Ok, very well lol.Originally Posted by ooo
Can you give an example of the bolded btw?
Ok, very well lol.
Can you give an example of the bolded btw?
This thread has been very enlightening in a number of ways.
What I've taken out of it is that the mere act of categorizing (whatever traits we may choose to use) is now offensive to some people. You can't identify a woman as being hot because OMG, women who don't feel hot might hear and be offended! The same posters who overreacted to this thread's OP also expressed displeasure over much less controversial posts, such as one where I created a hypothetical description of the kind of woman whom I'd find attractive, based on a collection of personality and physical traits I've envisioned. The problem isn't me. It is the subjective, ridiculously emotional responses the concepts I propose seem to trigger in some people, which only you have the ability to control. You cannot expect me or anyone else to suppress our creativity simply to protect someone's feelings. Even if I saw this as a worthy goal (which I don't for reasons I've mentioned already), because nobody is offended by exactly the same set of things, it is impossible to be universally inoffensive. You can't love everybody or love itself would have no meaning.
Also: what you fail to grasp is that most assessments are just a starting point, a short hand to make sense of the world, and they'll inevitably change as you discover more and pursue new ideas that challenge the assumptions you made in the past. In other words, little is fixed. Who knows, one day I might be a rabid SJW. It is, however, essential to draw some lines and distinctions between things, simply to give them meaning (a lot we see only has reality relative to something else: i.e. at least superficially, you only know an apple is an apple and not a pear because you have a pear to compare it to) and many of us do this unconsciously.
This is all that needs to be said. Peace.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 07-12-2018 at 11:54 PM.
Correct.
Correct x1000What you fail to grasp is that most assessments are just a starting point, a short hand to make sense of the world, and they'll inevitably change as you discover more and pursue new ideas that challenge the assumptions you made in the past. (...) It is, however, essential to draw some lines and distinctions between things, simply to give them meaning (a lot we see only has reality relative to something else: i.e. at least superficially, you only know an apple is an apple and not a pear because you have a pear to compare it to) and many of us do this unconsciously.
extremism, terrorism under any shape, fascism, any deliberate hateful behaviour directed to diminish the dignity of any individual/ minority/ populations, that is xenophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and flat eart theorists.
@Myst @Avebury I actually enjoy stupid jokes too (shame on me), but I think this is instead deliberately bad and offensive. I'm just surprised someone doesn't agree to find it condemnable if someone else gets bothered or points out the obvious. Like free speech should protect our ability to express our ideas, not everyone's psychotic lalalas, and I'm aware of how the latter option actually became the norm... that's why I called it a joke before.
I'm not saying this is smth worse compared to what is around, not even saying that Sperma is the devil and we have to condemn him for this thread, I'm just saying that these kinds of ideas are like evil seeds and it's sad if they become so edible, and the reason I condemn Sperma for is that he repeats these same things on and on, if he didn't want a reaction he should have kept his fingers calm.
@ave, an example... IDK, I had that impression strong in the political threads lately, but just now, when I've pointed out that Sperma was making Trump propaganda, therefore free speech was more on the part of his detractors, you felt like commenting that everything is propaganda and propaganda is a free speech right, which is to me just one of the many reasons why freespeech is sort of a joke... like if they're all selling you a product (propaganda), it will be the one who has more influence to sell the most, and this is easily favored by the money, charisma, appeal to gut emotions, winning over the logic and good ethics of some less advantaged opponents. But anyway, I wasn't criticizing the fact that it's propaganda, but the fact that it's Trump's propaganda in particular, therefore the winning norm, and so that it's pointless to label its content "free speech" because it's so free that it became the State of things.
: ) : )
I guess I don't see why this one is an evil seed (or why it would be deliberately bad/offensive as the intent) but thanks for explaining your pov
Based on these sentiments, you might want to read this report on free speech by the Cato Institute last year (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/...erance-america), which found that, among many other things, 76% of "strong conservatives" say that "the current political climate prevents me from saying what I believe". Meanwhile, only 30% of "strong liberals" voiced this opinion.
You are the status quo.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a6941915/donald-trump-elections-killed-my-sex-drive/
Which proves that 76% of conservatives are snowflakes who automatically assume that they're victims.
Yeah if math and logic were lalala like you I would be lol, and you wouldn't like it, lolol
Lol, that survey shows that it's people complaining of the restrictions on free speech (=you) to amount at 76%, they're also conservative aka republicans, which I'm obviously not, and is smth more to do with Trump's electorate... In fact, I have no problem with pc limitations lol, if that wasn't clear I think there should be more ; )Based on these sentiments, you might want to read this report on free speech by the Cato Institute last year (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/...erance-america), which found that, among many other things, 76% of "strong conservatives" say that "the current political climate prevents me from saying what I believe". Meanwhile, only 30% of "strong liberals" voiced this opinion.
I just saw this:
White nationalists like you could reverse the White demographic reduction if they could actually get laid.
Practice what you preach. I will remember to re-post this quote the next time you cry foul about stereotyping.
Also, your strawman is redundant even if someone was to take it at face value. Babies can be grown outside the womb.
Er....riiight.
Do you seriously think that restrictions on free speech could just be used against conservatives and Republicans? For example, how would you like it if I sued you for defamation for implying that I'm "the devil"? After all context and intent no longer matter, just my hurt feelings, and that insinuation is so offensive. How dare you besmirch my reputation!
I fear that you are incurably short-sighted.
that doesn't in any way sound ominous as fuck. you're totally helping out your case that you're not a Nazi.
What it does prove is that liberals are not facing social pressure to withhold their political opinions, despite being the minority. Because many liberals on this forum have expressed fear and loathing for Trump, I wanted to put things in perspective.
Well I'm just imagining (because why not?) a scenario of acute demographic crisis in America, a reproductive dystopia. Taking your comment to its logical conclusion, one possible way to grow a nation quickly without women would be to create a gene bank of sorts, now, somewhere isolated like Montana, or maybe Antarctica (a natural cryogenic), and start to grow babies outside the womb. (You'd need to allow 20 years for one generation). All of the technology required to do this exists, it's just a matter of who can be bothered to set it all up I guess.
What it proves is that you're a little pussy who feels victimised when people don't agree with him.
Rule #1 of the internet:
Those who talk the toughest, run the fastest.
Also Rule #2
Someone is probably guilty of whatever they accuse you of.
Rule #135
Never expect a Fi-lead to have a coherent argument.
lol ok so what do those rules tell us about you
You accuse people from other races of having a substandard IQ.
These are some pretty hastily drawn conclusions here.
And to the last sentence - and yet he could still be right. That's the thing about ad hominem attacks, it demonstrates nothing about the arguments being made. It doesn't seem like you're even concerned with the fact Sperma could be onto something here - and I think he is - you aeren't willing to hear anything, just make personal attacks.
Last edited by Ave; 07-13-2018 at 11:04 AM.
...Why is that a Socratic method?Socratic method is only useful when parties are willing to debate. It is fruitless when one or both are not open minded enough to debate. Yes, that is cynical, but a little cynicism never killed anyone.
I also don't think you're reading my post(s) correctly. I'm not saying people shouldn't criticize or whatever. They can, and should be free too, and be free to decide in which circumstance their criticism will prove constructive and in which cases it won't.
All I was initially saying was that since people are free to ignore something on the internet, there is no need to censor something that is not a direct threat. But Mio Q, who I was responding to, clarified his/her position and that was that. Not sure what you're trying to prove here by adding to it.
Well see, asking something to be removed because they find it unpleasant or something is also a criticism (to improve something).
I think that it's well within the rights of the community to say that something isn't conducive to creating a pleasant, appropriate and constructive atmosphere for the community (and therefore it should be removed). So if you can't handle the criticism, then don't bring it to public. Even if that means being asked to be removed. You're free to think up of anything in private, of course. Maybe you can write it in a personal diary or a blog.
So since that we're mostly talking about the community as a whole, making the individual freedom the point (if you don't like it, then you ignore it) doesn't quite make sense.
Well how ironic coz I wasn’t implying anything like that and you keep insinuating that there should be fewer restrictions on free speech that should bother me (because they actually bother you) but to which actually I am affine with ideologically and that don’t bother me at all, and which anyway is the same idea of the lonely 30 % of the actual US population on that survey (that you don't belong to). Projectiuuun uhh
Lol thanks for proving me right, and glad to see that who doesn't understand me is with you on your ignorance ^^ If you want to understand how that graph works just ask kk? Coz it's actually very interesting and just says one thing I've been repeating since the scratch: 80% of people find hate speech unacceptable yet the 60% use hate speech it and want more freedom over it (majority of conservatives). This is just incoherence in itself and it's even what youve been proposing and it's even the majority of the clearly confused murican pop.
Last edited by ooo; 07-13-2018 at 12:06 PM.
I don't believe in any kind of "rights of the community" that's basically equal to mob rule.
I think you mean you're talking about the community as a whole, not "we", ironically enough.
How does "the community" decide anything? We are all individuals and some of might not like something that is said, and try to band up against the person saying it to get them to remove it. If you have enough people to do it, over 50%, you have a majority, but that doesn't mean the majority gets to make law. That isn't right. In fact, if 99 people decide to censor something and one person decides they want to not censor it because they want to read it, that's unfair to the one person since they have a right to hear an opinion, unpopular as it may be. So you were talking about gaining different perspectives, it's ironic you support taking down unpopular opinions then.
I believe you were talking about dialogue between different people, that's why I brought up Socratic method.
But in any case, you can always try and put your idea into action by asking mods to take stuff down, I doubt it will work given the way this forum is moderated though.
Then you should come up with a better argument for not doing something. I don't think "If you don't like it, then ignore it" is a good argument. Well it's like you can't even object to it per se, since you'd just be ignoring anything that you don't like. And that even includes whatever the "mob" does.
That's the whole point. If enough of the community agrees to it (and not enough people object), then it will be done.
Like I said, if you disagree, then you should come up with a better argument. Then the "mob" will agree with that new argument.
I mean I'm not necessarily talking about this forum per se. This forum is owned by mu4, so he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.But in any case, you can always try and put your idea into action by asking mods to take stuff down, I doubt it will work given the way this forum is moderated though.
Absolutely not. The Republican party controls ALL branches of government: the House of Congress, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the majority of governorships. They have all the hard power to legislate as they see fit. If this is the environment in which Conservative opinions are being stifled, then Liberal opinions are surely in the grave collecting worms. If American Conservatives feel censored, then the best explanation is an oversensitivity to criticism and a persecution complex (an apparently bottomless pit).
'Personal attacks' are how you deal with shitty people who make personal attacks.And to the last sentence - and yet he could still be right. That's the thing about ad hominem attacks, it demonstrates nothing about the arguments being made. It doesn't seem like you're even concerned with the fact Sperma could be onto something here - and I think he is - you aeren't willing to hear anything, just make personal attacks.
Yeah, Republicans control the government, it doesn't mean that they control institutions like universities where liberals are the majority.
So I think the conclusions you draw are faulty: if conservatives feel stifled in expressing their opinions, maybe it's because institutions like universities, the media, social media, and pop culture are dominated by liberals.
The reason I sympathzie with this is also from personal experience: I'm not in America, but in my experience the left itself has become extremely intolerant towards opinions they don't agree with. At least a good part of the left. I think in America it is worse. That isn't to say the right can't be intolerant, they certainly can, and often are, but for some reason the left has become extremely virulent in the past few years.
A possible explanation to this is that while western governments tend to become more and more right wing, the resistance to those governments becomes louder, too. While the US might have a republican majority in all three branches of government, the left seems to be trying to control the public discourse by intimidating those who don't agree with them. Sure, it doesn't work because when people are at a voting booth, they can vote Trump without telling anyone or without anyone shouting them down, so you end having a government which reflects people's voting tendencies (I'm simplifying here, since there is also gerry mandering etc) but a public discourse in the media, in pop culture, and in universities which is highly liberal that tends to be out of touch with what most people want.
Where did he personally attack you, or for that matter, anyone else? Actually you are the only who has made personal attacks in this thread afaik.'Personal attacks' are how you deal with shitty people who make personal attacks.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
such nice signature Ave : )
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Liberals don't control Business schools and Economics departments (which belong to universities by the way); they don't control corporations; they don't control the army and the police force. Those institutions are far more powerful and influential than Women's Studies and English departments. If conservatives feel stifled until practically all institutions are under their control, then their oversensitivity is the culprit.
Even the media isn't entirely in the hands of liberals: conservative TV news (see Fox News) and bloggers certainly exist. They are very established, very loud, and very dogmatic. What you're saying is that liberals should shut up because they've lost. I hope you see the irony in that.
I'd add that the extent to which liberal departments indoctrinate students into some kind of "Liberal Cult" is entirely a function of the conspiratorial imagination of the person making this claim. Even the insinuation that students are impressionable enough to fall under the sway of scheming liberal propagandists is itself extremely offensive to grown adults who are capable (or should be capable) of critical of thinking.
ummm.... I have a history with this guy. It might not be wise to attempt to mediate other people's drama while lacking any of the proper context.Where did he personally attack you, or for that matter, anyone else? Actually you are the only who has made personal attacks in this thread afaik.
@xerx Not sure I wish to debate this further but let me just clarify this:
No, I am not implying that, lol.What you're implying is that liberals should shut up because they've lost (at least in America). I hope you see the irony in that.
Just saying.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Meanwhile in London:
https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/13/photo...visit-7713893/
Well I wont say what british think about americans but see what they think about mr trump.
If you have a history with him, then please grow up a bit and sort it out with him in PM instead of going off topic in a really shitty way in his threads.
If you insist. I'm sorry if I ruined the genteel vibe of an intelligent discussion about captain pussy grabber. It'll be easiest if I just never talk to Sperma again. Do note, however, that drama is like 75% of the reason people even use this forum instead of WSS.
Last edited by xerx; 07-14-2018 at 12:18 AM.
I made a statement of fact, not a personal attack. I might turn out to be incorrect but I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything.You accuse people from other races of having a substandard IQ.
I think ignorance is to blame.
Most Britons don't know a lot about American politics (and vice versa) so it is hard for them to understand why Trump was elected. The media in the UK (and elsewhere) withholds a lot of information about Trump's policy achievements, they won't mention the collusion within the FBI to prevent Trump winning, or that left-wingers have directed violence towards his cabinet and supporters after he won. In other words, people are shown a very distorted picture of events which almost always paint Trump as an antagonist.
I believe that some, if not all, would change their negative opinion if they were more informed. Until then, we can only hope.
Conservatives sometimes create policy, but liberals almost always control which of these policies will be enforced, when and how.
Colleges are a good example. Many of the faculty presidents, chairmen etc may be conservative but the people directly under them (the bureaucracy, managerial class) are almost all liberal. What this means is that resources tend to be allocated towards progressive policy objectives regardless of the university's official position. If the university was to say, take more active steps to prevent censorship of conservative views by enforcing First Amendment rights on campus, the bureaucracy would rebel, threaten to resign, file "hostile environment" lawsuits and strike. The aim isn't to win in court but simply to attract negative publicity and slow down the process of change. Liberals have been very successful in controlling discourse throughout the education system for this reason.
do you consider yourself a conservative sperm, or are you just pointing out liberals control the university because you enjoy verbalizing the inconsistency in the liberal position for its own sake. you seem more like an anarchist who just adopts a conservative posture at this time because it furnishes an occasion to engage in iconoclasm. do you think you would be welcomed by establishment conservatives or that they at all appreciate your "help"
how many conservative tears were shed when milo imploded despite all he "did" for them. this more or less seems like a case of adopting the "offensive" position because its easier to say that's why people take issue with you, and pretend you did so on principle, and thus never have to address the real issue that alienates people about you... the final result is the same, you belong to no one, but you pretend the conservatives are with you, when the only reason you can proffer such a charade is because none are around. thus you can pretend you're some fighter for the repressed minority while at the same time evade having to generate an authentic outlook and in the end all you've done is blabber into the wind and accomplish nothing except a measure of self delusion. its a small loop adding up to a manufactured and self serving position dressed up as an actual political stance, when the whole thing starts and stops with your own inability to take the first step into the real world. none of this is an expression of policy or erudition or fairness, rather its all an infantile attempt to kill two birds with one stone and never face up to one's most basic flaws. are we really to believe these are the answers to the complex political questions looming over the times and not just the self serving manifestations of what amounts to one more problem child for the serious thinkers to actually work on
its okay though because the jungian stance is to follow ones stupidity all the way down, as every individual must. even this method, if you stay true to it, should produce results, albeit with a few lumps along the way. what I'm really looking forward to is the person who will admit this all appeals to them and they want to get onboard with changing your diaper, because God bless that person
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-14-2018 at 04:52 AM.
If you asked me a set of questions about my policy preferences, no, I wouldn't agree with conservatives on a number of issues, particularly where security and foreign policy are concerned. My background and tastes mean that a lot of Trump voters don't like or trust me any more than the lefties do.
It would be fair to say that the conservative and I have a marriage of convenience at the moment, but it should not be very hard for you to understand why when people like @xerx, who advocate for white genocide, exist.
Milo is a douche for sure, but we shouldn't let that distract us from acknowledging what he achieved.
lol white genocide
kill all men while we're at it
everyone bears sufficient guilt to justify their death. its literally just Christianity all over again, original sin dressed up in progressive politics and race baiting. its funny how the more people try to distance themselves from such positions the more they fall back into them. the thing is God has already taken care of the problem because we're all dead already. instead of trying to hasten utopia by speeding people to their inevitable doom, which ultimately only ends in state terror, the lesson of Jesus is just as appropriate today as its always been, which is to say focus on the plank in ones own eye and love thy neighbor. small constructive acts of help are the real solution to the inner situation in turmoil, which is what all this ideological talk is really aimed at assuaging anyway. it just got lost and thought the solution was in reorganizing society and not themselves
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-14-2018 at 04:54 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
