Title, as he hasn't posted in 3 days and the man almost lives on the site
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
I have to keep bitching, I don't mean to be outright disrespectful to you in a personally attacky sort of way but separately I very much mean to treat your arguments that way. I think much of what you have mentioned here is illogical, amoral, or a philosophical dead end of one kind or another.
First it seems you are encouraging people to use double speak and avoiding saying what they actually mean, specifically as a show of compliance. I could spend all day giving this the "leftist metawhatever" treatment that you have presented me regarding Imp but I'll just say this is morally reprehensible in my opinion because I associate it with the USSR which I am biased against.
Next, it sounds to me like you are arguing the hypothetical suggestion of the existence or operation of any class of wealthy people in general is leftist metanarrative, and that on this basis, we have a social responsibility not to discuss the possibility. That is morally wrong and also factually incorrect. It is objectively true that wealthy people exist, and that each person has an identity, and that people within identity groups express in-group preference.
Even more nextly... do you reckon any of us can name an actual left wing forum where Imp would be welcome to attack all women on the basis you've presented here? (Being that since "woman" is an identity, and attacks on identity are sectarian, and leftists exploit this, it is therefore fundamentally leftist)?
My last bit of bitching is: does left wing thought exceed the limits of free speech on KIA2? In order to communicate here, should we only say right wing things? But not tooo right wing, since that's actually leftist again? Is there a chart somewhere to help miscreant posters identify the allowable portion of the spectrum of human thought?
Feel free.
("First") I'm not actually insinuating that they use double-speak, but they normally do, it's just not super relevant to most removals. I know the regulars opinions on certain issues, and I also know when they are intentionally clouding their language to appear more moderate. So yeah, it happens, but when they moderate, it doesn't typically violate the rules.
Hell, for some reason ConPro et all still come here and say "they" and (((them))) as if they can't just say jews. It's a little goofy.
("Next") No, but I can see your confusion because you're probably not understanding what I mean by an applied Marxist metanarrative. There's a structure to it:
Rule 16 is designed to hit most if not all of those simultaneously.
More over, those last four are literally always false. They are never true. No cabal encompasses an entire demographic, no matter what demographic you are using: race, age, ethnicity, religion, nationality, class, wealth, sex, etc. No demographic is united under a single collectivist mindset. It can't be, people are simply not mental slaves to inter-temporal and abstract collectivism: a rich man in Nigeria today, and rich man in 14th century England do not think the same. They do not have what the left calls "class solidarity". No demographic is innately evil. Pick any demographic, no demographic exists which is inherently morally repugnant. Being a billionaire is not immoral. That demographic is not the cause of your personal problems. You're car didn't fail to start this morning because of The Patriarchy.
And none of those meet that meta-narrative. For example, even though white Americans have the lowest in-group preference of any American Racial demographic, there are still whites that hate themselves and do not want the white race to continue. The White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy is the cabal those whites are accused of supporting. It is not true, but the accusation is made that they are racist, well past the point of their death. Simultaneously, black Americans have the highest in-group preference. But this is not evidence of a black cabal. Even black racialists themselves engage in in-fighting and target black 'race traitors' who are not succumbing to a cabal that they are trying to create.
("Even More Nextly") Leftism seeks conquest and changes itself to fit new environments. Imp would be welcome in a Leftist environment if they had one that worked like that at the moment. In previous decades, and in other areas, his attitude was much closer to the normal. There was an ad for a candy bar in Romania (which under Communism was the only candy bar allowed). They had a woman dressed up like Misty from Pokemon, and all of the sudden Nicolae Ceaușescu walks in and condemns her dress for being counter-revolutionary. She is abducted by the state, forced to dress in Communist Youth clothing, and thrown into the street. Leftism is in favor of acting like a slut in our country, and in our time, but that will change. There is no consistent principles within Leftism.
Only such that it does not violate Rule 16. It's a fucking major stumbling block to their argumentation. It's 4"x4"x10' strip of concrete in the middle of the walkway. They're forced to argue around their claims, but their central claims would very likely violate Rule 16. Rule 16 means they can never argue the White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy, or even just The Patriarchy. They are forced to argue only at topical levels about 'men needing to be taught not to rape', and having those specific topical issues challenged directly. They can't defer to The Patriarchy as an avenue of escape when the conversation doesn't go their way, and they can be called out for being the bigoted trash they are with an embarrassing removal.
We don't see it here on Scored that much, but I have had to do it on Reddit, and it really throws them for a fucking loop. Their fundamental presuppositions are axiomatically rejected, and they typically don't have any counter. Even if they did, the counter is not tolerated. So, they channelized back into the topical argument, or they have to abandon the whole thing altogether. When given that choice, they typically just give the ground and don't come back. It actually works. All that's left are the Haterjuiced style trolls who continue to operate within the rules, and make for excellent engagement with opposing views because they are constantly stuck on-topic.
And to be clear, I hold the losest opinion on "Id Pol" than basically anyone who's done anything with KIA. The old moderators on half-kia would have fucking purged the place going anywhere near one-tenth of what I allow. So, this is a departure from what KIA and KIA2 allowed because it's more lenient.
I doubt you want another response from me Dom, in which case you're in luck because I'm in a crunch today
It's fine. I don't blame you or anything.
Nah, it's more the thing where Imp talks about women the same way the 1488 people talk about minorities, which is the same way that leftists talk about white people, which I get why Dom doesn't want any of that shit around, Imp's thing is different from the other two, and at least while people may disagree with how he views things, I can actually see the problems he states in modern society (TRP is literally founded on being a more sane version of Imp, and Imp used to use TRP until he himself decided trying to sleep with women isn't worth it because false accusations). Lefties hating white people is the problem with modern society and I can't tell if all the 1488 people are feds or not.
Interesting, but have you ever asked a leftist if they would like to "1488" "minorities"? You guys with this "right loops back to left" stuff are taking some serious globohomo propaganda schlong up your asses. Only the TV, censors, and the most cringe, grifty, and fake e-celebs hold that opinion, as far as opinion sourcing goes. And I don't believe for a second any of you come to these conclusions on your own, personally. Things that people come up with on their own are generally practical, because they came into being by way of those people searching specifically for that which makes sense in real life / is not totally retarded. It is like globe earth haters who think travelling straight upward far enough would land you in australia. It's objectively nonsense and requires constant social validation and authority checks, as Dom accidentally explained in great detail.
Me personally? I see why horseshoe theory exists, because at some point you have to look in the mirror and ask yourself how you'd feel if your opponents were the ones putting certain policy on you rather than you enforcing it, I'm just of the point where I don't fucking know what's what.
Like sure, the general concept of "hating X group so we're gonna denigrade X group as much as possible" is the same, but the reasons why are completely different, so I agree with you not Dom.
However, I do see why he believes what he does, because at a certain point the policies do become plug and play, as in they're exactly the same just replacing the actual groups themselves, but still, I'm just like...where is that point? Where is too far gone? Does that point even exist?
The nugget of wisdom here is that most of us are are all the same with nouns changed up. People will wax indignant about how much worse "the others" are but we are all "soulless cattle" together, one single group, to someone.
Not that I'm allowed to speak about that here! On this forum specifically made to discuss a cabal of people protecting their in-group interests against the masses. Lol