I have only "caught" him in lies that are technically disagreements. Foremost example was a flat question about who the worst criminals in the world are (women of course). You can list all the law abiding feminists you want and forgive all of moloch's favorite males, and it's as good as a lie, but at the root of it I cannot prove it isn't his actual belief.
I have had more discussions with Imp than I can recall and this is pretty much the conclusion I came to. HOWEVER, even though the wahman tumor takes up a large % of his basedness, if you were to remove it, what you would be left with is 99.99% pure based infowar drive. If he were a countersemite he would be among the best. I respect him more than some people whose opinions are totally in line with mine bc they aren't fighters on any level. Being a keyboard warrior is literally better than doing nothing. It is a shame about the woman thing.
Did he do anything of note? Should I be thinking of something other than the ethnic origins of last names when I see the name Kinzinger?
Lol I had this headline on my clipboard and ready to post... already the top post. Almost like people want to know what theyre being asked to click on
It's the way of the world
It has taken years for it to sink into my brain that reddit moderators are being totally serious when they speak to me. Not only do they think what they do is necessary but it's important, and the way they do it is reasonable and refined; high society correcting the base behavior of the plebs. This is real, they are real people in a sense of the word, and this is truly their perspective.
I think it would be immediately fixed by some sort of regulation that doxxes all moderators on social media websites and requires full body photos to be submitted for display to the public.
We do it this way too but if we're being honest it all comes from the framework of og AD&D and we still use those tables and references
I think you are wrongly offended by my throwing a boogeyman word into the buzzword folder. If anything, that usage in the exact way you describe is what clinches its spot in buzzword HoF.
These ideas suffer the same problem as high scientific theory in that they can be carefully defined and nitpicked in the process of their conception/design, but cannot be practiced or tested in a very feasible way. Every test fails and there is never a lack of factors to explore as to why, and so, we never abandon the core theory being tested, we just add, remove, and edit items from it to try and conform the theory to reality.
Like having a favorite kid and favoring them even though they fail x thing again and again. "Maybe if we get him lessons, maybe if he has the right equipment, maybe if he has better motive, etc etc my kid won't fail"
I don't have to prose bluster to say it proper but I agree with most of what you have said about debate and what I'll dub our "womb memory" of liberal ideas. In my personal oet system, liberalism is thrown out the window and debate is replaced largely with force, just like any le evil communist. I started out, and still here maintain, that it is the economic freedom of average people that has resulted in the world's most successful state entities. We malign that chaotic world-computer-tier freedom with the buzzword "capitalism" just as we malign attempts and theories that pursue perfect order as "communism". But I will defend "capitalism" as the free market and drop it the second it is paired with the word "jew" or words that have too much to do with behaviors associated with them. The reason I will even superficially defend that buzzword is because free trade is a basic law of the land, just like gravity, and to try and stopper the flow of trades for any grand purpose is as foolish as trying to hold up rain.
Thinkers all have attachments to ideas that get tied into a buzzword. It is why buzzwordery exists. Basically for the purpose of interfering with debate and weakening the traditions of the liberal order those debates take place in. Buzzwords exist to "get you" by the collar of your understanding of an associated concept.
You said I want to ignore power and talk ideas. I am talking about power and the source of it. The source is not attitude. The source is not the world's most perfect understanding of the definition of the word Communism. It is work. The physical laws of the world have resulted in a system in which work is most efficiently harnessed. States that stray too far from that physically determined framework fail. Communism implies interference with that framework, and given most circumstances, circumstances that apply to the vast majority of people in this world, it fails due to that.
Originally, days ago now, I was bitching to you over "democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money". I stated, essentially, that democracy can only exist in a state with a healthy economic engine. I think this is as close as we'll get to "circling back to that". Power is an economic engine. This is what fails a failed communist state. This is what enables any degree or quality of "democracy" to exist. Money is behind every bullet, every state murder, every censored word, every powerful group, behind every path to more power, to more money, to more order. "This particular democracy is fake and corrupt" would be a better statement imo.
Not to sound like a grade school teacher, but this is some mighty fine prose right here. If I just updoot without saying so, it would inflate the value of updoots I have given to other comments.
It will just be ignored. Hell idk if you guys play it or know anyone who does but chances are they have been ignoring TSR et al for multiple editions. TSR rule changes are just marketing for $40 hardcover reference books. To me and all the D&D players I know, those books are worth a quick pdf download and a scroll to enjoy some art, and then they are trash or perhaps trivia. OGAD&D4LYFE
I don't have it in me right now but I hen at you soon lol
I'll make you a deal. Without taking issue with how I have used any particular word, state just one counterargument you have given to me in this conversation, and I will address it without being too le mean for your blood.
Maybe you forgot to hit send on that reply buddy, all I have gotten from you is utter pin the tail on the donkey definition pilpul horseshit. I don't blame you though: I'm a racist, I blame an entire ethnicity >:)
Guy likes the USA: "this is a democracy" Guy who dislikes the USA: "this is not a democracy" Guy who likes NK: "this is a democracy" Guy who dislikes NK: "this is not a democracy"
By George this is just the strangest phenomenon. Come on. It is clearly a buzzword. I have used it in proper with the popular lexicon wherein its only coherency the the concept of vote casting. You are practicing pilpul to avoid my argument.
what was your original meaning?
Really asking me to retype this shit huh. Why don't you reread it instead, since I already typed it. Wowzers, efficiency galore.
You don't care and probably didnt read any in the first place. You'll reply to me with some snazzy last word pilpul, and I will call it again ad infinitum
The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy. Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy economic floof promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter. Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine). It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going. I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.
That is literally not at all irrelevant to the point. You seem really concerned with getting some snazzy sounding last word in, like you are ignoring me and the conversation at hand and pandering to some third party reader who you happen to assume is stupid.
Smalldickenergy.jaypeg :kiss: :kiss: Das rite queens, we takin over this niche second generation +once-removed GamerGate forum named after a magazine that is in turn named "small geek" in japanese, where 2/3 posts are clearly males complaining about women as though it were a male space. HA! More fool they!
I'm phoneposting and it's inconvenient to copy/paste the little parts I'm replying to, but I'll go in order at least, kind of.
I agree that the word communism is a boogeyman buzzword. It's lazy to say it has no meaning at all imo tho. Each such word has its core buzzword meaning even stripped down to its bone. For instance in another comment I said that democracy implies "votes are cast". These words get raped, but rape is le real and the taint is forever a part of the lexicon. If "votes are cast" were all you knew whatsoever about democracy you could still understand and blend into a huge % of the overall discussion about it.
I like to take my best stab at what a person means when they misuse a word, rather than argue the word itself. I draw a hard line at tranny stuff and maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but generally I don't want to argue definitions, I want to defend or attack some established or proposed idea. If you had the purity of mind (which I doubt I have personally) you could give me a corrected list of appropriate words and we could just start over with the same argument dressed in all the smoothest trappings.
I think using comparison to old ways of life to try and gatekeep the definition of modern day communism is some form of fallacy, but I can't name it so I won't be cocksure about it. For the sake of giving you an actual counterargument I will say my core rationale in saying so is that it does not scale effectively. I don't have any high and might logical support to whip out for that though. It just seems apparent looking at where/when/why/how that rationale has flourished and w/w/w/h it has failed and caused untold starvation death, for instance.
The same could be said for liberal capitalism (more raped buzzwords) and I'm not exactly trying to offer those concepts as the "solution"or "answer" to the ebil boogeyman of communism. I wanted to bitch because you, or someone, said real democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money, I am simply defending my bitching and I've not lost sight on that.
I reject how you view "the populace" there is no depoliticalization of the populace, the populace itself fills the spaces in between with its own natural order, which is inherently political. You can have politics engaged in through a lens of religion, of resource management, of merit, or of poop... but you will have it, one way or another.
I agree with your sentiment, that you don't prefer any system, but I don't trust you worth a damn there lol. I have my preferences too but my cope is that these things are determined first and foremost by nature on an astounding scale and that my preferences for x or y grand scale idea mean jack diddly. I believe we would both eat dirt if we got just a little bit of dark wish fulfillment.
Thanks for reading my needlessly long comment and turning it into a justifiably long reply. My vocabulary is failing me a bit here but I really appreciate that.
Democracy is a buzzword that means votes are cast. There's no need to pretend that the technical distinction between a direct democracy and some form of constitutional republicanism has any bearing on what I said about that. Pretend I typed the same sort of thing about capitalism also.
This is about as far as I will go to address pilpul. Like if you have a counterargument you want to explore lets ahead. But get (or keep) it in your head that reclaiming the definition of words with the aim of changing or invalidating the intended meaning of your partner's argument without addressing it is not proper argumentation.
Offer the word you wish I had used- because I am not playing a game over that- and then use it to address what I clearly said.
You think every forum you browse is full of women?
The fact that you assume I am talking about a public politician when I say "master" is so cute I don't even have the spirit to be mean to you about it
Happy new year btw :3
First off, communism describes both state and economic function while capitalism only describes economic function so you needed a razzing.
democracy can't exist in a system dominated by money
This is at least a categorically consistent statement... but still wrong. The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy.
Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy economic floof promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter.
Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine).
It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going.
I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.
Okay Imp no more male spaces for you then, it's wrong for you to be able to select or chose peers based on your preference. Gonna make the call and bring in the women to correct this amoral mistake in 3...2..1..
Categorically confused, eh?
"want" is still a strong word, but I certainly don't "care"