Controversial General Political Discussion

[Mathias]

And YET.. I've crossed that wall many times. I deradicalized from SO MANY conservatives and hurtfull ideologies.. so I'm SURE there is a way to get people like Ravager or Nameless to listen.. I just don't know what it is.

How did you do it for yourself ? Was it instantaneous ? Did it come from someone or your very self ?

Do you believe in changing people's minds on a weeb forum while the weebs probably have their own surroundings ? Wether it's relatives or their internet algorithm keeping them close to their ideologies ? In the end, how could you change people when there is pretty much no free-will ?

 

[AL sama]

How did you do it for yourself ? Was it instantaneous ? Did it come from someone or your very self ?

Do you believe in changing people's minds on a weeb forum while the weebs probably have their own surroundings ? Wether it's relatives or their internet algorithm keeping them close to their ideologies ? In the end, how could you change people when there is pretty much no free-will ?

 

[Mathias]

Macron saying that Netanyahu "shouldn't forget that his country was created by the UN"

 

[Uncle Van]

I understand, but the World is not our problem.

If anybodies disconnected from reality, it is you mate. Just because you spout out these words doesn't make them fact. Just spinning lies.

"And republicans are telling even more lies. that's what you can see." A statement that again is just vapid and empty nonsense. Sure Parties can lie, Individual people can lie. What lies? Just Lies? Lie lie lie lie. Maybe instead, You hear truths you don't like and in your head consider them as lies, Mate that's just running from the truth like a coward.

You say Systemic Racism yet never provide concrete evidence of it, Just wishful thinking that there's something there, I.E. Conspiracy bullshit.
American's have the opportunity to make something of themselves, Sure not everyone is on equal footing, That's an impossibility. Stop day dreaming about a fantasy that could never actually happen.

Also I find it funny, Some fucking white frenchie dude is basically saying what the black rapper is saying is wrong... GD bruh your optics are wrong.

Systematic racism is a real thing. He's just, like in almost every topic, terrible at explaining it. One of the reasons it's terrible is because he's unable to debate with others as people, but instead talks down to them as misguided individuals not listening to his truth.

 

[Logiko]

No, you're just taking things way out of proportion.
Expected of you.

Well.. It takes a mountain to make someone change their mind. My goal was to see if I can change yours. So I needed to put the effort in.

You'd think the rules and implementation of those rules would be more lenient in a left-leaning place but no, they're even stricter, somehow.

I have a lot of things to say to the moderation. But really, they are not restrictive. It can be a bad but also a good thing.

Well, I think it would be better framed not as them listening to you, or listening to your ideology, but as us seeing what is good, it's up to each of us to decide what that is and follow it,

If we had waited for people to find out what is good, we would still be in feodalism. Some things needs to be taught, some things need to be understood.

You can't expect someone who lives in a conservative background to suddenly understand out of the blue why materialism and intersectionnality. There are material condition that prevent those people to understand those concept, so it's OUT job on the left to explain and educate the masses on the notion that will make the world a better place.

And yes, it means that there are better values than others. There is no such thing as relativity in politics.

You simply need to speak the truth, be honest and have takes that make sense to make me agree with you. You have failed so far.

What you don't understand is that I've always be honest to limit with you guys. I've literally been taking my life as a constant example to make you understand that I come from ideologies similar or close to yours and therefore I KNOW that they are wrong and I have things to prove.

So I know for a fact:
- That you guys are wrong
- That there is a way to make you understand

I simply do not have the tool to do that.

-----------

I've failed, yes. Now, I would like to know one thing. Through a simple epistemologic question, that has always been ignored until now.

What would it take for you guys to reconsider your beliefs ?

> Logically. If you say "nothing". You should be understanding right here that you are under the influence of a sectarist ideology.

How did you do it for yourself ? Was it instantaneous ? Did it come from someone or your very self ?

Complicated...

At the very beginning, I think I discovered some content that made me questionned everything I knew. I was in a metaphysical journey at the time, very naive and completely defenseless in term of critical thinking. So once I did this.. well I doubted about everything without restrain.. and I fell into complotism quickly.

I went so deep into doubt that I doubted about my own life and the nature of complotism itself. Doubt send me to complotist but I went so deep into the process that I circled back. In other words I did this:

"I don't know what I believe" > "I should doubt everything" > "Wait the illuminatiiii !" > "Am I real ?" > "Yes I'm real" > "Isn't complotism a way to manipulate us ?" > "Wait complotism is nonsense"

What is interesting here, is that complotism was not really important for me. What was at the time was the nature of reality. I wanted to understand my world because I had a frustration of not understanding anything about it.

I felt first in complotism and later in some far right ideas and later in some Islamophobic one and later in some liberal one.. I always had in mind to make progress toward the reality of the world in a progressive way, so I tried to check a lot of things to verify - like complotism - how much I was close to this reality. And through trial and error with the help of activist, datas and Science, I progressed toward leftism:

- Esoteric complotism
> Deep state complotism
> Antisemitic complotism (at a time when I wanted to understand why Israel had a treatment of favor from France politics and medias)
> Libertarianism
> Liberalism
> Leftism
> Antimeritocratic leftism
> Materialistic leftism
> Radical leftism

All the ideas before the one I have right now failed the examination of reality. They have always been disproven in general and for me. They simply either do not work to understand the world or are hurtfull.

So.. to answer your question. The willingness of the process comes from me, but it only works in reaction to things that people have said or show to me.

I change because I allow myself to change.

For ex. Right now, I'm not allowing myself to radicalize rapidely toward the left. Because it would be a bit too fast, I just come from a radicalization. This is a tought subject and I don't want to make mistakes. But there will come a point where I will allow myself to be open on ideas I might not really be confortable about and it could change my mind.. or not.

I know that I now have the mindset to understand the reality of the world, I simply lack the clear vision on the way it could be changed.

Do you believe in changing people's minds on a weeb forum while the weebs probably have their own surroundings ?

It's a challenge. See it more like an exercice for me.

Changing his mind will not change the world of this forum, but it might allow me to understand how this process works and give me tools to replicate it in other situations.

In the end, how could you change people when there is pretty much no free-will ?

That's the big question.. I need to figure out what is the right button to switch. I know that there is at least one or we would be incapable of learning. So it's a question of trial and error.

Macron saying that Netanyahu "shouldn't forget that his country was created by the UN"

One good point in seven years. I guess we have to be thankfull..

He's just, like in almost every topic, terrible at explaining it.

Okay. I can take that critic.

It might be true, I might actually be horribly bad at explaining the concept. Now.. that's not the cases of other leftists.. and explaining is something that I have done AFTER sharing good and helpfull content on the matter.

So I get that noone can understand me. I can even accept that. But not everyone else whose work I'm sharing constantly.

One of the reasons it's terrible is because he's unable to debate with others as people, but instead talks down to them as misguided individuals not listening to his truth.

I'm not here to debate. Systemic racism is not a debate, it's a scientific fact. Studies should be enough to make everyone understand. But it's not enough so I share also video of vulgarization on the topic... but it's not enough so I need to explain the concept in detail.

Debate has no places in matter like this one.

The reality is that I'm not bad at explaining. It's you guys that are bad at accepting that some things are not debatable and therefore bad at listening.

 

[Daniel]

I have a lot of things to say to the moderation. But really, they are not restrictive. It can be a bad but also a good thing.

I wasn't talking about this place, but rather somewhere else.

 

[Blax Blah]

@Logiko I am writing a comment replying to your comment, but I would like to say, I think it may be good to change topics a bit, becauze these messages are getting so big it's taking a bit to scroll through them, and we can come back to it in a bit, what do you think?,

 

[Logiko]

I wasn't talking about this place, but rather somewhere else.

I see. That's because there is something called the right and the system that exist. Those forum would not need those rules if the system was positive. People there actually agree to those rules, not against themselve, but as a protection.

Without those rules and strong value, the place would turn out like the system.. like Worstgen.

It doesn't mean that all rules are good, but usually, those rules have reasons to exist.

@Logiko I am writing a comment replying to your comment, but I would like to say, I think it may be good to change topics a bit, becauze these messages are getting so big it's taking a bit to scroll through them, and we can come back to it in a bit, what do you think?,

It's ok. I think I've said what I needed on the subject.

But writing big post is kinda my signature. I can't really stop myself

 

[Mathias]

"I don't know what I believe" > "I should doubt everything" > "Wait the illuminatiiii !" > "Am I real ?" > "Yes I'm real" > "Isn't complotism a way to manipulate us ?" > "Wait complotism is nonsense"

No offense but the part in which you're questioning your very own existence sounds like mental illness.

Maybe for your case ignorance hadn't led you toward far-right ideas. But you were just tricked.

Or at least this is some part of it.

That's the big question.. I need to figure out what is the right button to switch. I know that there is at least one or we would be incapable of learning. So it's a question of trial and error.

You should check out on sociology of changing people's minds. It's probably a thing. As a matter of fact, I just searched that and it seems like facts don't change people's minds. Sometimes it's just not enough.

 

[Uncle Van]

Okay. I can take that critic.

It might be true, I might actually be horribly bad at explaining the concept. Now.. that's not the cases of other leftists.. and explaining is something that I have done AFTER sharing good and helpfull content on the matter.

You're bad at explaining things because you can't do it without assuming someone else's moral compass and talking down to them. That gives people a reason not to listen to you.

So I get that noone can understand me. I can even accept that. But not everyone else whose work I'm sharing constantly.

Everyone understands you actually. It's just when the things you say is flooded with fallacies or things simply untrue, you talk down to them insinuating that you're smarter than them. In turn, people don't have a reason to listen to you.

I'm not here to debate. Systemic racism is not a debate, it's a scientific fact. Studies should be enough to make everyone understand. But it's not enough so I share also video of vulgarization on the topic... but it's not enough so I need to explain the concept in detail.

Debate is one of the most basic, simplest, and mandatory ways of reaching people. If you can't even find some common ground with someone, you can't even start to convince anyone of anything. You choose to throw negative connotations on their way of life(that you assume about) which makes them dismiss whatever you have to say.

The reality is that I'm not bad at explaining. It's you guys that are bad at accepting that some things are not debatable and therefore bad at listening.

And here, you once again put the blame on everyone else instead of yourself. It's one of the reasons people say you have no self awareness. You have a reputation of being preachy and a massive hypocrite, and since you always put the blame on everyone else, you just prove their point which gives them even more reason to not listen to you.

Ravager and Nameless for example have listen to me before, and I've convinced them on some more left leaning talk, but they don't give a damn about you even when you say the same thing, simply because you don't treat them as people.

 

[Daniel]

Without those rules and strong value, the place would turn out like the system.. like Worstgen.

It doesn't mean that all rules are good, but usually, those rules have reasons to exist.

Alternatively, the availability of exclusive information on a site can also explain why a large number of people remain complacent with posting there, even if the rules in place may or may not be applied fairly, if there aren't any alternative sites that they can migrate elsewhere to.

 

[Logiko]

No offense but the part in which you're questioning your very own existence sounds like mental illness.

No offense taken.
There was a moment of derealization at one point indeed. It was a bad mental state conditionned by a stressfull period for me due to a number of personnal things that I won't developp. So this place of intense doubt was also helped by my mental state.

Now, it doesn't means that everyone must do what I did. Too much doubt is not good. Really not pleasant and difficult to recover from.

Maybe for your case ignorance hadn't led you toward far-right ideas. But you were just tricked.

In a sence yeah.. but by the algorithms, this movement toward far right ideas was helped by a number a various things that I was seeing on youtube at the time. It lead me to be off on a large number of subjects.

Ignorance also helped. I had no knowledge of any political things at the time so I could be molded very easily.

You should check out on sociology of changing people's minds. It's probably a thing.

Good idea ! I might. I already I understood a few important things because of this:

Stuff like this content might help us understand how to make a difference.

I just searched that and it seems like facts don't change people's minds. Sometimes it's just not enough.

It wouldn't be surprising. That's why I often tries, instead of talking about facts, to talk about the values behind opinions or ask questions like "What would you need to question your belief system ?" which is a technique of street epistemology.

If they answer me "science".. then we have a common ground.. but when they don't take science seriously, there is not much to do..

You're bad at explaining things because you can't do it without assuming someone else's moral compass and talking down to them. That gives people a reason not to listen to you.

Oh... this again ? This is tiring..

Mate, if you can't understand that similar political opinions and philosophical values are regrouped behind certains political groups or institutions, we are not gonna make any progress.

Everyone understands you actually. It's just when the things you say is flooded with fallacies or things simply untrue, you talk down to them insinuating that you're smarter than them. In turn, people don't have a reason to listen to you.

Talks down, yes. Maybe. i've said it, I take a volontary arrogant shape to protect myself.

Flooded with fallacies ? No. Sadly for you, not at all. What I say is the result of the work of other people. And i'm always careful to repeat this work with care, details and no fallacy. And when I don't know, like in the discussion that I have with Blax about anarchism and communism, I ask questions and do not assume anything. I can make mistakes, but those are exceptions.

I'm not smarter than Ravager or Nameless, i'm simply for informed on various political and scientific subjects. And on different of those subjects, there is no debate to have.

In turn, people don't have a reason to listen to you.

Fair. Then listen to the work of those I promote.

Debate is one of the most basic, simplest, and mandatory ways of reaching people.

Yes. For things that need to be debate. We do not debate if the earth is flat, we debunk it. We do not debate if Gun create less violences, we debunk it.

When studies have proven some points, there is no debate to have.

Also, and that something that peple like you don't understand, debating with problematic ideas gives them a place and legitimize them as legitimate idea to debate. It displace the overton windows toward problematic vision and opinion and the marginalize more rationnal behaviors.

And this should not happen. All opinions should not be debated.

If you can't even find some common ground with someone, you can't even start to convince anyone of anything.

And that's the problem. There is none. When people refuse to listen to science, there is no common ground to debate on.

You choose to throw negative connotations on their way of life(that you assume about) which makes them dismiss whatever you have to say.

I never attack the personnal life of people. I only attack the opinion shared and the behaviors. And yes, when those opinions are negative, don't expect me to think that their way of life is positive.

Again, we don't live in a world where people with hardcore conservative ideas can just think outside of the box by themselves (the same works in reverse for people like me). Political opinions LIKE behaviors and experiences are the result of material conditions and environmental pressure.

It's time to stop believing in the myth of the lonely positive cow boy.

And here, you once again put the blame on everyone else instead of yourself.

Indeed. Because I scratched the others possibility.

If people were coherent and indeed refused to listen to me while being rational people, they would be at least understanding the power of basic scientific researches. Those researches that I'm constantly flooding this thread with and which are all over The Leftist library.

BUT

Those guys refuse those evidences. They refuse even to consider as scientific the study that I share.

Which means that the problem is not me not explaining well enough or my arguments being bad or my behavior being arrogant, it's the behavior of those people that are not willing to listen to anything remotely rationnal.

So.. yeah. People here have a problem at listening. Which is exactly what Mathias is saying when he says that it is sometimes explained that people, even in front of facts, will have hard time accepting it.

It's one of the reasons people say you have no self awareness.

And here it's you not understanding that I do.

We can throw the ball at each others for hours like that. So.. how do we stop this ? Well, we look at who has the facts on their side, and who refuses to listen.

My arrogance is only an excuse for you guys to protect yourself from self-questionning. You don't need me to refuse the data I provide. You have denied their legitimacy long before I arrive.

and a massive hypocrite

Oh ? That's new. Hypocrite on what exactly ? Do you understand the meaning of this word ?

and since you always put the blame on everyone else, you just prove their point which gives them even more reason to not listen to you.

I think you have an observation problem lol
Those guys actually keep on proving my point.

Ravager and Nameless for example have listen to me before, and I've convinced them on some more left leaning talk, but they don't give a damn about you even when you say the same thing, simply because you don't treat them as people.

And the cat is green...

Mate, they are closer to you politically than you from me. Of course they will listen to you.

simply because you don't treat them as people.

Well, that might be why I'm constantly attacked by those guys on my mental condition ?
or
Why people like you and them keep on gaslighting the F out of me and lying about most of the things I say btalantly or deforming things factually?
or
Why i've been insulted like CRAZY by guys like this on this forum or even had death threats sent to me while still trying to discuss ?


Poor snowflakes..

"I don't treat them as people" ?.. You guys see three labels and someone saying "you are wrong" and you panic. Meanwhile I have to tank the negativity of this forum and I STILL MANAGE TO NEVER INSULT ANYONE and be respectfull of not crossing any line and be empathic EVEN when a person is being the biggest deepsh*t toward me and completely and REALLY dehumanize me by literally question my personnal life and my existence.

Y'a un moment où il va falloir arrêter de se foutre de ma gueule.

The moment I will start to give you (my political opposant here) back 10% of what you ACTUALLY gave me on this forum when I was actually not trying to be respectfull, then yes, you will be able to tell that I'm negative or problematic or don't treat people as people. But this will be so violent that I will be instant Banned.

You, Van, keep talking about my lack of self awareness but you don't even realize the CONTROL that I manage to developp everyday while replying here to people who are literally looking at me like a parasite.

It's ok. I don't mind. I signed this contract when I came on this forum with the mindset of doing something about the negativity. But really, you are not the genius you think you are by trying to make me look like someone who dehumanizes people here.

 

[Uncle Van]

No offense taken.
There was a moment of derealization at one point indeed. It was a bad mental state conditionned by a stressfull period for me due to a number of personnal things that I won't developp. So this place of intense doubt was also helped by my mental state.

Now, it doesn't means that everyone must do what I did. Too much doubt is not good. Really not pleasant and difficult to recover from.



In a sence yeah.. but by the algorithms, this movement toward far right ideas was helped by a number a various things that I was seeing on youtube at the time. It lead me to be off on a large number of subjects.

Ignorance also helped. I had no knowledge of any political things at the time so I could be molded very easily.



Good idea ! I might. I already I understood a few important things because of this:

Stuff like this content might help us understand how to make a difference.



It wouldn't be surprising. That's why I often tries, instead of talking about facts, to talk about the values behind opinions or ask questions like "What would you need to question your belief system ?" which is a technique of street epistemology.

If they answer me "science".. then we have a common ground.. but when they don't take science seriously, there is not much to do..


Oh... this again ? This is tiring..

Mate, if you can't understand that similar political opinions and philosophical values are regrouped behind certains political groups or institutions, we are not gonna make any progress.


Talks down, yes. Maybe. i've said it, I take a volontary arrogant shape to protect myself.

Flooded with fallacies ? No. Sadly for you, not at all. What I say is the result of the work of other people. And i'm always careful to repeat this work with care, details and no fallacy. And when I don't know, like in the discussion that I have with Blax about anarchism and communism, I ask questions and do not assume anything. I can make mistakes, but those are exceptions.

I'm not smarter than Ravager or Nameless, i'm simply for informed on various political and scientific subjects. And on different of those subjects, there is no debate to have.


Fair. Then listen to the work of those I promote.



Yes. For things that need to be debate. We do not debate if the earth is flat, we debunk it. We do not debate if Gun create less violences, we debunk it.

When studies have proven some points, there is no debate to have.

Also, and that something that peple like you don't understand, debating with problematic ideas gives them a place and legitimize them as legitimate idea to debate. It displace the overton windows toward problematic vision and opinion and the marginalize more rationnal behaviors.

And this should not happen. All opinions should not be debated.



And that's the problem. There is none. When people refuse to listen to science, there is no common ground to debate on.




I never attack the personnal life of people. I only attack the opinion shared and the behaviors. And yes, when those opinions are negative, don't expect me to think that their way of life is positive.

Again, we don't live in a world where people with hardcore conservative ideas can just think outside of the box by themselves (the same works in reverse for people like me). Political opinions LIKE behaviors and experiences are the result of material conditions and environmental pressure.

It's time to stop believing in the myth of the lonely positive cow boy.


Indeed. Because I scratched the others possibility.

If people were coherent and indeed refused to listen to me while being rational people, they would be at least understanding the power of basic scientific researches. Those researches that I'm constantly flooding this thread with and which are all over The Leftist library.

BUT

Those guys refuse those evidences. They refuse even to consider as scientific the study that I share.

Which means that the problem is not me not explaining well enough or my arguments being bad or my behavior being arrogant, it's the behavior of those people that are not willing to listen to anything remotely rationnal.

So.. yeah. People here have a problem at listening. Which is exactly what Mathias is saying when he says that it is sometimes explained that people, even in front of facts, will have hard time accepting it.



And here it's you not understanding that I do.

We can throw the ball at each others for hours like that. So.. how do we stop this ? Well, we look at who has the facts on their side, and who refuses to listen.

My arrogance is only an excuse for you guys to protect yourself from self-questionning. You don't need me to refuse the data I provide. You have denied their legitimacy long before I arrive.


Oh ? That's new. Hypocrite on what exactly ? Do you understand the meaning of this word ?






I think you have an observation problem lol
Those guys actually keep on proving my point.



And the cat is green...

Mate, they are closer to you politically than you from me. Of course they will listen to you.


Well, that might be why I'm constantly attacked by those guys on my mental condition ?
or
Why people like you and them keep on gaslighting the F out of me and lying about most of the things I say btalantly or deforming things factually?
or
Why i've been insulted like CRAZY by guys like this on this forum or even had death threats sent to me while still trying to discuss ?


Poor snowflakes..

"I don't treat them as people" ?.. You guys see three labels and someone saying "you are wrong" and you panic. Meanwhile I have to tank the negativity of this forum and I STILL MANAGE TO NEVER INSULT ANYONE and be respectfull of not crossing any line and be empathic EVEN when a person is being the biggest deepsh*t toward me and completely and REALLY dehumanize me by literally question my personnal life and my existence.

Y'a un moment où il va falloir arrêter de se foutre de ma gueule.

The moment I will start to give you (my political opposant here) back 10% of what you ACTUALLY gave me on this forum when I was actually not trying to be respectfull, then yes, you will be able to tell that I'm negative or problematic or don't treat people as people. But this will be so violent that I will be instant Banned.

You, Van, keep talking about my lack of self awareness but you don't even realize the CONTROL that I manage to developp everyday while replying here to people who are literally looking at me like a parasite.

It's ok. I don't mind. I signed this contract when I came on this forum with the mindset of doing something about the negativity. But really, you are not the genius you think you are by trying to make me look like someone who dehumanizes people here.

Uhhheee....

2 Quick questions: do you even know my political stance? Do you even know my personal values?

 

[Mathias]

During the Trump campaign of 2016 there was definitely a lot of manipulation with algorithms on YouTube, Facebook and internet as a whole. This was fully demonstrated by stuff like Cambridge analytica.

Also asking people what are their values and what should you do to make them change their minds is way too direct imo. But yes you have to find that out

 

[Logiko]

Uhhheee....

2 Quick questions: do you even know my political stance? Do you even know my personal values?

While you might have evolved on certain subjects, I feel like I have a little idea yeah:

1. You made fun or rant multiple times about people like me who "ridiculizes" leftism for people. I think I remember you telling me something similar one day.

> This means that from the get go, I can say two things :
A - You are not a radical leftist (because I'm really not some kind of alien, my stance are actually not spectacular and my behavior also)
B - You don't understand radical leftism (even if you might know the history of it)


2. You systematically ridiculized my attempts to stop transphobia on this section. Judging that there was no transphobia, that I was not understanding the word etc.

> This means that you are definitely not on the side of people who suffer from it, worse, you are against those who question the problem (and yes, there was, it was really not something subtil and I'm sure that if I talk about the subject again, it will come back). This alone could put you on the category of conservatist, but let's not jump the gun.

3. On a thread where I tried to warned you about someone making an apology of Nazi and scientific racism rethoric, you went I tried to explain to me that I needed to let the guy talk. Then went on to express that:

Racial differences are facts.

When:
A. It's wrong, there is no such thing as "races"
B. It comes from scientific Racism, which is the base of Nazi Rethoric and basically the historic base for racism.

> This along should put you BEYOND nameless on the political spectrum... but LET'S SAY that I'm tolerant and I'll not judge you on one.. or even two very problematic opinion:

4. You are delivering high end meritocratic rethoric, and refuses to understand or even accept the notion of respect for people in difficult situation such as obesity, as I explained here:

Here you proudly explaining how "woke" (I suppose) are telling people that they are perfect the way they are and that society needs to change to accommodate them instead of telling them that they have the power to "improve yourself and the sky is the limit"

The second pattern that you seems to want people to be told about (instead of woke sh*t I suppose) is that people can just improve themself and that the sky is the limit. This is the CORE IDEOLOGY of Liberalism which takes its roots in the philosophy of the enlightened and the old school Kantian belief that one can achieve greatness out of themself and their own mind thus completely forgetting the impact of the societal structure they are appart of. This is basic self development methodology.

This is the basis of the myth of Meritocracy!

This is why capitalism is so strong yet so oppressive and why meritocracy will never exist. Simply because this is NOT how reality work as explained in THIS VIDEO. (there are other contents about Meritocracy and sociology in the library)

> This straight up shows a pro-meritocratic vision (and yes, you are trying to deny it, but you have delivered this defense of meritocratic and pro self development all over the place) and therefore a very Liberal way to see the world. Which by defaut put you AT BEST in the center right.

5. You ridiculize people who want change, you refuse to aknowledge negativity, you gaslight and lie constantly or deform argumentation that you don't or refuse to understand.

> These are common techniques used by people like Nameless or Ravager. So let's say that this makes you closer to them than leftism or even rationnalism.

6. As shown here, not only you do not understand Patriarchy or feminism, but you even used the feminist arguments that I used and DEFORMED THEM to throw me under the bus to make me look like that I was making fun of suicidal men because they were men..

You openly mocked people committing suicide because "Who cares. They're men!

> For a random radical leftist that doesn't know you, this type of lie and rethoric deformation, but also the fact of saying that to someone who literally dealt with the condition,would put you INSTANTLY on the same side and same political group as people like Nameless who think that people like me are parazites.

But let's say that I can't judge you on one or two and or even THREE very problematic opinions or behavior.. So I will NOT put you on the same side as them because you have an actual knowledge of political history, and you make some interesting point sometimes.. But, since you clearly are not a radical leftist and have clearly anti-progressist and pro statu co views. ("the extrems are bad, the center is the rationnal way" etc..)

... for me, you are on the idealist side, somewhere between Macron and Bernie. Meaning AT BEST on the progressive side of liberals and at worse on the conservative side of liberals, with a touch of confusion of course. I would not call you a conservatives, but you clearly not a leftist.

The fact that we oppose and we clash so much is a simple reflection of the incompatibility within our philosophy.

Also asking people what are their values and what should you do to make them change their minds is way too direct imo

Careful, I'm not asking them what I should do to change their mind. What I'm asking is :"what would be needed for them to change their belief system ?"

Some people will say "an event in my life", "a relative that change their minds" or "a scientific study" etc. It can be a whole lot of things, It doesn't need to be me.

The importance here, is to know our own limits in our knowledge, the reason why believe something rather than something else and make the person question the basis for their own belief system.

"I trust science"
"Ok here is a sociological study"
"Sociology is not a science"
"Why do you think that ?"
"Because it's run by leftist"
"So you do not trust science then"

Etc.. This is a common discussion that I had here. Sadly.. this doesn't make people realize their contradiction. They have a premisse and contradict this premisse at the same time and yet... they say things like ....

>>

you provided nothing

A reply made after I shared this type of content:

And I'm the one who speak nonsense... lol

 

[Mathias]

@Logiko What would be needed for you to change your belief system ?

 

[Logiko]

@Logiko What would be needed for you to change your belief system ?

A bunch of good scientific and peer reviewed studies that goes against my opinion and good materialist counter arguments mainly.

A solid and rationnal argumentation helps too. I can change my opinion quite easily nowadays.

 

[Uncle Van]

Welp...there goes my post limit for a bit...

While you might have evolved on certain subjects, I feel like I have a little idea yeah:

My opinions on subjects never changed though. The closest thing is Isareal-Palestine which was something I knew nothing about.

1. You made fun or rant multiple times about people like me who "ridiculizes" leftism for people. I think I remember you telling me something similar one day.

You're once again using yourself to represent leftist as a whole. And just because I disagree with the methods of people who fancy themselves leftist, doesn't mean I'm against leftism itself. T

> This means that from the get go, I can say two things :
A - You are not a radical leftist (because I'm really not some kind of alien, my stance are actually not spectacular and my behavior also)
B - You don't understand radical leftism (even if you might know the history of it)

A. I'd be called a radical leftist by definition with the changes I support though.
B. I literally explained the history and necessity of radical leftism and you agreed with it if I remember correctly....

2. You systematically ridiculized my attempts to stop transphobia on this section. Judging that there was no transphobia, that I was not understanding the word etc.

> This means that you are definitely not on the side of people who suffer from it, worse, you are against those question the problem. This alone could put you on the category of conservatist, but let's not jump the gun.

I disagreed with your attempts to get Zenos7 punished or watched for simply using words correct by defintion. That does not mean I don't support trans people or their rights, and saying such outright contradicts my posts about them. This is such an extreme exaggeration and reaching on your end.

3. On a thread where I tried to warned you about someone making an apology of Nazi and scientific racism rethoric, you went I tried to explain to me that I needed to let the guy talk. Then went on to express that:

I'm a moderator. I wanted the guy the elaborate so I could decide the exact punishment. I never said he was okay or supported what he said so...

When:
A. It's wrong, there is no such thing as "races"
B. It comes from scientific Racism, which is the base of Nazi Rethoric and basically the historic base for racism.

> This along should put you BEYOND nameless on the political spectrum... but LET'S SAY that I'm tolerant and I'll not judge you on one.. or even two very problematic opinion:

You're deliberately attributing scientific facts with Nazism as a scare tactic. Race does exist. The human race for example. Climate differentiates the human race in many ways, one of them being those with lighter skin tones being more susceptible to skin cancer.

4. You are delivering high end meritocratic rethoric, and refuses to understand or even accept the notion of respect for people in difficult situation such as obesity, as I explained here:

You're assuming I don't understand or refuse to accept? You're once again exaggerating and trying to correlate your assumptions with what I said. We were talking about something very specific, which is the method of telling people they are perfect and everyone else the problem, appeals to narcissists. How does saying that correlates to me believing obese people deserve no respect, I do not know.

> This straight up shows a pro-meritocratic vision (and yes, you are trying to deny it, but you have delivered this defense of meritocratic and pro self development all over the place) and therefore a very Liberal way to see the world. Which by defaut put you AT BEST in the center right.

As mentioned before, you exaggerate and assume what I believe with specific circumstances, and try to correlate it to a broad spectrum.

5. You ridiculize people who want change, you refuse to aknowledge negativity, you gaslight and lie constantly or deform argumentation that you don't or refuse to understand.

Sounds like you're once again using yourself to represent everyone else. And I would always post links to prove whatever I said about you. With me, you heavily exaggerate.

6. As shown here, not only you do not understand Patriarchy or feminism, but you even used the feminist arguments that I used and DEFORMED THEM to throw me under the bus to make me look like that I was making fun of suicidal men because they were men..

Yeah no. I was specifically talking about you laughing off posts about men's struggles which included high rate of suicide. That doesn't correlate to not understanding patriarchy and feminism in the U.S.

But let's say that I can't judge you on one or two and or even THREE very problematic opinions or behavior.. So I will NOT put you on the same side as them because you have an actual knowledge of political history, and you make some interesting point sometimes.. But, since you clearly are not a radical leftist and have clearly anti-progressist and pro statu co views. ("the extrems are bad, the center is the rationnal way" etc..)

Never said nor implied that the center was the rational way. And extremes is not the same as being a radical. Once again, you assume and exaggerate what I think.

 

[Blax Blah]

So. Let's clarify the definitions easily (because this is new for me and I think this is why this subject is fled by people, I had to make some research before completely understanding what you were saying.)

Capitalism > Private ownership of the MOP (means of production) + Class + Meritocracy
State Capitalism > The state plays a big role in society but does not own everything + Class + Some private ownership of the MOP.
Socialism > Common ownership of the MOP ? + One State + No Class = Period of transition
Communism > Stateless and Classless society

So if I understand, there is this here someone that think Marx and Engels described state capitalism as Socialism, but as I explained, it's not the same. Ok that I think I get.

Now, my first question is: how do we get from a state with no common ownership of the MOP to a state with common ownership of the MOP?

> Dictature of the Proleteria ? But what does that means practically ? Revolution ? Blood ? And then the use of force ?

The second question is: why can't state Capitalism be a form of effective transition between current capitalism and Socialism (that will later transition toward communism) ? Let's say, if we manage to end up in a society were meritocracy is hegemonicallly questionned ?

My third question is: How does Anarchy differs in term of transition period ?


About Materialism. Here is how I define things:

Materialism: The belief that human are influenced by material conditions.
Idealism: The belief that human are influenced by thoughts an intent.
Physicalism : Everything is a physical manifestation >"I have free Will."
Metaphysical idealism : Everything is mental

I think when you are talking about materialism, you are in reality talking about Physicalism, which can be, if not accepted, kinda dark and full of despair.

Materialism is different, it's the understanding of the way the world work as a structured society. There is no way to create a better society if we keep thinking in an idealistic sence, since it can only make us reproduce the same errors again and again : Meritocracy / Liberalism etc.


It's crazy how I get from a high end intellectual conversation about a potential fairer society, and you are here.. promoting the rethoric of people how will continue to oppress others... thus negating facts, activists, datas, studies and overall Sciences..

You really are 100 years behind mate..



Wait wuat ?

Spoiler: Capitalism definition

"Capitalism is a widely adopted economic system in which there is private ownership of the means of production. Modern capitalist systems usually include a market-oriented economy, in which the production and pricing of goods, as well as the income of individuals, are dictated to a greater extent by market forces resulting from interactions between private businesses and individuals than by central planning undertaken by a government or local institution. Capitalism is built on the concepts of private property, profit motive, and market competition. "

"capitalism, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets. "

https://www.britannica.com/money/capitalism


"Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. At the same time, business owners employ workers who receive only wages; labor doesn't own the means of production but instead uses them on behalf of the owners of capital. "

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp


"the economic, political, and social system that is based on property, business, and industry being privately owned, and is directed towards making the greatest possible profits for private people and organizations: "

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/capitalism

I have linked four definitions above, and I will linke one or two more, although I disagree with what they say about socialism,

"
Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.


The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit. As Adam Smith, the 18th century philosopher and father of modern economics, said: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Both parties to a voluntary exchange transaction have their own interest in the outcome, but neither can obtain what he or she wants without addressing what the other wants. It is this rational self-interest that can lead to economic prosperity.

In a capitalist economy, capital assets—such as factories, mines, and railroads—can be privately owned and controlled, labor is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners, and prices allocate capital and labor between competing uses (see “Supply and Demand”).

Although some form of capitalism is the basis for nearly all economies today, for much of the past century it was but one of two major approaches to economic organization. In the other, socialism, the state owns the means of production, and state-owned enterprises seek to maximize social good rather than profits.

Pillars of capitalism

Capitalism is founded on the following pillars:

• private property, which allows people to own tangible assets such as land and houses and intangible assets such as stocks and bonds;

• self-interest, through which people act in pursuit of their own good, without regard for sociopolitical pressure. Nonetheless, these uncoordinated individuals end up benefiting society as if, in the words of Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations, they were guided by an invisible hand;

• competition, through firms’ freedom to enter and exit markets, maximizes social welfare, that is, the joint welfare of both producers and consumers;

• a market mechanism that determines prices in a decentralized manner through interactions between buyers and sellers—prices, in return, allocate resources, which naturally seek the highest reward, not only for goods and services but for wages as well;

• freedom to choose with respect to consumption, production, and investment—dissatisfied customers can buy different products, investors can pursue more lucrative ventures, workers can leave their jobs for better pay; and

• limited role of government, to protect the rights of private citizens and maintain an orderly environment that facilitates proper functioning of markets. "

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism

"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

May I note, the page that this last link leads to, also talks a bit about communism, and I would like to quote that here too,

Spoiler: State capitalism

"
State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e., for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor). The definition can also include the state dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized using business-management practices) or of public companies (such as publicly listed corporations) in which the state has controlling shares.[1]

A state-capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[2] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist.[3] Some scholars argue that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state-capitalist systems, and some western commentators believe that the current economies of China and Singapore also constitute a mixture of state-capitalism with private-capitalism.[4][5][6][7][8]

The label "state capitalism" is used by various authors in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state, i.e. a private economy that is subject to economic planning and interventionism. It has also been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers during World War I (1914–1918).[9] Alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment.[10] This was the case with Western European countries during the post-war consensus and with France during the period of dirigisme after World War II.[11] Other examples include Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew[12][13][14][15] and Turkey,[16] as well as military dictatorships during the Cold War and fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany.[17][18][19][20]

The phrase "state capitalism" has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with "state monopoly capitalism") to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term "state capitalism" to the economy of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed by "the powers that be" as "too big to fail" receive publicly-funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[21][22][23] This practice is contrasted with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[24]

There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which existed before the Russian October Revolution of 1917. The common themes among them identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that capitalist social relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism, fundamentally retaining the capitalist mode of production. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880), Friedrich Engels argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism.[25] In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Lenin claimed that World War I had transformed laissez-faire capitalism into monopolist state capitalism.[26] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

" : an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control "

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state capitalism

I think these two are the academic definition, but I would like to include some anarchist and marxist quotes about this if I may,

"By March of 1921, the civil war was over but the state capitalist configuration of the economy had not changed at all."

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary#toc7

This writing talks about why you can't use the state for socialism and about the experiences of the ussr and maoist china ^ ,


" Until the “higher” phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers. "

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3

I would like to mention that this last quote is Lenin's, so while here he does say what his view of socialism is, state capitalism, the rest may just be propaganda,

Spoiler: socialism definition

"Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.[6] Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative,[7][8][9] or employee.[10][11]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"
Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on collective, common, or public ownership of the means of production. Those means of production include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.


In contrast to capitalism, whereby business owners control the means of production and pay wages to workers to use those means, socialism envisions shared ownership and control among the laboring class."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

" any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Spoiler: communism definition

"Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production, such as mines and factories, are owned and controlled by the public. There is no government or private property or currency, and the wealth is divided among citizens equally or according to individual need. Many of communism’s tenets derive from the works of German revolutionary Karl Marx, who (with Friedrich Engels) wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848). However, over the years others have made contributions—or corruptions, depending on one’s perspective—to Marxist thought. Perhaps the most influential changes were proposed by Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, who notably supported authoritarianism."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

"

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state, followed by the withering away of the state.[10] As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, communist parties and movements have been described as radical left or far-left.[11][12][note 1]

Variants of communism have been developed throughout history, including anarchist communism, Marxist schools of thought, and religious communism, among others. Communism encompasses a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, Leninism, and libertarian communism, as well as the political ideologies grouped around those. All of these different ideologies generally share the analysis that the current order of society stems from capitalism, its economic system, and mode of production, that in this system there are two major social classes, that the relationship between these two classes is exploitative, and that this situation can only ultimately be resolved through a social revolution.[20][note 2] The two classes are the proletariat, who make up the majority of the population within society and must sell their labor power to survive, and the bourgeoisie, a small minority that derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production.[22] According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power,[23] and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production.[24][25][26]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

"
Now, my first question is: how do we get from a state with no common ownership of the MOP to a state with common ownership of the MOP?

> Dictature of the Proleteria ? But what does that means practically ? Revolution ? Blood ? And then the use of force ? "


I don't know the orthodox marxist answer to this yet, the marxist leninist answer is that you empower the state and trust the party, why, that's another issue, and I'm not a marxist leninist,

And the anarcho-communist answer is that you build an alternative, prefiguring communism by building structures that do what you think should be done, and then that becomes an alternative that exists which people can turn to if they want to, and people turning to it may or may not be violent,

I don't know a lot, but I can think of one example where it wasn't, the zapatistas and the indigenous people, although those people were also opressed,

"The second question is: why can't state Capitalism be a form of effective transition between current capitalism and Socialism (that will later transition toward communism) ? Let's say, if we manage to end up in a society were meritocracy is hegemonicallly questionned ?"

I think the argument is that the means and the ends are the same thing, if you push a ball one way, all else being equal, the ball will move in that direction, so if you just reproduce and reinforce capitalism, you will only end up with capitalism, does that make sense?,

I think socialism and state capitalism, in the leninist, troskyist, maoist, and dengist view, are the same thing, but in the social anarchist and marxist view, socialism and communism are the same thing, I will link Zoe Baker's writing and video, that argues that, on this too if someone has not seen them before in the previous messages


https://anarchozoe.com/2018/05/03/maoist-rebel-news-does-not-understand-marx/

"My third question is: How does Anarchy differs in term of transition period ?"

I think that social anarchists differ in the sense that they use prefiguration, for example, the bolsheviks took over anarchist organization, the soviets, which were worked-managed organizations without bosses,

,

When it comes to materialism, I am reffering to the belief that only physical things exist and that there are no spirits, I believe that physical things do have an effect on us, but I do believe that spirits exist, there are different meanings to materialism, so by some definitions I may be a materialist, and by others, I am not one, but I think that a philosophy or belief in which only physical things exist is a death-oriented philosophy,

 

[Logiko]

My opinions on subjects never changed though. The closest thing is Isareal-Palestine which was something I knew nothing about.

If you tell me that you don't agree anymore with what I mention. I'm completely ready to change my opinion as well.

You're once again using yourself to represent leftist as a whole. And just because I disagree with the methods of people who fancy themselves leftist, doesn't mean I'm against leftism itself.

I'm not a representation of leftist, I simply know the range of the leftists ideologies.

> This range is conditionned by deep philosophical conflicts and the action in front of the status co and capitalism today.

If you think that people can just call themselves leftists and depict liberal or conservatives point of view on things, there is a problem because it completely confuses the political spectrum. There are reasons why we call leftists "leftists" and there are reasons why we call rightists "rightists".

And I consider that I know quite a few thing about that since I literally travelled the political spectrum from right to left myself.

A. I'd be called a radical leftist by definition with the changes I support though.

Ok. I'm willing to believe you. Are you ok to talk about that ? What change would you like to see ?

. I literally explained the history and necessity of radical leftism and you agreed with it if I remember correctly....

Yes. And yes, you are making mission to ridiculize every step I take to try to make a change based on the radical left spectrum. How do you explain that ?

Listen. Maybe you really think you are a radical like me and I'm willing to accept it as well, but for some reason you are adopting the rethoric that is literally opposed to radical leftism:

- From explaining that we must listen to everyone and not reject hurtfull ideology even through disrespect if necessary
- To denying CLEAR problems of problematic behaviors. (you are not the only one btw)
- To systematically using lies and the deformation of the rethoric that I use to make me look like a fool, cf examples above.
- To ridiculize my argumentation systematically when I try to make BASIC radical and materialist leftist points (and trust me, I know, despite what I just told you before, that I'm explaining things very clearly here)
- To rant because Iabel people
- To not understanding why similar opinions on the world will also correlate with similar political place on the political spectrum and political groups.
Etc..

A radical leftist do not criticize other for doing so, they are usually doing the SAME things. So either, you are not surrounded in your environement by other radicals (and you can't see this) or there is a problem. Either you are lying to me or you are lying to yourself.

OR (and this is possible)

You didn't really thought about it, and you have contradictory beliefs. This is highly possible since I've seen you - as you said - say things that were really ok and others not so much.

I disagreed with your attempts to get Zenos7 punished

It's not just Zenos, it's the entire panel. I won't have this debate back. I've already explained in detail and CLEARLY why transphobia on this forum was not properly moderated. And I include what Zenos do say sometimes as well.

Second example : The refusal to moderate transphobic post and the delegitimization of the critics against transphobic post

Again, here are the rules of the forum on transphobia (funny, it's not mentionned, but I will consider that it's included in "discriminatory comments"):

"Discrimination: Sexism, Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia aren't permitted. Berating users specifically or making vague discriminatory comments to bait a reaction out of users will likewise not be tolerated, any off-topic discriminatory remarks will be dealt with accordingly.


Before going further : What is transidentity and what is transphobia ? :

For you to understand that, I will post a set of ressources from the LEFTIST LIBRARY and OTHERS:

1. Transidentity

- [VIDEO] - Identity : A Trans coming out story - How it would feel like to be Transgender ? - Philosophy Tube - IMPORTANT
> This video is magic and amazing. It's the most important video you can watch to understand what transidentity is. It literally a transition in real time and it's really touching. Really ! I recommend it !

HERE : Is a video to explain briefly what transgenderism or transidentity is
HERE : Is a video to explain transidentidy from a scientific point of view
HERE : Is a video with researches sources to explain why Transidentity is not a mental illness.

2. Transphobia

To really understand what is transphobia: Those two sources are the most important:

What is Transphobia : From the site TransActual (a trans activist site)
What is Transphobia : From the site Planned Parenthood (The institutions that helps LGBTQI+ people and young women in distress)

For our problem here, the important part to understand is this one (Quote from the second source):

"Transmisia/transphobia takes many forms. In general, transmisia/transphobia is any attitude, belief, behavior, or policy that:

• Stigmatizes or harms trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people;
• Denies the validity of their identities;
• Sees them as less human; and/or
• Treats them as less worthy of care and respect."

HERE : Is a "Some More News" Video debunking a lot of transphobic myth and bigoted history

And a few ressources on transphobia :

- [VIDEO] - What is transphobia ? - Philosophy Tube
- [STUDY] - Transphobia's impact on Trans men
- [STUDY] - Transphobia's impact on Trans women

Now..

- Context : Before coming to this forum, I was not a big trans defender, of course I was pro LGBTQI+ but not really actively... then I noticed Yamato fans being weird, and transphobic to the point of trashing up Yamato's personnality AND genderfluidity (yes, Yamato is not just a man or a woman, but most likely both depending on situations).. Weird.. but then I noticed here and there on the forum, an important number of transphobic rethoric.. and those were not moderated. In good faith, knowing that transidentity is not something easy to understand, I made a big post in the political thread to explain what transidentity was, testimonies from trans people, various explanations etc. After that I demonstrated why it could be harmfull for Trans to buy Hogward Legacy and therefore finance JKR a transphobic radical feminist. I clearly stated that it was okay to buy the game but I wanted people to know the possible consequences...

You can go back to this post if you type "#ThePostThatStartedTheWar" in the research bar. After facing a big shielding from reactionnaries.. I then talked about the right that Trans should have to uses women's bathroom..

Oh my.. the error..

After this thread and this remark, I faced multiple days of transphobia, first light, then extrem from multiple people. So of course, I didn't let that pass and I countered.. a LOT. No insults, simple labels and big explanations. One guy refused to back off and I continued countering his dangerous rethoric for hours (yes, dangerous because even words can hurt, you never know who can be reading what you say and how it can affect them) .. and the threadban came.. Not just for him, but for me too. I gave you the reason at the beginning.

This is the moment when I felt that there was a problem.

After that, the political thread was launched and various subject appeared. And sometimes.. transphobic arguments. Each time I had to face them because said argument were not moderated. Transphobic posts of this "battle" are still visible to this day.

In fact even a moderator - under the excuse of rationnality - tried to explain what transgenderism is but clearly did not understand anything about it and made false claims while explaining that yes, trans people are victims of hate crimes but... they are some are still demanding too much (note : having equal rights) and should stay at their place. (I will not quote it, but if the staff wants to have it, I will show it to you) (not in those words exactly)


- Moderation : I started to see a strange paterns. So not only transphobic posts were not moderated, but I noticed that I was being laughed at and mocked by the moderation for reporting people for transphobia. For them, what I was reporting was not transphobic.

For them, someone saying "trans people are mentally ill" OR "trans women are not women" are not transphobic rethoric and therefore should not be moderated. It's just "another vision of the world".

So, let me repeat what Transphobia is as described by Transpeople who face it and activists or helpers who fight violences against trans people and those who attempt suicide daily":

"Transmisia/transphobia takes many forms. In general, transmisia/transphobia is any attitude, belief, behavior, or policy that:

• Stigmatizes or harms trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people;
• Denies the validity of their identities;
• Sees them as less human; and/or
• Treats them as less worthy of care and respect."

In other words, Transphobia means not only being harmfull directly to transpeople or calling for violence against them, it can be also more basic stuff like denying their validity or their identity. So..

- When someones calls Trans people "mentally ill" : Not only are they showing psychophobia (other big subject here), but they are stigmatizing trans people
- When someones says that "Trans women are not women or are men" : They are DENYING the VALIDITY of their identities.

In both case, it's Transphobia and it's potentially harmfull for any trans people that could pass by.

You don't agree ? I don't care. We are not talking about agreeing here, but respecting the human rights and dignity of other people. Where I live, such post could be liable to a fine in front of the Police !

Transphobia is not okay and it hurt some peoples. So, behave ! If that's too radical for you, the problem is not me.

THOSE TWO THINGS (racist rethoric and deny of transphobia) are two undeniable proof that at least a part of the moderation here is NOT educated on important subjects related to discriminations or hatefull rethorics and CAN'T therefore apply the rules correctly.. at the moment !

Also : You don't understand : I don't want anyone to get punished. In reality I'm against that. I simply want people to understand that this is not accepted and for the post to be removed. Nothing more. (and eventually, if they keep doing it, a little TO)

Again. If you REALLY think that you support Trans, look at what I described in this quote. What I said is not my invention, it's based on the work of activists who face transphobia everyday. Those people know what they are dealing with and when they say that saying "a trans woman is not a woman" is damaging for trans people, it's not a small estimation, it's a known fact.

If you still think I'm saying some BS on the matter, then, I'm sorry, but you are simply ignoring THEIR experiences. And you are not on their side.

So.. I'm willing to listen, but the effort but go both ways. have a talk with the staff, and consider what I said about transphobia here:

>>

A - Transphobia :

The moderation is far too tolerant on transphobia. In my thread on moderation linked before, I demonstrated how Transphobia was being accepted here. This should not happen on a forum with strict rules on discrimination. We can't know what is the state of people who read hate against their identity online, words can hurt and kill.

To fix that, I think there are a few things to do:

- Moderators must all be aware of the ENTIRE spectra of transphobia. For that, I have listed sources in the linked thread about Moderation.
- The rules must be clarified and transphobia must be added, as today, this is the part of LGBTQI+ people that is the most attacked with interesex people
- I recommend that you link sources about transidentity in the rule OR in another section of the forum (I suggest you add a few sources about diverses social subject as well : Racism, Anti-semitism, Islamophobia etc., if you want I have a LOT of ressources for you in the LEFTIST LIBRARY)
- As a bonus, I would highly suggest that you recruit people from the trans community who wants to help to reduce the problem as a moderator

And I'm not advocating for bans here. You define your own limits. If it was me, I would simply remove the transphobic content and eventually threadban after a few clear warnings. Nothing more. Again, I have the feeling that you think I want to censor people or punish them, but it's not my goal anymore. I think it's possible to make change without banning everyone.

I'm a moderator. I wanted the guy the elaborate so I could decide the exact punishment. I never said he was okay or supported what he said so...

Come on.. The guy says this:
>>

While I have no doubt this is true, have you looked into the subject of race realism?

and

Nazism might have been correct on some grounds, like ethnic responsibility to one's nation isn't AS replicated when a foreign element is in one's nation (i.e. Jewish people in this context) but that doesn't mean you kill them or harm them.

I see instantly the problem (race realism is scientific racism > ergo racism), so I'm calling you to stop and warn the guy from going too far:
>>

@Uncle Van I sence something dark here.

"Race realism" is a fascist and racist concept that consider that races are a reality and that some races are biologically superior to others because of what they think science says.

Instead you turn against me. You say that "Racial differences are facts" and you tell him yourself that I called you to get him banned, when all I wanted is for you to remove the content and warn the guy not to go too far, which he did. And you are telling me that you continued to debate about race with the guys so you could see if there was a problem ?

Come on... Why can't you just admit that it was not the best reaction ? I'm not an a*shole, I can understand that.

You're deliberately attributing scientific facts with Nazism as a scare tactic. Race does exist. The human race for example. Climate differentiates the human race in many ways, one of them being those with lighter skin tones being more susceptible to skin cancer.

1. Race realism > Scientific Racism > One of the basis of Nazism.
2. It's the human SPECIE not "race". There are no races in humans.
3. The guy was talking about "race realism" which is the belief in scientific racism that distinguish humans that are superior that others. So please. Just stop.

It was not ok to let him go on. It was not ok to debate about that. It was not ok period. You can't have a rule about the refusal to accept Nazi ideology on the forum and debate about a the good and bad point of and ideology used by Nazis.

Let's just agree not to reproduce that.

You're assuming I don't understand or refuse to accept?

Your words speak for you. If you understood the problem, you would never have said that. Simple as that.

We were talking about something very specific, which is the method of telling people they are perfect and everyone else the problem, appeals to narcissists. How does saying that correlates to me believing obese people deserve no respect, I do not know.

Because that method that you are criticizing IS EXACTLY what we do when we understand the problematic that face people in obesity or people with disabilities. Anyone who understand this problematic understands ALSO the importance of positive affirmation.

Accepting people as they are, meaning sometimes telling them that they are perfect as they are, means that you do not attach the notion of perfection on something that the person can't control, but on her personnality and behavior ! Someone who understands the struggle of people in difficulty ALSO understands the importance of NEVER reducing a person to their situation when talking to them !

If a person needs you to tell them that they have too much weight, they will ASK you. If a person needs you to ask them what to do with their lives, they will ASK you !! It's not your place or anyone elses place to tell someone that they are disabled or too fat. THEY ALREADY KNOW.

From experience (really, just this week I had an argument with a relative who tried to explain to me how to deal with my mental illness) I can assure you that there is nothing better than positive affirmation (or even no affirmation at all) to HELP a person get over a situation.

Simply accept the person as they are. ("perfect" as they are). Adding a judgment or an advice on the lives of people who already stuggle against themselves only adds more pressure on them.

So the ONLY thing that you can do, is be there for them.

As mentioned before, you exaggerate and assume what I believe with specific circumstances, and try to correlate it to a broad spectrum.

No. The notion of pushing self development on people with difficulty is a CORE value of meritocracy. I do not assume, I once again only analyze what you are saying.

Again, i'm open to change my mind if you come back on that.

Meritocracy, just like patriarchy is a system that oppresses us all and that we legitimizes ourselves. This is like a system on auto-feed. This type of sentences are typical of people who have meritocracy still very deeply rooted in their ideology (once again, I talk from experience, I have to face this with some of my relatives regularily).

You can't be a radical leftist and still keep that type of ideology, it's just not compatible. And on the political spectrum, the political family that arbors the most those traits are liberals and conservatives.

So you tell me..

Sounds like you're once again using yourself to represent everyone else. And I would always post links to prove whatever I said about you. With me, you heavily exaggerate.

Well. I guess there is not a lot of people who want change here. So it's fair.

Let's say that you do that to me specifically.. Which is not really better. Aside from arrogance my arguments are concretes.

With me, you heavily exaggerate.

Mate.. you are constantly deforming and lying about things I say. I ALWAYS have to quote everything back, either because you distord the context, or one word or convenientely forget one sentence, which is enough to completely ruin my argument and make me look like a fool.

I told you, when I speak, i'm always very careful about the words I use to avoid this kind of situation, so when you deform something, I know it instantly.

So stop that. And respect will come back.

Yeah no. I was specifically talking about you laughing off posts about men's struggles which included high rate of suicide.

What you don't remember is that I never laughed at those facts. I laughed at the argumentation of Bob saying that women had a better time than men who were really struggling in front of feminism. This argumentation was indeed laughable.

On the other hand I went his way each time he developped the struggle of men even going as far as telling him MULTIPLE TIMES that he did understand one basic aspect of Patriarchy (the struggle of men) but refused to accept that it was part of a larger system (patriarchy) and that therefore women had it MUCH harder.

And you took that, and distorded it to make me laugh at men struggling.. while completely odisregarding the fact that >> I AM a man that is struggling and who faced personnaly the problem of suicide.

So I'm willing to believe that you don't remember or maybe don't really understand what I say sometimes.. but please, be careful mate. Saying that I'm making fun of men who struggle and deal with suicide when it's exactly my situation is just nonsense.. don't your think ?

And for the last part, yes, when you consider that "we should not play hot potatoes to see who really struggles"... I'm sorry but this is the denial of a clear feminist constatation and the struggle against patriarchy. It's a necessity to understand that women have a much harder time than men under patriarchy.

Never said nor implied that the center was the rational way

Ok.. You know what ? Maybe it's my memory playing tricks. I don't want to take a half hour to find that quote back. So I will come back on that.

And the anarcho-communist answer is that you build an alternative, prefiguring communism by building structures that do what you think should be done, and then that becomes an alternative that exists which people can turn to if they want to, and people turning to it may or may not be violent,

I like this way better.

I don't think a revolution is really needed. But this might be my ignorance talking.

I think the argument is that the means and the ends are the same thing, if you push a ball one way, all else being equal, the ball will move in that direction, so if you just reproduce and reinforce capitalism, you will only end up with capitalism, does that make sense?

I get that, but it's an affirmation that stands on the hypothesis that capitalism can only reproduce capitalism..

But what happens when we remove Meritocracy from the equation ?

Maybe it's my ignorance once again talking, but did Marx ever talked about Meritocracy as a system ? Because... let's take the materialist approach. The materialist approach will say that Meritocracy is created by Capitalism as a way to justify itself... but Meritocracy is - after all - just a belief system. What happens if we manage to convince everyone that Meritocracy is BS ?

Materialist would tell me "But the bourgoisie will by essence refuse to question Meritocracy".. maybe yes.. But let's say that this ideology becomes hegemonic:
- In the working classes
- In the middle class
- The the small bourgeoisies
And let's say that it becomes "HYPE" to stop believing in that dumb system (because after all, Sciences explains us that it's BS)..

Well.. isn't there a chance here to create a socialist transition THROUGH capitalism ? By literally transforming capitalism INTO a socialist system gradually ?

I want to believe in that.. but this might be my idealistic side talking here.

When it comes to materialism, I am reffering to the belief that only physical things exist and that there are no spirits, I believe that physical things do have an effect on us, but I do believe that spirits exist

I see. I think it's indeed not incompatible with materialism. What you are talking about here is you not being physicalist.

You are a materialist but still have spiritual beliefs.

I - on the other hand - am completely physicalist and materialist. I do not believe in anything spiritual in the physical sence (Although I can be spiritual in the ideological sence). For me, anything spiritual would be by defaut part of the material reality of the world, simply a reality that we would not yet understand. (I do not even believe in Free Will)