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
I'd say liberalism is kind of a big spectrum. I goes from people like Macron in France (a neoliberal, conservatist leaning on the verge of the far right) or Harris to what some would call leftist liberals and soc-dem in the center-left sometimes like Sanders / even radical left
To me, any "progressive" person who doesn't really adopts at least some form of historical materialist thinking will fall in the liberal category. Not really in the economical sense, but the philosophical one rather. As idealism will drive this mindset.
This is why we have many points of contention.
Then you should be understanding why the palestinian resistance is resisting.
It's a colonization, it's also an appartheid.
Those two things are factual data.
To me, any "progressive" person who doesn't really adopts at least some form of historical materialist thinking will fall in the liberal category. Not really in the economical sense, but the philosophical one rather. As idealism will drive this mindset.
This is why we have many points of contention.
Then you should be understanding why the palestinian resistance is resisting.
It's a colonization, it's also an appartheid.
Those two things are factual data.
@Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier @Logiko
Check out this peak quote from "Are We Good Enough?"
"
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and
you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society
of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when
we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely
wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only
means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time,
is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and
ambition?
The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do
not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes
to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled
by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to
admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily
enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than
they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but
we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because
we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.
And old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called
Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat
of those who name themselves practical people.
Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery.
When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the
Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all,
and soon would become a charge upon the community. Thick whips could be prohibited, they said,
and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then
to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the
abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be
a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip. ‘
Nonsense, my friend,’ they were told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them
improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of
course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’
Well, for sometime the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual
emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the
bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition
period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The
Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed
– and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the
unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much
trouble now.
About the same time a like quarrel raged in Russia, and its cause was this. There were in Russia 20
million serfs. For generations past they had been under the rule, or rather the birch-rod, of their own-
ers. They were flogged for tilling their soil badly, flogged for want of cleanliness in their households,
flogged for imperfect weaving of their cloth, flogged for not sooner marrying their boys and girls –
flogged for everything. Slavishness, improvidence, were their reputed characteristics.
Now came the Utopists and asked nothing short of the following: Complete liberation of the serfs;
immediate abolition of any obligation of the serf towards the lord. More than that: immediate abolition
of the lord’s jurisdiction and his abandonment of all the affairs upon which he formerly judged, to
peasants’ tribunals elected by the peasants and judging, not in accordance with law which they do not
know, but with their unwritten customs. Such was the unpractical scheme of the unpractical camp. It
was treated as a mere folly by practical people.
But happily enough there was by that time in Russia a good deal of unpracticalness in the air, and
it was maintained by the unpracticalness of the peasants, who revolted with sticks against guns, and
refused to submit, notwithstanding the massacres, and thus enforced the unpractical state of mind to
such a degree as to permit the unpractical camp to force the Tsar to sign their scheme – still mutilated
to some extent. The most practical people hastened to flee away from Russia, that they might not have
their throats cut a few days after the promulgation of that unpractical scheme.
But everything went on quite smoothly, notwithstanding the many blunders still committed by
practical people. These slaves who were reputed improvident, selfish brutes, and so on, displayed
such good sense, such an organising capacity as to surpass the expectations of even the most unprac-
tical Utopists; and in three years after the Emancipation the general physiognomy of the villages had
completely changed. The slaves were becoming Men!
The Utopists won the battle. They proved that they were the really practical people, and that those
who pretended to be practical were imbeciles. And the only regret expressed now by all who know the
Russian peasantry is, that too many concessions were made to those practical imbeciles and narrow-
minded egotists: that the advice of the left wing of the unpractical camp was not followed in full.
We cannot give more examples. But we earnestly invite those who like to reason for themselves to
study the history of any of the great social changes which have occured in humanity from the rise
of the Communes to the Reform and to our modern times. They will see that history is nothing but
a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed, in which struggle the
practical camp always sides with the rulers and the oppressors, while the unpractical camp sides with
the oppressed; and they will see that the struggle always ends in a final defeat of the practical camp
after much bloodshed and suffering, due to what they call their ‘practical good sense’.
3
If by saying that we are unpractical our opponents mean that we foresee the march of events better
than the practical short-sighted cowards, then they are right. But if they mean that they, the practical
people, have a better foresight of events, then we send them to history and ask them to put themselves
in accordance with its teachings before making that presumptuous assertion.
"
Check out this peak quote from "Are We Good Enough?"
"
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and
you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society
of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when
we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely
wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only
means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time,
is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and
ambition?
The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do
not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes
to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled
by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to
admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily
enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than
they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but
we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because
we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.
And old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called
Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat
of those who name themselves practical people.
Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery.
When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the
Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all,
and soon would become a charge upon the community. Thick whips could be prohibited, they said,
and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then
to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the
abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be
a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip. ‘
Nonsense, my friend,’ they were told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them
improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of
course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’
Well, for sometime the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual
emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the
bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition
period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The
Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed
– and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the
unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much
trouble now.
About the same time a like quarrel raged in Russia, and its cause was this. There were in Russia 20
million serfs. For generations past they had been under the rule, or rather the birch-rod, of their own-
ers. They were flogged for tilling their soil badly, flogged for want of cleanliness in their households,
flogged for imperfect weaving of their cloth, flogged for not sooner marrying their boys and girls –
flogged for everything. Slavishness, improvidence, were their reputed characteristics.
Now came the Utopists and asked nothing short of the following: Complete liberation of the serfs;
immediate abolition of any obligation of the serf towards the lord. More than that: immediate abolition
of the lord’s jurisdiction and his abandonment of all the affairs upon which he formerly judged, to
peasants’ tribunals elected by the peasants and judging, not in accordance with law which they do not
know, but with their unwritten customs. Such was the unpractical scheme of the unpractical camp. It
was treated as a mere folly by practical people.
But happily enough there was by that time in Russia a good deal of unpracticalness in the air, and
it was maintained by the unpracticalness of the peasants, who revolted with sticks against guns, and
refused to submit, notwithstanding the massacres, and thus enforced the unpractical state of mind to
such a degree as to permit the unpractical camp to force the Tsar to sign their scheme – still mutilated
to some extent. The most practical people hastened to flee away from Russia, that they might not have
their throats cut a few days after the promulgation of that unpractical scheme.
But everything went on quite smoothly, notwithstanding the many blunders still committed by
practical people. These slaves who were reputed improvident, selfish brutes, and so on, displayed
such good sense, such an organising capacity as to surpass the expectations of even the most unprac-
tical Utopists; and in three years after the Emancipation the general physiognomy of the villages had
completely changed. The slaves were becoming Men!
The Utopists won the battle. They proved that they were the really practical people, and that those
who pretended to be practical were imbeciles. And the only regret expressed now by all who know the
Russian peasantry is, that too many concessions were made to those practical imbeciles and narrow-
minded egotists: that the advice of the left wing of the unpractical camp was not followed in full.
We cannot give more examples. But we earnestly invite those who like to reason for themselves to
study the history of any of the great social changes which have occured in humanity from the rise
of the Communes to the Reform and to our modern times. They will see that history is nothing but
a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed, in which struggle the
practical camp always sides with the rulers and the oppressors, while the unpractical camp sides with
the oppressed; and they will see that the struggle always ends in a final defeat of the practical camp
after much bloodshed and suffering, due to what they call their ‘practical good sense’.
3
If by saying that we are unpractical our opponents mean that we foresee the march of events better
than the practical short-sighted cowards, then they are right. But if they mean that they, the practical
people, have a better foresight of events, then we send them to history and ask them to put themselves
in accordance with its teachings before making that presumptuous assertion.
"
LIberalism in the philosophical sense, Rationnalism, Progressism, reformism, universalism, hints of reactionnarism, complete idealism, a form of blindness of the systemic forms of oppression, liberal feminism, a form of back and forth between keeping the status co and wanting things to progress, liberalism in the economical sense, meritocracy, a cult of self development, colorblindness, interindividual antiracism, antimaterialism, antiradicalism, and many more that do not come to mind right now....
Oh boi, too long, I will check this later lol
Oh boi, too long, I will check this later lol
I think it may be easier if I mention just three parts?
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and
you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society
of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when
we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely
wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only
means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time,
is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and
ambition?
The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do
not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes
to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled
by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to
admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily
enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than
they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but
we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because
we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.
And old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called
Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat
of those who name themselves practical people.
you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society
of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when
we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely
wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only
means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time,
is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and
ambition?
The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do
not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes
to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled
by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to
admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily
enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than
they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but
we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because
we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.
And old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called
Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat
of those who name themselves practical people.
Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery.
When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the
Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all,
and soon would become a charge upon the community.
Thick whips could be prohibited, they said,
and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then
to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the
abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be
a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip. ‘
Nonsense, my friend,’ they were told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them
improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of
course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’
Well, for sometime the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual
emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the
bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition
period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The
Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed
– and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the
unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much
trouble now.
When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the
Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all,
and soon would become a charge upon the community.
Thick whips could be prohibited, they said,
and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then
to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the
abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be
a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip. ‘
Nonsense, my friend,’ they were told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them
improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of
course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’
Well, for sometime the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual
emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the
bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition
period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The
Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed
– and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the
unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much
trouble now.
About the same time a like quarrel raged in Russia, and its cause was this. There were in Russia 20
million serfs. For generations past they had been under the rule, or rather the birch-rod, of their own-
ers. They were flogged for tilling their soil badly, flogged for want of cleanliness in their households,
flogged for imperfect weaving of their cloth, flogged for not sooner marrying their boys and girls –
flogged for everything. Slavishness, improvidence, were their reputed characteristics.
Now came the Utopists and asked nothing short of the following: Complete liberation of the serfs;
immediate abolition of any obligation of the serf towards the lord. More than that: immediate abolition
of the lord’s jurisdiction and his abandonment of all the affairs upon which he formerly judged, to
peasants’ tribunals elected by the peasants and judging, not in accordance with law which they do not
know, but with their unwritten customs. Such was the unpractical scheme of the unpractical camp. It
was treated as a mere folly by practical people.
But happily enough there was by that time in Russia a good deal of unpracticalness in the air, and
it was maintained by the unpracticalness of the peasants, who revolted with sticks against guns, and
refused to submit, notwithstanding the massacres, and thus enforced the unpractical state of mind to
such a degree as to permit the unpractical camp to force the Tsar to sign their scheme – still mutilated
to some extent. The most practical people hastened to flee away from Russia, that they might not have
their throats cut a few days after the promulgation of that unpractical scheme.
But everything went on quite smoothly, notwithstanding the many blunders still committed by
practical people. These slaves who were reputed improvident, selfish brutes, and so on, displayed
such good sense, such an organising capacity as to surpass the expectations of even the most unprac-
tical Utopists; and in three years after the Emancipation the general physiognomy of the villages had
completely changed. The slaves were becoming Men!
The Utopists won the battle. They proved that they were the really practical people, and that those
who pretended to be practical were imbeciles. And the only regret expressed now by all who know the
Russian peasantry is, that too many concessions were made to those practical imbeciles and narrow-
minded egotists: that the advice of the left wing of the unpractical camp was not followed in full.
We cannot give more examples. But we earnestly invite those who like to reason for themselves to
study the history of any of the great social changes which have occured in humanity from the rise
of the Communes to the Reform and to our modern times. They will see that history is nothing but
a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed, in which struggle the
practical camp always sides with the rulers and the oppressors, while the unpractical camp sides with
the oppressed; and they will see that the struggle always ends in a final defeat of the practical camp
after much bloodshed and suffering, due to what they call their ‘practical good sense’.
3
If by saying that we are unpractical our opponents mean that we foresee the march of events better
than the practical short-sighted cowards, then they are right. But if they mean that they, the practical
people, have a better foresight of events, then we send them to history and ask them to put themselves
in accordance with its teachings before making that presumptuous assertion.
million serfs. For generations past they had been under the rule, or rather the birch-rod, of their own-
ers. They were flogged for tilling their soil badly, flogged for want of cleanliness in their households,
flogged for imperfect weaving of their cloth, flogged for not sooner marrying their boys and girls –
flogged for everything. Slavishness, improvidence, were their reputed characteristics.
Now came the Utopists and asked nothing short of the following: Complete liberation of the serfs;
immediate abolition of any obligation of the serf towards the lord. More than that: immediate abolition
of the lord’s jurisdiction and his abandonment of all the affairs upon which he formerly judged, to
peasants’ tribunals elected by the peasants and judging, not in accordance with law which they do not
know, but with their unwritten customs. Such was the unpractical scheme of the unpractical camp. It
was treated as a mere folly by practical people.
But happily enough there was by that time in Russia a good deal of unpracticalness in the air, and
it was maintained by the unpracticalness of the peasants, who revolted with sticks against guns, and
refused to submit, notwithstanding the massacres, and thus enforced the unpractical state of mind to
such a degree as to permit the unpractical camp to force the Tsar to sign their scheme – still mutilated
to some extent. The most practical people hastened to flee away from Russia, that they might not have
their throats cut a few days after the promulgation of that unpractical scheme.
But everything went on quite smoothly, notwithstanding the many blunders still committed by
practical people. These slaves who were reputed improvident, selfish brutes, and so on, displayed
such good sense, such an organising capacity as to surpass the expectations of even the most unprac-
tical Utopists; and in three years after the Emancipation the general physiognomy of the villages had
completely changed. The slaves were becoming Men!
The Utopists won the battle. They proved that they were the really practical people, and that those
who pretended to be practical were imbeciles. And the only regret expressed now by all who know the
Russian peasantry is, that too many concessions were made to those practical imbeciles and narrow-
minded egotists: that the advice of the left wing of the unpractical camp was not followed in full.
We cannot give more examples. But we earnestly invite those who like to reason for themselves to
study the history of any of the great social changes which have occured in humanity from the rise
of the Communes to the Reform and to our modern times. They will see that history is nothing but
a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed, in which struggle the
practical camp always sides with the rulers and the oppressors, while the unpractical camp sides with
the oppressed; and they will see that the struggle always ends in a final defeat of the practical camp
after much bloodshed and suffering, due to what they call their ‘practical good sense’.
3
If by saying that we are unpractical our opponents mean that we foresee the march of events better
than the practical short-sighted cowards, then they are right. But if they mean that they, the practical
people, have a better foresight of events, then we send them to history and ask them to put themselves
in accordance with its teachings before making that presumptuous assertion.
Yeah, but my mind is full of dopamine when I have to write something, it's like a drug.. but when I have to read something longer than a paragraph, it goes away and my attention disappear.
That's why I can't focus on anything but instant gratifications and why I can't work at the moment.
The bigger my post, the more it means that I'm passionnate about it and want to share stuff. (but it's like.. two and a half subject, politics, storytelling and One Piece eventually)
That's why I can't focus on anything but instant gratifications and why I can't work at the moment.
The bigger my post, the more it means that I'm passionnate about it and want to share stuff. (but it's like.. two and a half subject, politics, storytelling and One Piece eventually)
Last edited:
Mostly through listening. It's easier than reading. More passive. I can read, but I often have to read everything a few times to understand it fully. Which is long and painfull when the information is not fun.
When I answer someone here, I check, recheck an recheck back multiple times to verify that I do not missinterpret what you are saying.
The most problems I have is when I watch a movie or a show.. a simple sentence create a connection that can send my mind into wonders and I often miss 2 to 3 minutes... very frustrating when going to the cinema. (but very helpfull for creative work)
When I answer someone here, I check, recheck an recheck back multiple times to verify that I do not missinterpret what you are saying.
The most problems I have is when I watch a movie or a show.. a simple sentence create a connection that can send my mind into wonders and I often miss 2 to 3 minutes... very frustrating when going to the cinema. (but very helpfull for creative work)
