Once again, i'm not /u/prince_kropotkin.
Edginess isn't restricted to just tankies and anarchists fighting over who get's to start the mythical revolution.
Neoliberals aren't shy about their support for military "interventions", sweatshops, fascists want to achieve genocide.
What's so particularly cringey about these Chapo chaps, is that the majority of them are teenage Larpers.
Teenagers unaware of how the world works. They'd be crushed by the military. You can have gun control and get weapons illegally. But you're just a militia with land capability. A fucking drone would end you.
It's been a century since the October Revolution you larping retards.
Drones are only a threat if the military is willing to blow up houses full of civilians to kill a few commies.
Of course, in real life, we'd drag the pinkos out by their ears, stake them to the ground out in a field somewhere, and tell the government to have at them.
While I agree these people are retarded I think you're overestimating American military capabilities in relation counter-terrorism, especially in drawn-out civil conflicts.
This is the same tune countries have been singing for a long god damn time.
The US thought they'd walk into Iraq and it'd be a breeze and it sure as hell wasn't.
The US thought they'd march into Vietnam and it'd be a breeze and it sure as hell wasn't.
The Soviets thought they'd walk into Afghanistan and crush the rebels and they sure as hell didn't.
Obviously, a bunch of edgy internet commies would never have enough support to carry out a conflict like this but my point is military capabilities don't really mean much in a war like this.
A good argument about the "shock and awe" of Iraq:
For another example, remember how Harry Potter and friends, barely 17 at the time, managed to hide from the Voldemort-controlled Ministry of Wizardry for a year, actively fighting them all the way.
Anyone who thinks that an armed uprising against the US government wouldn't be mercilessly crushed by the worlds largest and most destructive military is a fucking idiot. Look at how the US police deal with riots and then imagine the same thing but instead of tear gas and tasers they have tanks and helicopter gunships.
For everyone claiming that the US army won't fire on US citizens: Fuck off, Americans LOVE shooting other Americans. It's their favourite thing ever.
Almost a century. October Revolution was in November 1917. It was still October there because they used the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. Even using the Julian calendar, it was at the end of October.
/u/fuckyourfascism the idea that a subreddit full of obese suburbanites who are whiter than mayo on rice could possibly stage any sort of rebellion is hilarious. You probably break down in tears when mummy doesn't let you have another hot pocket.
/u/Prince_Kropotkin serious question, do you know many leftists irl and how many of them are weirdo larpers who seriously think they're gonna do an armed revolution on the American state with a couple of AKs?
I really want to believe these are all 15 year old kids acting out some fantasy but goddamn there are so many of them.
Lots and nobody, at least that have said anything like that publicly. I do know a couple weirdos that probably believe something like that, but not very well so I can't say for sure. These people congregate online for some reason.
What are going to defend your home from the police? What are going to use to defend a revolution if you find yourself inside a workers commune that needs every able body to hold the line against the US Army?
but you NRA gun nuts are fucked up and probably no amount of Sandy Hooks or Mandalay Bays will change your outlook.
It's always a threat isn't it? They don't give a shit, they just use these incidents as threats -- maybe if some entity were to convince someone to orchestrate mass-casualty incidents they could then threaten their victims with more casualties until the victims totally surrender.
I mean that couldn't possibly happen, it's never happened before in human history and there's no way that could happen in America. Don't worry about it and don't worry about the Paddocks, whose father was on the most wanted list by the FBI and don't worry that the son of which that perpetrated the largest mass-casualty shooting in US history worked for Lockheed Martin - with unsure ties to Raytheon and NASA.
Anyway don't worry about it, you need to worry about the dumb flag-waving terrorist rednecks the most - the ones that were massacred.
You have a weird fucking fascination with me and feel the need to constantly ping me BUT you remain less interesting than my other stalkers. This is a terribly sad state of affairs.
I'm in said socialist gun club, I'm not referring to the SRA. I'm referring to the above poster's desire to use the phrase "fucking pussy". It's 2017, if you're a leftist, you need to cut that shit out.
That still wouldn't actually connote a hatred of women; the most you could support is a connotation of separate gender roles for men and women and a desire to enforce them. If I said that apples shouldn't taste like oranges, that wouldn't mean I hated either of them.
We all know that if it had said "fucking dick" you would not be screaming about misandry.
Why is it relevant to the argument that a certain number of years have elapsed since the conventional (probably wrong) date of death of a (almost certainly actually existing) historical figure to whom divinity is attributed (lol)?
What do gender roles have to do with seizing the means of production?
The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure. It concerns the issue of "what really happened", based upon the context of the time and place, and also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened". A second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence. It also considers the question of whether he was a Nazirite.
1.) Terms have both a lay definition and a dictionary definition. Just because a word doesn't match up with it's dictionary definition does not mean that it has a separate meaning.
2.) You don't have to hate women to feel superior. If I made a statement with connotations based on racial superiority, I'm still being a racist shit bag for passively upholding a racist institution without actively hating a race as a whole.
3.) You don't know me, I actually would have, because I think associating genitals with negativity is stupid. That being said, misandry is significantly less toxic than misogyny because last time I checked, the world is mostly ran by men, as in they have the institutional power.
4.) What? No seriously, what?
5.) No revolutionary praxis is complete without understanding of intersectionality and the place it must hold in the revolution to remove all forms of oppressive hierarchy. A leftist that is upholding gender roles which actively and maliciously oppress all sexes in different ways are not serious about removing oppressive hierarchy because they are upholding it's existence.
Okay, but thinking that men shouldn't be like women is still not the same as thinking there's anything bad, inferior, negative, etc. etc. whatsoever about being a woman.
as in they have the institutional power.
I don't think you can present a consistent, intellectually honest definition of "institutional power" that a) actually allows you to defend this claim while b) seeming to actually matter in any real way. In particular, feel free to explain how
a world in which "men have the institutional power" is one where it's Beyonce who gets to perform in front of the word "FEMINISM" in giant letters on stage while the idea of Jay-Z performing in front of a giant "MENS RIGHTS" banner is somewhere between comic and unthinkable;
or how it's one where women are something like 65% of undergrad university students and everyone reacts to this by cherry-picking the departments where they're underrepresented and getting outraged;
or how it's one where the Canadian government along with Canadian media constantly feel compelled to make amends for "missing and murdered Indigenous women" who are outnumbered by missing and murdered Indigenous men by more than two to one;
or how it's one where infant vulvas are seen as sacrosanct while the cutting of infant penises (completely medically unnecessary in most cases, and performed without anesthetic - and seriously, if you haven't seen this on video, it looks absolutely horrifying) is considered routine;
or do you really want me to go on because I totally can but this is not even my field of activism?
what?
Things are morally right or morally wrong weighed on their own merits. They do not become right or wrong because of the passage of time. I supported gay marriage from the moment I was aware of the concept (probably somewhere in the mid 90s), and I have thought since around the same time that women claiming "equality" to men means they can't also claim to be especially hurt by words that weren't even directed at them. The fact that "it's 2017" simply doesn't bear on any of this; and when you say "It's 2017, <prescriptive statement about acceptable behaviour>" you invoke a caricature of yourself that's vastly more cringeworthy than you realize.
oppressive hierarchy
Can you even give me a coherent definition of oppression?
Turns out that anarchists aren't reflexively anti-law and anti-government in all situations without nuance! I'm not the guy from SLC Punk! who just wants ~chaos~, I want functioning societies where people are free from oppression in various forms.
Protip: functioning, oppression-free societies are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of "anarchy" in any remotely plausible definition.
85 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-10-03
No wonder you have an army of pretentious neckbeard losers following you around
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 darth_stroyer 2017-10-03
/u/prince_kropotkin (as if I need to ping your alt is the OP lol), how do you feel about your Chapo chaps being raging edgelords?
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-10-03
Once again, i'm not /u/prince_kropotkin. Edginess isn't restricted to just tankies and anarchists fighting over who get's to start the mythical revolution. Neoliberals aren't shy about their support for military "interventions", sweatshops, fascists want to achieve genocide.
What's so particularly cringey about these Chapo chaps, is that the majority of them are teenage Larpers.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-10-03
And I'm not u/buttermyself and u/lovemesometoasts
Who are you trying to fool anyway?
1 HillaryDidNothnWrong 2017-10-03
But our Prince likes Chapo.
1 Tetizeraz 2017-10-03
Does he? Wait, he's my favorite anarchist, but he can't like these guys, right?
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-03
No, I don't.
1 glmox 2017-10-03
ur praxis is shit
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-03
My aim is E PLURIBUS UNUM.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-10-03
You sound more like a cultural nationalist than a fascist tbqhf
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-03
I call myself an Augustan fascist. The mustachioed-strongman nonsense is pleb-tier.
1 incineratechicken 2017-10-03
I love how he makes the token effort to claim that this isn't his alt, and then proceeds to completely answer the question that you addressed to him.
Stick to the puppy play, u/prince_kropotkin. It makes you look smarter.
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-10-03
/u/prince_kropotkin hasn't answered any stupid questions in this thread. And I answered the question, because this is my thread.
1 Stuntman119 2017-10-03
Hmm I wonder why
1 CondeTrocola 2017-10-03
Teenagers unaware of how the world works. They'd be crushed by the military. You can have gun control and get weapons illegally. But you're just a militia with land capability. A fucking drone would end you.
It's been a century since the October Revolution you larping retards.
1 cruelandusual 2017-10-03
Drones are only a threat if the military is willing to blow up houses full of civilians to kill a few commies.
Of course, in real life, we'd drag the pinkos out by their ears, stake them to the ground out in a field somewhere, and tell the government to have at them.
1 CondeTrocola 2017-10-03
It was an example of modern military capabilities. At least American.
1 pizzashill 2017-10-03
While I agree these people are retarded I think you're overestimating American military capabilities in relation counter-terrorism, especially in drawn-out civil conflicts.
This is the same tune countries have been singing for a long god damn time.
The US thought they'd walk into Iraq and it'd be a breeze and it sure as hell wasn't.
The US thought they'd march into Vietnam and it'd be a breeze and it sure as hell wasn't.
The Soviets thought they'd walk into Afghanistan and crush the rebels and they sure as hell didn't.
Obviously, a bunch of edgy internet commies would never have enough support to carry out a conflict like this but my point is military capabilities don't really mean much in a war like this.
A good argument about the "shock and awe" of Iraq:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/9933587/The-myth-of-shock-and-awe-why-the-Iraqi-invasion-was-a-disaster.html
1 headasplodes 2017-10-03
The sand people actually had military vehicles and training.
In amerikkka the closest thing civilians have to a military vehicles is a hummer
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-10-03
Just wait until they kidnap Bernie Anakin Sanders wife's boyfriends mom. Then shits gonna hit the fan.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-10-03
For another example, remember how Harry Potter and friends, barely 17 at the time, managed to hide from the Voldemort-controlled Ministry of Wizardry for a year, actively fighting them all the way.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-10-03
Why don't you tell us what HJPEV would do next you fucking ratnerd
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-10-03
Not an argument.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-10-03
Drama is truly the mindkiller
1 Fading_Joy 2017-10-03
Implying that retarded white suburban commies can compare to full blown Taliban hiding in the mountains in a third world country
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-10-03
They sort of already do that in the Middle East with terrorists.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-10-03
tbh if a house contains a living, unharmed commie, then it makes total sense to count every adult male also there as a commie or a commie sympathizer.
1 Ylajali_2002 2017-10-03
yeah, I've never heard of the American military doing anything like that
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-10-03
Anyone who thinks that an armed uprising against the US government wouldn't be mercilessly crushed by the worlds largest and most destructive military is a fucking idiot. Look at how the US police deal with riots and then imagine the same thing but instead of tear gas and tasers they have tanks and helicopter gunships.
For everyone claiming that the US army won't fire on US citizens: Fuck off, Americans LOVE shooting other Americans. It's their favourite thing ever.
1 autistitron 2017-10-03
The police would deal with them, it wouldn't even get to the level where the army has to do anything.
1 icyhat 2017-10-03
Almost a century. October Revolution was in November 1917. It was still October there because they used the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. Even using the Julian calendar, it was at the end of October.
1 CondeTrocola 2017-10-03
Stop being a picky cunt.
1 Stuntman119 2017-10-03
Maybe you should study up on Julian calanders instead of posting on /r/drama
1 CondeTrocola 2017-10-03
The Fahrenheit of calendars lmao
1 icyhat 2017-10-03
I prefer the Delisle of calendars, the DPRK calendar.
1 aggressiveshitpost 2017-10-03
dude #resist lmao
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-10-03
😂😂😂 TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RESIGNED 😂😂😂
1 ragnathorn 2017-10-03
Haha Epic 😂😂
1 storejet 2017-10-03
You are my hero
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-10-03
Awww :3
1 SovietWarfare 2017-10-03
"I hate Trump he's a dictator!"
While also
"We need to give the government more power over the people!"
Poop heads, all of them.
1 issitallet 2017-10-03
Marx is overrated
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-10-03
"American soldiers wont' fire on their own citizens"
Lol, yeah when would an American ever shoot another American. That never happens.
1 Cauchemar89 2017-10-03
What even is ChapoTrapHouse exactly that allows them to shill 80k bucks per month on Patreon from useful idiots?
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-10-03
A fool and his money are soon parted. -Wayne Gretzky
1 DickingBimbos247 2017-10-03
1 Geisterjager 2017-10-03
General left podcast that is in the turf between Bernie and Tankie.
1 newprofile15 2017-10-03
Communists getting rich off of other communist morons is par for the course.
1 Teresa_May 2017-10-03
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
1 PM_ARDUINO_PROJECTS 2017-10-03
u/Anonymous_Ascendent
You do realize you'd be the first against the wall?
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-10-03
Also, what sort of blatant islamophobia is that
1 bat_mayn 2017-10-03
So politically correct. Succint, filled with violent hatred but free of racism.
1 pdxincel 2017-10-03
/u/fuckyourfascism the idea that a subreddit full of obese suburbanites who are whiter than mayo on rice could possibly stage any sort of rebellion is hilarious. You probably break down in tears when mummy doesn't let you have another hot pocket.
1 Stinkfished 2017-10-03
Karl Marx also disliked niggers.
1 nonplussed__ 2017-10-03
r/chapotraphouse is sorta like drama with the occasional thread of seriousposting, and i'm confused every time we link there
someone posted "dude #resist lmao" which would also be an upvoted post there, with the same amount of irony
1 Stinkfished 2017-10-03
What am I looking at with this sub?
Are these the goons I've heard about?
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-03
Chubby white guys who never played sports.
1 MrGoodieMob 2017-10-03
they make 80,000 a month running a socialism podcast and just pocket all the money lmao
1 Stinkfished 2017-10-03
Sounds like true socialism to me.
1 MrGoodieMob 2017-10-03
it is
1 JumbledFun 2017-10-03
over under on /u/Kohaku_ going nowhere quick in life?
1 PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-10-03
All of a sudden /r/drama is pro gun control.
1 Ardvarkeating101 2017-10-03
We are reactionary.
1 DistortedLines 2017-10-03
I'm not pro gun control, but I am pro watching anarchist manlets sperg out.
1 Ylajali_2002 2017-10-03
/u/Prince_Kropotkin serious question, do you know many leftists irl and how many of them are weirdo larpers who seriously think they're gonna do an armed revolution on the American state with a couple of AKs?
I really want to believe these are all 15 year old kids acting out some fantasy but goddamn there are so many of them.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-10-03
Lots and nobody, at least that have said anything like that publicly. I do know a couple weirdos that probably believe something like that, but not very well so I can't say for sure. These people congregate online for some reason.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-10-03
It doesn't matter because there's no plan for after the """revolution""".
1 brianpv 2017-10-03
Probably get shot and die imo.
1 MrGoodieMob 2017-10-03
lmao thank you for this
1 HillaryDidNothnWrong 2017-10-03
Step one: cry about democrats more than actual alt-right
1 glmox 2017-10-03
hey /u/prince_kropotkin, is that movie worth watching? i remember my dad thought it was pretty good but that doesnt mean very much tbh
1 holditsteady 2017-10-03
its pretty not good
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-10-03
It's amusing for what it's worth. I wouldn't run out to go find it.
1 bat_mayn 2017-10-03
It's always a threat isn't it? They don't give a shit, they just use these incidents as threats -- maybe if some entity were to convince someone to orchestrate mass-casualty incidents they could then threaten their victims with more casualties until the victims totally surrender.
I mean that couldn't possibly happen, it's never happened before in human history and there's no way that could happen in America. Don't worry about it and don't worry about the Paddocks, whose father was on the most wanted list by the FBI and don't worry that the son of which that perpetrated the largest mass-casualty shooting in US history worked for Lockheed Martin - with unsure ties to Raytheon and NASA.
Anyway don't worry about it, you need to worry about the dumb flag-waving terrorist rednecks the most - the ones that were massacred.
1 ReverieMetherlence 2017-10-03
when that fucking shithole will be banned ffs
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-10-03
/u/gnuworldorder, what's it like being a tankie lolcow?
1 gnuworldorder 2017-10-03
whats it like being a pedophile apologist and a brocialist /u/Prince_Kropotkin? also ill take you to the wall any time you want bby
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-10-03
You have a weird fucking fascination with me and feel the need to constantly ping me BUT you remain less interesting than my other stalkers. This is a terribly sad state of affairs.
1 Stuntman119 2017-10-03
Have you ever had a conversation with /u/Deity_Of_Darkness? If so, please provide a link.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-10-03
They PM me fairly often to talk about libertarians, socialism, etc.
1 ExtreemWeenie 2017-10-03
remember when being a keybord warrior got you cyberbullied?
1 zahlman 2017-10-03
From that linked thread:
... no shit?
1 GreasyAssMechanic 2017-10-03
I'm in said socialist gun club, I'm not referring to the SRA. I'm referring to the above poster's desire to use the phrase "fucking pussy". It's 2017, if you're a leftist, you need to cut that shit out.
1 zahlman 2017-10-03
Your implied etymology is false.
That still wouldn't actually connote a hatred of women; the most you could support is a connotation of separate gender roles for men and women and a desire to enforce them. If I said that apples shouldn't taste like oranges, that wouldn't mean I hated either of them.
We all know that if it had said "fucking dick" you would not be screaming about misandry.
Why is it relevant to the argument that a certain number of years have elapsed since the conventional (probably wrong) date of death of a (almost certainly actually existing) historical figure to whom divinity is attributed (lol)?
What do gender roles have to do with seizing the means of production?
1 WikiTextBot 2017-10-03
Historicity of Jesus
The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure. It concerns the issue of "what really happened", based upon the context of the time and place, and also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened". A second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence. It also considers the question of whether he was a Nazirite.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27
1 GreasyAssMechanic 2017-10-03
1.) Terms have both a lay definition and a dictionary definition. Just because a word doesn't match up with it's dictionary definition does not mean that it has a separate meaning.
2.) You don't have to hate women to feel superior. If I made a statement with connotations based on racial superiority, I'm still being a racist shit bag for passively upholding a racist institution without actively hating a race as a whole.
3.) You don't know me, I actually would have, because I think associating genitals with negativity is stupid. That being said, misandry is significantly less toxic than misogyny because last time I checked, the world is mostly ran by men, as in they have the institutional power.
4.) What? No seriously, what?
5.) No revolutionary praxis is complete without understanding of intersectionality and the place it must hold in the revolution to remove all forms of oppressive hierarchy. A leftist that is upholding gender roles which actively and maliciously oppress all sexes in different ways are not serious about removing oppressive hierarchy because they are upholding it's existence.
1 zahlman 2017-10-03
Okay, but thinking that men shouldn't be like women is still not the same as thinking there's anything bad, inferior, negative, etc. etc. whatsoever about being a woman.
I don't think you can present a consistent, intellectually honest definition of "institutional power" that a) actually allows you to defend this claim while b) seeming to actually matter in any real way. In particular, feel free to explain how
a world in which "men have the institutional power" is one where it's Beyonce who gets to perform in front of the word "FEMINISM" in giant letters on stage while the idea of Jay-Z performing in front of a giant "MENS RIGHTS" banner is somewhere between comic and unthinkable;
or how it's one where women are something like 65% of undergrad university students and everyone reacts to this by cherry-picking the departments where they're underrepresented and getting outraged;
or how it's one where the Canadian government along with Canadian media constantly feel compelled to make amends for "missing and murdered Indigenous women" who are outnumbered by missing and murdered Indigenous men by more than two to one;
or how it's one where infant vulvas are seen as sacrosanct while the cutting of infant penises (completely medically unnecessary in most cases, and performed without anesthetic - and seriously, if you haven't seen this on video, it looks absolutely horrifying) is considered routine;
or do you really want me to go on because I totally can but this is not even my field of activism?
Things are morally right or morally wrong weighed on their own merits. They do not become right or wrong because of the passage of time. I supported gay marriage from the moment I was aware of the concept (probably somewhere in the mid 90s), and I have thought since around the same time that women claiming "equality" to men means they can't also claim to be especially hurt by words that weren't even directed at them. The fact that "it's 2017" simply doesn't bear on any of this; and when you say "It's 2017, <prescriptive statement about acceptable behaviour>" you invoke a caricature of yourself that's vastly more cringeworthy than you realize.
Can you even give me a coherent definition of oppression?
1 zahlman 2017-10-03
Fucking lol PK
Protip: functioning, oppression-free societies are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of "anarchy" in any remotely plausible definition.
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-10-03
He's reasonable, compared to the edgy internet anarchists that want chaos, without knowing the consequences.