Thus has nothing to do with what you initially said
What I said is that the absence of ideology and therefore the refusal to follow an ideology prevent one to follow any ethical ideologies that would be necessary to follow to defend people under oppression.

Therefore the volontary absence of ideology is the refusal of the action in front of oppressions and the push of conservatives ideologies. Which is a parameter of conservatism and overall rightism.

Apolitism is just another name for rightism. Neutrality in a conflict between an oppressor and people being oppressed ALWAYS favor the oppressor.
 
What I said is that the absence of ideology and therefore the refusal to follow an ideology prevent one to follow any ethical ideologies that would be necessary to follow to defend people under oppression.

Therefore the volontary absence of ideology is the refusal of the action in front of oppressions and the push of conservatives ideologies. Which is a parameter of conservatism and overall rightism.

Apolitism is just another name for rightism. Neutrality in a conflict between an oppressor and people being oppressed ALWAYS favor the oppressor.
:lawsigh:
 
He's gonna pick a woman.
by the pussy?sorry,i had to do this joke
[automerge]1707147888[/automerge]
Honestly, the best thing the left did for Trump was push all the phony charges on him. It has resonated with people who feel like the law system has unjustly punished them. That's why you have seen videos of people of all races taking to the streets demanding to free him.

It's also how he went from unelectable to having a high chance of being elected.
[automerge]1707133368[/automerge]


I don't know what that means lol.
The left is basically self imploding. People are starting to hate them because of their actions.
[automerge]1707147968[/automerge]
I remember Trumps Mug Shot didn't go as planned for em, Hahaha Just made him even more Relatable and him against the world, so to speak etc... Made him look badass etc... (Haters gonna hate though)
That mugshot was really cool lol
[automerge]1707148466[/automerge]
Didn't say Biden wasn't racist

Just that Trump hates minorities more
I don't really percevie Trump in that way. Are you saying that because of the wall deal?
 
Last edited:
You can facepalm all you want, this is what apolitism is and this is where apolitism leads.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that those who refuse to take a side in a conflict that oppose a oppressor and a victim are always favorizing the side of the oppressor even if they don't intend to.

Not taking a side IS ALWAYS taking a side. The side that don't care if oppressors win and therefore the side that favor the oppressions.

nothing less from you :suresure::suresure:
Not only I don't remember calling you that, but I'm pretty sure I never did. On the other hand I clearly remember saying that you didn't care to act against those problems.
because of their actions.
Because of what action ? If you hate someone because they are defending oppressed people, its not the action or those who make them that you hate, its the oppressed people :shocking:
 

AL sama

Red Haired
Not only I don't remember calling you that, but I'm pretty sure I never did. On the other hand I clearly remember saying that you didn't care to act against those problems.
you're legendary lmfao but everyone is free to check the old nakama thread including you
I don't think he knows how to post. It looks like he is attempting to quote multiple things. I don't u nderstand all the spaces.
I think he types like me but for some reason his posts look very weird
 
No that's not how it works😒:lawsigh:
You just disagree because you are far right yourself, nazi scum
[automerge]1707151658[/automerge]
Yes I did when we talked about Eugenism
Bruh you cant be serious. You making it about eugenics(!) was your attack of his character that didnt have anything to do with what i quoted from him.

This is getting more ridiculous with each post
[automerge]1707151758[/automerge]
Like I said: The fact of not subscribing to any ideologies means that you won't take a side when it come to defend basic ethical ideologies like the defense of minorities or the oppressed for the sake of "not taking a side". This is one of the parameters that separates right wingers from left wingers. Sorry.
I can take sides on a case by case basis, which is what im doing.

Doesnt mean i have to identify as part of any single ideology though.

Sorry, you are beyond wrong
[automerge]1707151820[/automerge]
No indeed, the reorganisation of the society through science is an idea of scientism and society that appeared with Saint-Simon during the 19' century. Dawkins is just taken and reforming back this ideology.
No he isnt. Nor is any other of the so called new atheists
[automerge]1707151926[/automerge]
Nah, you didnt get the point then apparently. Try reading it again, do some reflecting
[automerge]1707151960[/automerge]
Not really no as you prefer academic definition over scientific ones.
Nah
[automerge]1707152192[/automerge]
What I said is that the absence of ideology and therefore the refusal to follow an ideology prevent one to follow any ethical ideologies that would be necessary to follow to defend people under oppression.

Therefore the volontary absence of ideology is the refusal of the action in front of oppressions and the push of conservatives ideologies. Which is a parameter of conservatism and overall rightism.

Apolitism is just another name for rightism. Neutrality in a conflict between an oppressor and people being oppressed ALWAYS favor the oppressor.
Not identifying with one specific ideology =/= not caring or acting against oppression

Once again you are making it clear that you hate logic
[automerge]1707152221[/automerge]
He should rename himself to Antilogiko tbh
 
Last edited:
You just disagree because you are far right yourself, nazi scum
There is nothing more logic than the impact of neutrality.

Explanations shouldn't be required.


Bruh you cant be serious. You making it about eugenics(!) was your attack of his character that didnt have anything to do with what i quoted from him.

This is getting more ridiculous with each post
Indeed. My first argument was the critic of Dawkins as a commentator. Following that we debated on Eugenism, what it is or is not and why Dawkins words were problematic and now we are back on Dawkins.
Simple. I don't know what you don't understand here:kayneshrug:


I can take sides on a case by case basis
Meaning that you would use your own ideology and you would therefore not be neutral. Which would contradict your previous point.

No he isnt. Nor is any other of the so called new atheists
Yes he is. First paragraph :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Well, that precisely why I debated with you on the notion of gender and the fact that you prefered to stick to academic definition instead of following the scientific definition. Ergo : yes.


Doesnt mean i have to identify as part of any single ideology though.
Not identifying with one specific ideology =/= not caring or acting against oppression
No one is talking about identifying to an ideology but you here. Neutrality is not about identity, it's about the fact of not caring enough to take a side.

Not caring = Subscribing to no ethical ideologies.
An ideology is not a political party. And ideology is a set of value. Not subscribing to any ethical ideologies means that you don't have any ethical values.
Even children can understand this logic.

But what you must understand more is that in term of political convictions, those who don't take sides are opposed to leftism (that is precisely the side of the political spectrum that is always taking sides historically).

And since there are only two sides in the political spectrum (because there are only two major value systems), not taking side puts you on the opposite side of the left: some, like me, call it the right side. (some call this the extrem centrism, but centrism is just the name for apolitical rightism)

Also important point : When you start to take a side, you can't just take anything that pleases you on the right and the left or just pick the fight that you want... unless you are prepared to face great paradoxes in your own mind. For example you can't say "I believe in merit" and say " I believe in equality for all". Those two affirmations are simply not compatible. Meritocracy overrides equality everywhere. So you will be facing a paradoxe the moment you will be looking rationnaly at the real face of the capitalist issue. And there are plenty of example like that.

Not taking side = taking the side of the oppressor. And the oppressors in our societies right now are:
- Ultra Capitalist and liberals
- Conservatist
- Far rightist
- Cryptofascist
- Authoritarians
- And the three major oppressive systems that are patriarchy, systemic racism and capitalism.

If you don't accept this, you will be on their side.

There is no middle ground.
 

AL sama

Red Haired
Yeah.. and I can't find those posts. So quote them to me please. Maybe I'm wrong.. Go on. :kayneshrug:
I think many of you remember that I was counter arguing for both parties before being called sexist :myman::myman:
And damn.. the shift was so swift
go learn sexism fam might come in handy in the near future

From you ? Oh boi.. Might as well ask the right wing to teach me about intersectionnality.
can't search much much but this is enough lol
 
Top