Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

You are oversimplifying complex topics and throw blanket statements and labels at everything and everyone

You are wrong. I'm not oversimplying anything. Its you guys who are overcomplicating things.

sure lol

Well.. When you are taking over the far right rethoric and saying that "woke are a problem", then you are showing that you are attracted by values on the far right side. Your moral compass will therefore stand around the right side spectrum of the political scale.

No

Rest in denial mate

Where do you see me being absolute. You are creating a strawman here. Actually the political scale is a spectrum. You would need to be completely naive and blind not to understand that.

in his own world

Stay in your overcomplicated world mate.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

Where do you see me being absolute. You are creating a strawman here. Actually the political scale is a spectrum. You would need to be completely naive and blind not to understand that.

It's a meme. It ain't that deep.

 

[Roo]

Politics is about values. Those values are great in numbers and scattered between the left and the right on the scale I just gave you guys.

For example, the reject of trans people is a far right value. And its wrong because of two reason:
- Its dehumanizing
- Its based on a missunderstanding of reality

You can do that for all value.

And you will notice that the left side, is usually more right than the right side. And when I say more, I mean ALMOST ALWAYS.

So how am I exactly on the wrong side then. What do I believe makes me on the wrong side? Btw I am pretty much in favor of:

- public healthcare
- LGBT rights and protections
- Police reform
- anti-military spending( at least to the extend the U.S currently has)
- pro unions
- progressives taxes and closing of loopholes

What is it that makes me wrong in your eyes? Seriously curious

 

[AL sama]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the graphic is incorrect and overly simplified. Basic example: it equates fascism with individualism but in both extremes of the political spectrum individualism is secondary to society at large(as the leaders claim) and individual liberties are removed to keep the regime in power. Either because the State is more important or because the collectivism is more important. And you don't even need a political degree to know this just a basic knowledge of history.

A small question (it's personal but I think it's important for the debate): How old are you?

he is 34 sadly

Stay in your overcomplicated world mate.

the world isn't simple and it'll never be

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

So how am I exactly on the wrong side then. What do I believe makes me on the wrong side? Btw I am pretty much in favor of:

- public healthcare
- LGBT rights and protections
- Police reform
- anti-military spending( at least to the extend the U.S currently has)
- pro unions
- progressives taxes and closing of loopholes

What is it that makes me wrong in your eyes? Seriously curious

You forgot the pillars

 

[Logiko]

It's a meme. It ain't that deep.

Ok

the graphic is incorrect

it equates fascism with individualism

and individual liberties are removed to keep the regime in power.

This is about values not application.
Well, indeed there is a mistake you are right, individualism and fascism are kind of opposite. One of the reason why fascism is a big far right trap. Now that said, the removal of the individual liberties is only right in the case of fascism, not anarchism

How old are you?

35 mate

So how am I exactly on the wrong side then.

I don't remember saying that you were on the wrong side mate.

the world isn't simple and it'll never be

That's a myth that is being entertained to us in order for us to avoid thinking too much about it.

THe structure of the world are simple, only the branches of values are not.

 

[Roo]

I don't remember saying that you were on the wrong side mate.

Not at all. Because I know myself. I know where I stand. You are standing a a shaky ground, made of prejudice and amalgams. I'll keep standing and you will eventually fall or become even more radical. That's the way it goes for rightist. I know it, because I was at your place first.

Tf does this mean then lmao

 

[AL sama]

That's a myth that is being entertained to us in order for us to avoid thinking too much about it.

THe structure of the world are simple, only the branches of values are not.

wake up to reality big boy lol

humanity never really changed

we're still as savage as any other beast but with a facade on

 

[Logiko]

Tf does this mean then lmao

This >

You literally are for putting limits on freedom of speech. You're also anti liberal.

Lmao bruh even in Palestine they’re throwing the buzzwords around

That is normalizing violence. You’re giving one side a pass to be as violent as possible while the other has to be a Buddhist monk. That is irrational.

I would never tell a white person they can't talk about racism or oppressions just because they're white. I mean, you speak about it and idgaf.

Then you lose the very people you claim to fight for because you start rioting. It’s as simple as that.

Here you are showing very distinctive trait of rightist and liberals:
- The vision that freedom of speech should be absolute
- The denial of Queer and militant rethoric
- The missunderstanding of the notion of domination and power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.
- The denial of the notion that the ones who face oppression are the best placed to talk about said oppression
- The reversal of the responsibility of oppression against rioters and not the ones who oppressed them

wake up to reality big boy lol

humanity never really changed

we're still as savage as any other beast but with a facade on

Cool, time to change that then.

 

[AL sama]

Cool, time to change that then.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Tf does this mean then lmao

What post are you quoting in the second quote? When I click it it sends me to the post from the first quote

 

[NAMELESS]

This >






Here you are showing very distinctive trait of rightist and liberals:
- The vision that freedom of speech should be absolute
- The denial of Queer and militant rethoric
- The missunderstanding of the notion of domination and power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.
- The denial of the notion that the ones who face oppression are the best placed to talk about said oppression
- The reversal of the responsibility of oppression against rioters and not the ones who oppressed them

Cool, time to change that then.

Dude,you have been doing this for over a year and you convinced 0 users.You are wasting your time.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

- The missunderstanding of the notion of domination and power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.

Do you believe there are only these two?
[automerge]1699648240[/automerge]

we're still as savage as any other beast but with a facade on

Humans are both good and bad. You're being a cynic again as lama

 

[Logiko]

Dude,you have been doing this for over a year and you convinced 0 users.You are wasting your time.

Nah, its never a waste of time

Do you believe there are only these two?

When we talk about domination yes, there is the ones who have the power and the ones who don't.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

When we talk about domination yes, there is the ones who have the power and the ones who don't.

L take

 

[Zenos7]

No, because you would be hurting them. :)

why does it hurt one but not the other? both are rejected on the same basis.

 

[Logiko]

L take

#sociology mate

why does it hurt one but not the other? both are rejected on the same basis.

Did I say that it wouldn't hurt the other ? Its bad to hurt people in both ways. One thing to note tho is that those situation are not comparable. One is a pathology, the other is an identity. A condition.

 

[Roo]

This >

Damn if those are my greatest hits here I'm killing it

Here you are showing very distinctive trait of rightist and liberals:
- The vision that freedom of speech should be absolute

Right wingers dont believe freedom of speech should be asbolute lol, anyways I am pretty sure I've said everybody believes in limits to freedom of speech

- The denial of Queer and militant rethoric

Denying? I aint't denying shit. I just find it stupid and a big red flag of someone who has no clue what the fuck are they saying.

- The missunderstanding of the notion of domination and power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.

bruh, you have literally never read Marx. What exactly do you think he talks about

- The denial of the notion that the ones who face oppression are the best placed to talk about said oppression

Okay, then shut the fuck up about anything not related to LGBT issues then. If not then you're as much as in denial as I am.

- The reversal of the responsibility of oppression against rioters and not the ones who oppressed them

????

No reversal, it's called being pragmatic. Look up Nelson Mandela and the ANC. He tried hard to distance himself from the violent aspects of it and had to convince the white citizens that there won't be any violent retribution on them when apartheid would be abolished. You show lack of political knowledge, just outright naiveté


Anyways lol, its funny how you backtracked back to I am a rightist because you got caught lying

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

#sociology mate

There are roughly 3 groups :

• the oppressors
• the oppressed
• the oppressor's collaborators aka beaten housewifes who cover for their drunk husband

And this is still an oversimplification

 

[Logiko]

Right wingers dont believe freedom of speech should be asbolute lol

Of course they do lol. You missed the Elon musk arc mate. The entire right wing, from liberal to straight up fascist have only one word in mouth: "My absolute freedom of speech"

I am pretty sure I've said everybody believes in limits to freedom of speech

THen I didn't see that. Because pretty much everyone on the thread was agreeing that I was wrong to set limits to freespeech, you included.

Denying? I aint't denying shit. I just find it stupid and a big red flag of someone who has no clue what the fuck are they saying.

My point exactly.

bruh, you have literally never read Marx. What exactly do you think he talks about

I don't need to read Marx to know some basic sociological principles. Marx is not everything mate. And in that case, you were out.

Okay, then shut the fuck up about anything not related to LGBT issues then. If not then you're as much as in denial as I am.

I will do that the day I see LGBTQ+ people starting to go against transphobes/LGBTQ+ people on this forum. I want nothing more than to shut up and let them fry those bigoted down.

No reversal, it's called being pragmatic. Look up Nelson Mandela and the ACN. He tried hard to distance himself from the violent aspects of it and had to convince the white citizens that there won't be any violent retribution on them when apartheid would be abolished.

You are completely confusing situations here which means that either you are from bad faith or you still don't understand the issue.

People in France were not rioting to get revenge on a community or white people, they were rioting against the system to CHANGE IT. Simply because they had no other (I still have no other) alternatives.

Actually, I thought you were centrist, then I saw all those quote. And you are definitely a liberal. Which make you center right at best.

• the oppressors
• the oppressed
• the oppressor's collaborators aka beaten housewifes who cover for their drunk husband

No, in your example the third case is also the oppressed. Not a collaborator. Collaborator are part of the group of the oppressors.





.