awwwh, that guys awesome actually, only seen a few of his things, but really funny
i've not seen many of his tbh.
just watched this one:
i seriously know so many girls like that with PHDs...
---
tell ya what, it speaks volumes that i say 'girls' and not 'women'
---
like, that's a good thing in some ways ;P
but not in the ways they think.. of like, responsibility, empathy, etc.
---
*SPOILER*
what they think:
dumbass trump grunt - arts student - suburban mom - oppressed genius - new age woman - chinese guy
what the actual results are:
spoiled little girl - arts student - smart dislexic try hard - military specialist - actual new age woman - chinese guy
the thing about proper old skool immigrants, that moved legally and went through the system, is they are actually the cream of the crop - which is debatably a terrible thing to steal from the country they are coming from.
even with afro-americans, it would be fair to say they were selectively chosen and, due to proximity, selectively bred for physicality.
imo this explains statistical anomalies.
but all that has gone to pot anyway, cos immigration is so much easier now. it's an existing, but dying trend.
there's a clip of deadwood i could post, but it'd get me in trouble ;P
not really necessary either, it's in the gold rush, and there's a black guy working as an agent for the main gold baron, cos his mom is the baron's cook. anyway, he says to his mom, "momma, these african niggas aint like us, they dumb as hell". im like yeah, cos you're not african, you're american.
again.. been saying it for years.. these are not MLK people, they are Malcolm X people. they are complete opposite view points.
they are not both the same because they're black >.<
i mean, he's not a dumbass, but he's not a nice guy like MLK
honestly if you meet one of these woke racist types, just ask them if they know the difference between martin luther king, and malcolm x. that's all it is.
comes from malcolm x much more then marx imo... i dont understand how this is marxism tbfh...
i dunno if they just didn't give us those parts to read or what... but marx to me is just about nationalism and class, it has jack shit to do with race..?
malcolm x on the other hand was literally saying black people and white people shouldn't live together, they should have parallel societies.. which is intersectionalism really, it wants segregation.
have they done some mental gymnastics to make the proletariat and the bourgeoisie be racially divided or am i just missing something?
segregation is the idea that different people cannot live together.
stereotypes are the idea that all people the same looking are the same.
hence all people that look the same, should live together.
intersectionality complicates it, because it says we are all a mix of intersecting stereotypes. which makes it harder to segregate people, but not impossible, and is still basically the same thing.
honestly, marx was not a bad guy at all.. he was just a bit of a grifter that lived off his rich mates who were factory owners during industrialisation, and he would complain at his rich mates that they were making the profit off the labour of the workers.
all his ideas of labour break down completely when you bring in stuff like mechanization and weird economics. it's simply all outdated.
he was a smart and decent guy imo, just out dated. the only thing he said that sticks really and is possibly right, is that capitalism is inherantly unfair, but the unfairness is necessary to drive technology, so eventually humanity can have a uptopia.
i really dont see anything wrong with that, and i dont see how it has anything to do with any of this stuff.
what your on about is Lenninism and Stalinism.
+
btw the intersectional thing is why the twatter people have all that shit in their bio. they're telling you their stereotypes
it could be fun actually... like combining the stereotypes.. lets see, black people... fried chicken.
sooo, what if it's an australian black person - fried kangaroo?
she obviously has her own bias, but yeah, not a bad video, interesting info.
----
would be nice to have a debate with her tbh. you'd have to take her all the way back to basics ;P
but it would be nice to trace the path that lead to where she is now. there is probably a very early wrong turn; a fundamental flaw.
perhaps not like, but... yeah.. ironically it's probably a deliberate ignorance to avoid a personal flaw..
this is my problem with these people tbh, you cant fix them without first breaking them. who the fk wants to go around breaking people? that's not cool.
... unless they start hurting other people i guess.. le sigh.
... kinda a born party pooper. but the party is never for everyone.. i dunno, i mostly just try to leave people to it. i can be a bit overwhelming as well. you guys made me get involved here >.< cos shit was going pear shaped...
now it's like.. tbh im just enjoying having an outlet lol
should probably sleep.
i miss bama :<
------------
just watching the end of that video, honestly i paused it to reply at like 26:00.
see you would have to deconstruct her whole world view, including her self image.
its not a nice thing to do to people.
+
OH NO YOU DIDNT!
i wasn't gonna post this lol, again paused it just before the end to comment, and i was gonna say 'you only need 1 philosopher really, the only real one, and i would nail her in an argument on just his basic principles.' then she went and name dropped my dude socrates!
like the philosophers she's talking about are the mental gymnastics types. socrates is like the barbarian of philosophy, totally basic, but totally unshakable, because it's so basic.
like: try changing the meanings of words on him and see what happens
but that's literally what you would have to do; walk her back through all the bullshit she has endorsed, to basic principles. there is always something good in each philosopher, but generally they all come down on one side or the other. the problem is that it's very hard to get anywhere without picking a side, but the choice is pretty arbitrary.
the only one that didn't, was really socrates. ... ... tho then again, all he ever really did was troll people and point out where they were wrong. you cant really go wrong if that's all your aim is, cos everything is wrong in some way. it's like quantum physics, as soon as you quantify it, by putting it into words, it becomes wrong. that's what descartes was all about, trying to find something certain to start from - he came up with "i think therefore i am", but what they dont tell you, is that it actually relies on the existance of god to make sense.
(basically he points out the obvious flaw that he could just be imagining that he's thinking, but then he's like "but god's not a dick, so that's not the case". then just moves on. and im like wtf?)
---
i tell ya what man, there's a massive gaping hole in her closing argument, of which side the willful ignorance is on.
ya know what the trump card is?
babies.
---
when socrates says "i know i know nothing", it's the quantum physics thing. there is still probabilities of things, even if nothing is a 1 or a 0.
---
it just occurred to me that a lack of willful ignorance, is possibly why i have difficulty with long term relationships >.<
i am never willingly ignorant of things to make myself happy. which kinda makes you a miserable bastard. but then being a miserable bastard makes you lower the bar for happiness, to appreciate the little things; which is sorta enlightenment. so it all pans out i guess.
---
this whole willful ignorance and censorship topic is an interesting one.
It's the same as critical theory being applied to race. Tweak a few things and it's racial instead of political. I'm not arguing with you but they've taken Marxist ideals and changed them to fit to race. It's really messed up. In the end it's all a way to try to bring socialism and eventually communism.
if the problem is not that people dont know things, but that they dont want to know things.. because knowing them would lessen their own personal opinions of themself - then that pretty much explains why: "people are the problem".
oh dear. this is the marxism guy a few years later. been spending too much time with that fruity crumpet me thinks
dont just take their conclusions as fact just because they talk a good game -_-'
only 10 mins in, they might turn it around to be a bit more neutral, but im not holding my breath.
-
19:00, nope. just double both and make the assumption the trends are equal among the apathetic as the non-apathetic - the remainers got 2 votes too, so it's the equivalent result of 53.2% vs 49.4% (i know that doesn't add to 100% lol, but he's the one that started doing dumb shit with the numbers to try and make a non-existant point..)
-
20:00 "wealth is distributed by race" not true again, we live in an international world, many immigrants are far from poor.
see this is the sort of problems you get with these people, they assume too much. i can see it going down hill from here.
see this is what they do, they make a couple of mistakes, or assumptions, then they carry on building from there; you dont even need to make more mistakes once you're on a bad path, but they undoubtably will.
that's why you cant beat socrates, cos he never built anything, he just knocked stuff down and brought people to his level.
it's sort of the same principle the AK47 is built on, keep it simple, make it special like cooking.
the more complicated you make anything, including an argument, the more things that can go wrong.
these arguments of the leftists, are castles in the sky. they're chains of insanely long arguments, where something is wrong somewhere, because the conclusions are absurd. the castle is fine, but the foundation is flawed.
that's why i liked trump
cos he was simple and special
like cooking.