Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I literally quoted two mods. Why do you think I was saying it was YOU who banned me the last time? By the way, I quoted him too. He just failed to provide an answer, like always. Will probably eventually reply with "touch grass," "cry," or some other immature shit that he thinks makes him look cool.
Getting rid of the concept of private property is pretty nasty work. That's all I gotta say for now.
Morning news. Wash your vegetables.
Morning news. Wash your vegetables.
Yea peoples kids and family is a sensitive spot/subject
BUT, when you remove your kids from “liberal” schools etc kause you’re worried for ya kids and shit. And then turn around and vote and support a man whose had MULTIPLE sexual assault klaims against em going back decades, whose also had multiple……incidents regarding PDF activities. Is best friends with tha most prolific/notorious/far reaching human trafficker and PDF in modern human history that we know of
Also with tha point of using what they are teaching bout black people as a point to do it, is hilariously wild kause tha man she voted for has legitimately 4-5+ decades of publicly known racial discrimination
Yea you Kant really klaim that you’re tryna protect ya kids. Those actions are tha diametric opposite of protecting your child
BUT, when you remove your kids from “liberal” schools etc kause you’re worried for ya kids and shit. And then turn around and vote and support a man whose had MULTIPLE sexual assault klaims against em going back decades, whose also had multiple……incidents regarding PDF activities. Is best friends with tha most prolific/notorious/far reaching human trafficker and PDF in modern human history that we know of
Also with tha point of using what they are teaching bout black people as a point to do it, is hilariously wild kause tha man she voted for has legitimately 4-5+ decades of publicly known racial discrimination
Yea you Kant really klaim that you’re tryna protect ya kids. Those actions are tha diametric opposite of protecting your child
I do have a counter-point to this to be fair. The links between Epstein and Trump were only really confirmed this year with the 'release' of the files. Whilst there were murmurings, it was basically speculation. Unless I'm spacing out, and I could be, the incident with Zemmi happened before this confirmation. It's hard to hold her accountable for things she didn't know (at least regarding the notorious PDF part).
Also, in the interest of fairness, people have different priorities, and we should judge them on that. My wife for example cares more for education than other areas of interest. To her, she is also be concerned about letting our children be indoctrinated in the public schooling system (we're not USA btw) and for that reason she wishes to homeschool. I'm certain there is a world of nuance where whilst Trump isn't great, Zemmi legitimately thought he was better for her family (especially prior to everything that went down).
That is to say, your priorities change when you become a parent, and whilst she may or may not be wrong in her judgement, her decision made sense to her, and she kind of does have every right to claim she's trying to protect her kids.
Just food for thought. I don't want to actually start an argument.
Also, in the interest of fairness, people have different priorities, and we should judge them on that. My wife for example cares more for education than other areas of interest. To her, she is also be concerned about letting our children be indoctrinated in the public schooling system (we're not USA btw) and for that reason she wishes to homeschool. I'm certain there is a world of nuance where whilst Trump isn't great, Zemmi legitimately thought he was better for her family (especially prior to everything that went down).
That is to say, your priorities change when you become a parent, and whilst she may or may not be wrong in her judgement, her decision made sense to her, and she kind of does have every right to claim she's trying to protect her kids.
Just food for thought. I don't want to actually start an argument.
Before all the controversy surrounding Trump’s connection to Epstein and the handling of the Epstein files, Trump was generally viewed as crude, abrasive, and someone whose comments or policies were considered racist by some people. Even then, whether those views were actually racist was often debated.
Conservative ideologies also seem to rub certain demographics the wrong way more than others. But, people within any demographic are not automatically going to share the same political beliefs. It's not always certain that someone's race, gender, sexuality, or background determines whether they must fully lean toward liberal or conservative.
4-5 decades of racial discrimination is a heavy claim btw. Holding for now
*shrug*
@Jiihad
Conservative ideologies also seem to rub certain demographics the wrong way more than others. But, people within any demographic are not automatically going to share the same political beliefs. It's not always certain that someone's race, gender, sexuality, or background determines whether they must fully lean toward liberal or conservative.
4-5 decades of racial discrimination is a heavy claim btw. Holding for now
*shrug*
@Jiihad
Ain't got Elon to rig this election
Back to... once again... the tactics the Nazi's used.
"Uh we started a war no one but the terrorists on our side wanted, so, now we have to shut down the elections, FOR YOUUUUUR SAFETY!!!"
I can't believe I was ever so fucking stupid, I thought these elections weren't rigged. Damn.
Back to... once again... the tactics the Nazi's used.
"Uh we started a war no one but the terrorists on our side wanted, so, now we have to shut down the elections, FOR YOUUUUUR SAFETY!!!"
I can't believe I was ever so fucking stupid, I thought these elections weren't rigged. Damn.
Ok here we go. Keep that in this thread please. It's sounds philosophical, but it's part of a political argument:
-------------------------------------------------------
So..
I will try to demonstrate the fundamentals of my thinking process in a depoliticized way. This is not something that we recommend on the left, but it could help here.
First the fundamental: My values are deeply linked to my vision of reality. meaning that I need to start with the big picture before moving into the details
-------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe in gods
I consider that if gods were real, they should somehow be dethroned from their positions because of their inaction in front of horrors within their universe. So it's not only that I don't believe in them, I reject the very idea that an entity in power should deserve praise solely on the basis that they somehow created everything, especially when said entity does nothing to prevent the horrors in front of their nose. Such an entity would be unethical in the absolute sense of the word. As to how to dethrone them, if God exists, then magic exists then there are no limits to one's power - even for us - then power can be created and the powerful surpassed.
My vision of the universe is out of the realm of gods and monsters. It lies within the realm of the beauty and reality of the universe and existence itself. I don't want a god mostly because I don't need one to be in awe. I also don't need one to understand the universe. I believe reality is fundamentally physical. By that, I mean that no matter what is created, no matter what exists, everything that exists must ultimately possess physical properties, have a form of materiality that will interact within the limits of this universe or another. If something has no physical properties (as in physical interactions of matter or forces) it cannot influence reality and cannot be perceived or change anything.
This is a philosophical vision we call materialism. It is the idea that the universe exists within its materiality and the physical interactions of matter and forces are the foundations of existence itself.
The big bang and gravity shaped space-time > Gravity and other forces forged matter into stars, galaxies and black holes > Stars contributed in the creation of materials and planets > Planets favored the appearance of the components of self-replicating organisms > Life appeared as we know it.
Materialism is opposed to idealism which postulates that the universe is a construction of the mind, spirit and consciousness.
Be careful not to confuse the materialist philosophy that I'm demonstrating with the idea of being "materialistic" which means to be consumerist and loving objects or shopping. These two are fundamentally not the same thing. And do not confuse philosophical idealism with the notion of "idealizing something" like dreaming of an utopia for example. These two are also not the same thing.
As you might have noticed, materialism is opposed to idealism in the same way science is opposed to belief systems and spiritualities. This is not a coincidence.
The scientific method tends to reinforce a materialist view of reality, while belief systems will naturally fall toward idealism. The reason being the method itself. Science doesn't begin with certainty, it formulates hypotheses, conducts experiments, observes and draws conclusions based on the reality of the universe, it can't self-reflect and contradict its own pre-conception but most of all, it is refutable. Within science, reality can only be observed through material and physical means so the realm of science will mostly fall toward materialism and scientists will usually think that life is mostly a product of reality.
On the other hand, belief systems will tend to prioritize the potential of the spirit, of faith, of the unknown and untouchable and unprovable. It will usually place minds at the center of reality and conscious, and consider that spiritual means can shape reality. While this is a fun thinking process, it will exclude itself from the potential materiality of the universe as it will consider that materiality and physicality itself are a resulting process of said spirituality/mind by either a god or our own perception.
This leads to a fundamental divergence : Free Will.
Most idealists will tend to consider free will as a given. After all, if reality is a product of the mind or can be bent by it, the spiritual must be stronger materially than said reality and free will must exist.
Some Materialists will tend to refute this postulate and consider that matter and forces only exist in the physicality of the world and that our mind and body - that can only be the result of existence itself - are material products that can only be influenced.
The entire disagreement comes down to a single word : influence.
But it a paradox for a lot of us as even said "will" will need a form of logic to exist. A coherence that should shape its own ethics and decisions. Wether it is in this universe or another, a will existing on its own can only be divine. Yet this is another paradox as even the divine should obey by a form of logic thus limiting the concept of will itself within its own nature.
In other words, for some materialists, "a will" can't exist, because to exist, it would need to pre-exist its own coherence and logic. No matter if we are talking about a god or a human. Another reason to believe that is the fact our own choices seem to actually pre-exist our consciousness of said choices (up to sometimes a few seconds, look it up)
I personally consider that our "will" is only an illusion of our mind.
Idealism can be soothing. It makes us feel like we are more than just a form of life on a speck of dust, but for me, idealism diminishes the beauty of the universe by reducing it to the product of the or "a" mind, something so much simpler and uninteresting..
-------------------------------------------------------
Materialism, for me, is the philosophy of wonder and COMPLEXITY.
It is what makes us look, research, question, discover, appreciate and be in awe. It can be hard to swallow at first, yes. But it brings a peace that is unmatched because it's fun. This materialist mindset has two consequences for my vision of humanity, as an old man with a hat once said a long time ago :
1. "I ultimately don't believe that humans can think or reason"
2. "I ultimately don't believe that people can misbehave. I consider that all humans on the planet, considered "bad" or "good", act perfectly adapted to their existence. That all actions and values are perfectly adjusted to the environment and material conditions they appear in."
Let me explain:
The human brain and our genetics are specifically tuned to favor our biases. This means that we have what we call "heuristics", shortcuts within our cognition that are meant to facilitate our thinking process.
For example, you must know that confirmation biases will often make you accept more easily things you already agree with. Survivorship bias that will make you reason within the limits of who "came back" rather than analyze more deeply a situation for example.. We believe that these heuristics were naturally selected to help us survive and make quick decisions.
Now, they might have helped us back in the stone age, but now?
Well if you were raised within Nazi Germany you would have most likely become a fascist. Not because you are bad by essence, but the pressure created by the environment on your value system, biases and knowledge. Another example : If you were given only one book to read in your entire existence, you would probably tend to think that only this book exists.
I believe life is fine-tuned to its environment. There are some irregularities and problems of adaptation within evolution itself, yes, but life is evolving exactly as it should and exactly within its own logic and limitations. And I believe that our environments and genetics shape our thoughts, mind, beliefs, values.. everything.
-------------------------------------------------------
We are like feathers carried by the wind.
But this doesn't mean that we can't feel or wonder. It simply means that we are limited by the physicality and the materiality of our universe.
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe in free will. BUT its illusion is fundamental.
If free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that we can act as though we didn't have it, that we shouldn't be held responsible, or that our choices to "act" or "not act" are precisely the result of the absence of Free will. In fact, me telling you that we should live within the illusion of free will is a direct result of the universe pushing me to act within my own limitations. Are you following me?
This means that even if we are not in control of change, the fact of acting or not acting toward a change is inherently linked to the materiality and nature (all the material conditions) of our universe.
I'm not in control yet I still move and reflect toward the idea of CHANGE. And I currently believe that we should ALL move toward a change. So no matter if I'm in control or not, I will move toward that change. Do you understand what I mean ?
This means that the absence of free will is not an excuse to be passive in front of the horrors of the world.
It also means that change is possible through the understanding of the upper layer of materialism.
-------------------------------------------------------
For if we learn how we are influenced, the resulting knowledge can be used to shape ourselves.
-------------------------------------------------------
It's is the idea that our thoughts, beliefs and self are influenced by our environment and the material conditions (physical, social, institutional, genetic and psychological conditions) of our existence. We are the product of existence and therefore for us to change, we need to change the conditions of of our own existences even if we know we can't control them.
This is why I now consider that it is idealistic to try to convince people by simply talking even though I'm actually going against the wind of this understanding of materialism by trying to convince you by words. I know, deep down, that it can't work.
To really share my understanding, your environment would have needed to shape you enough so you would have a similar vision to accept new forms of beliefs linked with marginalization and counter-powers. Words and knowledge alone are not enough. This is why people who suddenly lose everything or get a disability, often become radicalized toward the idea of change as they will start to notice much more vividly the inequalities and injustice of the world that they would negate in "normal" conditions even when being clearly told about it.
My situation helped me wake up from a reactionary fall. It is what cursed me and it is what politicized me. The sudden realization of being a simple feather on the wind, sent me toward instant depression and derealization (look it up). But it also opened the path toward self-criticism, self-awareness and self-reflection.
I'm not able to change everything about myself. I'm egotistical and I crave attention mostly because I live alone. I'm also obsessive and stubborn. These are things that are very hard to change. But I'm also fully aware of what I believed in and what I believe now. My defects do not define who I am and do not limit my understanding or reflection..
BUT
If a change of conditions of existence made me change and reflect then it can happen for ANYONE and the understanding of materialism can change the world.
-------------------------------------------------------
There is only one question left: Would you be willing to adopt this materialist framework?
-------------------------------------------------------
If you are, if you listened and agreed with this thinking process, if you took the time to self-reflect about it. I'd be willing to explain in detail how we can go beyond. From the less political, to the more revolutionnary ideas.
-------------------------------------------------------
So..
I will try to demonstrate the fundamentals of my thinking process in a depoliticized way. This is not something that we recommend on the left, but it could help here.
First the fundamental: My values are deeply linked to my vision of reality. meaning that I need to start with the big picture before moving into the details
-------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe in gods
I consider that if gods were real, they should somehow be dethroned from their positions because of their inaction in front of horrors within their universe. So it's not only that I don't believe in them, I reject the very idea that an entity in power should deserve praise solely on the basis that they somehow created everything, especially when said entity does nothing to prevent the horrors in front of their nose. Such an entity would be unethical in the absolute sense of the word. As to how to dethrone them, if God exists, then magic exists then there are no limits to one's power - even for us - then power can be created and the powerful surpassed.
My vision of the universe is out of the realm of gods and monsters. It lies within the realm of the beauty and reality of the universe and existence itself. I don't want a god mostly because I don't need one to be in awe. I also don't need one to understand the universe. I believe reality is fundamentally physical. By that, I mean that no matter what is created, no matter what exists, everything that exists must ultimately possess physical properties, have a form of materiality that will interact within the limits of this universe or another. If something has no physical properties (as in physical interactions of matter or forces) it cannot influence reality and cannot be perceived or change anything.
This is a philosophical vision we call materialism. It is the idea that the universe exists within its materiality and the physical interactions of matter and forces are the foundations of existence itself.
The big bang and gravity shaped space-time > Gravity and other forces forged matter into stars, galaxies and black holes > Stars contributed in the creation of materials and planets > Planets favored the appearance of the components of self-replicating organisms > Life appeared as we know it.
Materialism is opposed to idealism which postulates that the universe is a construction of the mind, spirit and consciousness.
Be careful not to confuse the materialist philosophy that I'm demonstrating with the idea of being "materialistic" which means to be consumerist and loving objects or shopping. These two are fundamentally not the same thing. And do not confuse philosophical idealism with the notion of "idealizing something" like dreaming of an utopia for example. These two are also not the same thing.
As you might have noticed, materialism is opposed to idealism in the same way science is opposed to belief systems and spiritualities. This is not a coincidence.
The scientific method tends to reinforce a materialist view of reality, while belief systems will naturally fall toward idealism. The reason being the method itself. Science doesn't begin with certainty, it formulates hypotheses, conducts experiments, observes and draws conclusions based on the reality of the universe, it can't self-reflect and contradict its own pre-conception but most of all, it is refutable. Within science, reality can only be observed through material and physical means so the realm of science will mostly fall toward materialism and scientists will usually think that life is mostly a product of reality.
On the other hand, belief systems will tend to prioritize the potential of the spirit, of faith, of the unknown and untouchable and unprovable. It will usually place minds at the center of reality and conscious, and consider that spiritual means can shape reality. While this is a fun thinking process, it will exclude itself from the potential materiality of the universe as it will consider that materiality and physicality itself are a resulting process of said spirituality/mind by either a god or our own perception.
This leads to a fundamental divergence : Free Will.
Most idealists will tend to consider free will as a given. After all, if reality is a product of the mind or can be bent by it, the spiritual must be stronger materially than said reality and free will must exist.
Some Materialists will tend to refute this postulate and consider that matter and forces only exist in the physicality of the world and that our mind and body - that can only be the result of existence itself - are material products that can only be influenced.
The entire disagreement comes down to a single word : influence.
- The idealist preconception will be : The mind > influences > the perception and materiality of existence.
- The materialist preconception will be : Existence and its materiality > influences > the mind and the materiality of existence.
But it a paradox for a lot of us as even said "will" will need a form of logic to exist. A coherence that should shape its own ethics and decisions. Wether it is in this universe or another, a will existing on its own can only be divine. Yet this is another paradox as even the divine should obey by a form of logic thus limiting the concept of will itself within its own nature.
In other words, for some materialists, "a will" can't exist, because to exist, it would need to pre-exist its own coherence and logic. No matter if we are talking about a god or a human. Another reason to believe that is the fact our own choices seem to actually pre-exist our consciousness of said choices (up to sometimes a few seconds, look it up)
I personally consider that our "will" is only an illusion of our mind.
Idealism can be soothing. It makes us feel like we are more than just a form of life on a speck of dust, but for me, idealism diminishes the beauty of the universe by reducing it to the product of the or "a" mind, something so much simpler and uninteresting..
-------------------------------------------------------
Materialism, for me, is the philosophy of wonder and COMPLEXITY.
It is what makes us look, research, question, discover, appreciate and be in awe. It can be hard to swallow at first, yes. But it brings a peace that is unmatched because it's fun. This materialist mindset has two consequences for my vision of humanity, as an old man with a hat once said a long time ago :
1. "I ultimately don't believe that humans can think or reason"
2. "I ultimately don't believe that people can misbehave. I consider that all humans on the planet, considered "bad" or "good", act perfectly adapted to their existence. That all actions and values are perfectly adjusted to the environment and material conditions they appear in."
Let me explain:
The human brain and our genetics are specifically tuned to favor our biases. This means that we have what we call "heuristics", shortcuts within our cognition that are meant to facilitate our thinking process.
For example, you must know that confirmation biases will often make you accept more easily things you already agree with. Survivorship bias that will make you reason within the limits of who "came back" rather than analyze more deeply a situation for example.. We believe that these heuristics were naturally selected to help us survive and make quick decisions.
Now, they might have helped us back in the stone age, but now?
Well if you were raised within Nazi Germany you would have most likely become a fascist. Not because you are bad by essence, but the pressure created by the environment on your value system, biases and knowledge. Another example : If you were given only one book to read in your entire existence, you would probably tend to think that only this book exists.
I believe life is fine-tuned to its environment. There are some irregularities and problems of adaptation within evolution itself, yes, but life is evolving exactly as it should and exactly within its own logic and limitations. And I believe that our environments and genetics shape our thoughts, mind, beliefs, values.. everything.
-------------------------------------------------------
We are like feathers carried by the wind.
But this doesn't mean that we can't feel or wonder. It simply means that we are limited by the physicality and the materiality of our universe.
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe in free will. BUT its illusion is fundamental.
If free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that we can act as though we didn't have it, that we shouldn't be held responsible, or that our choices to "act" or "not act" are precisely the result of the absence of Free will. In fact, me telling you that we should live within the illusion of free will is a direct result of the universe pushing me to act within my own limitations. Are you following me?
This means that even if we are not in control of change, the fact of acting or not acting toward a change is inherently linked to the materiality and nature (all the material conditions) of our universe.
I'm not in control yet I still move and reflect toward the idea of CHANGE. And I currently believe that we should ALL move toward a change. So no matter if I'm in control or not, I will move toward that change. Do you understand what I mean ?
This means that the absence of free will is not an excuse to be passive in front of the horrors of the world.
It also means that change is possible through the understanding of the upper layer of materialism.
-------------------------------------------------------
For if we learn how we are influenced, the resulting knowledge can be used to shape ourselves.
-------------------------------------------------------
It's is the idea that our thoughts, beliefs and self are influenced by our environment and the material conditions (physical, social, institutional, genetic and psychological conditions) of our existence. We are the product of existence and therefore for us to change, we need to change the conditions of of our own existences even if we know we can't control them.
This is why I now consider that it is idealistic to try to convince people by simply talking even though I'm actually going against the wind of this understanding of materialism by trying to convince you by words. I know, deep down, that it can't work.
To really share my understanding, your environment would have needed to shape you enough so you would have a similar vision to accept new forms of beliefs linked with marginalization and counter-powers. Words and knowledge alone are not enough. This is why people who suddenly lose everything or get a disability, often become radicalized toward the idea of change as they will start to notice much more vividly the inequalities and injustice of the world that they would negate in "normal" conditions even when being clearly told about it.
My situation helped me wake up from a reactionary fall. It is what cursed me and it is what politicized me. The sudden realization of being a simple feather on the wind, sent me toward instant depression and derealization (look it up). But it also opened the path toward self-criticism, self-awareness and self-reflection.
I'm not able to change everything about myself. I'm egotistical and I crave attention mostly because I live alone. I'm also obsessive and stubborn. These are things that are very hard to change. But I'm also fully aware of what I believed in and what I believe now. My defects do not define who I am and do not limit my understanding or reflection..
BUT
If a change of conditions of existence made me change and reflect then it can happen for ANYONE and the understanding of materialism can change the world.
-------------------------------------------------------
There is only one question left: Would you be willing to adopt this materialist framework?
-------------------------------------------------------
If you are, if you listened and agreed with this thinking process, if you took the time to self-reflect about it. I'd be willing to explain in detail how we can go beyond. From the less political, to the more revolutionnary ideas.
Here you go @NAMELESS @Okamakama
No you can't.
Both are linked, the person's existence is what creates the belief system. So you need to take the person in consideration. respect is due when it is due, but sometimes, it's not.
I do regret what I said to Zemmi, but not because of the content. I regret it because I made no difference between her and anyone of you. I used the same rethoric and targetting. Technically, I was right. And technically, leftist should do what I did. BUT:
Zemmi was one of the rare racialized women here, and I didn't take that into consideration. Which is a form of the negation of the powerbalance in place and a form of blindness related to sexism. I regret that, I shouldn't have use the same weapons with her as I do with others here, simply because she has a very different sociology, especially as a racialized women. This created a shock that I'm not proud of.
This is what you should take into consideration, not the content of the attack itself which was a perfectly legitimate reaction in front of someone voting for a fascist against her interests.
Both are linked, the person's existence is what creates the belief system. So you need to take the person in consideration. respect is due when it is due, but sometimes, it's not.
I do regret what I said to Zemmi, but not because of the content. I regret it because I made no difference between her and anyone of you. I used the same rethoric and targetting. Technically, I was right. And technically, leftist should do what I did. BUT:
Zemmi was one of the rare racialized women here, and I didn't take that into consideration. Which is a form of the negation of the powerbalance in place and a form of blindness related to sexism. I regret that, I shouldn't have use the same weapons with her as I do with others here, simply because she has a very different sociology, especially as a racialized women. This created a shock that I'm not proud of.
This is what you should take into consideration, not the content of the attack itself which was a perfectly legitimate reaction in front of someone voting for a fascist against her interests.
@Logiko I simply cannot agree with the mechanistic framework that is 'Materialism'. I don't see the world, and universe, with the same degree of rigidity. I do not believe the environment is the only thing that shapes us, and I believe we, without the shift in circumstances or environment, can evolve and change, and better ourselves.
In a sense, your world view borders on being fatalistic. You're a reed, able to be blown, but never moved too far. Only upon being plucked and moved to another patch will your world change.
This is an ironic statement. The vast majority of users here lambasted my views on a certain topic when I myself went through it and suffered the consequences, and whilst you were more gentle on the matter, you still called my own view, which to you, would effectively be a materialistic shift, wrong and evil.
This could be a theological discussion all in of itself. I think however, outside of the truth of the existence of god, this highlights a certain irreverence towards creation. Outside of my own beliefs, if there was a creator, then I would offer it praise. I respect my ancestors for similar reasons. Remember, the world operates almost like two sides of a coin, and what is a horror and what is a boon is dependent on your perspective, tribe, or 'side'. To make this easier, this would be your materialistic viewpoint or environment. You could say in this way, circumstances will impact how you are informed.
But all in all, I appreciate that you wrote this all out. Above all else, Logiko, I respect that you are open with your views and have conviction. You don't waver, even if people disagree. Fair play.
In a sense, your world view borders on being fatalistic. You're a reed, able to be blown, but never moved too far. Only upon being plucked and moved to another patch will your world change.
This is an ironic statement. The vast majority of users here lambasted my views on a certain topic when I myself went through it and suffered the consequences, and whilst you were more gentle on the matter, you still called my own view, which to you, would effectively be a materialistic shift, wrong and evil.
This could be a theological discussion all in of itself. I think however, outside of the truth of the existence of god, this highlights a certain irreverence towards creation. Outside of my own beliefs, if there was a creator, then I would offer it praise. I respect my ancestors for similar reasons. Remember, the world operates almost like two sides of a coin, and what is a horror and what is a boon is dependent on your perspective, tribe, or 'side'. To make this easier, this would be your materialistic viewpoint or environment. You could say in this way, circumstances will impact how you are informed.
But all in all, I appreciate that you wrote this all out. Above all else, Logiko, I respect that you are open with your views and have conviction. You don't waver, even if people disagree. Fair play.
Last edited:
@Logiko I want to add that I actually think in some ways, you have a point, but you're actually missing something core. I think you're utilising Materialism and Idealism as a black and white option. These are but lenses at which we interact with the world and existence. You're espousing superiority of one over the other, and that is where I disagree.
I think this world is beautiful because of the differences in thought and expression. I think to enforce materialism as the one true way is destroying the one part of diversity I do truly appreciate - and that is diversity of thought. I think both sides can touch upon truths that others cannot gleam. There is an intangible element to existence, something that cannot be categorised properly through science or observation. This is why faiths are so hard to change and, in many instances, eradicate by dictatorial governments and regimes.
You don't have to agree, but we likely exist on opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet I do respect you, and I once again am grateful that you explained your views. I now understand how you have the values you uphold. There is an internal logic I can understand. I don't agree, but I understand you.
I think this world is beautiful because of the differences in thought and expression. I think to enforce materialism as the one true way is destroying the one part of diversity I do truly appreciate - and that is diversity of thought. I think both sides can touch upon truths that others cannot gleam. There is an intangible element to existence, something that cannot be categorised properly through science or observation. This is why faiths are so hard to change and, in many instances, eradicate by dictatorial governments and regimes.
You don't have to agree, but we likely exist on opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet I do respect you, and I once again am grateful that you explained your views. I now understand how you have the values you uphold. There is an internal logic I can understand. I don't agree, but I understand you.
I think you can. I have many friends who hold massively varying ideologies to me. Of course, it is not always possible to coexist with individuals who make their ideologies everything to the point of being oppositional and aggressive, but common ground can almost always be found from my experience.
I judge people on their actions, not their thoughts. If you do things based on an ideology that I disagree with, I'm basing my opinion on you on your actions. Not all actions you take will be based on an ideology. As a result, I am able to compartmentalise the two.
I judge people on their actions, not their thoughts. If you do things based on an ideology that I disagree with, I'm basing my opinion on you on your actions. Not all actions you take will be based on an ideology. As a result, I am able to compartmentalise the two.
1975, Trump Management was sued by tha United States of America for racial discrimination and charging or quoting different terms for black and Puerto Rican renters or in some kases outright refusing to rent to them. They eventually settled out of court and consented to tha decree without admitting any wrongdoing but promising not to discriminate
1989 Central Park 5, 5 black and Hispanic teenagers were falsely accused of assaulting a woman. They were eventually exonerated by DNA and tha admission of a serial rapist and upon there exoneration Trump spent $85,000 front page ad in tha New York Times to demand that they face tha death penalty for a crime they were exonerated of…..then kalled them winning a lawsuit against tha state of New York for that kase a disgrace…..
Barbara Res, former Trump Organization rep. Said that Trump sent a black construction worker off tha job site and to “never let that happen again” and that he didn’t want people thinking that “Trump Tower is being built by black people”
You tell me what that sounds/looks like to you……
Oh let’s not forget Trumps father is a literal member of tha KKK
1989 Central Park 5, 5 black and Hispanic teenagers were falsely accused of assaulting a woman. They were eventually exonerated by DNA and tha admission of a serial rapist and upon there exoneration Trump spent $85,000 front page ad in tha New York Times to demand that they face tha death penalty for a crime they were exonerated of…..then kalled them winning a lawsuit against tha state of New York for that kase a disgrace…..
Barbara Res, former Trump Organization rep. Said that Trump sent a black construction worker off tha job site and to “never let that happen again” and that he didn’t want people thinking that “Trump Tower is being built by black people”
You tell me what that sounds/looks like to you……
Oh let’s not forget Trumps father is a literal member of tha KKK
Thx
If she was here I would still try to convince her, but in a different approach.
I'd rather say deterministic. Fatalistic has a form of negativity to it.
My vision is absolutely not negative, but it's indeed out of control, at least in absolute. In the relative sense (on a day to day basis like talking to you here for ex) I stay in the illusion of control and I need this illusion of control to move.
Trust me, it took me a depression and an epiphany to finally understand and accept that. This is not easy to accept.
Only the vision, never you as an individual. You will often see me reply to Solis here that I don't believe in good or bad and I believe that there are no such things as good or bad people (even if contradictory to that I call some fascist or reactionnaries).
I only believe that there are good and bad actions.
I do label people, but in my mind, it's never a fixed statement. I absolutely never think that if a person is reactionnary one day, therefore they can't be progressive another. I believe in absolute change.
Yes, I can understand that you feel gratefull. In fact, my concept of wonder is all about being gratefull to be alive. I'm so happy to be alive. I'm gratefull to my parent. I'm gratefull to existence and if a benevolent entity created us, I would be gratefull to them too.
But there is a limit where gratefullness can transforms itself into subjugation.
When the praises become reverences, we lose our capacity to see the creation as anything more than an act of grace.
I will NEVER bow to a someone who think they are a god and want to be praised like one. Respect is earned and never delivered through subjugation.
Lastly, respect should never prevent critics or irreverence.
We all have a part of both philosophy in us and it is perfectly ok. The fact of trying to convince you endlessly, month after month without ever giving up (Except that one time when I banned myself) is a complete form of idealism.
I'm trying to do something that is not really pertinent or feasible by materialistic means.
But yeah, I consider that materialism is the main tool that will save us from ourselves. There are sadly no other options.
I agree with that
But I could retork that idealism is currently enforced. Materialism (what I'm trying to share) is actually only discussed by philosophes and revolutionnaries. The rest of society is idealistic.
Meritocracy, a belief system that structures capitalism, is the most idealistic belief there is. it is just an example, but there are thousands..
A true diversity would include materialism within the political discussions in the mainstream, but you will never see that outside of some leftists and marxist thinking.
If she was here I would still try to convince her, but in a different approach.
I'd rather say deterministic. Fatalistic has a form of negativity to it.
My vision is absolutely not negative, but it's indeed out of control, at least in absolute. In the relative sense (on a day to day basis like talking to you here for ex) I stay in the illusion of control and I need this illusion of control to move.
Trust me, it took me a depression and an epiphany to finally understand and accept that. This is not easy to accept.
Only the vision, never you as an individual. You will often see me reply to Solis here that I don't believe in good or bad and I believe that there are no such things as good or bad people (even if contradictory to that I call some fascist or reactionnaries).
I only believe that there are good and bad actions.
I do label people, but in my mind, it's never a fixed statement. I absolutely never think that if a person is reactionnary one day, therefore they can't be progressive another. I believe in absolute change.
Yes, I can understand that you feel gratefull. In fact, my concept of wonder is all about being gratefull to be alive. I'm so happy to be alive. I'm gratefull to my parent. I'm gratefull to existence and if a benevolent entity created us, I would be gratefull to them too.
But there is a limit where gratefullness can transforms itself into subjugation.
When the praises become reverences, we lose our capacity to see the creation as anything more than an act of grace.
I will NEVER bow to a someone who think they are a god and want to be praised like one. Respect is earned and never delivered through subjugation.
Lastly, respect should never prevent critics or irreverence.
We all have a part of both philosophy in us and it is perfectly ok. The fact of trying to convince you endlessly, month after month without ever giving up (Except that one time when I banned myself) is a complete form of idealism.
I'm trying to do something that is not really pertinent or feasible by materialistic means.
But yeah, I consider that materialism is the main tool that will save us from ourselves. There are sadly no other options.
I agree with that
But I could retork that idealism is currently enforced. Materialism (what I'm trying to share) is actually only discussed by philosophes and revolutionnaries. The rest of society is idealistic.
Meritocracy, a belief system that structures capitalism, is the most idealistic belief there is. it is just an example, but there are thousands..
A true diversity would include materialism within the political discussions in the mainstream, but you will never see that outside of some leftists and marxist thinking.