's Hit Story contained most variance and least bias, although even it contained one entry under #MeToo, and it was a nontroversy/manhunt of Finnish movie and theater industry. They didn't even find out actual sexual harassment so they connected being a harm director to work with as worthy of #MeToo. A total witch hunt.
Year's Journalistic Activism contained all non-sense entries and was the category that got me the most angry:
- the activists protesting agaisnt Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki because Trump is supposedly against freespeech (surprizingly not much to say about Putin actually being against it, funny enough)
- "critical reading of media" project that visited schools all over Finland... obviously about harms of believing what ALTERNATIVE media says and not about what MSM says
- "Protecting responsible journalists and condemning Fake News" with recipient beign the state of Finland itself. And by protecting "responsible" journalists means, standing AGAINST alternative media, prohibiting it's publication freedom and pushing hatespeech charges.
Year's Book contained three entries, two of which were explicitly feminist. Year's Journalist category I don't know the history of nominees well enough to even comment on.
Oh. I was aware of that article but I didn't read it completely or with enough thought to notice that they not only want to equate fictional characters to real humans, but also nudity to pornography.
Meanwhile "free speech extremists" flee away from defending it because they want to choose a better hill to die on.
Hmmm... Louis le Vau doesn't let down, he makes commentary on it beginning from around 6 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GxU25h5aUQ
Apparently to the left, Trump didn't win because the left had gone apeshit crazy. Trump won because the left didn't go apeshit crazy **ENOUGH**. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-sxJFn6O0
...and I only watched the first minute of it. I know where he's going with it.
"Shut the fuck up! Centrism, LOL!" -the leftwing 2019
They still don't understand about electoral collage and the fact that they need to win the swing states.... not get supermajority of Commifornia, New York city, Seattle and Portland.
Leftist logic is basically: because the leftwing was not *left enough*, swing voters chose to vote rightwing.
Yeah. Abolish electoral college to get their socialism finally impelemented.
Import more welfare recipients to ensure majority support continues.
Continuing with the video, it does appear there's more to the NYTimes "journo" being idiot. Not thinking that further left is the solution is actually the only thing she's correct about (even though that's the first left thinks she's **wrong** about). Calling Tulsi an Assad sycophant is ridiculous, as calling Trump an Assad lover. The MSM just loves to call anyone against perpetual warfare to be a Russian pupper, Assad/Putin lover, etc.
Yeah. Imagine being so sociopathic you promote warfare to get to report on it. That's **LITERALLY** being a James Bond villain.
And I do mean, literally literrally, not Millenial "liderally".
I don't remember which Bond movie it was but one of the villains perpetrated false flag attacks to get USA and Russia into a nuclear war... just for news headlines. That's what MSM is doing *in real world*.
It's just sad that unlike in Bond movies, you cannot have MI6 send an operative and put 9mm through the brain of journos who want to spark WW3.
(That's a cute snek avatar, btw. I need to find a high-res version of it to make it into wallpaper.)
@ʇooNʇooN *"i'd argue that tim's lack of indoctrination from higher education has meant that he's more able to inform himself and avoid the biases that are taught to people who go through the degree mill"*
...and despite that, he still managed to become a feminist anarchocommunist via skate boarding culture and listening to punk music.
Even though he has lately (although slowly) backed away from such nonsense.
He still uses "redlining" argument for "institutional racism", etc. nonsense. What about lead pipes, lead paint and the good old slavery. How can niggers have high IQ because of slavery?
10,388 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/42 | Next