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
You are right. #FreeBadly
I'm support you man
Same.
In general, I'm not a fan of religion or people preaching it. But Blax is one of the most respectfull people here (so much that he made me rethink how to interact with people) and has been constantly trying to defend a fair system. If religion or sharing religion ethically brings him confort, I will never mind.
I'm support you man
Same.
In general, I'm not a fan of religion or people preaching it. But Blax is one of the most respectfull people here (so much that he made me rethink how to interact with people) and has been constantly trying to defend a fair system. If religion or sharing religion ethically brings him confort, I will never mind.
We need our own movement like #BaldLivesMatter.
If yoru, jew, reloaded, tyki, rayban, Tesla, Uncle Van and others like them makes fun of bald people and bully them by tagging me, can I expect from you to give them lecture on systematic discrimination faced by bald guys?
Last edited:
What will be Logiko excuse now?
Absolutely no war ever in world history did what Israel does that is asking for civilians to leave so they can exterminate the aggressor.
This is how Israel shows they care about Palestinians and their lifes matter to them.
Your narrative won't change reality. Israel is not the problem of Palestinians. Hamas is.
Post automatically merged:
Absolutely no war ever in world history did what Israel does that is asking for civilians to leave so they can exterminate the aggressor.
This is how Israel shows they care about Palestinians and their lifes matter to them.
Your narrative won't change reality. Israel is not the problem of Palestinians. Hamas is.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1971574256770388342
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in months. Which is impressive given how often I'm on this forum
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in months. Which is impressive given how often I'm on this forum
Sorry, it's not systemic, I can't not do much for you
But I will defend you
Yeah. I watch ed a bit of his reactions here and there and while he has knowledge that is indeniable, his political logic is flawed as, like many scientist who do not take sociological and political issues into account, are depoliticizing the subject.
The fact that he is treating the same way for exemple a Marxist and a far rightist video is telling enough to explain that he believes that everything is a market place of ideas. Those are historian yes, but historians with flaws.
And in this case, one that believe in the Horseshoe effect and apply it a bit too much. The horseshoe effect is a centrist basic theory that tends to explain that fascism and authoritarian deictatorships have a lot of similarities when they are really completely invizibilizing MASSIVE societal aspect such as domination system that sociologist would rather talk about (racism, white supremacism etc.).
His video is good for you because I think it will allow you to understand to be nuanced a bit much that what you vendal savage gourou explained, but it's far from an expertize on Nazism, I would rather send you look at historians who worked on Nazism for that. Johann Chapoutot would be the main one in my mind.
But I will defend you
Yeah. I watch ed a bit of his reactions here and there and while he has knowledge that is indeniable, his political logic is flawed as, like many scientist who do not take sociological and political issues into account, are depoliticizing the subject.
The fact that he is treating the same way for exemple a Marxist and a far rightist video is telling enough to explain that he believes that everything is a market place of ideas. Those are historian yes, but historians with flaws.
And in this case, one that believe in the Horseshoe effect and apply it a bit too much. The horseshoe effect is a centrist basic theory that tends to explain that fascism and authoritarian deictatorships have a lot of similarities when they are really completely invizibilizing MASSIVE societal aspect such as domination system that sociologist would rather talk about (racism, white supremacism etc.).
His video is good for you because I think it will allow you to understand to be nuanced a bit much that what you vendal savage gourou explained, but it's far from an expertize on Nazism, I would rather send you look at historians who worked on Nazism for that. Johann Chapoutot would be the main one in my mind.
Sorry, it's not systemic, I can't not do much for you
But I will defend you
Yeah. I watch ed a bit of his reactions here and there and while he has knowledge that is indeniable, his political logic is flawed as, like many scientist who do not take sociological and political issues into account, are depoliticizing the subject.
The fact that he is treating the same way for exemple a Marxist and a far rightist video is telling enough to explain that he believes that everything is a market place of ideas. Those are historian yes, but historians with flaws.
And in this case, one that believe in the Horseshoe effect and apply it a bit too much. The horseshoe effect is a centrist basic theory that tends to explain that fascism and authoritarian deictatorships have a lot of similarities when they are really completely invizibilizing MASSIVE societal aspect such as domination system that sociologist would rather talk about (racism, white supremacism etc.).
His video is good for you because I think it will allow you to understand to be nuanced a bit much that what you vendal savage gourou explained, but it's far from an expertize on Nazism, I would rather send you look at historians who worked on Nazism for that. Johann Chapoutot would be the main one in my mind.
But I will defend you
Yeah. I watch ed a bit of his reactions here and there and while he has knowledge that is indeniable, his political logic is flawed as, like many scientist who do not take sociological and political issues into account, are depoliticizing the subject.
The fact that he is treating the same way for exemple a Marxist and a far rightist video is telling enough to explain that he believes that everything is a market place of ideas. Those are historian yes, but historians with flaws.
And in this case, one that believe in the Horseshoe effect and apply it a bit too much. The horseshoe effect is a centrist basic theory that tends to explain that fascism and authoritarian deictatorships have a lot of similarities when they are really completely invizibilizing MASSIVE societal aspect such as domination system that sociologist would rather talk about (racism, white supremacism etc.).
His video is good for you because I think it will allow you to understand to be nuanced a bit much that what you vendal savage gourou explained, but it's far from an expertize on Nazism, I would rather send you look at historians who worked on Nazism for that. Johann Chapoutot would be the main one in my mind.
In job interviews, bald men suddenly look too experienced, which is code for...we think you’re older than you are even when you aren't.
On dating apps, bald guys get Left swipes
In Movies, Bald equals villain - Voldemort, Thanos, Lex Luthor. This whole persona has been equated to being villainous.
Even capitalism is in on it...entire industries thrive on selling the fear of hair loss, convincing people that baldness is practically a crime against humanity and a no-no for men.
Society has baldarchy mindset - yes I coined this term just now where bald people are looked down upon by others especially women just because of baldness. They are trolled as well (just take this forum)
It's systemic and if you deny this then I won't consider you a Leftist ally anymore
It's systemic
In job interviews, bald men suddenly look too experienced, which is code for...we think you’re older than you are even when you aren't.
On dating apps, bald guys get Left swipes
In Movies, Bald equals villain - Voldemort, Thanos, Lex Luthor. This whole persona has been equated to being villainous.
Even capitalism is in on it...entire industries thrive on selling the fear of hair loss, convincing people that baldness is practically a crime against humanity and a no-no for men.
Society has baldarchy mindset - yes I coined this term just now where bald people are looked down upon by others especially women just because of baldness. They are trolled as well (just take this forum)
It's systemic and if you deny this then I won't consider you a Leftist ally anymore
In job interviews, bald men suddenly look too experienced, which is code for...we think you’re older than you are even when you aren't.
On dating apps, bald guys get Left swipes
In Movies, Bald equals villain - Voldemort, Thanos, Lex Luthor. This whole persona has been equated to being villainous.
Even capitalism is in on it...entire industries thrive on selling the fear of hair loss, convincing people that baldness is practically a crime against humanity and a no-no for men.
Society has baldarchy mindset - yes I coined this term just now where bald people are looked down upon by others especially women just because of baldness. They are trolled as well (just take this forum)
It's systemic and if you deny this then I won't consider you a Leftist ally anymore
Bald men are inherently built strong as they carry baldness like gigachads.
I do appreciate one punch man role in rewiring the wrong perception of bald guys to some extent
But even in this manga, if you notice, people around him kept on denying the credits Saitama deserved. They looked down upon him as weakling. Despite his unmatched aura and strength, society labelled him. Saitama had to prove himself at every step.
I do appreciate one punch man role in rewiring the wrong perception of bald guys to some extent
But even in this manga, if you notice, people around him kept on denying the credits Saitama deserved. They looked down upon him as weakling. Despite his unmatched aura and strength, society labelled him. Saitama had to prove himself at every step.
Even capitalism is in on it...entire industries thrive on selling the fear of hair loss, convincing people that baldness is practically a crime against humanity and a no-no for men.
Society has baldarchy mindset - yes I coined this term just now where bald people are looked down upon by others especially women just because of baldness. They are trolled as well (just take this forum)
It's systemic and if you deny this then I won't consider you a Leftist ally anymore
Society has baldarchy mindset - yes I coined this term just now where bald people are looked down upon by others especially women just because of baldness. They are trolled as well (just take this forum)
It's systemic and if you deny this then I won't consider you a Leftist ally anymore
Which was legitimate. There is no reasons to accept colonialism.
There is something that really BOTHERS me : People talk about right/left debate in function of the people composing the sides.
It creates the idea that the right and the left are just interchangeable ideas. Relative thinking on the marketplace of ideas. The idea that we can pick and choose what is good or bad as "there is good on both side" (Someone told me that IRL just a few days ago).
This fake relativity between both sides is always a major trap. because it promotes the idea that we exist outside of the political spectrum and that we have the mental fortuitude to choose the best side without any forms of biases.
> This is the reason why every centrist who don't care to question their political spectrum are doomed to end up reactionnaries.
The reality is that the concept of "left" and "right" is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. The political spectrum has never been a horseshoe with two relative sides and a form of moderate center.
This is what the political spectrum has always been and will ALWAYS look like:
You need to see "Indiana Jones and the last cruisade" to understand this.
In reality : there is only ONE side that can help us > Materialism. Idealism will inevitably send you toward our common end. Historically, only the left has been Materialist enough to create positive change and the right is characterized by this constant seeking of more idealist thinking. (note: Being a materialist is not an absolute necessity, you can be an idealist ally of materialist, Blax is a good exemple, but this must be taken with care as idealism will create reactionnary biases, inevitably)
"Rich people deserve more" > Idealism
"I can't surpass my condition on my own" > Idealism
"We can't allow people in our border because they represent a danger" > Idealism
"Freedom means freemarket" > Idealism
"Freedom means propriety" > Idealism
At every idealist end, you will find a materialist. Someone that will explain that the mind? > Not a magical box > We are part of a social and complex itnerconnected architecture of systems > Our condition create who we are, who we become > Change your conditions, change yourself.
I will continu to talk about rightism and leftism, but I consider this as a complete nonsense.
There is not a right side and a left side.
There is a side that has the tool to change society for the better and a side that has the potential to sink it.
It creates the idea that the right and the left are just interchangeable ideas. Relative thinking on the marketplace of ideas. The idea that we can pick and choose what is good or bad as "there is good on both side" (Someone told me that IRL just a few days ago).
This fake relativity between both sides is always a major trap. because it promotes the idea that we exist outside of the political spectrum and that we have the mental fortuitude to choose the best side without any forms of biases.
> This is the reason why every centrist who don't care to question their political spectrum are doomed to end up reactionnaries.
The reality is that the concept of "left" and "right" is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. The political spectrum has never been a horseshoe with two relative sides and a form of moderate center.
This is what the political spectrum has always been and will ALWAYS look like:
You need to see "Indiana Jones and the last cruisade" to understand this.
In reality : there is only ONE side that can help us > Materialism. Idealism will inevitably send you toward our common end. Historically, only the left has been Materialist enough to create positive change and the right is characterized by this constant seeking of more idealist thinking. (note: Being a materialist is not an absolute necessity, you can be an idealist ally of materialist, Blax is a good exemple, but this must be taken with care as idealism will create reactionnary biases, inevitably)
"Rich people deserve more" > Idealism
"I can't surpass my condition on my own" > Idealism
"We can't allow people in our border because they represent a danger" > Idealism
"Freedom means freemarket" > Idealism
"Freedom means propriety" > Idealism
At every idealist end, you will find a materialist. Someone that will explain that the mind? > Not a magical box > We are part of a social and complex itnerconnected architecture of systems > Our condition create who we are, who we become > Change your conditions, change yourself.
I will continu to talk about rightism and leftism, but I consider this as a complete nonsense.
There is not a right side and a left side.
There is a side that has the tool to change society for the better and a side that has the potential to sink it.
Last edited:
Just whisper "Nietzsche" in his ear and you'll see 
What norwood even are you ?
What norwood even are you ?
Great opportunity to share a quote I just heard:
"What's reality? I don't know. When my bird was looking at my computer monitor, I thought, "that bird has no idea what he's looking at." And yet, what does the bird do? Does he panic? No, he can't really panic, he just does the best he can.
Is he able to live in a world where he's so ignorant? Well, he doesn't have a choice. The bird is okay even if he doesn't understand the world.
You're that bird looking at a monitor, and you're thinking to yourself, I can figure this out. Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that's the best you can do."
What did Nietzsche even know about anything, plenty of people here probably achieved a lot more than he did, I think the more I learn, the stupider philosophy looks.
Post automatically merged:
And I did try to read philosophy from different people, for example The Christian System, made by an important philosopher whose name I don't remember, he was a pessimist I think, was garbage tier and I kept correcting it in the claims it made.
Post automatically merged:
The Marx comic I shared about him going to an island is from a website named Existential Comics
Post automatically merged:
Oh yeah Arthur Scopenhauer wrote The Christian System, in 1851.
This guy was sitting there making stuff up, meanwhile John Brown was liberating slaves.
Post automatically merged:
Maybe this quote also fits:
"An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity, a physicist tries to make it simple,
for an idiot anything the more complicated it is the more he will admire it, if you make something so messy he can't understand it he's gonna think you're a god cause you made it so complicated nobody can understand it.
That's how they write journals in Academics, they try to make it so complicated people think you're a genius."
Last edited: