Lurker > Anti-245

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

How come us news outlets never talk about imperialism and its effect on the world? For example, people are obsessed with Russia hacking the election but the U.S. has meddled in more elections than anyone else. They meddled in russian affairs twice before. It's just hypocritical to care about one and not the other.

Because the democrats do not want to admit that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and will most likely run her again in 2020.

But republicans do this Russian thing too. They just happen not be doing it this time around.

People tend to blame unnatural external factors for losing because it doesnt make them look as bad.

What exactly has America lost? I thought the common theme was that they were the "end of history" and best we'd have?
---

Life in the DoB.

Keep worrying about non issues while the powerful get away with destroying the planet.
---

Life in the DoB.

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

How come us news outlets never talk about imperialism and its effect on the world? For example, people are obsessed with Russia hacking the election but the U.S. has meddled in more elections than anyone else. They meddled in russian affairs twice before. It's just hypocritical to care about one and not the other.

Because the democrats do not want to admit that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and will most likely run her again in 2020.

But republicans do this Russian thing too. They just happen not be doing it this time around.
---

Life in the DoB.

What's the LGtb agenda?
---

Life in the DoB.

How come us news outlets never talk about imperialism and its effect on the world? For example, people are obsessed with Russia hacking the election but the U.S. has meddled in more elections than anyone else. They meddled in russian affairs twice before. It's just hypocritical to care about one and not the other.
---

Life in the DoB.

All jobs have hang ups about them. That's the nature of wage labor unless you work for yourself. But then the state will be on you.
---

Life in the DoB.

So? Don't marry her then.
---

Life in the DoB.

Tumblr is dead. Long live Tumblr.
---

Life in the DoB.

It's quite interesting that they arrested these folks,if this is true, because they also arrested a group of young Maoists a few weeks ago too. The contradictions are quite amazing.
---

Life in the DoB.

I believe it's much more than that at least for some of them.
---

Life in the DoB.

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

CiIantro posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Clearly a lot of self-brainwashing going on for obvious reasons. No matter how much you deny the laws of nature

Hahahahahahahaha you had me taking you seriously for a sec there.

If it makes you feel any better, I never took you seriously. The truth obviously doesn't matter to you as much as your political correctness.

I don't find your responses convincing. It seems you have a hidden aggression to leftism and "political correctness".
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.

I find that very hard to believe

It might not be, for example, as violent as other groups(it's definately not as big as anti muslim bigotry) but social stigma does still exist for atheists.

Social stigma =\= persecution

Also I just realised I spelt "privilege" wrong. Apologies

I suppose you're right in a certain sense because then we could go on about definitions of persecution and whatnot. But I'd argue that atheists do face negatives that whites do not, especially given the founding of America.
---

Life in the DoB.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Anti-245 posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

masculinity is definitely more conceptual than ideological: we see things in the world and classify them as being masculine or non-masculine. concepts make sense of experiences; at some level, ideology is supposed to have a degree of predictive power, and masculinity doesn't afford that. i would agree that you can say slogans like "if you work hard, you can make it" are masculine at some level, but there are more robust ideologies that already exist and incorporate the logic used in the example, so you don't need to used the word masculinity to explain things like that at an ideological level.

What term would you use?

i was actually just thinking about what i said, and i did make a mistake. concepts have predictive power to the extent that the concept of a square allows us to predict that a square has four sides, etc. so in that way masculinity could be an ideology, i guess. ideology is, roughly, a system of concepts that point to hypothetical imperatives.

so, i guess i actually agree with you. can you point to a foundation of masculinity?

Ah, the foundation. That is a good question. I've been thinking about this myself lately but have contradicting thoughts so it's hard to pin down.
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.

I find that very hard to believe

It might not be, for example, as violent as other groups(it's definately not as big as anti muslim bigotry) but social stigma does still exist for atheists.
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.
---

Life in the DoB.

rikasa posted...

then you're just eliminating the word "objective" from the lexicon despite it having many uses. maybe you should realize that if your personal definition of "objective" cannot be met, no one else is using that definition either. it's semantics. it's 98 IQ. you'll grow out of it or die stupid

So now we're using outdated metrics like iq? Are we really going here? What's your definition of objective?
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Yeah, most atheists who make claims under my definition don't consider themselves as militant so I don't know why I should either.

"Most white people don't consider themselves privileged, so why should I?"

Anti-245 posted...

White exceptionalism is something more specific than whiteness itself.

What you described is white exceptionalism.

Anti-245 posted...

Sure, it does. I'm not sure what you're getting at here anyway. It has nothing to do with what I said. I also don't know why you're being hostile either.

Fair enough about the hostility.

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.
---

Life in the DoB.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

masculinity is definitely more conceptual than ideological: we see things in the world and classify them as being masculine or non-masculine. concepts make sense of experiences; at some level, ideology is supposed to have a degree of predictive power, and masculinity doesn't afford that. i would agree that you can say slogans like "if you work hard, you can make it" are masculine at some level, but there are more robust ideologies that already exist and incorporate the logic used in the example, so you don't need to used the word masculinity to explain things like that at an ideological level.

What term would you use?
---

Life in the DoB.

rikasa posted...

Anti-245 posted...

rikasa posted...

I mean of course it's "just your observation" that's why it has no business being touted as a dictionary definition l m f a o wake up son

You don't have to agree with me if you don't want. It really is of no concern.

our imagined disagreement has nothing to do w/ the objective definition

we'd be discussing our subjective opinion on the objective definition

you needed to hear this. this is an awful foundation for your arguments and it will pervade and undermine every single one until you understand what you've done wrong

An objective definition? Really now. Who decided it was objective. Collective, sure but I wouldn't say objective.
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:

Cool, but doesn't refute what I posted.

Feel free to back up your definition(s) with actual sources. Until then, I'll assume you're merely pulling a UR

The first definition and the example are contradictions. You can find men who are not handsome, muscled etc but the definition presupposes that those are masculine "traits" despite reality.

Those are traits that are associated in common usage with masculinity.

That's the thing about words: we define them through common usage.

Well, they're wrong as I've explained. Doesn't really matter if they're common or not tbh.
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism, to me, refers just to a lack of conviction to God, but these days it encompasses much more than that. It's become somewhat of a reactionary movement within society against certain religious extremism. It usually goes hand in hand with imperial beliefs about the United States and disdain for marginalized communities.

We have a phrase for that: militant atheism

Anti-245 posted...

White is much more than a skin color. It's an ideology that usually reinforces itself through social pressure among european Americans. It too acts as a justification of atrocities at home and abroad when it comes to non-whites. It's companion, in my opinion, would be blackness with which society grants those that it seems as ills racially.

So white exceptionalism?

Anti-245 posted...

Science is, to me, an effort to improve knowledge of the natural world but I would caution against using terms like observation and experimentation strictly. Plenty of scientific ideas remain theoretical at the moment but they're just as important as the experiments and observations.

The scientific method is based around falsifiability. Hypotheses have to be able to make predictions through experiments and observations in order to become theories.

As much as you ridiculed me for going to the dictionary, I'd recommend opening one once in a while. You'll find it easier to express your ideas if you have the vocabulary necessary to do so

Yeah, most atheists who make claims under my definition don't consider themselves as militant so I don't know why I should either.

White exceptionalism is something more specific than whiteness itself.

Sure, it does. I'm not sure what you're getting at here anyway. It has nothing to do with what I said. I also don't know why you're being hostile either.
---

Life in the DoB.

rikasa posted...

I mean of course it's "just your observation" that's why it has no business being touted as a dictionary definition l m f a o wake up son

You don't have to agree with me if you don't want. It really is of no concern.
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:

Cool, but doesn't refute what I posted.

Feel free to back up your definition(s) with actual sources. Until then, I'll assume you're merely pulling a UR

The first definition and the example are contradictions. You can find men who are not handsome, muscled etc but the definition presupposes that those are masculine "traits" despite reality.
---

Life in the DoB.

rikasa posted...

Anti-245 posted...

It's become somewhat of a reactionary movement within society against certain religious extremism. It usually goes hand in hand with imperial beliefs about the United States and disdain for marginalized communities.

this is such a steaming pile of subjective bullshit that can only come from the fingers of someone who doesn't go outside

Just an observation of atheists within the west. You don't have to take my word for it just look up some of the famous authors and their work after 9/11.
---

Life in the DoB.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

That's an odd definition. Most people refer to that as "the patriarchy," iirc. What lead you to defining it that way? And if I may ask, what word do you use to describe behavior commonly associated with men?

Those are just gender roles, usually socially enforced by society at large.

And? That doesn't preclude masculinity from referring to behaviors (and traits, I forgot to mention that originally) that some society commonly associates with men. I'm still curious how you arrived at your definition, because that's a very uncommon usage.

I suppose you could use whatever terms you want to to describe behaviors but I feel you are looking into this society as if it remains neutral, which is I believe you agree with masculinity being as simple as just gender roles.
---

Life in the DoB.

Atheism, to me, refers just to a lack of conviction to God, but these days it encompasses much more than that. It's become somewhat of a reactionary movement within society against certain religious extremism. It usually goes hand in hand with imperial beliefs about the United States and disdain for marginalized communities.

White is much more than a skin color. It's an ideology that usually reinforces itself through social pressure among european Americans. It too acts as a justification of atrocities at home and abroad when it comes to non-whites. It's companion, in my opinion, would be blackness with which society grants those that it seems as ills racially.

Science is, to me, an effort to improve knowledge of the natural world but I would caution against using terms like observation and experimentation strictly. Plenty of scientific ideas remain theoretical at the moment but they're just as important as the experiments and observations.
---

Life in the DoB.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

That's an odd definition. Most people refer to that as "the patriarchy," iirc. What lead you to defining it that way? And if I may ask, what word do you use to describe behavior commonly associated with men?

Those are just gender roles, usually socially enforced by society at large.
---

Life in the DoB.

rikasa posted...

Wait, which if those definitions are you disagreeing with

All three of them, more or less.
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

That's...not masculinity

It's a concept, and an unnecessary one at that

But it sure ain't masculinity

You just have a different concept in mind. Maybe you're thinking of "maleness" and equating it with masculinity.

Definition of masculinity in English:

masculinity

NOUN

mass noun

Qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men.

handsome, muscled, and driven, he's a prime example of masculinity

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/masculinity

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:
Definition of atheism in English:

atheism
NOUN

mass noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

White
NOUN

2Belonging to or denoting a human group having light-coloured skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction)
a white farming community
More example sentencesSynonyms
2.1 Relating to white people.
white Australian culture
More example sentences
2.2South African historical Reserved by law for those classified as white.

Definition of science in English:

science
NOUN

mass noun
1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
the world of science and technology
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 A particular area of science.
veterinary science
count noun the agricultural sciences
More example sentences
1.2 A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
the science of criminology
More example sentences
1.3archaic Knowledge of any kind.
his rare science and his practical skill

Now, I have objections to all three but that's what the dictionary says.
---

Life in the DoB.

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

That's...not masculinity

It's a concept, and an unnecessary one at that

But it sure ain't masculinity

You just have a different concept in mind. Maybe you're thinking of "maleness" and equating it with masculinity.
---

Life in the DoB.

Godnorgosh posted...

Liberal arts majors watching STEM majors struggle to send an email free of grammatical or spelling errors

Don't feed the dragon
---

Life in the DoB.

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.
---

Life in the DoB.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Well, then we can dispose of it since it serves us no inherent value at the moment.

As long as those of a certain gender exhibit any degree of behavioral trends, and as long as we are able as a society to discern these trends, masculinity will always have a place in our language.

Well, we can get rid of gender roles then. They are of no service.

That doesn't necessarily mean that masculinity or femininity won't emerge as concepts. While we may not need to rely on gender roles as a means of conveying social responsibility and expectation anymore, but they didn't emerge in a vaccuum.

What is your definition of masculinity?

A term used to describe behavior commonly associated with men.

That's not mine. So we're talking about two different things.
---

Life in the DoB.

Ultima Dragon posted...

We should just abolish all emotion, language, physical expression, etc.. and communicate using only a series of beeps and boops.

Abandoning masculinity would actually encourage more emotions and expressions rather than what we have now.
---

Life in the DoB.

A reflection of the U.S.
---

Life in the DoB.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Well, then we can dispose of it since it serves us no inherent value at the moment.

As long as those of a certain gender exhibit any degree of behavioral trends, and as long as we are able as a society to discern these trends, masculinity will always have a place in our language.

Well, we can get rid of gender roles then. They are of no service.

That doesn't necessarily mean that masculinity or femininity won't emerge as concepts. While we may not need to rely on gender roles as a means of conveying social responsibility and expectation anymore, but they didn't emerge in a vaccuum.

What is your definition of masculinity?
---

Life in the DoB.

This stem and liberal arts divide pleases the powerful. It'll then be easier to control the general population.
---

Life in the DoB.

Mareen posted...

Both masculinity and femininity are just characteristics, both physical and social.

We don't really need the terms and tbh I don't really care about them but they exist and while certain things about them might change (largely the more social aspects), I don't see them going away at any point, especially considering the physical, biological aspects.

Physicality is not the issue at hand.
---

Life in the DoB.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Well, then we can dispose of it since it serves us no inherent value at the moment.

As long as those of a certain gender exhibit any degree of behavioral trends, and as long as we are able as a society to discern these trends, masculinity will always have a place in our language.

Well, we can get rid of gender roles then. They are of no service.
---

Life in the DoB.

Well, then we can dispose of it since it serves us no inherent value at the moment.
---

Life in the DoB.

Why do we need it?
---

Life in the DoB.

They aren't. You just have bad taste. And this has nothing to do with evolution.
---

Life in the DoB.

CornBarn posted...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And if anyone is a waste of time, it's you. Jesus, take a break from this site. Nearly 300 active messages posted on yet another alt of yours?

Now, we've jumped to personal attacks. Okay, we're done.
---

Life in the DoB.

CornBarn posted...

People who argue that Marxism-Leninism was a "deviation from traditional Marxism" usually say that because they are Marxists who want to damage control for the catastrophic fundamental flaws within Marxism.

The only good thing that came out of actual Marxism was labor unions, which are good when they're done right. Everything else that Marx put out was nonsense.

Ha, labor unions are not Marxist in any sense. You clearly have no or wish to have no knowledge of the differences between Marxism and Marxist Leninism so I'll stop wasting time with you. Btw, if you still think that labor unions were "right", then I suppose your version of Marxism still provided some value to humanity, contradicting what you've stated earlier.
---

Life in the DoB.

Social skills probably would have been a lot better.
---

Life in the DoB.

averagejoel posted...

lesidesi posted...

while socialism certainly didn't help Venezuela's situation, it's pretty intellectually dishonest to say it's the only or even the main cause

it's dishonest to call venezuela socialist in the first place

Btw, are you a ml or mlm?
---

Life in the DoB.

PleaseClap posted...

Anti-245 posted...

I forgot about open sexism too.

How the hell did you forget about that

Racism is usually much more blatant.
---

Life in the DoB.

I'd also argue that saying that ml states followed Marxian positions would also be dishonest. Marxist Leninism was a deviation from traditional Marxism anyway, usually applied to states that were not yet industrialized.
---

Life in the DoB.

CornBarn posted...

I've said it before and it warrants saying again:

The only question that matters is whether or not Venezuela's leaders were following Marxian principles. And the answer to that is a categorical yes. They openly stated what they're trying to do and what principles they're following, and it all goes back to what Marx and Engels wrote.

The same was true in the Soviet Union, the entire eastern bloc in Europe, Maoist China, etc. They always openly said what principles they were following and why. It was Marxist principles.

Saying it's not socialism is pretty ridiculous, and it doesn't fool anyone.

Anyone can claim anything they like. Doesn't make it true. The U.S. claims to be the guardians of the free market and democracy but history doesn't back that statement up.
---

Life in the DoB.

I forgot about open sexism too.
---

Life in the DoB.