We don't romanticize them, the Paris Commune was basically a failure and only lasted 2 months. Catalonia was way more successful but still had its problems like the persecution of churches and religion. We don't even romanticize modern efforts like Rojava, it's doing great but it has been slowly centralizing power, so someday it may not even be anarchist anymore. No social project of any kind has ever been perfect and it's ignorant to claim so.

Fr

Thank you for the kind words you've nailed what I'm aspiring to do!

I‘m a Neo Luddite then i guess 🤓 and i am writing this on my iphone 5 … The irony ..

@@MoMoMu274 Never said it wasn't, I was just describing a phenomenon, for all I know they could be right that we would be better off stopping technological evolution because we are going towards doomsday. I was just thinking about it with curiosity.

DID ANYONE REMEMBER TO PROGRAM AI WITH ISAAC ASIMOV'S THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS ?!

How’s progressivism working out for you demon?

More like the birth of the Butlerians lol

ofcourse, if anyone has ever given it any thought, any and all ideologies are reactions. Communism is a reaction to the slow degradation of the regalism of the prior era to mass mobilization (democracy), mass capital speculation (usury), and productive centralization (industrialization)

Exactly. The “Reagan revolution” was a reactionary movement. The fact that progressives want to regain ground that was lost to reactionaries doesn’t mean they should also be called reactionaries. Using that term for them just creates needless confusion.

Yeah the ideas of free markets and laissez faire economics had been around for years and anarcho-primitivism is such a niche and small group of not only leftists but anarchists themselves it can't be used to summarize leftism in any meaningful way.

Umm not the best analysis of nietzsche and is just poor criticism if you ask me even for being slander

"ecosocialism" sounds like fascism.

@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 I can assure you that my political ideology is very far from fascism! Ecosocialism is pretty much the opposite of fascism too.

@@markuskosmo Socialism is fascism in a stealth suit. Same disease, just sneakier.

Define woke. Bro, we don't take any conspiracy theories seriously here. Even Trump is not that stupid to buy into the woke-antiwoke narrative.

@@time3735 woke is intersectional ideology.

​@@time3735True. "Woke" is a stupid term used by Boomer Conservatives to just say what is going on as what it is, which is "anti-White." Boomercons need to remove the racial aspect to everything and obfuscate it with vague words. "No, the EFF isn't chanting the Kill the Boer song because they are anti-White, they are just WOKE"

​​​​​​@@time3735"We?" I have taken the liberty of looking at your channel, and you do not seem to be philosophically minded. It is full of surface level garbage that merely exists to affirm your existing beliefs rather than form knowledge on the topic. Also, your usage of the phrase "conspiracy theories" doesn't fit... It isn't just something you can throw to label something as bad. Those two words together actually have a meaning, believe it or not, and your misuse of it reveals certain ideologue tendencies. At best, this here is the pot calling the kettle black.

@@time3735 Woke means everything that the current leftists are pushing for which includes socialism, lgbt normalization, racism etc.

Based, but I am more reactionary than you.

Humans are complex beings. We support one thing and don't support the other.

For what reason is one anti-trans? Is it purely the concept? The idea itself creates a reaction? Or is it rooted within something else? Perhaps the argumentation isn't based solely in that you must be what you were born as and that's that, but rather, as of today, you cannot holistically achieve such goals. To then support that movement or those ideals, knowing fully well that they will never actually be achieved as far as we know, can be perceived as dishonest and deceitful. Perhaps one doesn't have anything against trans people, but more so the narrative that they are fed, and believes they are not given the proper amount of information to make such a decision. That this is just some kind of modern snake oil that is being advertised way too much, and the benefits are largely just placebo, yet it has very real tangible consequences. That there is no honest discussion about the alternatives, but this is the only way to move forward. I have researched how trans diagnosis and affirmation is achieved, and it's very strange. It has a complete lack of actual diagnostic procedures, that you would expect with things like depression or anxiety or various other mental issues or abnormalities. There is actually little to no diagnosis. The person claims he or she is trans, and the doctor must affirm it without question or thought. Could you not see why someone might be against that? Even if one could conclude that there might actually be appropriate applications, this prescribed miracle cure is undoubtedly being forwarded way too much. Carelessly, for a variety of reasons, if not just incompetence. There is also a very real psychological epidemic relating to the issue. Where people embrace transitioning as a form of standing out or achieving some kind of beneficial status or attention within groups. (Especially kids and teens, because they are particularly group oriented, more so than adults.) We have observed such psychological epidemics in the past, and the more attention and recognition that is given to these epidemics, the more they thrive. As soon as it leaves the public view, these epidemics die down. But now, this epidemic is actively being supported and praised. Not just saying it's okay to transition if you want to, but actually creating a narrative that it's a great thing to do, and it's something you can do with little to no consequences, for all these perceivable benefits. Of course there are actual downsides to transitioning, but once someone is convinced with faulty reasoning, it's not always likely that that person will recognize the dangers and the risks, and not just commit to this procedure which has been framed by society as a very... Positive transformation. And if you go through with it, you are more likely to lie to yourself and say you made the right decision, than actually realize that you were deceived and didn't make the right one. Because that would mean all that suffering, all that effort, was not only for nothing, but it made your life worse. Alternatively, one could be against it because of his experiences with individuals who claim to be within the movement, policing speech by force and making a complete mockery of themselves. If most of one's perception of a certain movement is that of incapable demented sociopaths, then one will try to distance himself from that movement and might generalize those within it. Also, if any of these perceptions are within a person already, going after their children and trying to instill this faulty doctrine... Is going to create outrage. If you have not convinced the adult, and the adult is already convinced that this is something to be wary about, why would you go after the kids? Is there something magical about the kids that just allows them to understand the truth? No. While adults might be less receptive to certain forms of information, kids are not anymore arbiters or understanders of the truth or objective reality and reasoning. Based on any of the above, one could be against it for a variety of reasons, and it's not just always arbitrary abstract bigotry or paranoia. It might sometimes appear like that, but usually these are all derived from actual concerns. Sometimes people might just pick up on an opinion that they don't understand though, and just repeat it, so if you dig into that person and why that person believes what he does, you might not actually find an answer, cause you might have found someone who has adopted this stance without any actual critical thinking. But that's not unique to any side. I've seen it plenty of times on both. The reason I give this very long explanation, is because your comment doesn't display contrary stances or opinions. So I gave some insight into why someone might have one of the opinions, so perhaps you can better acknowledge yourself why these things aren't correlated.

⁠@@GarrulousHeraldsounds like you’re an anti trans reactionary lmao

@@GarrulousHerald he's a transphobic and it's no use trying to write a bible to try to explain it

Reactionary applies to social structures as opposed to technological development.

I think you have a fcked up strawman of the average Trump-supporter in mind...

Order can only benefit the weak, it is in chaos that the strong thrive and the weak suffer, this is what you insipid leftwing mongrels do not understand. by instituting border controls and ensuring that the immigration process is followed, we save not only our internal labor from undue competition but also we save those people from latin america from being trafficked into the U.S

I wish I could give you the same quality response that I gave someone else in this comment section. But this assertion is just so asinine and ridiculous that I don't even know where to start. Perhaps you have reasons to believe what you do, but the way that you portrayed those who supported Trump's immigration policies seems very one dimensional, and very much a fictitious representation of a bogeyman you have created. Perhaps the knowledge you hold just isn't widespread or well-known, making such assertions with such confidence appear arbitrary and ridiculous. But there's no other reasonable conclusion I could come to without any actual evidence or examples being presented. Bottom line, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The idea that these people enjoyed seeing kids in cages, circle jerked because they were owning the libs... Has no basis in reality. Were they not experiencing that Schadenfreude When Obama's administration did it? Or when Biden's administration did it? The latter of which, we have actual video evidence of the living standards and cages being worse than those in the Trump administration. There are also very weird implications, given you don't seem to have known about this procedure being used in the administration before and after Trump, it makes me question what you think actually happened, and if your perception on reality is even worth debating with. There is a strict absence of these individuals you are talking about. It's as if you just said "oh yeah the unicorns in my back yard love eating the grass..." Also, this diagnosis of fascism being... Synonymous with schadenfreude? Please do research on what fascism actually is and how it has been employed in history. It is not constructive or desirable to take a word that has weight behind it, and then add some supplementary meaning to it for arbitrary reasons. I know you want to refer to conservatives or Trump supporters or whatever your enemies are, as sick psychopaths and fascism seems like a weighted term you'd like to use in any possible situation... But at least try to find fitting words to use. I get that this was pondering and not an assertion, even though certain aspects within the pondering were very clearly asserted... But this was just so incredibly dumb. I am aware you are not supposed to interrupt someone when he is brainstorming and say his idea is bad... But this was genuinely awful and I don't think we are missing out on any potential valuable takes in the future if we just cut this line of thinking short right here. Perhaps if it was reformatted with actual substance within it, even if the premise was disagreeable, it could be valuable to discourse. But this is mostly word vomit.

​@@GarrulousHerald the amount of straw person fallacies you employed are humorous. I didn't say all Trump supporters, let alone all conservative voters, I said many Trump supporters. Do I believe every person that supported the inhumane child separation policies is doing it for libidinal value? No. I believe many of the them will use mental gymnastics to make it seem less inhumane and more justified than it actually was. There's a difference between fascism as a world-historical event that occurred in places like Germany & Italy, and the philosophical drives which constitute fascism. But, the Germans were not duped into fascism. They actually enjoyed the rhetoric and discrimination they saw against Jews and other undesirables. Please look up the differences between the two in the actual thinkers I mentioned who talk about this. And to add additional nuance, I think there is a difference between your basic authoritarianism and fascism (though all fascism is authoritarian). The child separation policies, that were really only possible because of Obama's massive anti-immigrant policies and gargantuan increase in the size of immigration enforcement, were 1) not the norm under the Obama years, but an exception, and 2) were merely authoritarian, not in and of themselves fascistic. Most of the people who enjoyed it under the Trump years, don't know that it is happening now and was happening before. I have no doubt they would be in full support in it. And people like Trump and Desanctimonious openly campaign on "owning the libs". There is a desire among the certain parts of the population for this type of politics. To assume otherwise is just silly.

​@@StrangeCornersOfThoughtInteresting how you start off your response by accusing me of straw-manning you, yet the very first thing you try to do is straw-man me. You create this completely unnecessary distinction between many and all, despite me never actually even implying that you ever said all in the first place. Yet you are so adamant that I did. To say that you are trying to strike a blow against Trump supporters is not disingenuous. I never implied or said you meant all. If you attack the majority of a group, it's very common to refer to that group by its name or refer to it as a whole, rather than always drawing a distinction or clarifying that there are some within that group that do not apply in that situation. This is not uncommon. I do not know why you brought it up. And again, nothing of substance. Political opponents are generic enemies who can't reason properly, etc etc, again, nothing of value is said. You start with this ridiculous assertion, yet you never support it. That's why I gave that example with the unicorns. You're referring to something that to others, simply does not exist. Unless you were hoping that those who would respond to you are already in the same boat as you, and already share the same delusions? That separating a child from a parent that was willing to put them both at risk and potentially use that child as leverage in that situation... How that is somehow cruel and unusual to separate them? Not to mention a good number of children that were separated from their guardians were actually kidnapped or taken? But I guess the argument here is that, instead of separating the parents for a while to sort things out, you just let everything and everyone get through because you can't fathom the idea of separating a child from its parent when the parent has done an illegal and risky thing? Not to mention that they knew perfectly well what would happen if they tried to cross the border illegally, putting their own children in that situation. Yet since the administration didn't offer quality of care that exceeded your average orphanage or foster home and decided to not let illegals use children as leverage, it's an abominable evil, a modern travesty. I hope you also realize that if they sent the child back with many of the parents, many criticisms would be levied that that is a dangerous thing to do with those children. I'm not going to say the system was perfect..... But it's hardly as barbaric as you are trying to make it sound. It's also interesting how this is an issue for the Trump administration, but neither the current administration or the one before. Obviously I am making this claim based on the omission of information, not saying that you directly said that it wasn't bad under those administrations. This point is constructed because you seem to emphasize and portray the Trump situation as unique for a standing out in a particular way. Just added that clarification so you don't cry straw-man again. I really don't know how you reached the conclusion that many of the current Trump supporters didn't know that it was a system already being used? I guess just assuming they're ignorant. I'd argue It was handled much worse during the Biden administration before, they just decided not to deal with it at all. And now we are seeing a plethora of other problems. Also, don't you know that not every German hated the Jews? See how I can play this game too? It's just disingenuous. I obviously knew what you meant, but I can easily straw man you. But I don't want to do that, because I don't find that constructive. Granted I haven't been completely constructive in all this, I saw your post and it was able to just dumbfound me to the point where I abandoned my usual presentations and portrayed opinions without giving much benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure why I even got into this in the first place, considering when I read your comment, I had severe doubts that you would actually be capable of constructive discussion. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to when you say they are campaigning on "owning the libs." As far as I know, they are campaigning against the current establishment. They have moments where they resort to what is commonly referred to as "owning libs." The terminology you use is weak and doesn't convey much information to debate with. You just leave me guessing and filling in the blanks because you don't properly portray your side in a way that can actually be discussed. It's just ideologue rhetoric and terminology that begs to be agreed with. It's like you want me to come up with your argument for you.