Oh look, completely missing the entire point.
You can support Trump without making him out to be some god-tier master manipulator that simply knows every move possible and is outplaying everyone. He's not. He's just another politician.
Idolatry is never going to benefit you.
How much does Trump have to continually and non-conditionally support before people like you even consider the idea that Trump isn't actually playing some massive 4D chess game and simply does in fact support these things?
I mean really, you people do know that shit like Qanon is, and probably always was, a psyop to encourage the very same passivity that Bloodguard is referring to with the GOP? Just stand by and do nothing, trust that there's actually a Master Plan™ that's all taking place behind the scenes and it's all perfectly orchestrated.
Trump is better than the alternative. That doesn't make Trump perfect, and this pseudo idolatry of him solely because he's stood against some of the bullshit of the left is insane, ESPECIALLY when his politics hasn't actually shifted over the decades, AKA he is and remains to be a 90s Democrat.
Stop worshipping politicians. They are not, and never will be, on your side. The best you can hope for is the enemy of my enemy.
Except it is in line with one another. Language is about linguistic meaning. Science is about natural meaning. Control both of those and you extend more of what can be manipulated regarding the public.
Excuse me? Based on what?
Based on you determining that I, or any other person, needs to provide solutions to your problems, when again, the entire fucking premise is AGAINST a centralised model to force proposed solutions upon people. Shocking, I know. When the whole fucking point is that YOU should solve YOUR problems, turning to literally anyone else and saying "why aren't THEY solving MY problems?!" isn't a critique. It's literally saying it's not mine, or anyone else's place, to solve your problems for you.
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
And that justifies it how?
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule
Oh no! Not MUH ROADS argument. What an utterly boring and overdone argument. As to the police and army, yes, that is the idea. And it's funny because you imply that they're ultimately evil and yet you're still advocating that this evil needs to exist for no other reason that that's what's always existed.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
A benevolent ruler is no less a ruler, slave. And what's more is that under actual freedom, you'd still be entirely free to band together and pay whatever levies and fees you wish. That's entirely your prerogative. You just can't force people to. And ultimately, that is what you're objecting it. It's not voluntary co-operation, you're outright advocating for INvoluntary "co-operation".
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
Do you truly believe yourself safe right now? Because if you do, then perhaps you, personally, deserve the servitude you so eagerly seek. Also I see you there MUH ROADS. Fuck, statists really look at the failing infrastructure and say "yeah, THIS is my defence", all while ignoring that in any other discussion you would eagerly and rightfully condemn the shameful state of infrastructure in nearly every society out there, with MAYBE exception to Japan (and then ignore every other failure of Japan's government, like their rampant corruption).
It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
Not once in your life have you even voted for a member of government that you whole-heartedly and truly supported. You can lie to me any way you like about that, but ultimately you know that every single vote you have ever cast has been a lesser of, ultimately, two choices. You imply me delusional and utopian, yet here you are dreaming up the most fanciable tale imaginable all to justify utilising force against innocent people who disagree with you on how they should run their own lives.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
Again, there is no such thing as a "necessary" evil. It's a lie you tell yourself to ignore your own support of evil measures that you otherwise couldn't reconcile, by pretending that you never had any choice in the matter as you wilfully and ultimately gleefully comply.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
You balk and mock, but you pretend like that it's a viable solution. Why do you need to achieve this de facto militia via force? Why do you need to maintain what is ultimately a protection racket. Seriously, it's "pay up, or we'll wreck your shit". And you're unironically defending that.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that?
As an individual? Nope. But this is the problem with you fucking statists. You're so fucking broken that you don't even see how your arguments so often mirror unironic rape apologists. Seriously, is there any difference between the people who use arguments like "I'll only have to get violent if you don't comply" and "You complied so the threat of violence is irrelevant and it was consensual"? You're both ultimately abusing people for your own benefit.
Had I gone back and approached this as "voluntarism" rather than the anarchy angle (a distinction that holds virtually no difference between the two, mind you), and presented it as a flowery utopia of people helping people because most people are inclined to help one another in mutual benefit, you'd have been far more receptive to the idea. But because I pegged the reality of the state being one that operates upon the very real, ever present "do what I say or else" model, you've gotten defensive of "necessary" evil. You didn't have to. You don't even want to. But you did. You went to bat for evil of what little free will you ultimately have. And you don't see anything wrong with it either. You don't even want to second guess yourself. Because it's so uncomfortable having to come to the reality that for all your life you went along with it all because it benefitted you. You were fine with every single negative your collectivist methodology brought about, because you got yours.
Have fun Tony. Make whatever comment you want. I know anarchy isn't palatable to everyone, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that it should be palatable is ultimately just to appease delicate sensibilities that don't want to think about just how unsafe the world actually is. And I've spent my days arguing about anarchism in the past. So make unfair comparisons, turn to shitholes that have been explicitly fucked by government and tyrants, and then pretend like it's because there actually wasn't enough government. You embrace that "necessary" evil. Whatever it takes so you can have "MUH ROADS". Because remember, for every Somalia you bring up, we can just as easily point to the fucked courts of Japan, the drug lords of Mexico, the tyranny of China. Each and every single one is an explicit failure of government that, supposedly, took on the duty to protect its citizens and either failed or abused them themselves. That's the team you're going to bat for. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say "well, I only support abusing people when there are benefits". You get it all. Anarchists acknowledge the truth of anarchy. And you refuse to rightfully credit government for all of their eternal failures.
Hard disagree. YouTube should simply be gone and someone else should make such a platform. You're under this idea that a company that hates you can arbitrarily be reformed. Won't ever happen.
I'd go one step further and de-incentivise watching any uploads on YouTube by providing uncensored versions on other platforms. Creators should stop tripping over their words or trying to get around them by saying childish shit like "unaliving" or "sewer slide" or some other inane bullshit, and just start including obnoxious censors with a little annotation reminding people that they can freely get the uncensored version on any other site they upload to.
You want to stop YouTube being the defacto? Help them continue to provide an ever expanding worse experience than any other platform.
It's a double edged sword. The issue is that these people don't really spend enough energy to push those other platforms while staying on YouTube. They should absolutely diversify where they upload and what would be best is if they started releasing as uncensored as possible videos on other platforms, with YouTube getting the inferior, sub-par censored version.
Until other platforms are given the attention they need to grow to rival YouTube, or god forbid, we actually get a proper competitive space again with multiple rivals, this is the only way forward. Start playing dirty and kneecap any reason to watch on YouTube without stopping the use of their platform.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation
Yes.
or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
OK, but what is your proposal?
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
Somalia-like anarchy
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
You think that is a winner?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means. And I don't believe in mentalities like "for the greater good", "the lesser evil" or "the ends justify the means".
But hey, a 2% income tax solely applied to land owners was enough to go to war over. I guess we really should maintain the status quo, right?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Entryists are a thing, and the sooner people understand that and therefore the very VERY real need for stringent gatekeeping, the better. Ambiguity helps nobody but those that wish to abuse said ambiguity. So why let them?
Yeah, that didn't answer my question. So again, if you're so grandiose and above it all, why waste your time in this very small corner of the internet? I could understand if you were trying to reach people in more mainstream parts where you could reach more people, but you're getting what? Maybe a thousand, or so eyes in this forum? Seems small scale for someone as mighty and as talented as you are.
Or maybe it's a tall tale to make yourself seem better than you are, as you piss and moan because some people think it's a good idea to decentralise. And it's funny, because I haven't really pushed Linux. It has SERIOUS flaws to user accessibility because you're right, it does require stupid levels of esoteric knowledge just to get set up all while dealing with smug assholes that deride you for not knowing it. It's annoying. I won't deny that. But you going whole hog outright defending blindly using Windows is equally fucking retarded.
Believe it or not, I'm not here to defend Linux, but defend alternatives as a whole. But at the moment, I'm seeing no difference between the self-important pretentiousness of Linux shills, and some self-important pretentious prick lauding himself for making disposable entertainment and talking himself up online. And yeah yeah, I get the whole "muh both sides" crap, but this is what I'm seeing in this instance, where you got insufferable esoteric bullshit on one side and some big brained twat unironically dick waggling like it's supposed to impress someone. Why would I actually want to pick either of these sides despite the valid points both ultimately make?
So sure, take this as a "win" if you want, or maybe take it as me being some lost cause if that's what you want too. But you're still a prick, which is weird for someone as supposedly charismatic as you claim to be. So take from this whatever you want to take, but you've not convinced me of anything other than you being a dickwaggler for internet clout on a very small forum. So congrats on that, I guess. I'm out because there's no point with someone as pretentious as you are.
With your brain being so big, what are you doing pissing your time away on an insignificant little website like this? It's not like someone would go on the internet and just lie like that.....
What is fundamentally different between your entertainment and theirs, when they too push forward the whole "RESIST" mentality? I understand the importance of media, don't mistake me, but don't pretend like THAT is the forefront of winning this, because it's just as delusional as any other consoomer take that puts consumerist goods above all else.
Because let's not mince words here: I don't think you're active in your local community. I think you're active online, and that's not bad, but I doubt you even know your neighbours. If you're not making inroads on a local level first and foremost, what's even the point? All of media was against the Vietnam War, and it did nothing to stop that war. What do you think your media is going to do today?
YEAH! FIGHT THE POWER! You slay with those Tiktok dances to resist [insert current cause].
Jesus, you actually think you're "fighting" by making some entertainment? Like that's good. Legitimately, it is. But you're not "fighting", any more than linux shilling is "fighting". But lying down and accepting slop, whether it's Windows or corporate media, won't do a god damned thing to help you out.
There is nothing stopping you from doing both. Yet here you are actively defending the idea of actively not doing one because you'd rather be lazy and defeatist.
people pretending to be members but only sowing division are very, very real.
I agree. So it's funny to me that you're more interested in sowing division because people rightfully care about their privacy rather than continuing to make your media files. But you'd rather unironically defend slop.
You're so interested in starting this fight all because you got a chip on your shoulder about an operating system. Please point to the doll where linux touched you.
Oh, my bad. You're not just woefully retarded. You're an unironic statist that is actually willing to play defence for mass surveillance. I thought there might have been a chance for you.
Wow, that's some top tier glowing.
The irony of wanting to "fight back" (all from the comfort of your armchair) and then doing literally fucking nothing to even try and secure yourself.
You've got an awful lot of mockery there for not a lot of action. So please Mr Glow, why don't you show us how it's done?
think
There's no "think" about it. These companies are putting measures in place to make spying as easy as possible. We get and agree that they're not actively spying on (most) people. But that's the problem: They're not interested in actively spying. They're interested in inactively spying. On being able to store pages and pages and pages of information on the off-chance you do meaningfully step out of line.
Room 641A has been public knowledge for nearly 2 decades. Nearly twenty years. These companies are complicit in spying. There's no "think" about it. It's objective fact. Yet for some reason, there's people out there that believe for no reason at all, despite the decades upon decades of evidence of corporate and state co-operation and effort at mass surveillance of the public, and despite public backlash have faced NO meaningful reform, punishment or reigning in, would somehow and arbitrarily decide to suddenly become "good".
The biggest lie people tell themselves is that the same entities that have experimented on the public and knowingly engaged in outright atrocities would arbitrarily reform themselves for no reason at all. All because confronting the idea of such an entity still engaging in such behaviour is too uncomfortable.
There's no "think" here. People know this shit. It's happening. The only ones that "think" it's not happening are the ones that mock people who know it happens.
They're still victims in my opinion, they just forfeit their redemption in most cases. And I only say most because I think that everyone can ultimately be forgiven, it can just take a lot to earn such forgiveness, even if I myself couldn't do that forgiving.
But it's important to remember this is why these freaks NEED to be stopped. It's not just to save the victims. It's to prevent more of them from becoming abusers.
Any game or service that requires a number I refuse to use when possible. I don't care if I "miss out", I still respect myself enough to want my privacy.
I remember the days where you were told to NEVER give ANY identifying information about yourself online. The days where your online safety wasn't about mean words being said on some forum you voluntarily went to, but about ensuring your information wasn't being taken by some creep.
Now everyone posts every fucking detail of their life and it's honest to god saddening. It's not even about the "people are tracking me crap", even though that is true (what the fuck do you think marketing is other than tracking information?), it's about the sheer vanity of it all.
And what's worse is that people share this information about themselves in order to be treated differently, and it doesn't even matter if it's negative or positive treatment. Anonymity is the greatest equaliser there could possibly be, and every time you reveal even innocuous information about yourself, you're expecting that information to result in different treatment. A common example of this is people that start something like "As an [insert demographic here]", a simple yet effective line to try and get people to hold more value as to what you say than what you're actually saying holding the value.
Even me saying "I remember the days where....." is helping lend weight to my words because somehow me being there could mean my words are more important, but it doesn't actually make that much difference.
Every entity that wants more information from you is seeking to treat you differently. To exploit you in some manner, for good or for bad (eg "This person is so trustworthy, listen to them (but only because they're saying what I want)" or "This person isn't trustworthy, don't listen to them (because they're saying things I don't want them to say)". There is no exception, and it's the bread and butter of collectivists and all those similar that place identity as sole importance above all else.
Problem is that they themselves are victims. That's the worst part about the grooming. It's a self-perpetuating cycle where victims become abusers that make more victims that become abusers.
And them being victims doesn't negate or counteract being abusers. Which is why I would feel sorry, but I don't. Because they're still abusers at the end of the day.
Interesting points. Now let's see infanticide statistics.
It's also why so many of these freaks don't get the surgery. Deep down they know it's a fetish and they need to keep it up to help maintain that fetish.
I would feel sorry for them if grooming wasn't a part of it all.
People need to mock the fuck out of this. Take on pronouns like "milord/milady", and actually follow through to ensure it's enforced to show that this is utter fucking stupidity. Fuck it, go one further and go with "Massa" or some shit. Make them play by their rules and do so with a grin. Everyone can know it's a load of shit, but they need to play by the rules they put forward. Anything less will ensure this creep continues.
You don't get a response by letting the frog continue to boil. And while accelerationism is often top tier stupidity, it does hold validity when utilised to show why something is bad before it goes further and further and further. Don't let the slope slip, let it avalanche so people can't just adjust to changing rules.
>digging up a month old post
Damn that's pathetic, even if it's an elaborate "troll". Here's that crumb off attention you were after, you're not getting another.
Source: Microsoft.
Holds about as much trust as the government saying that Operation Northwoods was ended.