Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
That's not a ' remark ' imho that's straight up insulting, imagine if you go to someone, tell them how good you think you're raising your kids etc etc, then you tell them that you voted for X and they tell you you should not only be ashamed of your vote but ALSO to be ashamed of facing your kids you're so proudly rising RIGHT AFTER the guy you voted for won the elections ( with solid margins ) against the current ruling government which means your opinions got massively validated since majority of the voting population voted like you did....
Also i live in italy and i know some people that when they talk about politics they basically do it in this pose :
( yes they're actually Fascist btw, like the real thing )
And even them don't think Trump is even remotely close to be an actual fascist, sure they like his DEI stuff shut down, the ' common sense revolution ' and the ' drill baby drill ' agends but they think so far it's light work....
Also i live in italy and i know some people that when they talk about politics they basically do it in this pose :
( yes they're actually Fascist btw, like the real thing )
And even them don't think Trump is even remotely close to be an actual fascist, sure they like his DEI stuff shut down, the ' common sense revolution ' and the ' drill baby drill ' agends but they think so far it's light work....
Seems like, you are the one with the fascist rhetoric though.
Only listening to source you deem worth listening out of your ass while not reading other sources from people who are indeed sociologist (but you've never read them or your side don't like them so they are not) and uses sociologist method to make their theories just like your God Bourdieu.
It's not me who isn't ready to listen, since I have listened to the people you talk about. I just don't think they are gods and that I should follow them as a religious group.
There is no fascist rhetoric in Todd's work or Clouscard's work.
There is more fascist, xenophobic and sexist rhetoric in Marx work that you didn't read but would praise just because some bullshiter on your side said so on a 10 minutes video on the video you were recommended to watch thanks to the algorithm that keeps feeding your one sided view as the ultimate truth.
So yeah, you're definitely not worth listening.
Only listening to source you deem worth listening out of your ass while not reading other sources from people who are indeed sociologist (but you've never read them or your side don't like them so they are not) and uses sociologist method to make their theories just like your God Bourdieu.
It's not me who isn't ready to listen, since I have listened to the people you talk about. I just don't think they are gods and that I should follow them as a religious group.
There is no fascist rhetoric in Todd's work or Clouscard's work.
There is more fascist, xenophobic and sexist rhetoric in Marx work that you didn't read but would praise just because some bullshiter on your side said so on a 10 minutes video on the video you were recommended to watch thanks to the algorithm that keeps feeding your one sided view as the ultimate truth.
So yeah, you're definitely not worth listening.
Again, (I really need to stop looking at those F. notifications), you are confusing listening and understanding.
As an example, you can read any story you want without ever coming close to understand them or WORST completely missunderstand them because of your own biases and reading grid. It's the same with any sources. It's good to listen, it's better to understand and it's even better to know.
This is why I don't try to act like I've seen all like you or van do. I know for a fact that I don't have a lot of culture, far from it even. But the things I know, I'm sure of them. Not because I constructed my "Own Opinion™" by searching the good in every sources like you did only trusting you own instinct and overpowered critical thinking...
But by listening to researchers and activists who are politically involved in the harsh reality of the world and therefore those who know and are confronted to the material reality of the world VS those who don't, in order to understand the material context of thinkers and therefore "trust" some while making sure to be critical of others.
This is a materialist approach.
What you do is the opposite. It's the idealistic idea that there is some truth in every rethorics, even in the most fascist ones. This is the mindset of liberals and people who are on the verge of falling into far rightism. This is the mindset of those who don't care about reality and only care about their own opinion on reality. This is the seed of the post-truth discourse and fascist rethorics.
That's why, I don't trust my reading skill in the case of science, but my sources. As I know, that I can't have all the tools to understand everything by myself. And in our case, all my sources are demonstrating how Clousard or even Todd have "reactionnary" positions. And Todd is not a sociologist, but an Historian.
As for you, the simple fact that you don't understand the concept of people risking their lives simply because they are existing, show me everything I need to know about your valuable opinion on sociology. Add the fact that you are valuing all your sources equally and it demonstrate how little you really understand politics.
Same as Van. You have a lot of confiture (in French dans le texte)...
But no flavor.
--------
On this note, + 1 ignore.
As an example, you can read any story you want without ever coming close to understand them or WORST completely missunderstand them because of your own biases and reading grid. It's the same with any sources. It's good to listen, it's better to understand and it's even better to know.
This is why I don't try to act like I've seen all like you or van do. I know for a fact that I don't have a lot of culture, far from it even. But the things I know, I'm sure of them. Not because I constructed my "Own Opinion™" by searching the good in every sources like you did only trusting you own instinct and overpowered critical thinking...
But by listening to researchers and activists who are politically involved in the harsh reality of the world and therefore those who know and are confronted to the material reality of the world VS those who don't, in order to understand the material context of thinkers and therefore "trust" some while making sure to be critical of others.
This is a materialist approach.
What you do is the opposite. It's the idealistic idea that there is some truth in every rethorics, even in the most fascist ones. This is the mindset of liberals and people who are on the verge of falling into far rightism. This is the mindset of those who don't care about reality and only care about their own opinion on reality. This is the seed of the post-truth discourse and fascist rethorics.
That's why, I don't trust my reading skill in the case of science, but my sources. As I know, that I can't have all the tools to understand everything by myself. And in our case, all my sources are demonstrating how Clousard or even Todd have "reactionnary" positions. And Todd is not a sociologist, but an Historian.
As for you, the simple fact that you don't understand the concept of people risking their lives simply because they are existing, show me everything I need to know about your valuable opinion on sociology. Add the fact that you are valuing all your sources equally and it demonstrate how little you really understand politics.
Same as Van. You have a lot of confiture (in French dans le texte)...
But no flavor.
--------
On this note, + 1 ignore.
Last edited:
Nobody is labelling you as a fascist sympathizer.
I'm telling you that your method is flawed, that it WILL push you toward reactionnary sides. Not that it's already the case. I can understand the difference between someone like you and Ravager, I'm not stupid.
When we say "reactionnary" when talking about leftists ideas, we usually talk about those who are confusionnists and are borrowing far right principle in order to make a point. Usually, those people will eventually end up on the right or even the far right.
I don't have to know your political view to understand it. That's what the majority of people don't get here. I can pinpoint it with precision with the way your interact with me and don't listen to what I say (proof is, you are twisting what I'm saying to you).
You don't understand that it's not you who is criticizing my approach, it's me who is criticizing yours. Read back what I said in the previous post. I'm not saying that you are a fascist enabler or sympathizer. I'm telling your that you risk to end up like one.
Try to understand why the concept of listening to everyone and trusting only yourself to make a judgement is very dangerous when we talk about politics, then you should understand why - depiste you having a bigger culture - I'm the one who is closer to understanding the material reality of the world.
I'm telling you that your method is flawed, that it WILL push you toward reactionnary sides. Not that it's already the case. I can understand the difference between someone like you and Ravager, I'm not stupid.
When we say "reactionnary" when talking about leftists ideas, we usually talk about those who are confusionnists and are borrowing far right principle in order to make a point. Usually, those people will eventually end up on the right or even the far right.
I don't have to know your political view to understand it. That's what the majority of people don't get here. I can pinpoint it with precision with the way your interact with me and don't listen to what I say (proof is, you are twisting what I'm saying to you).
You don't understand that it's not you who is criticizing my approach, it's me who is criticizing yours. Read back what I said in the previous post. I'm not saying that you are a fascist enabler or sympathizer. I'm telling your that you risk to end up like one.
Try to understand why the concept of listening to everyone and trusting only yourself to make a judgement is very dangerous when we talk about politics, then you should understand why - depiste you having a bigger culture - I'm the one who is closer to understanding the material reality of the world.
I had no idea it's still about Johnny Somali, I couldn't open that twitter post anyway. That guy is extremely dumb but let's not act like there aren't worse people in the world. Hating on some internet idiot who doesn't have real power is just the lowest hanging fruit for frustrated people to direct all their anger towards.
How does one react like this ->
to a post like this?->
Are we all reading the same posts here or??
You're making many of those.
How does one react like this ->
to a post like this?->
Are we all reading the same posts here or??
You're making many of those.
