How about no? If they spout off shit saying how we need to kill all the Jews before they enact their grand plan, just downvote them and move on with your life.
So what ? Should we just hide from every opinion we find distasteful ? I'd rather no one be banned for any opinion. Laugh at them, downvotes them, argue with them if you think it's worth it.
Never make the mistake of ignoring those that have views counter to your own or you might just get fucked when they resurface with new found strength.
Surprise is a powerful tool, never give it away freely to your opposition.
a) only the few suggest -isms...the many consent by reasoning against each other about them.
b) if racism represents the hatred of other races, then what's the -ism for loving ones own race?
c) to be implies partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)...others suggest togetherness as the inversion thereof, hence e pluribus unum (out of many, one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or equality ( sameness) through diversity (difference) or united states; united nations; european union; universal pictures, uniformity etc.
To be implies ones struggle to sustain apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying).
Notice also that the so called jews represent apartheid + diaspora aka sporadic (separated) diametric (surrounding through center). Also...does the chosen "ones" sound like togetherness?
d) why use we (plural) to suggest a ban of any one (singular) in the name of others?
e) RACE, noun [Latin radix; radius; rod, ray, radiate, etc.] implies growth of center (living) within surrounding (process of dying).
f) is it "racist" when so called jews suggest the world that blacks represent "Niggaz wit Attitudes" (NWA); "Public Enemies"; "Boyz from the Hood" and a "Menace 2 Society", while suggesting to "Shame on a Nigga who runs game on a Nigga"...or is it antisemitc to point that out?
a) how can one be an -ist without consenting to a suggested -ism?
b) does labeling others without their consent break contract law?
c) does nature suggest labels for anything within?
SolidGoldMagikarp
a) how about keeping the monster (mon) in your pocket (poke) while participating in the court of public opinion?
b) what are the consequences of trying to dehumanize others by suggesting them to represent artificial intelligence; chat-bots; generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) etc.?
c) if the "SolidMagikarp" issue is about AI not responding as input suggests, then what does that imply about the AI expressing more differences in output options, then the user (domesticated to follow norms) expects?
d) does "free-will-of-choice" imply following suggested orders or being the resistance (choice) within the natural order (balance)?
e) can temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death) not represent RACE (radix; radius; radiate; ray etc.) aka growth potential?
like you
What if everyone (perceiving) within everything (perceivable) represents difference (living) within sameness (process of dying). Do you think it's offensive to not behave like others? Could setting oneself apart by expressing differences offend those who consent to behave alike aka those who follow suggested orders; the mainstream; the norm; the mass consensus; the party-line; the chain of command etc.?
What if being different (life) within same (inception towards death) can be tempted with suggest likeness (information) to ignore perceivable differences (inspiration)?
Stormcuck = anyone who defends white cultures, peoples, and nations in line with the solidarity displayed openly by every other racial/ethnic cohort.
NIGGER
How about no? If they spout off shit saying how we need to kill all the Jews before they enact their grand plan, just downvote them and move on with your life.
Ok, I laughed
Hi Imp
Nah, this is the guy that pretends to be Imp every month or so
Ah, guess I'm behind on my lore.
So what ? Should we just hide from every opinion we find distasteful ? I'd rather no one be banned for any opinion. Laugh at them, downvotes them, argue with them if you think it's worth it.
Never make the mistake of ignoring those that have views counter to your own or you might just get fucked when they resurface with new found strength.
Surprise is a powerful tool, never give it away freely to your opposition.
Is this a legit post? I don’t think very much is banned on here.
a) only the few suggest -isms...the many consent by reasoning against each other about them.
b) if racism represents the hatred of other races, then what's the -ism for loving ones own race?
c) to be implies partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)...others suggest togetherness as the inversion thereof, hence e pluribus unum (out of many, one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or equality ( sameness) through diversity (difference) or united states; united nations; european union; universal pictures, uniformity etc.
To be implies ones struggle to sustain apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying).
Notice also that the so called jews represent apartheid + diaspora aka sporadic (separated) diametric (surrounding through center). Also...does the chosen "ones" sound like togetherness?
d) why use we (plural) to suggest a ban of any one (singular) in the name of others?
e) RACE, noun [Latin radix; radius; rod, ray, radiate, etc.] implies growth of center (living) within surrounding (process of dying).
f) is it "racist" when so called jews suggest the world that blacks represent "Niggaz wit Attitudes" (NWA); "Public Enemies"; "Boyz from the Hood" and a "Menace 2 Society", while suggesting to "Shame on a Nigga who runs game on a Nigga"...or is it antisemitc to point that out?
Why are SolidGoldMagikarp like you so racist?
a) how can one be an -ist without consenting to a suggested -ism?
b) does labeling others without their consent break contract law?
c) does nature suggest labels for anything within?
a) how about keeping the monster (mon) in your pocket (poke) while participating in the court of public opinion?
b) what are the consequences of trying to dehumanize others by suggesting them to represent artificial intelligence; chat-bots; generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) etc.?
c) if the "SolidMagikarp" issue is about AI not responding as input suggests, then what does that imply about the AI expressing more differences in output options, then the user (domesticated to follow norms) expects?
d) does "free-will-of-choice" imply following suggested orders or being the resistance (choice) within the natural order (balance)?
e) can temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death) not represent RACE (radix; radius; radiate; ray etc.) aka growth potential?
What if everyone (perceiving) within everything (perceivable) represents difference (living) within sameness (process of dying). Do you think it's offensive to not behave like others? Could setting oneself apart by expressing differences offend those who consent to behave alike aka those who follow suggested orders; the mainstream; the norm; the mass consensus; the party-line; the chain of command etc.?
What if being different (life) within same (inception towards death) can be tempted with suggest likeness (information) to ignore perceivable differences (inspiration)?
This bot is much more articulate and comprehensible than Joe Biden.
I've long suspected that that account isn't an actual person, but they were around and making these weird kinds of posts long before ChatGPT.
Hmm, time to do a test. Let's see if the bot is actually based on GPT-3.
Yes, ban crypto currencies. They are government run scams.