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
Before the 2000, I would have agreed. But global warming is not just something we can ignore anymore. It will have repercussion beyond what people expected 100 years ago. The situation demands urgency now.
Global warming is sadly factual and will be accelerated by the rise of AI. The geopolitical situation, if that happens will be apocalyptic. The same way we knew about Trump, we can already predict the consequences of capitalism and the rise of fascism within this framework.
I understand but what are we supposed to do if we see something unethical being said ?
Dismissing sadly doesn't work. People keep saying f-up shit and they won't understand why. But you are right in the sense that we should adjust the shot in function of people.
No no don't worry, I'm speaking in the general sense as in as the globality of my political ennemies see me.
OK so I need to share something a little bit shamefull : My memory is shit
We might have discussed something about capitalism yesterday, I probably already forgot. Remembering on internet takes too much from me, I just can't. It's already hardcore for me to remember names (on the nakama thread, I remembered so little that I had conversations with 20 people at once while I was interacting like I was talking to 2 or 3.... which is why people started to hate my guts lmao)
This is why I reply sentences by sentence to avoid forgetting stuff
I generalize a lot because I can't remember the views of everyone. (this can create the sense that there are two many contradictors so I'm tring to be careful with that)
I think I remember.
Exactly
Well nevermind:
Sorry but this is really hypocritical so I'll be a little bit spicy :
With your thinking process we never change anything mate. Because indeed, there are always cases and exceptions.
But what you do not understand, (probably by Interest perhaps?) is that your case is a fallacious one. In reality, we are the one asking that kind of things. We are the ones who are suffering NOW (either because of the police, either because of medical institutions, either because of racism, there are hundreds of reasons)
And it is people like you, who decided that the horrors of this system were not bad enough for themselves to get angry, who think they know everything because they read marx 3 times to debunk it perfectly in front of the first dumb radical leftist they would find and because they have eaten all the history books on the planet... it is people like you that are staying IN OUR WAY to prevent us from changing stuff that actually would help people RIGHT NOW
So your thinking process: "but how about those who would be affected now", in the fear of the unknown that you never cared to understand more deeply that the theory books, is actually the fear of moving the status co and a way to defend the institutions that are actually harming and killing people right now.
Because the people who are suffering RIGHT NOW are the people who are asking for the end of capitalism RIGHT NOW.
This is why I've been angry with you since the moment I've stepped foot on that forum Van.
> You know stuff. GOOD.
> But you decided that the system was not bad enough.
> You decided to ignore the reality of the condition of existences of all the marginalized or perhaps decided that their suffering was also not bad enough
> And you decided to play the game of the system.
I was still a liberal at the time and I could already see right through your vision through your words because it leaks through your behavior here. You know, but you don't care enough.
And if you think you care, then it means that you don't know enough.
Because anyone who understands everything about the materiality of the reality of the marginalized and who actually would care deeply, would be unraged right now and, listening to the world of scholars would actually listen and call for an immediate revolution.
"but you are not taking into account that people can think differntly".
NO I DON'T CARE.
It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of survival. There have been THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS of Scholars and researchers but also activists and concerned people who worked on those subjects and ALL OF THEM are pointing toward one simple conclusion:
We must end capitalism right now, because people are suffering RIGHT NOW.
You fear communism? Fine, be an anarchist.
You don't trust anarchism? Fine, be a communist.
You are not sure? Fine, just learn about marxism and intersectionnality
We will deal with the details LATER. We first need to do the minimum to start the end of capitalism. THEN we will think about the best way to end it completely among all these options.
On this forum, this means understanding why you should listen when I tell you that it is a problem to let far rightist just develop their rethoric while fascists are destroying the world. If they want to speak, no problem, but there must be more solid rules on things regarding racism, sexism, transphobia, genocides etc.
I don't care about your fear of the unknown or the fact that you think that it is too radical. The planet and fascist are about to cook us alive. We need to move now. In all spaces. This means tackling what we know are major problems. And if adjustment are needed, we can do that.
As you can see, it is not me who focuses on the end point. It is you. I don't care about the end point right now. I'm telling you exactly to do what you sent me : Act for people who can suffer NOW.
There is no "most of the world". So explain yourself better. The world is not collectivist.
I don't.
Global warming is sadly factual and will be accelerated by the rise of AI. The geopolitical situation, if that happens will be apocalyptic. The same way we knew about Trump, we can already predict the consequences of capitalism and the rise of fascism within this framework.
I understand but what are we supposed to do if we see something unethical being said ?
Dismissing sadly doesn't work. People keep saying f-up shit and they won't understand why. But you are right in the sense that we should adjust the shot in function of people.
No no don't worry, I'm speaking in the general sense as in as the globality of my political ennemies see me.
OK so I need to share something a little bit shamefull : My memory is shit
We might have discussed something about capitalism yesterday, I probably already forgot. Remembering on internet takes too much from me, I just can't. It's already hardcore for me to remember names (on the nakama thread, I remembered so little that I had conversations with 20 people at once while I was interacting like I was talking to 2 or 3.... which is why people started to hate my guts lmao)
This is why I reply sentences by sentence to avoid forgetting stuff
I generalize a lot because I can't remember the views of everyone. (this can create the sense that there are two many contradictors so I'm tring to be careful with that)
I think I remember.
Exactly
Well nevermind:
Sorry but this is really hypocritical so I'll be a little bit spicy :
With your thinking process we never change anything mate. Because indeed, there are always cases and exceptions.
But what you do not understand, (probably by Interest perhaps?) is that your case is a fallacious one. In reality, we are the one asking that kind of things. We are the ones who are suffering NOW (either because of the police, either because of medical institutions, either because of racism, there are hundreds of reasons)
And it is people like you, who decided that the horrors of this system were not bad enough for themselves to get angry, who think they know everything because they read marx 3 times to debunk it perfectly in front of the first dumb radical leftist they would find and because they have eaten all the history books on the planet... it is people like you that are staying IN OUR WAY to prevent us from changing stuff that actually would help people RIGHT NOW
So your thinking process: "but how about those who would be affected now", in the fear of the unknown that you never cared to understand more deeply that the theory books, is actually the fear of moving the status co and a way to defend the institutions that are actually harming and killing people right now.
Because the people who are suffering RIGHT NOW are the people who are asking for the end of capitalism RIGHT NOW.
This is why I've been angry with you since the moment I've stepped foot on that forum Van.
> You know stuff. GOOD.
> But you decided that the system was not bad enough.
> You decided to ignore the reality of the condition of existences of all the marginalized or perhaps decided that their suffering was also not bad enough
> And you decided to play the game of the system.
I was still a liberal at the time and I could already see right through your vision through your words because it leaks through your behavior here. You know, but you don't care enough.
And if you think you care, then it means that you don't know enough.
Because anyone who understands everything about the materiality of the reality of the marginalized and who actually would care deeply, would be unraged right now and, listening to the world of scholars would actually listen and call for an immediate revolution.
"but you are not taking into account that people can think differntly".
NO I DON'T CARE.
It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of survival. There have been THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS of Scholars and researchers but also activists and concerned people who worked on those subjects and ALL OF THEM are pointing toward one simple conclusion:
We must end capitalism right now, because people are suffering RIGHT NOW.
You fear communism? Fine, be an anarchist.
You don't trust anarchism? Fine, be a communist.
You are not sure? Fine, just learn about marxism and intersectionnality
We will deal with the details LATER. We first need to do the minimum to start the end of capitalism. THEN we will think about the best way to end it completely among all these options.
On this forum, this means understanding why you should listen when I tell you that it is a problem to let far rightist just develop their rethoric while fascists are destroying the world. If they want to speak, no problem, but there must be more solid rules on things regarding racism, sexism, transphobia, genocides etc.
I don't care about your fear of the unknown or the fact that you think that it is too radical. The planet and fascist are about to cook us alive. We need to move now. In all spaces. This means tackling what we know are major problems. And if adjustment are needed, we can do that.
As you can see, it is not me who focuses on the end point. It is you. I don't care about the end point right now. I'm telling you exactly to do what you sent me : Act for people who can suffer NOW.
There is no "most of the world". So explain yourself better. The world is not collectivist.
Bro, we all have you on ignore. 
Based on your materialist world view, how could you say that me sharing my experiences, even if they clash with your perceived notions of 'right', are somehow unethical?
I have never advocated for outright cruel ends...
Christ. Never mind. Let's refrain from this particular part of the topic. I fear you may spark my annoyance.
I'm obviously being sarcastic. I literally responded to him, so how could I be ignoring him - hence it wouldn't have been everyone.
Aight fella, this is where you take a chill for a hot second. The issue is a lack of patience, and this time it is on your end. Think of achieving fundamental change as a gradual process with many steps. At each step you need to approach things in a slightly different manner.
Your words are effectively 'let's skip to the end, regardless of the collateral damage'. You want your ultimate end now, regardless of the cost. Unfortunately, the first, second, and third order consequences of not following the correct process of change could potentially cause millions of unnecessary deaths.
He has explicitly demonstrated care for those who would be left behind by your accelerationist mindset.
I have never advocated for outright cruel ends...
Christ. Never mind. Let's refrain from this particular part of the topic. I fear you may spark my annoyance.
I'm obviously being sarcastic. I literally responded to him, so how could I be ignoring him - hence it wouldn't have been everyone.
Aight fella, this is where you take a chill for a hot second. The issue is a lack of patience, and this time it is on your end. Think of achieving fundamental change as a gradual process with many steps. At each step you need to approach things in a slightly different manner.
Your words are effectively 'let's skip to the end, regardless of the collateral damage'. You want your ultimate end now, regardless of the cost. Unfortunately, the first, second, and third order consequences of not following the correct process of change could potentially cause millions of unnecessary deaths.
He has explicitly demonstrated care for those who would be left behind by your accelerationist mindset.
You said it yourself, words have an effect. It works both ways. Some words, even if not directed at one person can destroy someone. And even if it does not, it can destroy the fabric of the tolerance of the entire system and its moderation (in this case), meaning that a rethoric can indirectly put people in danger by simply existing and by increasing the level of potential oppression of a system.
Ethics are about trying to find a way toward the happyness of the collective. If the collective let unethical rethorics spread, it stops being an ethical collective., We can't really only think individually.
I'm overthinking it a bit on purpose to make a point. This space can be a very good source of politicization.
I don't remember what you said. I couldn't tell you right now. I can only trust the way I judged the situation back then. Perhaps I was too zealous, it's very possible.
Don't worry, it was not an attack lol
There is no chilling possible sadly. It's a question of survival for all.
Now, there is a few things to deconstruct here:
What does "accelerationism" means to you?
A lot of people care. But caring alone, is not enough. Caring without looking at the reality of those who are in danger is useless. I also cared when I was a thinking that people should get a permit to make families. Yet, my care was shallow. I'm not saying that Van is doing that, I'm trying to demonstrate that caring takes us so far.
If we can understand the reality of people who are in danger, then caring stops becoming a charity and starts to become a movement of change.
At what point does patience should stop being an excuse to take things to the next level ? 100 deaths? 1000 death ? 10000 death ?
Patience is the weapon of those who can wait.
Millions if not billions of people can't wait. They don't have this luxury. So what should we do? Tell them "bite your tongue we are coming in X years"? or should we rather try to find a way to transform society collectively right now?
You might be thinking that I'm advocating for a complete immediate revolution. But very few actually do, I'm not advocating for that. I know that a revolution of this caliber is probably the best way for all activists to end themselves quickly.
What I'm advocating is for the organisation of society toward that change. This is what people like Van refuse or question.
Abolishing the police is not a revolutionnary act, it's an exemple of a measure toward change. The problem of Van is that is seems to think that abolishing the police is an end goal.
The end goal is a stateless and classless society. The police will be abolished LONG BEFORE that. It's not a "BIG" measure, it's a necessary one in the current age and can be balanced by other measure such as the creation of teams of professionnal intervention, better fundings to social services... etc
And it can be done in steps of course, we can start by defounding it for starters. The problem is that even this type of measure are already too much for liberals, and in the meantimes, people are dying by the violence.
The police is an example out of a hundred.
The cost are already here sadly. It's people dying. Removing the problems would cost less to the collective than people dying. It as simple as that.
Another thing to take into account is that there is no "correct process of change". Capitalism and liberalism led us to believe that progress must be slow, steady, one step at a time, without too much noise, without too much violence.
But what people forget overtime is that the reason why they can vote, why the women can work, why people have access to healthcare, why people can go on strike... is because people fought with strenght and often violence for their rights.
Understanding materialism and leftism means understanding that the power under capitalism will NEVER give willingly and will take EVERYTHING BACK at the first occasion. Do you think your current rights are set in stones? Wait for the next war. You will see everything disappear.
Social rights are a struggle. The power only understands power. It doesn't give unless it has to.
Progress is not a straight line. It's not a natural process of the world. It's something people fight for. It doesn't appear magically and does not continue endlessly toward the top. Sometimes we go backward. So when I argue with Van, I argue on this context.
Ethics are about trying to find a way toward the happyness of the collective. If the collective let unethical rethorics spread, it stops being an ethical collective., We can't really only think individually.
I'm overthinking it a bit on purpose to make a point. This space can be a very good source of politicization.
I don't remember what you said. I couldn't tell you right now. I can only trust the way I judged the situation back then. Perhaps I was too zealous, it's very possible.
Don't worry, it was not an attack lol
There is no chilling possible sadly. It's a question of survival for all.
Now, there is a few things to deconstruct here:
What does "accelerationism" means to you?
A lot of people care. But caring alone, is not enough. Caring without looking at the reality of those who are in danger is useless. I also cared when I was a thinking that people should get a permit to make families. Yet, my care was shallow. I'm not saying that Van is doing that, I'm trying to demonstrate that caring takes us so far.
If we can understand the reality of people who are in danger, then caring stops becoming a charity and starts to become a movement of change.
At what point does patience should stop being an excuse to take things to the next level ? 100 deaths? 1000 death ? 10000 death ?
Patience is the weapon of those who can wait.
Millions if not billions of people can't wait. They don't have this luxury. So what should we do? Tell them "bite your tongue we are coming in X years"? or should we rather try to find a way to transform society collectively right now?
You might be thinking that I'm advocating for a complete immediate revolution. But very few actually do, I'm not advocating for that. I know that a revolution of this caliber is probably the best way for all activists to end themselves quickly.
What I'm advocating is for the organisation of society toward that change. This is what people like Van refuse or question.
Abolishing the police is not a revolutionnary act, it's an exemple of a measure toward change. The problem of Van is that is seems to think that abolishing the police is an end goal.
The end goal is a stateless and classless society. The police will be abolished LONG BEFORE that. It's not a "BIG" measure, it's a necessary one in the current age and can be balanced by other measure such as the creation of teams of professionnal intervention, better fundings to social services... etc
And it can be done in steps of course, we can start by defounding it for starters. The problem is that even this type of measure are already too much for liberals, and in the meantimes, people are dying by the violence.
The police is an example out of a hundred.
The cost are already here sadly. It's people dying. Removing the problems would cost less to the collective than people dying. It as simple as that.
Another thing to take into account is that there is no "correct process of change". Capitalism and liberalism led us to believe that progress must be slow, steady, one step at a time, without too much noise, without too much violence.
But what people forget overtime is that the reason why they can vote, why the women can work, why people have access to healthcare, why people can go on strike... is because people fought with strenght and often violence for their rights.
Understanding materialism and leftism means understanding that the power under capitalism will NEVER give willingly and will take EVERYTHING BACK at the first occasion. Do you think your current rights are set in stones? Wait for the next war. You will see everything disappear.
Social rights are a struggle. The power only understands power. It doesn't give unless it has to.
Progress is not a straight line. It's not a natural process of the world. It's something people fight for. It doesn't appear magically and does not continue endlessly toward the top. Sometimes we go backward. So when I argue with Van, I argue on this context.
Before the 2000, I would have agreed. But global warming is not just something we can ignore anymore. It will have repercussion beyond what people expected 100 years ago. The situation demands urgency now.
Global warming is sadly factual and will be accelerated by the rise of AI. The geopolitical situation, if that happens will be apocalyptic. The same way we knew about Trump, we can already predict the consequences of capitalism and the rise of fascism within this framework.
I understand but what are we supposed to do if we see something unethical being said ?
Dismissing sadly doesn't work. People keep saying f-up shit and they won't understand why. But you are right in the sense that we should adjust the shot in function of people.
No no don't worry, I'm speaking in the general sense as in as the globality of my political ennemies see me.
OK so I need to share something a little bit shamefull : My memory is shit
We might have discussed something about capitalism yesterday, I probably already forgot. Remembering on internet takes too much from me, I just can't. It's already hardcore for me to remember names (on the nakama thread, I remembered so little that I had conversations with 20 people at once while I was interacting like I was talking to 2 or 3.... which is why people started to hate my guts lmao)
This is why I reply sentences by sentence to avoid forgetting stuff
I generalize a lot because I can't remember the views of everyone. (this can create the sense that there are two many contradictors so I'm tring to be careful with that)
I think I remember.
Exactly
Well nevermind:
Sorry but this is really hypocritical so I'll be a little bit spicy :
With your thinking process we never change anything mate. Because indeed, there are always cases and exceptions.
But what you do not understand, (probably by Interest perhaps?) is that your case is a fallacious one. In reality, we are the one asking that kind of things. We are the ones who are suffering NOW (either because of the police, either because of medical institutions, either because of racism, there are hundreds of reasons)
And it is people like you, who decided that the horrors of this system were not bad enough for themselves to get angry, who think they know everything because they read marx 3 times to debunk it perfectly in front of the first dumb radical leftist they would find and because they have eaten all the history books on the planet... it is people like you that are staying IN OUR WAY to prevent us from changing stuff that actually would help people RIGHT NOW
So your thinking process: "but how about those who would be affected now", in the fear of the unknown that you never cared to understand more deeply that the theory books, is actually the fear of moving the status co and a way to defend the institutions that are actually harming and killing people right now.
Because the people who are suffering RIGHT NOW are the people who are asking for the end of capitalism RIGHT NOW.
This is why I've been angry with you since the moment I've stepped foot on that forum Van.
> You know stuff. GOOD.
> But you decided that the system was not bad enough.
> You decided to ignore the reality of the condition of existences of all the marginalized or perhaps decided that their suffering was also not bad enough
> And you decided to play the game of the system.
I was still a liberal at the time and I could already see right through your vision through your words because it leaks through your behavior here. You know, but you don't care enough.
And if you think you care, then it means that you don't know enough.
Because anyone who understands everything about the materiality of the reality of the marginalized and who actually would care deeply, would be unraged right now and, listening to the world of scholars would actually listen and call for an immediate revolution.
"but you are not taking into account that people can think differntly".
NO I DON'T CARE.
It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of survival. There have been THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS of Scholars and researchers but also activists and concerned people who worked on those subjects and ALL OF THEM are pointing toward one simple conclusion:
We must end capitalism right now, because people are suffering RIGHT NOW.
You fear communism? Fine, be an anarchist.
You don't trust anarchism? Fine, be a communist.
You are not sure? Fine, just learn about marxism and intersectionnality
We will deal with the details LATER. We first need to do the minimum to start the end of capitalism. THEN we will think about the best way to end it completely among all these options.
On this forum, this means understanding why you should listen when I tell you that it is a problem to let far rightist just develop their rethoric while fascists are destroying the world. If they want to speak, no problem, but there must be more solid rules on things regarding racism, sexism, transphobia, genocides etc.
I don't care about your fear of the unknown or the fact that you think that it is too radical. The planet and fascist are about to cook us alive. We need to move now. In all spaces. This means tackling what we know are major problems. And if adjustment are needed, we can do that.
As you can see, it is not me who focuses on the end point. It is you. I don't care about the end point right now. I'm telling you exactly to do what you sent me : Act for people who can suffer NOW.
There is no "most of the world". So explain yourself better. The world is not collectivist.
I don't.
Global warming is sadly factual and will be accelerated by the rise of AI. The geopolitical situation, if that happens will be apocalyptic. The same way we knew about Trump, we can already predict the consequences of capitalism and the rise of fascism within this framework.
I understand but what are we supposed to do if we see something unethical being said ?
Dismissing sadly doesn't work. People keep saying f-up shit and they won't understand why. But you are right in the sense that we should adjust the shot in function of people.
No no don't worry, I'm speaking in the general sense as in as the globality of my political ennemies see me.
OK so I need to share something a little bit shamefull : My memory is shit
We might have discussed something about capitalism yesterday, I probably already forgot. Remembering on internet takes too much from me, I just can't. It's already hardcore for me to remember names (on the nakama thread, I remembered so little that I had conversations with 20 people at once while I was interacting like I was talking to 2 or 3.... which is why people started to hate my guts lmao)
This is why I reply sentences by sentence to avoid forgetting stuff
I generalize a lot because I can't remember the views of everyone. (this can create the sense that there are two many contradictors so I'm tring to be careful with that)
I think I remember.
Exactly
Well nevermind:
Sorry but this is really hypocritical so I'll be a little bit spicy :
With your thinking process we never change anything mate. Because indeed, there are always cases and exceptions.
But what you do not understand, (probably by Interest perhaps?) is that your case is a fallacious one. In reality, we are the one asking that kind of things. We are the ones who are suffering NOW (either because of the police, either because of medical institutions, either because of racism, there are hundreds of reasons)
And it is people like you, who decided that the horrors of this system were not bad enough for themselves to get angry, who think they know everything because they read marx 3 times to debunk it perfectly in front of the first dumb radical leftist they would find and because they have eaten all the history books on the planet... it is people like you that are staying IN OUR WAY to prevent us from changing stuff that actually would help people RIGHT NOW
So your thinking process: "but how about those who would be affected now", in the fear of the unknown that you never cared to understand more deeply that the theory books, is actually the fear of moving the status co and a way to defend the institutions that are actually harming and killing people right now.
Because the people who are suffering RIGHT NOW are the people who are asking for the end of capitalism RIGHT NOW.
This is why I've been angry with you since the moment I've stepped foot on that forum Van.
> You know stuff. GOOD.
> But you decided that the system was not bad enough.
> You decided to ignore the reality of the condition of existences of all the marginalized or perhaps decided that their suffering was also not bad enough
> And you decided to play the game of the system.
I was still a liberal at the time and I could already see right through your vision through your words because it leaks through your behavior here. You know, but you don't care enough.
And if you think you care, then it means that you don't know enough.
Because anyone who understands everything about the materiality of the reality of the marginalized and who actually would care deeply, would be unraged right now and, listening to the world of scholars would actually listen and call for an immediate revolution.
"but you are not taking into account that people can think differntly".
NO I DON'T CARE.
It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of survival. There have been THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS of Scholars and researchers but also activists and concerned people who worked on those subjects and ALL OF THEM are pointing toward one simple conclusion:
We must end capitalism right now, because people are suffering RIGHT NOW.
You fear communism? Fine, be an anarchist.
You don't trust anarchism? Fine, be a communist.
You are not sure? Fine, just learn about marxism and intersectionnality
We will deal with the details LATER. We first need to do the minimum to start the end of capitalism. THEN we will think about the best way to end it completely among all these options.
On this forum, this means understanding why you should listen when I tell you that it is a problem to let far rightist just develop their rethoric while fascists are destroying the world. If they want to speak, no problem, but there must be more solid rules on things regarding racism, sexism, transphobia, genocides etc.
I don't care about your fear of the unknown or the fact that you think that it is too radical. The planet and fascist are about to cook us alive. We need to move now. In all spaces. This means tackling what we know are major problems. And if adjustment are needed, we can do that.
As you can see, it is not me who focuses on the end point. It is you. I don't care about the end point right now. I'm telling you exactly to do what you sent me : Act for people who can suffer NOW.
There is no "most of the world". So explain yourself better. The world is not collectivist.
I don't.
If someone can't live without making medicine, then that medicine is objectively mandatory if they wanna live. It does not in any way suggest any fear or caution about changing the system so that the medicine becomes obsolete. You are simply jumping the gun and making assumptions again for the sake of your argument. What I typed doesn't say or imply that things must remain the way they are or that change isn't worth the risks.