Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

Things would be simple if the problem of this thread was a lack of intelligence, but that's not the case. It's a problem of certitude linked to the influences of dominations system. We are in a pickle because my goal is to prove to you that you guyz are stuck on your certitudes while not giving a inch on mines. Quite a paradox, I simply can't give up the field and at the same time, me not being able to give up any field is the reason why you can't give up yours.

So from my point of view, I need to find a way to jumpstart that self-rethinking in you while convincing you that it has already happen within me. Tricky... It's like trying to find a solution to an impossible equation. So be it.. I'll takle that like an equation:

I will share all my thinking process with you guyz along my reasonning and replies. I'll write it in italic. You may look at it or ignore it. It's your choice.

Perhaps it's not visible, but I REALLY don't care about being right or wrong. Like, I would even prefer to be wrong at the moment, it would allow me to get the F out of this thread. But I feel like there is something that can be done. So my goal is for us to collectively find a solution. If not, too bad.

I want to convince you. Not for this thread, not for this forum anymore, but as an experiment. If I can convince you, or if I manage at least to push you to rethink and show you how important it is to always be doubtfull of our belief system in an ethical sense, we could find a way to pacifically resolve thousands of conflicts.

Problem 1 : The paradox of the above
Problem 2 : I don't have a formation in rethorics, I don't know how to do it, I reply amainly on instinct, that's not ideal to create a socratic discussion
Problem 3 : There are reactionnary here, there are soft conservatist, centrist. What can function for one person can't work for others ? And we need to find something that can work for all
Problem 4 : If I must convince you that i'm genuingly trying to do that in an ethical sense and for good and solid reason, I need to convince you that I can be convinced too.. BUT i've already done that work, i've verified all the potential way I could be wrong on the entire spectrum from the far right to the radical left (I think, not 100% sure), all that is left are revolutionnary ideas that I'm not fully politicized on, meaning that only a person on my left could actually tell me something that I could reconsider.. Which means that you won't be able to see that I can actually be convinced, unless you really find THE subject I can change my mind on (the ex of the guns would be one)
Problem 5 : I can't help but write 500 lines per post which prevents most of the people from reading any of my post, worst, if I try to shorten my post, I miss 50% of the information necessary to understand a concept and I can't simplify to a minimum a concept because by essence, leftist concept are complex.
Problem 6 : I can't give up on a discussion which means that I lock myself into a circle of infinite. And as you can see here, this can be exploited to completely exhaust me to the point where I get irritated.
Problem 7 : Can't think right now, I'm too exhausted, but I need to reply and I lost halk my day to right so I want to finish this quick so I can relax a little bit more.
Problem 8 : This post will be seen as completely bunkers and will inder my legitimacy even more, too bad, I'm a mad man, can't help it, welcome in wonderland.
Problem 9 : I want to insult everybody right now I call them stupid. Must refrain myself. They are not stupid, just lack perspective.
Problem 10 : How can someone with "mental problems" can convince people that they don't understand the world in a world where people think mads are completely crazy and see a deformed world. New paradox. Freak.
Problem 11: I was talking about racism. And currently, people are not open to new ideas on racism. Would there be another system of domination more prompt to create a rethinking process ?

Possible breakthrough : Maybe I should focus on only one subject. I'm losing my energy completely by trying to convince everyone of every subjects on the leftist spectrum... but really, I only need to convince people on one subject, no ? And I only need to convince one person, right? By the principle of social contagion, transmission and propagation , I know that the problem is relative to a certain threashold. Basically, the stronger the threashold, the more energy I will need to push jumpstart a contagion. Now, there is a potential good side to this, in the fact that the threadshold here is so massive and absolute that once it gets reach, the propagation should be quite easy. In other words, if I manage to convince the most reluctant person, this could create a domino effect that will convince everyone else. Not by my arguments, but by the simple fact of jumpstarting the critical thinking process. People will ask to themselves "wait, what If he is right and BOOM, I need to enter into the rift". (And they still don't know that i've been trolling for 3000 pages) But this means that I need to focus a person not too impossible to convince and not too close to my vision. Someone on the center or at least someone who think they are on the center, who laugh a lot at my rethoric should be sufficient. The Ideal person would be Van, moderator. Problem: He is a moderator, and usually left leaning, meaning that there will be a reactance from the far right side. Convincing someone on the far right would be ideal, but it is almost impossible. Also, convincing them on only one subject could be seen as an artefact, and they would justify this error by any means possible just out of spite. I d' say Okama is a good person. They have reactionnary ideas yet still the potential to understand strong leftist belief. To this day, this is the person who has the most potential to radicalize rapidely toward the left.
As for the subject now, nothing touchy, racism could be a good idea. They have told me that they had read whiteness studies, meaning that they know what whiteness means. Problem, I'm not racialized and I'm not an activist on this subject and have no legitimacy. There is a limit to my knowledge and understanding and frankly, to what I should or should not say. So, not racism. But what else ? Patriarchy is a no too, not legitimate enough. Sanism could be a good point of entry, I'm legitimate in this field. Problem : This is the field I also know the least about. And frankly, this is not a subject that they might have strong rightist argument on, the possibility of radically changing the mind of people here on sanism, is close to not really. (lol if you read this you are a G, I love One Piece too, what is it like to see the mind of a mad man?) Anyway.. Sanism is a no. Racism is no. Patriarchy is a no. Adultism is a little bit too touchy, and they are not ready to have these kind of discussions.... I forgot one.... (I'm pretty sure van is asking himself if he should threadban me or not at the moment, that would be quite relieving to be honest) what is the last ? Oke I'm stupid.. capitalism. (It's incredible how this type of writing process is liberating, I can actually think perfectly like that, well, they will all think I got crazy (and they would be right) but it's feels like I'm freeing myself here. Just embrassing madness) Anyway Capitalism.. That would be a good start. I would need to find the ONE thing that we disagree on, think, there has been something today they said "no, I don't agree with that", can't remember. SOmething to do with materialism. Or was it someone else ? I want to speak french now, that would throw them on a loop, that would be funny. I can't check it 10 page beforeeee, freak. Ok nevermind, I'll ask them directly. So I should concentrate on that ONE thing. Just one. If I manage to convince them on theat one aspect, preferably something shocking, perhaps related to prisons or.. the police? Is there anything else ? Perhaps the legitimate violence of protesters? Hm touchy. I'll think about it later. What I need now is one subject specifically on capitalism. But wait ! I don't have to do that necessarily on a system of domination ! I won't reread myself that would be even more funny. So only one subject, but it can be anything ! But that needs to be related to politics somehow. (I joked about trolling, I'm actually very serious, that was just a trap to see if you have read the entirity of the text lol) But not necessarily on a domination system, something shocking yet not too touchy so I can have endless discussion about it. But also something I can master and have knowledge on and preferably something I don't have to check on a freaking bot. Let's say capitalism for now. I'll search the subject later.

Wow I went full madman here. I guess, the madder I get, the more the realization will be strong... If they all think I'm stupid, that would actually work on my favor the moment they discover that I've been the one who has been laughing for 3000 pages at their incomprehension.. well kinda, this is irritating not to be able to share the obvious. This is what happen when I'm tired.

Anyway I don't remember what I was sayin, i'll write another post with a limit of 5 lines per replies. (not including the commentary). Should be able to stop me from rambling. Sigh I'll need to reply to all of you, I just want to watch my reactions... :( This will be fast. freak it.

First thing I see.. a commentary about my appartment. aaaaawww. Lol this post went from "I will make some commentary so we all try to find a common way to, look at my weird brain". Well freak it, they wanted a madman, they will get a madman. Today was too much. I bet they have never seen someone do this. Should be enough to scare them a little. People who have certituds are always afraid of what they don't know and what they can't control.

Boo

 

[NAMELESS]

Things would be simple if the problem of this thread was a lack of intelligence, but that's not the case. It's a problem of certitude linked to the influences of dominations system. We are in a pickle because my goal is to prove to you that you guyz are stuck on your certitudes while not giving a inch on mines. Quite a paradox, I simply can't give up the field and at the same time, me not being able to give up any field is the reason why you can't give up yours.

So from my point of view, I need to find a way to jumpstart that self-rethinking in you while convincing you that it has already happen within me. Tricky... It's like trying to find a solution to an impossible equation. So be it.. I'll takle that like an equation:

I will share all my thinking process with you guyz along my reasonning and replies. I'll write it in italic. You may look at it or ignore it. It's your choice.

Perhaps it's not visible, but I REALLY don't care about being right or wrong. Like, I would even prefer to be wrong at the moment, it would allow me to get the F out of this thread. But I feel like there is something that can be done. So my goal is for us to collectively find a solution. If not, too bad.

I want to convince you. Not for this thread, not for this forum anymore, but as an experiment. If I can convince you, or if I manage at least to push you to rethink and show you how important it is to always be doubtfull of our belief system in an ethical sense, we could find a way to pacifically resolve thousands of conflicts.

Problem 1 : The paradox of the above
Problem 2 : I don't have a formation in rethorics, I don't know how to do it, I reply amainly on instinct, that's not ideal to create a socratic discussion
Problem 3 : There are reactionnary here, there are soft conservatist, centrist. What can function for one person can't work for others ? And we need to find something that can work for all
Problem 4 : If I must convince you that i'm genuingly trying to do that in an ethical sense and for good and solid reason, I need to convince you that I can be convinced too.. BUT i've already done that work, i've verified all the potential way I could be wrong on the entire spectrum from the far right to the radical left (I think, not 100% sure), all that is left are revolutionnary ideas that I'm not fully politicized on, meaning that only a person on my left could actually tell me something that I could reconsider.. Which means that you won't be able to see that I can actually be convinced, unless you really find THE subject I can change my mind on (the ex of the guns would be one)
Problem 5 : I can't help but write 500 lines per post which prevents most of the people from reading any of my post, worst, if I try to shorten my post, I miss 50% of the information necessary to understand a concept and I can't simplify to a minimum a concept because by essence, leftist concept are complex.
Problem 6 : I can't give up on a discussion which means that I lock myself into a circle of infinite. And as you can see here, this can be exploited to completely exhaust me to the point where I get irritated.
Problem 7 : Can't think right now, I'm too exhausted, but I need to reply and I lost halk my day to right so I want to finish this quick so I can relax a little bit more.
Problem 8 : This post will be seen as completely bunkers and will inder my legitimacy even more, too bad, I'm a mad man, can't help it, welcome in wonderland.
Problem 9 : I want to insult everybody right now I call them stupid. Must refrain myself. They are not stupid, just lack perspective.
Problem 10 : How can someone with "mental problems" can convince people that they don't understand the world in a world where people think mads are completely crazy and see a deformed world. New paradox. Freak.
Problem 11: I was talking about racism. And currently, people are not open to new ideas on racism. Would there be another system of domination more prompt to create a rethinking process ?

Possible breakthrough : Maybe I should focus on only one subject. I'm losing my energy completely by trying to convince everyone of every subjects on the leftist spectrum... but really, I only need to convince people on one subject, no ? And I only need to convince one person, right? By the principle of social contagion, transmission and propagation , I know that the problem is relative to a certain threashold. Basically, the stronger the threashold, the more energy I will need to push jumpstart a contagion. Now, there is a potential good side to this, in the fact that the threadshold here is so massive and absolute that once it gets reach, the propagation should be quite easy. In other words, if I manage to convince the most reluctant person, this could create a domino effect that will convince everyone else. Not by my arguments, but by the simple fact of jumpstarting the critical thinking process. People will ask to themselves "wait, what If he is right and BOOM, I need to enter into the rift". (And they still don't know that i've been trolling for 3000 pages) But this means that I need to focus a person not too impossible to convince and not too close to my vision. Someone on the center or at least someone who think they are on the center, who laugh a lot at my rethoric should be sufficient. The Ideal person would be Van, moderator. Problem: He is a moderator, and usually left leaning, meaning that there will be a reactance from the far right side. Convincing someone on the far right would be ideal, but it is almost impossible. Also, convincing them on only one subject could be seen as an artefact, and they would justify this error by any means possible just out of spite. I d' say Okama is a good person. They have reactionnary ideas yet still the potential to understand strong leftist belief. To this day, this is the person who has the most potential to radicalize rapidely toward the left.
As for the subject now, nothing touchy, racism could be a good idea. They have told me that they had read whiteness studies, meaning that they know what whiteness means. Problem, I'm not racialized and I'm not an activist on this subject and have no legitimacy. There is a limit to my knowledge and understanding and frankly, to what I should or should not say. So, not racism. But what else ? Patriarchy is a no too, not legitimate enough. Sanism could be a good point of entry, I'm legitimate in this field. Problem : This is the field I also know the least about. And frankly, this is not a subject that they might have strong rightist argument on, the possibility of radically changing the mind of people here on sanism, is close to not really. (lol if you read this you are a G, I love One Piece too, what is it like to see the mind of a mad man?) Anyway.. Sanism is a no. Racism is no. Patriarchy is a no. Adultism is a little bit too touchy, and they are not ready to have these kind of discussions.... I forgot one.... (I'm pretty sure van is asking himself if he should threadban me or not at the moment, that would be quite relieving to be honest) what is the last ? Oke I'm stupid.. capitalism. (It's incredible how this type of writing process is liberating, I can actually think perfectly like that, well, they will all think I got crazy (and they would be right) but it's feels like I'm freeing myself here. Just embrassing madness) Anyway Capitalism.. That would be a good start. I would need to find the ONE thing that we disagree on, think, there has been something today they said "no, I don't agree with that", can't remember. SOmething to do with materialism. Or was it someone else ? I want to speak french now, that would throw them on a loop, that would be funny. I can't check it 10 page beforeeee, freak. Ok nevermind, I'll ask them directly. So I should concentrate on that ONE thing. Just one. If I manage to convince them on theat one aspect, preferably something shocking, perhaps related to prisons or.. the police? Is there anything else ? Perhaps the legitimate violence of protesters? Hm touchy. I'll think about it later. What I need now is one subject specifically on capitalism. But wait ! I don't have to do that necessarily on a system of domination ! I won't reread myself that would be even more funny. So only one subject, but it can be anything ! But that needs to be related to politics somehow. (I joked about trolling, I'm actually very serious, that was just a trap to see if you have read the entirity of the text lol) But not necessarily on a domination system, something shocking yet not too touchy so I can have endless discussion about it. But also something I can master and have knowledge on and preferably something I don't have to check on a freaking bot. Let's say capitalism for now. I'll search the subject later.

Wow I went full madman here. I guess, the madder I get, the more the realization will be strong... If they all think I'm stupid, that would actually work on my favor the moment they discover that I've been the one who has been laughing for 3000 pages at their incomprehension.. well kinda, this is irritating not to be able to share the obvious. This is what happen when I'm tired.

Anyway I don't remember what I was sayin, i'll write another post with a limit of 5 lines per replies. (not including the commentary). Should be able to stop me from rambling. Sigh I'll need to reply to all of you, I just want to watch my reactions... :( This will be fast. freak it.

First thing I see.. a commentary about my appartment. aaaaawww. Lol this post went from "I will make some commentary so we all try to find a common way to, look at my weird brain". Well freak it, they wanted a madman, they will get a madman. Today was too much. I bet they have never seen someone do this. Should be enough to scare them a little. People who have certituds are always afraid of what they don't know and what they can't control.

Boo

I will read this entire thing tomorrow. I will say this in advance: the reason people are messing with you is not because of your beliefs, but rather how you go about trying to convince others of your perspective. You come as condescending and disrespectful.

If you made something as simple as disagreeing without trying to make moral judgemnts about other people, this whole thread would look completely different.

Also, your posts could be more objective and condensed. People give up on debating with you people, because your posts are too long and it get's tiring to re-read the same arguments over and over again while having your counter-arguments dismissed completely. Feel like you're preaching rather than debating.

 

[Logiko]

Wow finally over. Quite a mess. Don't bother replying mates. I spent 12 hours replying to y'all. I don't know why I had such a dopamine boost but damn. I've not doing it again. Now I will concentrate on different things.

Your arguments are fallacious (circularity, genetic fallacy), your answer to my challenge is a completely failure

As I said I asked for claude translate what I wrote and to give the examples

Perhaps (no) but you know about politics pretty much as well as I know about philosophy. :)

You are not in a philosophy class you are speaking to a madman who tell you facts about politics. Don't care if you agree or not. Facs are facs. This is me quitting the act. I love you bro, (no I don't know you) but your paragraph written by chatgpclaude was full of political errors. Your bot talked about the antisemitism of Nazi and spoke about the fact that it was a racial domination of white on white people.. What you don't know and don't understand is the prime logic of the whole argument being that to be a racial domination, the dominant must racialized the subjugated. In other words, someone who is jew must be racialized as jew on opposition to white people (nazi in this case) in order to place white people on the the ladder of the hierarchization of white people at the top.

What happened for jew also happened for irish people who were historically considered a sub-race. Meaning that racialization is not related to the skin ton or melanine, but the actual status of power and domination of the dominant entity who will racialized those who they want to dominate (usually for capitalist and reactionnary gains)

In other other words, you didn't understand the political point. And instead of focusing on my circular thinking (taht is actually completely twisted - lol) you should look at the bottom of the well of my arguments.

F.. i forgot to do only 5 lines, too tired to reread. will do that later.

For more pagess????? awwwwwww

Your arguments are fallacious (circularity, genetic fallacy), your answer to my challenge is a completely failure

As I said I asked for claude translate what I wrote and to give the examples

Perhaps (no) but you know about politics pretty much as well as I know about philosophy. :)

You are not in a philosophy class you are speaking to a madman who tell you facts about politics. Don't care if you agree or not. Facs are facs. This is me quitting the act. I love you bro, (no I don't know you) but your paragraph written by chatgpclaude was full of political errors. Your bot talked about the antisemitism of Nazi and spoke about the fact that it was a racial domination of white on white people.. What you don't know and don't understand is the prime logic of the whole argument being that to be a racial domination, the dominant must racialized the subjugated. In other words, someone who is jew must be racialized as jew on opposition to white people (nazi in this case) in order to place white people on the the ladder of the hierarchization of white people at the top.

What happened for jew also happened for irish people who were historically considered a sub-race. Meaning that racialization is not related to the skin ton or melanine, but the actual status of power and domination of the dominant entity who will racialized those who they want to dominate (usually for capitalist and reactionnary gains)

In other other words, you didn't understand the political point. And instead of focusing on my circular thinking (taht is actually completely twisted - lol) you should look at the bottom of the well of my arguments.

F.. i forgot to do only 5 lines, too tired to reread. will do that later.

When you think about it, Logiko is the modern-day Marx.

Didn't he abhor work in favour of writing his political theories and take money from anyone who would give it?




50 years from now, scholars will be citing WorstGen forums posts from Logiko when they create government policy.

That would be funny

Logiko doesn't believe in anything not physical. Logic, reasoning, metaphysics, and mathematics are not real to him.

I bet this guy don't know that time is an illusion and that life doesn't really exist lol

Did you not know there is profound beauty in the concept that you have no control over anything? Can't you see the freedom it offers you? It means nothing you do is your fault, it is the environment's, therefore you are pure - not evil - not conniving - not dishonest. You, in all your imperfections, are just a product of your environment, so do whatever the fuck you want, you cannot control it anyway.

I know he is making fun of me but that's actually a cool thing, that's called soft power on an interpersonnal level (yeah I just invented the concept, cool right?). It's the idea that if your political ennemies, while making fun of you while trying to immitate you, will actually spread your mindset and your influence.

They don't know it yet, but this is how I transform threads into epic battle centered around what I want to say. I told them already, on the first month i got there, "you are in my territory now", the madman control this threads, but they never believed me KKKK

Not trying to get you angry 🥺. Go to eat and rest

Don't worry I'm not angry, I'm just mad now

My ideal system will allow me to accept that actually, my inability to concentrate is my environment's fault

It's funny, because you almost just gave an antipsy argument without knowing it. That's actually advanced materialism. I'm legit impressed that you could think like that.

The problem is that you don't believe it. Again, that's just a perspective issue. The moment you change of perspective, your entire world will flip. You don't believe me yet, but trust me.... It will be so shocking that you will help me try to convince everyone else.

Logiko may have saved my life one and a half years ago

<3

A common response to this method is sadly #2, often with the usage of a strawman. Either by them strawmanning you or saying you strawmanned them.

Exactly, i've seen entire field full of strawmens on this thread. It's crazy (And I know a lot of it)

@Logiko You need to study analytical philosophy, dude. @Etzel Andergast What do you think?

I prefer politics.

Ngl, I need to study that shit so I can win internet arguments. Imagine if @Logiko masters that. We would all be cooked.

The fact that that the argument of this guy impressed you guyz simply because there were words a little bit more complex that we are used to see here is quite funny. What you don't know is that I have to read much more complicated rethorics everyday to understand political concept.

What I saw was an three part answer delivered by claude, full of mistakes (because I actually read it) with a complete incomprehension of the subject but trying to make it seem like it was debunking my point cleverly. What people fail to remember is that AI are meant to ease our confirmation biases.

No one need do that. But I would recommend to Logiko test the consistence of his arguments. Learn how to not commit logical leaps

I don't know about logical leaps, but I just made a comical one for sure.

If you were observing my argumentation from the start of this thread, you would actually be surprised.

For instance what I was discussing about species, genus, extrinsic property

Sorry, I thought you were talking about biology for a moment. I don't have the technical philosophical tools to understand that langage. This is why I usually define every concept I introduce for a few lines. But it's important for you to understand that logic is not the realm of philosophy alone. And that a philosophical demonstration will not help you understand a political argument if you do not understand its contextual basis. I had no care in entertaining you with you demonstration, I wanted to show you that your point of view (you approach or you could say perspective) was flawed to begin with.

Now if you continue insisting, you argumentation, which is already flawed, will start to become unethical. You might think that I don't master the subject I'm talking about because I'm a little kookoo, I would suggest to be careful with your heuristics.

Won't happen. Logiko is the physical embodiment of Begging the Question/circular reasoning fallacy.

And this guy is the master of lies and twisted quotes. Nobody is perfect

I will read this entire thing tomorrow. I will say this in advance: the reason people are messing with you is not because of your beliefs, but rather how you go about trying to convince others of your perspective.

"people are messing with you"

You come as condescending and disrespectful.

Right, because advocating for f-up stuff or defending them or not doing anything to prevent them is absolutely normal

What is really funny (from my pov once again), is that I've always said repeatitively one pattern "you don't understand + explanation why + occasional irritations + occasional memes"

> This alone is "disrespectful and condescending".

> Why ?

> Because the people "messing with me" (jajaja) are not really happpy by the fact that i'm actually not capable of giving up on my beliefs (which.. seems to be something that the people "messing with me" ... are actually also doing ?

Wait... Does this means that I can say that you guyz are disrespectful and condescending too ? I don't remember ever saying that because you never gave up on your beliefs, so but perhaps I should try ?

If you made something as simple as disagreeing without trying to make moral judgemnts about other people, this whole thread would look completely different.

Oh I see, the problem is that when I explain why you might not understand something, you take it as a judgment.. yeah.. I figured. When I tell to someone who say f-up shit about masculinities that they don't understand what they are doing wrong mainly because they have patriarcal biases that they are not seeing because of their interests within the dominatio that is patriarchy..... i can understand why it can be seen as a judgement.

Problem, it's also a fact. Not that I absolutely know this person. But because said behaviors are always the consequences of that specific pattern. So we can make assertion based on what we know as leftists. (they are indeed judgement, but they are not condescending or disrespectfull, they are factual and ethically necessary)

Also, your posts could be more objective and condensed.

oops i did it again

Feel like you're preaching rather than debating

Well.. My goal is not to debate if stopping racism is good or not. It's to stop racism. (just an example)

 

[Okamakama]

I know he is making fun of me but that's actually a cool thing, that's called soft power on an interpersonnal level (yeah I just invented the concept, cool right?). It's the idea that if your political ennemies, while making fun of you while trying to immitate you, will actually spread your mindset and your influence.

They don't know it yet, but this is how I transform threads into epic battle centered around what I want to say. I told them already, on the first month i got there, "you are in my territory now", the madman control this threads, but they never believed me KKKK

Are you aware of what satire's intent is? Unless people lack reading comprehension and the ability to distinguish tone, they'll all know that I am presenting this argument in a manner that discredits it. You do not transform threads based on what you want to say. You transform threads because you demean people so much and act inappropriately. This erodes people's goodwill towards you. You never change people's minds. In fact, if the outcome you receive is what you want, then I can only assume your true beliefs are contrary to everything you preach and that you're true stance is the one you said you used to be.

It's funny, because you almost just gave an antipsy argument without knowing it. That's actually advanced materialism. I'm legit impressed that you could think like that.

The problem is that you don't believe it. Again, that's just a perspective issue. The moment you change of perspective, your entire world will flip. You don't believe me yet, but trust me.... It will be so shocking that you will help me try to convince everyone else.

No, I completely understand and comprehend your rhetoric. I said before that I will genuinely give other people's ideas a chance to breath and try to comprehend them before dismissing - something you do not afford to other people with your boundless paragraphs of circular logic and begging the question.

I can imitate your rhetoric because I understand you. You being impressed that someone else could 'think like that' just further highlights the depths of your narcissism. The only time you can afford praise is when you're staring at a reflection of your narrative. You practice worship of the self.

All this leads to the following: I understand you, Logiko, and thus I can wholeheartedly state that my "perspective" can never change to adapt to your rhetoric. Your concept that only the physical exists actually violates some of your most deeply held views, and you don't even realise it.

you are speaking to a madman

I am, and henceforth, I shall cease to do so for a time.

 

[Logiko]

Are you aware of what satire's intent is?

Mockery in order to critic?

Unless people lack reading comprehension and the ability to distinguish tone, they'll all know that I am presenting this argument in a manner that discredits it.

Influence is not about efficiency, it's about constant presence

You do not transform threads based on what you want to say.

Don't worry, I don't

You transform threads because you demean people so much and act inappropriately.

Suree, you mean like people have been continuously dogpiling and insulting me for believing things they don't agree with? Hmmmm I see. "Inappropriate". You really don't realize the level of violence of you all are actually delivering and how much I prevent myself from retaliating.

It's crazy to think that the maximum level of violence I have been capable of in this thread are labels and the demonstration that people can't understand while explaining why based on material conditions and political awereness.

ALL WHILE I was getting insulted, my personnal life constantly laugh at, called a parasite, called a dictator, called someone who can't be nice to people, called someone who is stupid etc. etc.

But okay.... I was "inappropriate".

This erodes people's goodwill towards you.

There has never been any goodwill from people on this forum toward me outside of a few leftists. And it's understandable. I didn't come here with a friendly mindset. My first words were conflictual ones. I started political discussion on my very first day in the nakama thread. You should remember, right?

All people like you who came to me to apologized, then started to trick me into thinking that they were all friendly and willing to actually listen to what I had to say ALL turned their sword against me in a matter of days the moment they realize they wouldn't be able to make me change my opinion on things and I refused to bend the knee.

Because that's is the core of the problem. The problem is not that I can't change your opinion, the problem is that you can't change mine despite being 20 to try. It's scary, it's frightening. I get it. That's the power of leftism. SO you resort to personal attacks. Not my understanding, simply my words, my mental state, my family, my disability, my IQ, my narcissism, etc.

What you don't realize is that I'm not like you PEOPLE, I do not mind people attacking me daily or even refusing to admit defeat, it's part of the fun. I'm frustrated by it, yes. But I won't start to cry to you and attack you personnally because you can't understand. I'm telling you that you are not understanding and why I think that and I move on. I don't hold grudges, I'm always willing to listen. But I won't rethink what I have spent years to rethink already. Sorry mate, it is physically impossible.

Again, if I was someone who never learned about politics, all these attack would be legitimate and understandable and even necessary, I'm not. I'm someone, who spent years trying to work on himself and rethink all his politics to the point where there is not once each of incertitude left.

Only science and people on my left can make me change my mind now.

You never change people's minds.

... for now

if the outcome you receive is what you want, then I can only assume your true beliefs are contrary to everything you preach and that you're true stance is the one you said you used to be.

? Ok that doesn't make any sense.

My goal is to create a place of conversion for people toward leftism. How does me achieving that would actually prove than I'm still a rightist?

No, I completely understand and comprehend your rhetoric.

Yes, the rethoric, not the materiality of rethoric. Which is the backbone of the understanding.

It's like understanding how a ball move in the air, and experiencing the ball moving through the air. Two different things. One is a theory that can be ignore, the other is an experience that can change a life.

I said before that I will genuinely give other people's ideas a chance to breath and try to comprehend them before dismissing - something you do not afford to other people with your boundless paragraphs of circular logic and begging the question.

I'm starting to question if people know what circular logic actually is.

I'm bound to dissmiss your arguments. I'm sorry, it's structurally impossible. You guyz are ALL on my right (with the exception of Blax sometimes).. I'm again sorry if that does not suit you, I can't magically change that fact. I'm leftist not because I belong on the left, i'm leftist because I have experienced ALL the ideas of the right and I know from experience that they are not valid and ethical.

I can imitate your rhetoric because I understand you. You being impressed that someone else could 'think like that' just further highlights the depths of your narcissism. The only time you can afford praise is when you're staring at a reflection of your narrative. You practice worship of the self.

"inappropriate" ??? hm?



The moment you will realize that my rethoric is meant to be understandable and replicable...... that might change a lot of stuff.

I don't mind the laugh if it means that you can actually retain everything. My point is not to be subtle. It is to give you a constant flow of the same mindset in order to change your material conditions by the simple amounts of my words. Which is the only way I will effectively make you udnerstand about materialism.

My narcissism is secondary. I don't mind the laugh, I don't mind the attack, go on. It won't stop my words and my political demonstrations. I need you to change perspective and you will understand one day (i hope) that it is not something that we can always ask nicely or with care.

I don't have that time and you don't have that time either.

You practice worship of the self.

And it feel goods. Without that I would have ended things a long time ago.

I respect those who respects me, I never insult people and I never go beyond. I always attack based on the arguments and the political position of the people on the spectrum and within the domination system that I'm trying to denounce. We are in a political thread. Meaning a place of political debate and clashes of understandings of the world. If an explanation of what I believe is your political understanding is too much for you... this place is not made for you.

It's time people start understanding what a political debate is

All this leads to the following: I understand you, Logiko, and thus I can wholeheartedly state that my "perspective" can never change to adapt to your rhetoric.

It will, don't worry

I believe that society will change too much for you to simply keep your current positions.

Your concept that only the physical exists actually violates some of your most deeply held views

Go one, i'm curious. can you show me what political concepts are actually violating my materialistic vision of the world ?

I shall cease to do so for a time.

okay ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Logiko]

This was fun, but i've lost three days in this pointless debate, I need to take care of myself now, I'll try to reply less. bye bye, madman out

 

[NAMELESS]

Things would be simple if the problem of this thread was a lack of intelligence, but that's not the case. It's a problem of certitude linked to the influences of dominations system. We are in a pickle because my goal is to prove to you that you guyz are stuck on your certitudes while not giving a inch on mines. Quite a paradox, I simply can't give up the field and at the same time, me not being able to give up any field is the reason why you can't give up yours.

So from my point of view, I need to find a way to jumpstart that self-rethinking in you while convincing you that it has already happen within me. Tricky... It's like trying to find a solution to an impossible equation. So be it.. I'll takle that like an equation:

I will share all my thinking process with you guyz along my reasonning and replies. I'll write it in italic. You may look at it or ignore it. It's your choice.

Perhaps it's not visible, but I REALLY don't care about being right or wrong. Like, I would even prefer to be wrong at the moment, it would allow me to get the F out of this thread. But I feel like there is something that can be done. So my goal is for us to collectively find a solution. If not, too bad.

I want to convince you. Not for this thread, not for this forum anymore, but as an experiment. If I can convince you, or if I manage at least to push you to rethink and show you how important it is to always be doubtfull of our belief system in an ethical sense, we could find a way to pacifically resolve thousands of conflicts.

Problem 1 : The paradox of the above
Problem 2 : I don't have a formation in rethorics, I don't know how to do it, I reply amainly on instinct, that's not ideal to create a socratic discussion
Problem 3 : There are reactionnary here, there are soft conservatist, centrist. What can function for one person can't work for others ? And we need to find something that can work for all
Problem 4 : If I must convince you that i'm genuingly trying to do that in an ethical sense and for good and solid reason, I need to convince you that I can be convinced too.. BUT i've already done that work, i've verified all the potential way I could be wrong on the entire spectrum from the far right to the radical left (I think, not 100% sure), all that is left are revolutionnary ideas that I'm not fully politicized on, meaning that only a person on my left could actually tell me something that I could reconsider.. Which means that you won't be able to see that I can actually be convinced, unless you really find THE subject I can change my mind on (the ex of the guns would be one)
Problem 5 : I can't help but write 500 lines per post which prevents most of the people from reading any of my post, worst, if I try to shorten my post, I miss 50% of the information necessary to understand a concept and I can't simplify to a minimum a concept because by essence, leftist concept are complex.
Problem 6 : I can't give up on a discussion which means that I lock myself into a circle of infinite. And as you can see here, this can be exploited to completely exhaust me to the point where I get irritated.
Problem 7 : Can't think right now, I'm too exhausted, but I need to reply and I lost halk my day to right so I want to finish this quick so I can relax a little bit more.
Problem 8 : This post will be seen as completely bunkers and will inder my legitimacy even more, too bad, I'm a mad man, can't help it, welcome in wonderland.
Problem 9 : I want to insult everybody right now I call them stupid. Must refrain myself. They are not stupid, just lack perspective.
Problem 10 : How can someone with "mental problems" can convince people that they don't understand the world in a world where people think mads are completely crazy and see a deformed world. New paradox. Freak.
Problem 11: I was talking about racism. And currently, people are not open to new ideas on racism. Would there be another system of domination more prompt to create a rethinking process ?

Possible breakthrough : Maybe I should focus on only one subject. I'm losing my energy completely by trying to convince everyone of every subjects on the leftist spectrum... but really, I only need to convince people on one subject, no ? And I only need to convince one person, right? By the principle of social contagion, transmission and propagation , I know that the problem is relative to a certain threashold. Basically, the stronger the threashold, the more energy I will need to push jumpstart a contagion. Now, there is a potential good side to this, in the fact that the threadshold here is so massive and absolute that once it gets reach, the propagation should be quite easy. In other words, if I manage to convince the most reluctant person, this could create a domino effect that will convince everyone else. Not by my arguments, but by the simple fact of jumpstarting the critical thinking process. People will ask to themselves "wait, what If he is right and BOOM, I need to enter into the rift". (And they still don't know that i've been trolling for 3000 pages) But this means that I need to focus a person not too impossible to convince and not too close to my vision. Someone on the center or at least someone who think they are on the center, who laugh a lot at my rethoric should be sufficient. The Ideal person would be Van, moderator. Problem: He is a moderator, and usually left leaning, meaning that there will be a reactance from the far right side. Convincing someone on the far right would be ideal, but it is almost impossible. Also, convincing them on only one subject could be seen as an artefact, and they would justify this error by any means possible just out of spite. I d' say Okama is a good person. They have reactionnary ideas yet still the potential to understand strong leftist belief. To this day, this is the person who has the most potential to radicalize rapidely toward the left.
As for the subject now, nothing touchy, racism could be a good idea. They have told me that they had read whiteness studies, meaning that they know what whiteness means. Problem, I'm not racialized and I'm not an activist on this subject and have no legitimacy. There is a limit to my knowledge and understanding and frankly, to what I should or should not say. So, not racism. But what else ? Patriarchy is a no too, not legitimate enough. Sanism could be a good point of entry, I'm legitimate in this field. Problem : This is the field I also know the least about. And frankly, this is not a subject that they might have strong rightist argument on, the possibility of radically changing the mind of people here on sanism, is close to not really. (lol if you read this you are a G, I love One Piece too, what is it like to see the mind of a mad man?) Anyway.. Sanism is a no. Racism is no. Patriarchy is a no. Adultism is a little bit too touchy, and they are not ready to have these kind of discussions.... I forgot one.... (I'm pretty sure van is asking himself if he should threadban me or not at the moment, that would be quite relieving to be honest) what is the last ? Oke I'm stupid.. capitalism. (It's incredible how this type of writing process is liberating, I can actually think perfectly like that, well, they will all think I got crazy (and they would be right) but it's feels like I'm freeing myself here. Just embrassing madness) Anyway Capitalism.. That would be a good start. I would need to find the ONE thing that we disagree on, think, there has been something today they said "no, I don't agree with that", can't remember. SOmething to do with materialism. Or was it someone else ? I want to speak french now, that would throw them on a loop, that would be funny. I can't check it 10 page beforeeee, freak. Ok nevermind, I'll ask them directly. So I should concentrate on that ONE thing. Just one. If I manage to convince them on theat one aspect, preferably something shocking, perhaps related to prisons or.. the police? Is there anything else ? Perhaps the legitimate violence of protesters? Hm touchy. I'll think about it later. What I need now is one subject specifically on capitalism. But wait ! I don't have to do that necessarily on a system of domination ! I won't reread myself that would be even more funny. So only one subject, but it can be anything ! But that needs to be related to politics somehow. (I joked about trolling, I'm actually very serious, that was just a trap to see if you have read the entirity of the text lol) But not necessarily on a domination system, something shocking yet not too touchy so I can have endless discussion about it. But also something I can master and have knowledge on and preferably something I don't have to check on a freaking bot. Let's say capitalism for now. I'll search the subject later.

Wow I went full madman here. I guess, the madder I get, the more the realization will be strong... If they all think I'm stupid, that would actually work on my favor the moment they discover that I've been the one who has been laughing for 3000 pages at their incomprehension.. well kinda, this is irritating not to be able to share the obvious. This is what happen when I'm tired.

Anyway I don't remember what I was sayin, i'll write another post with a limit of 5 lines per replies. (not including the commentary). Should be able to stop me from rambling. Sigh I'll need to reply to all of you, I just want to watch my reactions... :( This will be fast. freak it.

First thing I see.. a commentary about my appartment. aaaaawww. Lol this post went from "I will make some commentary so we all try to find a common way to, look at my weird brain". Well freak it, they wanted a madman, they will get a madman. Today was too much. I bet they have never seen someone do this. Should be enough to scare them a little. People who have certituds are always afraid of what they don't know and what they can't control.

Boo

All right, you didn't address my previous takes or Etzel's. This whole post feels like you are trying to save face because you don't really have an answer to the replies you got. You said in the post you were trolling for 3000 pages; later on in this same post, you said you were not trolling. I really hope for your sake that you are a master troll that has been messing with us for years. The other alternative hypothesis that explains such behavior is just sad. I really think you need help, but I feel like you don't want any. You are comfortable where you are. Change yourself first before thinking about changing others or the rest of the world.

As Jordan Peterson would say, "Have you been making your bed lately?" Don't bother replying. I'm tired of this.

 

[Logiko]

As Jordan Peterson would say, "Have you been making your bed lately?" Don't bother replying. I'm tired of this.

All right, you didn't address my previous takes or Etzel's. This whole post feels like you are trying to save face because you don't really have an answer to the replies you got. You said in the post you were trolling for 3000 pages; later on in this same post, you said you were not trolling. I really hope for your sake that you are a master troll that has been messing with us for years. The other alternative hypothesis that explains such behavior is just sad. I really think you need help, but I feel like you don't want any. You are comfortable where you are. Change yourself first before thinking about changing yourself or the rest of the world.

Damn you actually read it. But yes, I adressed all the takes. I simply opposed them in a different way.

And no, I'm not trolling. As for the help, well.. perhaps one day you will understand not to project your insecurities on mad people. We are mad, we are not stupid.

Well.. I guess only time will tell

 

[Okamakama]

Don't bother replying. I'm tired of this.

I'm finally ready to listen to @Uncle Van and @AL sama and not engage. You should do the same.

 

[NAMELESS]

I'm finally ready to listen to @Uncle Van and @AL sama and not engage. You should do the same.

I will.

 

[Logiko]

I'm finally ready to listen to @Uncle Van and @AL sama and not engage. You should do the same.

o7

 

[Roo]

A sanist is apparently somebody who is discriminatory towards those with mental problems/disorders.

So someone who is anti-sanist would be anti people who are sanist, I think? I don't know.

Anti-sanism refers to the strategies, theories, and practices aimed at dismantling discrimination against people based on their mental health history or neuro-cognitive differences. It opposes "sanism" (or mentalism), which is a pervasive form of oppression and stereotyping that marginalizes individuals experiencing mental distress or neurodivergence. [1, 2, 3]

I mean what qualifies as oppression. I feel like discrimination against some mental illness should be necessary at times

 

[Logiko]

People who come to political threads and spaces to squabble just to whine and run away because they won't accept political contradictions based on their rethorics will always be funny to me.

Politics are questions of life and death. We are not playing football here.

 

[NAMELESS]

I mean what qualifies as oppression. I feel like discrimination against some mental illness should be necessary at times

Spicy take. What kind of mental illness are you talking about? Perversion maybe?

 

[Okamakama]

I mean what qualifies as oppression. I feel like discrimination against some mental illness should be necessary at times

I wouldn't know. I feel like 'sanism' is a word that's often used to justify bad behaviours from the mentally ill. We shouldn't needlessly discriminate in terms of accommodation or the right to fair chances at employment, but we also shouldn't tolerate dangerous behaviours, such as indulging delusions or forgiving crimes committed under mental episodes.

 

[NAMELESS]

we also shouldn't tolerate dangerous behaviours, such as indulging delusions or forgiving crimes committed under mental episodes.

Not even those committed under psychotic episodes.

 

[Logiko]

I feel like discrimination against some mental illness should be necessary at times

And that is how fascism rises

 

[Roo]

Spicy take. What kind of mental illness are you talking about? Perversion maybe?

Yeah pedophiles shouldn't be allowed near kids, that would be discrimination

 

[Roo]

And that is how fascism rises

If you don't want mentally unstable people in positions of power for example that is quite literally discrimination towards them

Like I don't think people with schizophrenia should be allowed to buy guns for their own safety and that of others. That is discriminating towards them

 

[NAMELESS]

Yeah pedophiles shouldn't be allowed near kids, that would be discrimination

I agree. I think people on the dark triad spectrum should not be allowed to work in health care, public security, the justice system or be allowed in political posts. They can do a lot of harm to society in such privileged positions. I think we are suffering from suicidal empathy and political correctness nowadays.