Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj 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
More specifically, and controversially, it was Critical Theory Academics who invented what we now see as the Sexuality spectrum
Psychologists previously treated it like a Disorder of the mind that's fluid and was being studied as such untill pressure from Academics in the 70s forced them to adopt the critical theory definition
But to this day you still have people, mostly women, who talk about how their sexualities shifted heavily based on mental state and age, or the "prison gay" phenomena
Psychologists previously treated it like a Disorder of the mind that's fluid and was being studied as such untill pressure from Academics in the 70s forced them to adopt the critical theory definition
But to this day you still have people, mostly women, who talk about how their sexualities shifted heavily based on mental state and age, or the "prison gay" phenomena
People prefer it as it is now, people can't even handle bisexuality (even for women) and prefer just binary normal and Gay definition , neither conservatives nor Critical theory types will be comfortable with scientifically accurate assessments on sexualities
It's like the maturity of the brain stuff, where people don't want to raise the age of consent to 25 , they just prefer the safeness of 18 being "adult", people are legit crying that kids aren't having kids at 22 or something , imagine telling people they will be responsible for any child they have untill 25, no amount of "research " can convince the average layman on that
The cattle cannot handle lack of certainty
It's like the maturity of the brain stuff, where people don't want to raise the age of consent to 25 , they just prefer the safeness of 18 being "adult", people are legit crying that kids aren't having kids at 22 or something , imagine telling people they will be responsible for any child they have untill 25, no amount of "research " can convince the average layman on that
The cattle cannot handle lack of certainty
There are multiple reason for that. First, context:
As leftists we consider that there are a few INDEPENDANT systems of dominations that create structural oppressions of humans on the globality of the planet:
- Adultism
- White supremacy (racism)
- Capitalism (and Imperialism)
- Sanism and ableism
- Patriarchy
And as materialist and intersectionnals, we consider that ALL these forms of dominations are linked together and influences each others. Racism plays with capitalism, capitalism plays with patriarchy, patriarchy plays with racism etc. So to be anti-imperialist is to try to understand how each dominations play a role within the framework of imperialism.
Now.. This allows us to understand the specificities of imperialist oppression regarding LGBTQI+ rights but also how imperialism uses LGBTQI+ struggles in order to impose its power. In the west, for example, LGBTQI+ are used by the imperialist power to project the idea that the acceptation of LGBTQI+ right is a form of progress. It is used as a tool of soft power and an excuze to attack countries who are not deemed to respect LGBTQI+.
Problem: imperialist country are usually not respecting LGBTQI+ themselves as we can see now with the case of UK or even France or the US and even if it was the case, using these people as a reason to push progress is a false flag to invizibilize the imperialist interest with each ones of these attacks.
For example, the US used the right of women and minorities to justify the attacks on Iran. In Israel, people are using LGBTQI+ to justify the attack on palestinian and push the idea that somehow Israel is "more progressive" because of the prides (even tho, we know its not the case).
Another reason is that LGBTQI+ right and lifes are often among the first victims of imperialist attacks or politics. In Sudan for example, LGBTQI+ are directly threatenned by the genocide which is fueled by imperialists. Imperialist country will also support leaders who will DIRECTLY target lgbtqI+..
So our job as anti imperialist and intersectionnal leftists is to understand all these specificities and fight them at the source (out imperialist metropoles).
Not respecting his belief would mean to try to explain that he is wrong to believe what he believes in. This is not what I'm doing. I feel like you are trying to create antagonization here for no reason.
Perhaps, I hope my last explanation was better.
Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. I'm not simply talking about "feeling", I'm also talking about the knowledge of a certain position within a domination system.
Materialist believe that people who followed Nazism didn't follow it on a "feeling of hate", they followed it based on their interest within the domination system of fascism. They knew that creating fascism would meanthe fall of those who they considered as "not worthy" and they thought that they wouldn't be targeted.
Sadly, fascism is a domination system that is self-cannibalizing. It will eat up all people along the food chain. Once marginalized are gone, fascism will need a new way to justify its own existence, thus creating a new form of marginalization toward more and more oppression, until there is no one left.
I'm sorry but people have been gay all over the world all over history and prehistory....
As leftists we consider that there are a few INDEPENDANT systems of dominations that create structural oppressions of humans on the globality of the planet:
- Adultism
- White supremacy (racism)
- Capitalism (and Imperialism)
- Sanism and ableism
- Patriarchy
And as materialist and intersectionnals, we consider that ALL these forms of dominations are linked together and influences each others. Racism plays with capitalism, capitalism plays with patriarchy, patriarchy plays with racism etc. So to be anti-imperialist is to try to understand how each dominations play a role within the framework of imperialism.
Now.. This allows us to understand the specificities of imperialist oppression regarding LGBTQI+ rights but also how imperialism uses LGBTQI+ struggles in order to impose its power. In the west, for example, LGBTQI+ are used by the imperialist power to project the idea that the acceptation of LGBTQI+ right is a form of progress. It is used as a tool of soft power and an excuze to attack countries who are not deemed to respect LGBTQI+.
Problem: imperialist country are usually not respecting LGBTQI+ themselves as we can see now with the case of UK or even France or the US and even if it was the case, using these people as a reason to push progress is a false flag to invizibilize the imperialist interest with each ones of these attacks.
For example, the US used the right of women and minorities to justify the attacks on Iran. In Israel, people are using LGBTQI+ to justify the attack on palestinian and push the idea that somehow Israel is "more progressive" because of the prides (even tho, we know its not the case).
Another reason is that LGBTQI+ right and lifes are often among the first victims of imperialist attacks or politics. In Sudan for example, LGBTQI+ are directly threatenned by the genocide which is fueled by imperialists. Imperialist country will also support leaders who will DIRECTLY target lgbtqI+..
So our job as anti imperialist and intersectionnal leftists is to understand all these specificities and fight them at the source (out imperialist metropoles).
Not respecting his belief would mean to try to explain that he is wrong to believe what he believes in. This is not what I'm doing. I feel like you are trying to create antagonization here for no reason.
Perhaps, I hope my last explanation was better.
Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. I'm not simply talking about "feeling", I'm also talking about the knowledge of a certain position within a domination system.
Materialist believe that people who followed Nazism didn't follow it on a "feeling of hate", they followed it based on their interest within the domination system of fascism. They knew that creating fascism would meanthe fall of those who they considered as "not worthy" and they thought that they wouldn't be targeted.
Sadly, fascism is a domination system that is self-cannibalizing. It will eat up all people along the food chain. Once marginalized are gone, fascism will need a new way to justify its own existence, thus creating a new form of marginalization toward more and more oppression, until there is no one left.
I'm sorry but people have been gay all over the world all over history and prehistory....
Last edited:
Dead wrong. This the Marxist definition. Not all socialist ideologies preach for collective ownership of the means of production. Pre-Marx, we had Mutualism , Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, and Ricardian socialism. Post-Marx, there is Liberal Socialism, Ethical Socialism, Market Socialism, and Social Democracy. The essence of socialism is workers' rights and welfare state. The current academic consensus is biased towards Marxism. Hitler was correct after all. Marxists did prevail in stealing the term from all other socialist denominations and imposing his ideas onto the entire movement.
Ethnic and national-oriented socialism is not exclusive to Nazism. Labor Zionism, Arab Socialism (Ba'athism), and Austro-Marxism (National-Cultural Autonomy) are examples of left-wing/socialist ideologies that revolved around ethnic and national pride. It is incorrect that national and ethnic pride is exclusive to right-wing ideologies. Nazis called themselves German National Socialists.
Again, you are using the Marxist definition to designate something that is in fact an umbrella term (by your own words) and can mean multiple things.
The term "socialism" (and "socialist") first appeared in the English publication The Co-operative Magazine, linked to the followers of social reformer Robert Owen. Marx did not invent the term. Marxists just hijacked what the term means.
As I already explained, Nazism shares more similarities in its goal and public administration methods with left-wing ideologies than right-wing ones. The so-called right-wing traits like national/ethnic pride and private property were already addressed in a previous post, but I will repeat. Hitler was not pro-private property in the same manner a right-winger is. Private property was subordinated to State interests. National/ethnic pride can appear in socialist ideologies too. Where are the features that distinguish Nazism as an extreme right-wing ideology, I ask? After addressing the myths, it is clear it doesn't have a single right-wing trait in it.
lol This one is a big fat lie. Nazis preserved private ownership and business profits but subordinated private property entirely to the goals, control, and total dominance of the Nazi state. That is not right-wing at all. Btw, Joseph Stalin subordinated trade unions to the State and Communist Party, stripping them of their independence and the right to strike. So much for workers' rights. I guess he was a false commie. lol
@Blax Blah Fuck you, Ilogiko alt.
@Rej Why are you acting like a dick-hungry bitch if that isn't the case?
Ethnic and national-oriented socialism is not exclusive to Nazism. Labor Zionism, Arab Socialism (Ba'athism), and Austro-Marxism (National-Cultural Autonomy) are examples of left-wing/socialist ideologies that revolved around ethnic and national pride. It is incorrect that national and ethnic pride is exclusive to right-wing ideologies. Nazis called themselves German National Socialists.
Again, you are using the Marxist definition to designate something that is in fact an umbrella term (by your own words) and can mean multiple things.
The term "socialism" (and "socialist") first appeared in the English publication The Co-operative Magazine, linked to the followers of social reformer Robert Owen. Marx did not invent the term. Marxists just hijacked what the term means.
As I already explained, Nazism shares more similarities in its goal and public administration methods with left-wing ideologies than right-wing ones. The so-called right-wing traits like national/ethnic pride and private property were already addressed in a previous post, but I will repeat. Hitler was not pro-private property in the same manner a right-winger is. Private property was subordinated to State interests. National/ethnic pride can appear in socialist ideologies too. Where are the features that distinguish Nazism as an extreme right-wing ideology, I ask? After addressing the myths, it is clear it doesn't have a single right-wing trait in it.
lol This one is a big fat lie. Nazis preserved private ownership and business profits but subordinated private property entirely to the goals, control, and total dominance of the Nazi state. That is not right-wing at all. Btw, Joseph Stalin subordinated trade unions to the State and Communist Party, stripping them of their independence and the right to strike. So much for workers' rights. I guess he was a false commie. lol
@Blax Blah Fuck you, Ilogiko alt.
@Rej Why are you acting like a dick-hungry bitch if that isn't the case?
Last edited:
A quote that allows you to claim absolute assurance, but to claim absolute assurance without embodying holiness runs contrary to the biblical warnings against apostasy. 
Regardless, can you explain to me how you reconcile your view of Logiko not being evil with your faith? Man wishes to dethrone god.
Regardless, can you explain to me how you reconcile your view of Logiko not being evil with your faith? Man wishes to dethrone god.
So you can have assurance of salvation
But I believe Logiko's evil, I believe I'm evil, in the sense of being a sinner
@Uncle Van Don't bother replying. We are not convincing each other here. You will retort with "Academic consensus says it's right-wing," and I will reply with evidence that confronts this academic notion; this loop will keep going infinitely. It's a waste of time, really. I'm going to unwatch this thread. Good luck to whoever wants to keep entertaining Ilogiko's narcissim and Blax's low IQ.
My advice to you is Logiko's old favourite: OPEN YOUR MIND. READ MORE.
But seriously, what a cop out. You feel like a disingenuous actor. The only thing I can say is despite your intent, I am grateful you sent me verses when my friend died. Whether you truly meant it? Only god can know.
If you cannot understand the logical inconsistency, then you do not deserve your name.
See you again sometime, space cowboy.
What are the scientific accurate assessments?
But seriously, what a cop out. You feel like a disingenuous actor. The only thing I can say is despite your intent, I am grateful you sent me verses when my friend died. Whether you truly meant it? Only god can know.
If you cannot understand the logical inconsistency, then you do not deserve your name.
See you again sometime, space cowboy.
What are the scientific accurate assessments?
My advice to you is Logiko's old favourite: OPEN YOUR MIND. READ MORE.
But seriously, what a cop out. You feel like a disingenuous actor. The only thing I can say is despite your intent, I am grateful you sent me verses when my friend died. Whether you truly meant it? Only god can know.
If you cannot understand the logical inconsistency, then you do not deserve your name.
See you again sometime, space cowboy.
What are the scientific accurate assessments?
But seriously, what a cop out. You feel like a disingenuous actor. The only thing I can say is despite your intent, I am grateful you sent me verses when my friend died. Whether you truly meant it? Only god can know.
If you cannot understand the logical inconsistency, then you do not deserve your name.
See you again sometime, space cowboy.
What are the scientific accurate assessments?
How provocative.
You have shown your faith is subservient to your political views. If you had never acted so pious, I'd have understood. But you speak like a zealot, yet cannot even address the inconsistency I informed you of.
How can you call someone an evil version of Logiko when Logiko abhors your god and wants him dethroned? It does not make sense.
I know @NAMELESS can be crazy sometimes, but he's right. You do seem to be an alt. It would explain why on many occasions you've jumped in and let us all know Logiko "saved your life" whenever people are ragging on him. Now Logiko gets defensive when an inconsistency is brought up. It's either you guys share a group chat and coordinate, or you're the same person. Weird.
You have shown your faith is subservient to your political views. If you had never acted so pious, I'd have understood. But you speak like a zealot, yet cannot even address the inconsistency I informed you of.
How can you call someone an evil version of Logiko when Logiko abhors your god and wants him dethroned? It does not make sense.
I know @NAMELESS can be crazy sometimes, but he's right. You do seem to be an alt. It would explain why on many occasions you've jumped in and let us all know Logiko "saved your life" whenever people are ragging on him. Now Logiko gets defensive when an inconsistency is brought up. It's either you guys share a group chat and coordinate, or you're the same person. Weird.
You're being out of line now, Logiko. You cannot offer soft threats. If something has bothered you that is not part of this conversation as you claimed above, then leave and come back later when you're in a better frame of mind.
As for my point, it remains. You two either coordinate, are the same person (alts), or his Christian ideals are subservient to his apparent deeply-held religious view to the point that he is willing to allow insults to his god. If it is the latter, then it's a shameful display.
As for my point, it remains. You two either coordinate, are the same person (alts), or his Christian ideals are subservient to his apparent deeply-held religious view to the point that he is willing to allow insults to his god. If it is the latter, then it's a shameful display.
I would kindly ask that you do not make accusations. I do not target people. I am asking him to explain his position. If he cannot, then that already speaks louder than words.
For all the accusations you have levied against people, nobody has ever ordered you to stop. I'm onto something, aren't I? He's either your alt or you collaborate responses, lol.
For all the accusations you have levied against people, nobody has ever ordered you to stop. I'm onto something, aren't I? He's either your alt or you collaborate responses, lol.