Message from @Unironic Ohio Supremecist
Discord ID: 641717200184672262
Lol. Not even close.
by the way I cant find the vid of Crenshaw getting groyped
If anyone has it
Only if you accept your batshit assertion that centralization = authoritarian. Which I don't because I'm not a retard.
Ironically, neither do you...
I didn't say that all centralization = authoritarian, just that the absolute extreme example of centralization would be a complete dictatorship, while the absolute extreme of decentralization would be no government at all
all the amendments are stupid. if you have an ar15 you're basically a terrorist
This isn't hard to grasp if you can count past 2
that's why you all should give them to Kevin and i
we are the only ones to be trusted
That doesnt support your point
Lol. So you're literally illiterate? Explains a lot.
>you dont understand your position but I do
Is this tumblr?
You were talking about communism as one central system or many smaller subsystems. Round made comments about warlords and such
> that thing I said didn't mean what the words said because waaaaaaaaah
It may be.
How do you get "centralization of any sort = authoritarianism" from "you can try to set up a totalitarian state in a smaller system but it's harder if you keep scaling down"
And...? If you can have local totalitarianism, then it proves that scope and centralization are severable...
No it doesnt, it just isn't a smooth curve from 0 to 100. All it boils down to is who has power and over what, no?
> How do you get "centralization of any sort = authoritarianism"
Because you said exactly that, multiple times, you lunatic.
> who has power and over what, no?
Lol. So fucking dishonest. Those are two entirely different questions.
What you have power over is necessarily a factor of the amount of power you have
I don't follow. What do you mean by that?
Most voters have (very limited) power over a very big thing but don't have much power.
Well, you can have total power over some things but not others, or you can have a lot of power over a small group, but less over a large one
That's my point pretty much.
Amount of power and subject of power aren't necessarily related.
But they are. Are you more powerful if you have total control over one person, than someone who has moderate control over 100 people? It depends on what you can get accomplished, no? So a moderately successful populist could have more power than a feared slave owner
Even though he has less control over each component part of his power base
put the commies in prison. simple
Doesn't that just demonstrate how they aren't though?
No, because again, power is the output. You can accomplish a lot with one very dedicated, loyal follower
More than someone with minor influence over millions, for instance
Exactly
or fire them. Shame is what we need. We used to have shame.
How does that separate them? It's the same equation
So the size of the thing you have power over doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of power you have.
It necessarily correlates, it just may not be the be-all end-all
Social Norms are the solution, not beating them philosophically or intellectually
I think most of these examples don't show a correlation but this conversation is starting to feel stupid.