Meh I've learned a long time ago to take everything he says with a grain of salt given his history of making stuff up and changing definitions. Like is it real mental illness or did he change the criteria to self diagnose or something. Whatever. I can go only go by his words and actions like everyone else.
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
It SEEMS to be the problem, but my doctor is not completely 100% sure yet since I have a hard time recovering (but at the same time, I lived with that for 1 and a half decade and it was just strong in the last 10 years so it might be the reason why its so long to repair).
It can be a symptom of all those things indeed. but in my case it seems to be the core problem.
It can be a symptom of all those things indeed. but in my case it seems to be the core problem.
This has nothing to do with personal biases but objective facts. Once again, who am I to assume what goes on in your life? I don't know a thing except what you say and do here. You've objectively made up and changed definitions with you justifying it by saying language evolves and textbook definitions are outdated. You objectively(and admitted) lack knowledge on history and economics yet talk down to people about it. You're objectively a massive hypocrite by definition. You've objectively annoyed women and minorities, left wing and all, also groups you claim you try to help, to the point they ban together with jackasses to get you removed from topics. You objectively come off as delusional by shifting blame to everyone else for not understanding your personal terms.
All these objective facts lead me to initially doubt your mental illness. If someone with 3 assault charges swear he didn't commit the next assault, obviously I'd doubt him based on evidence even though he could 100% be telling the truth. I still have no way of knowing that.
All these objective facts lead me to initially doubt your mental illness. If someone with 3 assault charges swear he didn't commit the next assault, obviously I'd doubt him based on evidence even though he could 100% be telling the truth. I still have no way of knowing that.
That's most unfortunate to hear, and I'm sorry you've had to live life like that, I knew a kid from high school who had 1 arm and did residential construction with me at the tech school. If there's a will, there's a way, sort of. There will always be limitations of course. I hope the best, at the very least.
- For the narration, I did changed definitions. Simply because the words I needed to use are simply badly defined for the public from an objective narrative standpoint. And since I know a few thing about narration and those words or concept weren't clarified or aknowledge, I defined them.
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
You don’t need “motivation” to do anything
While I’m sure you are struggling with some issues. I don’t know to what degree this is actually disabling you.
If you’re not working, how are you getting the money to live and spend all your time on this site? And if you didn’t get that money, what do you think would happen to you?
Would you just be chronically homeless or would you finally have the motivation to do stuff?
[automerge]1715632891[/automerge]
And taking medication for this doesn’t help?
While I’m sure you are struggling with some issues. I don’t know to what degree this is actually disabling you.
If you’re not working, how are you getting the money to live and spend all your time on this site? And if you didn’t get that money, what do you think would happen to you?
Would you just be chronically homeless or would you finally have the motivation to do stuff?
[automerge]1715632891[/automerge]
And taking medication for this doesn’t help?
Actually.. you need motivation to do everything.
Between 50 and 80%. (Probably more around 60%). At least that what the organism that allow me to have a financial help is saying.
A system called AAH. (allowance for disabled adults in english). Difficult to get, I actually just got it after a long period of specialist consideration. I was in RSA (Active solidarity income) before that.
The streets.
A little (especially this last year) but not enough as of right now to get me out of a room or work actively on projects.
Between 50 and 80%. (Probably more around 60%). At least that what the organism that allow me to have a financial help is saying.
A system called AAH. (allowance for disabled adults in english). Difficult to get, I actually just got it after a long period of specialist consideration. I was in RSA (Active solidarity income) before that.
The streets.
A little (especially this last year) but not enough as of right now to get me out of a room or work actively on projects.
Last edited:
People should stfu for once and just type avolition on internet
[automerge]1715635438[/automerge]
You’ve been seeking a treatment for a decade ? Nothing has been found for 10years for you ?
[automerge]1715635438[/automerge]
For my part a treatment is underway, we are trying to figure things out. It takes time, but I'm optimistic.
Last edited:
- For the narration, I did changed definitions. Simply because the words I needed to use are simply badly defined for the public from an objective narrative standpoint. And since I know a few thing about narration and those words or concept weren't clarified or aknowledge, I defined them.
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
And you gotta except the fact that not everyone will like you, and that not liking you doesn't automatically consistute being toxic, right wing, or a traitor. MLK and Malcom X didn't even like each other much.
1. Wrong or rather not necessarily. Changing definitions and redefining terms can simply be due to a new set of knowledge and a new look on history and social structures.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
1. Wrong or rather not necessarily. Changing definitions and redefining terms can simply be due to a new set of knowledge and a new look on history and social structures.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
Most people are moderate or apolitical; they don't give a shit nor care much about politics. Real life politics and political morality got nothing to do with the Nakama discussion and its against rules, and you didn't care and persisted. Everyone in that thread banded together to to get rid of you for being annoying and making it political 24/7. Your response? You're gone cause of toxicity, right wingers, and/or leftist traitors, putting the blame on
others and made up political leaning.
At the same time, you try to dictate what posts are allowed in your own threads and come to the mods to delete them aka it's only okay if you bring political opinions in places that aren't wanted, always going on about your morality and positivity stuff.
Your whole gimmick is debating from a morality standpoint instead of a practical and historical one.