fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Antagonizing Russia, which was never really a threat, as should be all too evident now
And there lies russia’s error. On the strength of their stalingrad cred, all the old american cold war warriors bought the myth of the unbeatable red army, russia could have stolen pots indefinitely. Their assumed strength was way higher than their actual strength, so they never should have let it come to a showdown. They’re never getting the baltic russians now that everybody knows they could never in a million years get past the bug and the vistula.
I was never fooled – gdp is destiny – but the suckers at the table, americans who never updated their fulda gap division calculations, and german pacifists, would have let putin bluff them indefinitely.
Thanks.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph, bur for the 3d: I don't think statements of the type 'I think marxism/christianity is obviously correct, opponents are in denial/refuse to look at the facts' should be modded, because they are very close to 'marxism/christianity is correct'. Believers in any ideology are almost never teetering on the brink ('I'm 50/50 on whether marxism or libertarianism is correct - I just go for marxism for the social status'), they are usually pretty certain of their choice - and concurrently, certain that their opponents are in error. The rule forces a neutral view which is at odds with psychological reality. Not just Marxbro's psychological reality.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
I just err on the side of not killing hundreds of thousands of humans unless there is a clear and obvious reason why it's necessary.
Does Putin? No, it's us, halfway around the world, that are supposed to care more about his people than he does. Well, if the abysmal performance of his army have now reduced that murderer’s threats to bleeding on us, let him.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
I know, it's great. But let's not pretend it's because we're such great and magnanimous lovers.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
The perceived 'leagueness' influences satisfaction with the relationship.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Just world fallacy. I suppose men like dating younger women because they realize they’ll treat them better and are better lovers?
The somewhat feminized characteristics of asians (shorter, socially reserved, small round features) creates an imbalance in the desirability of their men and women (works opposite in blacks), reflected in the singaporean student imbalance.
White men are just more attractive. So when your asian gf tells you how happy she is to be with you and how great you treat her, remember that to her you’re like a girl with big tits.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Yeah, also see the meaning of Islam, 'Submission [to the will of God]'.
the great American social experiment is fundamentally about allowing independent moral judgement at the lowest possible level.
“Is life so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! “ - Satan
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
You brought it up in a different conversation a few days ago, which I linked. You're being inconsistent.
I don't know what the communication problem here is, but clearly we're going nowhere fast. So I'll exit here and I'll see you on another thread.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
You’re still avoiding the question of why showing up even matters, if you can just arbitrarily pick and choose when it applies, and when morality, or anything else, easily overrules it. If you do not deign to educate me, I’ll just ignore your “not showing up” objections from now on.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
What about the tree? It’s very suspect that it would be the good one who would forbid knowledge of good and evil. If you strip god of definitional goodness, his opponent appears as a prometheus-like figure. His defiance and refusal to serve is heroic, even assuming they are both morally neutral.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
A lot of the late-80s early-90s Civil Rights Act feminism, for all I complain about its more recent excesses, was in response to employers forcing employees into (het) sex and other sexual behaviors in public.
Additionally, she testified that Taylor had touched her in public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times. She argued such harassment created a '"hostile working environment'" and a form of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That’s like saying a demented walmart manager chopping my arms off with a chainsaw constitutes discrimination and a hostile shopping environment. The intention behind this bizarre categorization is to paint the benign and mundane with the same brush as the criminal and abhorrent, requiring ever increasing state monitoring and control.
Additionally, this case ruled that the sexual conduct between Taylor and Vinson could not be deemed voluntary due to the hierarchical relationship between supervisor and subordinates in the workplace.
They should never have accepted that argument from a sex-neg rad-fem who refuses to distinguish between rape and intercourse.
Catharine A. MacKinnon, author of Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, was co-counsel for the respondent and wrote the respondent's brief.
”Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.” in Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory (1982)
This is the real ‘cultural marxism’ conspiracy to destroy normal human interaction. A "feminist theory of the state"? They should be more subtle next time.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Because I'm not particularly interested in hearing your interpretation of other people's ideologies.
You’re the one who claims it has any validity, so I expect you to defend it when I point out a case where you act contrary to it (fertilization).
“You believe X is true. A straightforward understanding of X implies Y. Y results in Z. You deny Z is true. Therefore, X is false.” Is a valid argument. You can’t just dismiss my reasoning on the grounds that I don’t believe the terms. Whole classes of arguments, like ad absurdum, would disappear.
which is what I feel CA's constant reminders that he's one of us fellow kids right wingers, is aimed to do.
I didn’t see him do that here. It was just you reminding him that he’s not a real right-winger because of his utilitarian-like reasoning. It looks like ideologically directed social pressure: ‘you can’t sit with us unless you believe this and that’. I don’t recognize that as a legitimate way of changing someone’s mind.
And really, what is he, if he's not a right-winger? Clearly he's not a progressive (unless he's lying, that's a different problem). So, if he doesn't want to become a groupless and stateless reject and eat alone every meal, he has to acquiesce to your demands of ideological conformity.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
That said, I don't know if calling someone "Craven" is an ongoing joke between you two or what, but it looks like a gratuitous snipe.
I did not mean it that way. FC is Faceless Craven, and Craven sounds to me like a more normal name than Faceless. It was meant to express familiarity and lack of antagonism, like calling you Dan.
As for weaponizing the rules for censorship, if you tell us how you think that's happening, we will discuss it.
No need to rethread it, but the background of our disagreement is darwin and similar cases, where imo the majority of the sub was so pissed off at differing opinions that they managed to get people banned on specious grounds. The mods are not really complicit in the ideological purge, it's just that the mob brought so many charges that it was inevitable that one would stick.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
The two examples provided by the rules "As everyone knows . . ." and "I'm sure you all agree that . . ." contradict yours "We (me and others, not you) agree on X" . The reader is included in the consensus building.
"starting out from an assumption of agreement is a great way to quash disagreement." is what I said. The problem is not, referring to other people who disagree. It's assuming we all already agree. And you can't assume we all agree when you're arguing a clear minority position.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
I think you confuse consensus building with appeal to consensus. The latter pits an external authoritative perspective against the opponent, the former excludes a perspective from the debate entirely, and is characteristic of echo chambers.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Some riots, and some terrorism, it turns out, are special.[...]
So he's seemingly guilty of mild, year-spanning contradiction, as interpreted by you. I'm not going to waste my time explaining in detail why ashlael's positions are not contradictory, suffice to say you don't have a smoking gun. And all of this has nothing to do with the downvotes you were trying to justify.
.. the sentence structure for consensus-building is around the right-wing posts you (and I) are bitching about.
You implied he was consensus building, like the post's Red Tribe equivalent. But those posts actually have a consensus to build on. At best he's gathering a coalition of the damned.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Look Craven, there is no bad blood between us, I am happy to debate this or anything else with you. No offense was taken, but for obvious reasons I'd prefer not to be accused of bannable actions.
I think the rules can be, and have been, weaponized for censorship. I thought this before I became aware I could be a target too (back when my opinions were closer to motte-mode, instead of somewhat motte-left now, due to the rightward shift).
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
And there's the bad faith accusation. What's the theory, anyway? He's BLM shadow liaison to the australian government, moonlighting as autist whisperer?
-
Yeah, I still don't see the problem, like I told you in that thread. Your standard for sinister behaviour is frighteningly low. Not denouncing BLM more than once or twice is bizarre and uneven behaviour apparently.
-
What consensus is he building, all alone and despised?
-
And the good thing about evidence-free claims is that one can refute them with evidence. There really is no reason to write everything in blue.
Frank disagreement is always inflammatory.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Anytime. Why don’t we step inside and settle this like women?
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Better to let the mob have this impotent outlet for their censorious impulse than through accusations of rules-violating behaviour.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
- 38 downvotes
And some claim themotte doesn't downvote opinions. And this is from a centrist regular, not a truly progressive opinion. It appears you still have enough credit with the userbase, and you're socially conservative enough, to avoid the bad faith and strawman accusations for now, Ashlael.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Doesn't that imply that the Nazis were only wrong because they lost?
Yes, in showing up ideology, goebbels was only wrong because he wiped out his family. I do not think highly of that kind of argument, I prefer moral ones. I'm arguing against the other times you used it, like a week ago.
Well, then let's just get him to identify as a moderate classical liberal (without changing anything about his actual views), or whatever it is you consider yourself to be, and then like I said you can have him, and everyone will be happy.
The thing is, by some definition, like the Bluehair's, I'm far right too. I'd probably describe myself to her that way if she pressed. Labels like that are just helpful indications for others, they're not some badge of honour The Party can remove to maintain ideological purity.
I'd very much appreciate it if more people could identify as some flavour of centrist, who can pick and choose correct arguments on a case-by-case basis. But the bluehair doesn't recognize that, it's either with her or against her - and I interpret your gatekeeping (and Hlynka's more extreme no-one-is-a-right-winger-but-me antics) as a similar stance.
Huh? Freedom of association means I get to gatekeep him out.
I see it this way: certain ideologies (the woke, religious sects, and now apparently the far right), don't want their adherents to associate with the non-pure, and that goes against freedom of association. The gates in an open society should be permanently open, and let anyone in or out. All arguments are free under a creative commons license and not to be bundled together in conflicting exclusive ideologies. So if he wants to be a far right utilitarian, let him.
Huh? What adminhood? They're blocked by you.(So am I)
More options
Context Copy link