IWanttotalknow 10 points ago +10 / -0

Really wonder if this will sway any Dems (if it reaches them even). If someone's a Dem voter and sees all this shit, sees the verification, and still votes for him...

IWanttotalknow 15 points ago +15 / -0

I'm almost certain that during the final debate, tomorrow, Trump will chose to ignore a question and try to publicly speak about the laptop, the e-mails, Joe being corrupt and selling access and peddling influence as VP - and they'll mute him. They'll say he's a liar, and that he's as bad as Hitler, so they're silencing his lies or some bullshit.

Shit like this Twitter ban of the NY Post is the pre-cursor to censoring the President directly on national TV during a debate. "Twitter won't let him lie, so we won't either." type of logic. I want to see that kind of thing happen, because if a country let's it's President be silenced on national TV I want every citizen to see it and every country around the world to see it too.

IWanttotalknow 7 points ago +7 / -0

Don't think that'll work. It'll work for some of them who aren't too far gone or something.

More like I think we'll get some strange racist organization that swears Trump is the devil because X/Y/Z, etc. Or maybe just a smaller cult. I don't know. Maybe they'll all just be the 2020+ version of the weird dude in Stranger Things who lives in his basement drinking non stop and spinning out crazy theories (but less nice, I liked that guy)

IWanttotalknow 9 points ago +9 / -0

Try venturing over into r/politics. You won't find a mention of the laptop stuff. I scrolled down the first few pages you get and there's not a single topic touching on it. It's all looney-tunes crazy shit lefties smearing shit on the walls and pretending it's news.

Since I just got finished with reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich what strikes me most is the author, who was in Germany at the time, travelled outside too, was all over the world and such pointed out something: Anywhere he picked up a newspaper outside of Germany, it was basically "What the fuck is Germany doing? Why are they starting all this shit, attacking, lying plainly, and oh god the Nazi's. What the fuck!?" Inside Germany? "Churchill is a warmonger!" "Churchill wants war!" etc. etc.

You could in some instances pick up newspapers from the outside world (though in a very, very limited amount, in very specific areas, and almost no circulation), or if you had a radio that was able to catch the BBC and wasn't confiscated, maybe you could get the news.

That's what r/politics looks like to me, and r/politics looks pretty damn similar to the mainstream media to me. Block the truth. Rile up your people with propaganda and disinformation for years on end. Except this time there's a counter narrative - Internet, alternative media, social media (despite it's censorious nature) allow enough for the counter narrative to exist and get out. Now, after WW2 they had to start a de-Nazification program because the people were that screwed up. Here, it's not as bad as that, but it's at least 25-50% as bad as that at the extremes. The incoming Trump victory isn't going to just magically make those people go "Oh. We were wrong, our bad." We're going to have a generation of people who are racist, bigoted, anti-reality who've cut off family and friends and surrounded themselves with like-minded fanatics. How the FUCK is that going to play out?

IWanttotalknow 10 points ago +10 / -0

They 100% do believe their own shit - that's why it's so bad right now. The polarization has pushed partisan Democrats way past the breaking line to the point they're not able to able to tell the people calling themselves "anti-racist" are literally racist by any definition. And those who are just useful idiots fall into the same category: they can't tell, but those people at least if you can talk to them can wake up.

IWanttotalknow 15 points ago +15 / -0

Here ya go.

If that doesn't make it clear for them, it's hard to understand what will. The left is a really huge fan of tyranny of the majority. The answer is always going to be the same: there is a Constitution, there are laws, and in this case an Electoral College purposefully meant to stop tyranny of the majority, that is one of if not it's main purpose. The US does not operate based on a show of hands, it operates based upon the law. If you find the EC to be a problem, I'm sure they can try and get rid of it legally but I'd like to see them try without starting a civil war. Perhaps maybe learn to play the game by the rules instead of trying to destroy the game.

IWanttotalknow 5 points ago +5 / -0

Indeed! I posted that link here, and I like that theory, but I think it's only part of it. I mean it coincides with the lower rates of religiosity and patriotism as well. Or did the brainwashing of de-Nazification cause that lowering of religiosity and patriotism? :)

IWanttotalknow 7 points ago +7 / -0

I saw someone else, seriously, suggesting that because there was de-Nazification in Germany after WW2, that the US should do that right now because the right is so evil, blah blah, and the US failed to do the same thing after the Civil War.

Gotta wonder at what point the schools will start teaching US history and basic civics again.

IWanttotalknow -1 points ago +2 / -3

I mean sure, id be happy as a pig in shit to play vidya all day, but that doesnt pay the bills nor does it put my own kids through school. Im half way through a mortgage and your talking as if I could just drop everything and do what i want to make myself happy, I disagree, the sacrifice I make with my time to make my wife and childrens lives better is far more important, thats how I get my fulfilment.

Why do you presume I meant people would chose to spend their 24 hours playing video games? That doesn't add up to me past a certain age.

My meaning was more between choosing a path of "Well, I guess I went to school, and now I'm working this office job where I spend 40 hours staring at a screen under fluorescent lights doing work I don't like, plus an hour and change in transit every day, but I guess that's how it is." vs. all the other options out there. Because there are other options out there. I've got a friend for example who doesn't have the kids but has the mortgage and works part time at a garage + also gets paid for picking up/delivering cars that are being sold long distance - he likes the driving, plus it pays pretty well to drive half way across the country, then back again. It's sure as hell not an office job, yet he's happier than at any office job he's worked.

Not saying office jobs are death, but like Peterson says, mostly people have jobs not careers. You can still provide for your family and find meaning in your work that way, but you can also find work that's more agreeable with you. There's a sense of "If I don't follow the path, rise up the ladder, then it's all awful, nothing else works." And that's blatantly untrue - we're just like horses with blinders in a sense, looking at that one solution, the whole highschool > uni > office thing. There are other options.

IWanttotalknow 4 points ago +5 / -1

Demoralization has something to do with it, but it's definitely not all of it. The way I see it breaking down is like this:

Success: Currently, the United States is basically the best place on the world to live. For all it's problems, pretty much anyone can be self-sustaining at a level that provides more than most people in history. Getting to say, 17-18$/hr is not the most challenging thing ever, even 20$/hr is like a few years and basically one promotion away from the bottom tier or two if you apply yourself even with just a high school education. It's a very safe country. Medical is problematic but also so much better than even 50 years ago it's not even close. If you can have all of those things, then some people just don't give a shit about politics and enjoy their life.

Apathy: From success or demoralization. Either you don't care because as far as you're concerned nothing political really affects you and there's nothing you can really do about it -or- things are so shitty and bad and you're just one person and there's nothing you can do about it. Either way, you don't care.

Self-Determination: In large part decreased, and decreased a lot. A huge majority of people view life as "School > University > Career." That's the path. That's the only one for success, doesn't demand you think about what you truly want that much - just follow that path and you'll be fine. It's the rails they plan their lives by. As a result of this being so common, many people never question it. If you don't ask yourself "Is it really better that I work in an office job until 10PM staring at a screen 5 days a week for a few years looking for a promotion? What else could I do?" It's made things much more NPC like in many regards, and makes people less content as a result. Even when people stop think "What else could I do?" they just mostly think of doing some other job, weigh pros and cons, etc. They don't think things like "How would I prefer to spend my 24hrs?" so they can't even come to solutions that would improve their lives greatly. Like a horse with blinders.

IWanttotalknow 4 points ago +4 / -0

He doesn't get much attention but he puts out some good content, and I figured people here would appreciate this one specifically. The idea that a lot of what we're experiencing today comes from the attempts at de-Nazification of Nazi Germany right after the war ended is one I hadn't heard of before or really knew much about and it does fit nicely with Yuri Bezmenov's four stages.

While reading up on WW2 history, I mostly stopped with the end of the war. I didn't know pretty much at all about the de-Nazification attempts - which clearly make sense. It also makes me sort of see the German people both before and after as almost a test group: it took like a bit more than a decade for them to fall under Nazi ideology and be accepting of it and worse, engaging with it. Then, after, you have de-Nazification, which is a good thing, but is also basically an open psy-op that also takes hold on them, but also takes a good amount of time. What does that say about people in general? Enough propaganda, enough violence and stuff spreads like a wildfire?

Time to read Gad Saad's new book, The Parasitic Mind :)

IWanttotalknow 1 point ago +2 / -1

You are a funny person, but I like that I can mock you here, especially for stupid comments like that ^_^

IWanttotalknow -3 points ago +1 / -4

Maybe. Maybe you're totally wrong though. Seems incredibly likely that we have a thing in our brains that deals with all aspects of identity. Not mystical, not magical, just you know, how brains work. You seem to strongly deny that anything could possibly exist in the brain that deals with the cognitive function of "identity". Seems pretty illogical though, but hey, you do you? Maybe after you're done drowning people because of a pairing of words they've used people will take you more seriously :)

IWanttotalknow -2 points ago +1 / -3

Do tell, what about people who have different skin colors?

IWanttotalknow 2 points ago +2 / -0

To me that just says the American people have been betrayed by the Democratic party because they're supposed to work together - as painful as that is, good can come from that.

IWanttotalknow 0 points ago +3 / -3

You are wrong. A female reproductive system is biologically expensive, a male reproductive system isn't. Those differences need to be "paid for" somewhere.

I think you are missing the meaning of "equal, but different." We all add up to one individual person, whether male or female. Of course there are difference, and by and large we are relatively equal - but I'm not going to deny male and female biological reproduction works differently. But almost every job a man can do, a woman can do as well, and vice versa. But often there are advantages to having men or women do certain jobs (i.e: military, fireman, etc.) I don't mean we are LITERALLY equal, we can see that women have vaginas and men have dicks.

The average woman is worse than the average man at every measurable activity, except certain visual acuity tasks like color distinction. This doesn't mean that specific women can't outperform specific men at specific tasks. But it does mean that for most tasks if you have the choice between a man and a woman, you would pick the man.

Interestingly enough, I was thinking about color distinction, as they have that over men for sure - something to do with the cones in the eyes? I think smell as well is better. I understand what you're getting at - this is why I say equal, but different. If I meant we were literally equal, I'd have to be a crazy person, obviously there are differences. But I think it's very rare to go "No, woman, I'd always pick a man for this job, we're just not equal" when referring to a cashier at Dunkin Donuts or as a vet, or most jobs. That's what the left thinks of the right, and that's just plainly not true.

IWanttotalknow -2 points ago +1 / -3

No, that's called INDIVIDUALISM. They want to turn every little personality quirk into a "disorder" and warp what were once seen as just part of each person being an individual with those expected little behavioural variations that give evolution its grist for the mill. A little slow? Nah, you're "on duh spectrum" so now entitled to have your ass kissed. :/

I think that's a bit too drastic a take. I can see your point, because obviously the left does what you say it does. It's how a large number of them behave, and there's very much something about the left that likes to "skip" the effort/work and reap the reward - i.e: Morbidly obese women who "won't be fat shamed, I'm beautiful and fuck you." They want to skip the effort, the weight loss, and just be accepted as beautiful and as sought after as the physically attractive women. It never occurs to those types "Huh, maybe I can admit that I'm not very attractive with this extra 150lbs, but I shouldn't mentally beat myself to death over it until I hate life, and I can work on it." They just want to go "Y'know what? I am beautiful and fuck all the fatphobes, let me surround myself with like minded people who will accept my beauty" - that's cray cray. But the key here is: don't blind yourself to whatever reality is/might be for people who have legitimate issues by mixing them in with the type we were just talking about.

Thing is, the Left is informed by Eastern/Asian/Denisovan psychology, that seems to absolutely hate the concept of "The Individual" as a unit of society, and instead thinks in terms of groupism. Note that in Asian religious philosophy, the "individual" is fluid, and the end-game of existence is to eventually lose any semblance of individuality to become subsumed back into some barely-sentient cosmic blob or some shit, whereas in the West (and in animism) the individual is "fixed", even when amnesiac reincarnation is involved (ie, you were always "you" in some real sense, and will always be "you", whether in Heaven or another body as another species under another name.)

Never heard this before, going to look into it before I speak to it. The only thing that it reminded me of was when I spent time in Japan, people were telling me that in the Japanese school system they had a preference of keeping the special needs children with the regular classes - it was more important for them to feel part of the group rather than have specific education that would be more of help to them. That was like 10+ years ago, and I don't know how true it is, but I can see that being important to them much more than it is the Westerners.

IWanttotalknow -5 points ago +2 / -7

First of all, drop that "gender" crap, that's drinking their kool-aid right there. Gender is a term from linguistics, and has nothing to do with sex. Masculine/feminine =/= male and female. Completely separate things (even if the former is based on the latter), as one can be masculine without being male, or feminine without being female (or even fucking alive.)

I don't think using the word gender means you're drinking their kool-aid. Maybe it's not the right word though, I'll grant you that. I think what they refer to as "gender" is essentially the brain processing things, sort of like a computer is running an operating system in the background - it's got an file system, it's got drivers, etc. There is something in the brain that has to load/run your identity, and part of that I think is gender identity. I also think there are parts of the brain that have to do with other forms of identity. Something in you handles "being a child" vs "being a teen" vs "being a parent". My view is more "Let's get very micro-level and see what pieces exist, what they're doing and how they're doing it"

The problem with the Left is that 1) they conflate other cultures with the West - the way they describe the past is really fucking distorted, and often sounds more like they're describing modern Muslim or recent pre-modern Chinese bullshit when it comes to how women were treated/property rights and shit (this is a result of their "all cultures ar ethe same" lying nonsense; and 2) Describe even the modern day as something like from a distorted version of the 1950s.

I agree with 1) pretty heavily. Also reminds me of people who say there's nothing nothing more bullshit than "modern history" lol. 2) I agree with as well. I can't speak for the 50s, I wasn't there, and I can't speak to the 80s because I was basically a baby, but the 90s and 00s are crystal clear. Up until about 2012, things were damn near identical to the mid 90s from my point of view, at least culturally.

And as far as aggression goes, I recommend Konrad Lorenz's "On Aggression" and maybe a peek at Kipling's opinion of female aggression (ie, if we were kept out of men's counsels, it's because we're more likely to want to start a war over any perceived threat to us and our own than the menfolk. But that would be a function of not having to fight the war ourselves. Yeah, I think "equality" should include the draft. Maybe sometimes the female of the pair IS the one who should go.)

See, this is why I started this thread. No clue who that is, no idea of Kipling's view on female aggresion - and while I don't know who the first guy is or how is work, I think only a fool might not see the logic of what you described as Kipling's position - time to Google some interesting shit. There are also definitely times throughout history where the sexes were more split and had their own areas of influence, as odd as it might seem that men generally bowed out of what were considered "women's affaires" out of respect, like "Hey, we know our shit and and there's a reason we're not taking your advice on this." vs "Oh. Crap, you know about this stuff and I need sit back." Of course, that's a very positive rosy view of it and there was definitely some crazy as shit that far in the past, but I also think as society has improved, we tend to have better understanding of each others views, even in regards like the war stuff. But I don't think it's universal. Making me think quite a lot of some of the wives of the earliest US President's for example. And of course, I could be totally wrong too :) Thank you for sharing your view.

IWanttotalknow -1 points ago +3 / -4

I don't disagree totally, but I have a few disagreements here.

It's not like the term "gender roles" are a new thing, and they pre-date the long march through the institutions and such. I don't disagree that the primary purpose of a species if generally to reproduce.

But I think ignoring gender identity is a big mistake. I just think that the left doesn't have it correct. I think of gender identity as a biological based psychological function. 99.9% of the time everything is fine, you've got some part of your brain that deals with gender identity, and it lines up right. But maybe that element, whatever "thing" gender identity is (whether it's neurons firing in the brain, or a specific pattern, or hormones + puberty affecting brain development, idk what) perhaps it can be the opposite. Or barring that, perhaps it can be damaged, or something like that. There are so many odd things that human bodies can do that gender identity doesn't seem a stretch to me - from people who are basically allergic to water or check out "auto-brewery syndrome". Just in terms of curiosity, it makes think of people who have DID (Dissociative identity disorder). Certainly something in the brain has to do with identity, in some manner. Instead though, you just get the left's propaganda on the subject instead of actual science.

Gender identity a myth made up by people who wish to have more orgasms and don't care where they come from. They want you to approve of their aberrant sex appetites.

I think this is potentially a conflation. What you describe is true - those people absolutely exist. But I absolutely think at least one other group exists - there are plenty of trans people who a) are not overly sexual and b) look at the group you describe in a negative manner and consider them degenerate and perverts while they consider themselves to be in the realm of "I can't ignore this shit, it sucks, but transitioning seems to help so I guess I'll do that, because staying like this is fucking hell." I don't think you can lump those two groups together.

I also think of it like the Greek philosopher guy who hit on what an "Atom" was well ahead of his time by thinking "How small can an object be until you can no longer cut it in half?" Weird thought for a dude in 460 BC, but turns out he was sort of onto something. But hey, who knows, Elon and his Mindlink thing might be able to help detect some stuff one day and narrow down what / where the issue is. I also vaguely recall a European study of some kind that potentially associated transgenderism to a specific gene, or a gene that also showed links to other mental health issues. SOMETHING is going on, I just don't believe almost a word of what the left says or almost any of it's science, and it's science.

IWanttotalknow 2 points ago +3 / -1

I have no idea why this question is on KIA2 or what relevance does it have but I'll bite.

Mostly because you get banned in a lot of places for even posting that, and I know there are people here who like to talk about gender more than just shitting on the left, and have thoughts on the subject. I haven't heard those thoughts, so I figured I'd try :)

It was not to "smooth out relations", gender roles are natural across species. It was the most efficient way to evolve to current day. Gender roles also have a biological component that if you ignore you can be miserable. I'm not advocating for enforcing gender roles or that they are universal to all people. But if you say to people that the gender roles are evil, a product of patriarchy or toxic then you will end up with depressed single man and barren single 40 year old women, bitter and hating man for not liking their dried out pussy.

I don't disagree that gender roles have a biological component. But the specific set of standards we have generally have now didn't pop up out of no where, and they've changed over time. I'm fine with saying they're biologically based, but the way we discuss them, talk about them, and so on - they feel like they smooth out relations between the sexes. We're similar, not identical, and sometimes it's difficult to put yourself in the other genders' shoes - if it weren't, I think relationships would be a lot easier. In that regard, I think they're used to smoothing out relations, to have certain understandings and expectations to hew to. But yeah, I agree with the rest, that is how you end up with a whole mess of depressed and unhappy people on both sides, it's very, very bad.

I'm not sure about this statistic but if true that is a huge difference. Think of the DNA difference between man and apes.

I don't think it's statistically true, but it's how I view it: the 10% difference compromises biology, psychology and sociology. I don't know how much of each (i.e: 1% biologically different, 4% psychologically different, 5% sociologically different). The biological differences tend to be obvious to the eye, but also hormonal differences can certainly affect psychology (i.e: if women are more emotional than men on average, I can see that having strong psychological effects, especially during childhood). And socially, how we're treated affects us as well. I think those three components make up the important differences. The rest is basically the same. (i.e: desire for attention, love, sex, meaning, and so on.)

This is not true. All evidence point to women having it easier. The "women are wonderful effect", hiring biases and my own anecdotal life experience all point to women being greatly favored.

Right now, I'd agree overall, but certainly not in all aspects. I've definitely seen those hiring and promotion biases in my own workplace experiences, and a lot of people won't shut up about it privately. But I'm talking more specifically on an individual level, using my example: Would you favor Tulsi Gabbard more if she were a balding, articulate, fit man with the same ideas? Or do you find you favor her more as is?

My conclusion is the differences are larger then feminists claim and going against biology hurts both men and women. Feminists are evil beyond comprehension and are ruining the quality of life for everyone. Today feminists are the equivalent of religious extremists. They want men to be weak and emotional and supportive 100% of their crazy ass ideas while women should be strong independent and without children. Anyone who does not fit in to this are heretics.

I think the differences are also larger than feminists claim on average - and I do want to be specific when I say "feminists". I don't mind the person who knows a little bit of feminist propaganda and thinks they're stunning and brave for announcing "Woman should be equal!". Those people can become "actual" feminists, but the actual feminists like Roxanne Gay or Susanna Danuta Walters and so on - they are exactly what you describe, and they've got a larger growing army of indoctrinate fools. They are damaging to society - but we also live in a free society where people can make truly awful choices that aren't illegal. Consequence of freedom is people use it poorly.

We must stop feminists to set the rules for human interactions.

Little disagreement, but not much. I have no desire to stop Christina Hoff Sommers - she's rational, does good work, and fights the other feminists. I guess the argument there would be she's not exactly a "feminist" as you describe it - rather, I see her as a healthy feminist, or maybe another term would be better. She's aware of the problems young boys are having these days, has talked about them extensively, speaks up on the issue. She has no problem doing the same for girls though if there's valid cause. In the end, she seems more like an individualist who is rational than a feminist.

IWanttotalknow 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can't be, Trump is literally Hitler. You can't literally Hitler twice in a row or the jig is up. Christ, they had Mitt Romney as a slaver - he's not good, but he ain't that. The Republican field post Trump is wide open, there's a lot of rising stars, a lot of very, very popular politicians and even non-politicians which is very popular of late.

The left, the people who are leaving the left, the ones who don't want to speak up - they need to speak up with their vote. Virtually their entire set of politicians are shit or corrupt or worse. Then again, they're not exactly good at seeing "Wow, our elected politicians that we voted for are failing in a massive way, especially the ones who got super rich by being a public servant. Maybe I'm not voting Republican, but can we at least vote these clowns out and get some new ones, at least?" That should be the rallying cry of any leftist who's not batshit crazy. The two sides are at least supposed to work together sometimes. The left hasn't been willing to do that in ages.

IWanttotalknow 11 points ago +11 / -0

Because they know the one thing they can't totally control and only influence is the vote. And they're fucking terrified that Trump's going to win again - you don't pull this kind of shit that can land your ass in jail or destroy your company for fun. It's a risk. "We're stopping the bad guy." can't work forever when then "bad guy" you've fought for the past four years gets re-elected.

From their point of view, now is the best time to act because they might not be able to soon. Gonna be fun to see who wins the Republican nomination after Trump's 2nd term, left won't be able to target them for a while.

IWanttotalknow 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't know if it was 4D chess or not - rather, it was just a matter of time until Big Tech decided to squash a story. The Dems probably looked at this and shit their pants 3 weeks before election and went "Yup, censor this one. Here are reasons we can say it's bullshit, we're building our narrative around that."

Of course it was bound to be closer to the election. If they did it six months ago, there'd be a ton of time to legally castrate them for breaking the law. Not as much time now. But they had to know the Streisand Effect was gonna make it ten times the news it was before, so it really doesn't make sense.

But I'll bet good money Trump's got plenty more stuff waiting to come out. I don't like that politicking much, waiting to release stuff, but at this point I don't care too much about it as long as it's not illegal and I don't believe it is.

IWanttotalknow 6 points ago +6 / -0

They do get to power trip if they're DMing and if they're just playing they get to inhabit their bizarre fantasies. Not like, "I'm a dark elf bard." shit, that's normal for D&D. I mean "I'm a dark elf bard who's pronoun is "zeh" because my gender is unknown and affects my roles" or some shit.

view more: Next ›