I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
Whiteness is inferior because it elects a degenerate man who has never known sexual morality or discipline and tries to pass it off as presidential. Whiteness is inferior because it sees journalism that reflects badly on white people and assumes that it must be fake; its pathetic and weak attempts to imitate journalism end up backfiring and making whiteness look even more idiotic.
Whiteness has no masculine virtue. White people can't dance.
lol I've debated Impassionata several times before. He writes and communicates like a dollar store Nietzsche:
Constantly vomiting bold, dramatic, contentious, comically self-important proclamations but refuses to support any of them with anything other than, "haha figure it out yourself. I've already figured it out. If you can't, you're hopeless."
I think he's probably closest to center left. He's definitely a Democrat and probably wouldn't label himself a classical liberal. He seems reasonably progressive but certainly criticizes the movement at times.
So the question remains "How does that happen". I mean, Sam Harris literally talks about how race and IQ are correlated, and he often talks shit about "the left", SJWs, identity politics etc. but the alt-right still won't follow him (for a plethora of reasons- He's Jewish, a radical atheist, supports the status-quo, trashes Trump, is centre-left etc).
He wrote a great series of articles on signaling and counter-signaling and how people adopt certain 'fashionable' politics in waves and trends, which speaks to their own perception of their hipness and intelligence, basically.
...which connected to two articles he wrote on "feminism" and the gender wars. I assume that's how most found him.
It's an Intellectual Dark Web thing. The IDW largely consists of left-of-center individuals who are critical of the illiberal aspects of modern leftism, and since these criticisms are more substantive than the frog memes and smuggies that normal alt-right bastions produce they are popular with this crowd as well. To the point where the alt-right may be a majority of supporters of these IDW figures.
This isn't that uncommon. Whenever an apostate starts loudly criticizing "their side" they automatically become popular with the other side even if they have very little in common. You see this all over the political spectrum.
The IDW largely consists of left-of-center individuals
Not largely I think. Think about the 6 big names- Rogan, Weinstein, Harris, Shapiro, Peterson, Rubin. Only the former 3 are "centre-left" whereas the latter 2 are centre-right, and Shapiro is just right-wing.
And most of these people have non-alt-right followings. Partially because except Rogan & Peterson they're all Jewish lmao. But a lot of non-alt-right DDF watch Peterson, Rubin, and Shapiro.
The "sceptic" folks over at Youtube are more popular with the alt-right, but frankly almost none of them are centre-left. Sargon Daddy says he is but whenever you ask about a specific policy and how we should deal with, he responds with "I don't know lmao".
I don't know enough about the IDW to know if there really is a "big 6" - I mean I guess maybe those are the most-popular figures but I would also look to people like Jonathan Haidt and Glenn Loury and Stephen Pinker, all of whom are likely center-left on the American political spectrum.
IDW is the collective name of intellectuals who are on the internet and who debate issues that aren't debated well enough on any main-stream outlets.
Rogan isn't an "intellectual", but he hosts intellectuals on his shows and participates in the debate by doing so. So he's considered a part of the IDW.
Same goes for Rubin, except I'd argue he is worse since Rogan's guests are way more diverse.
Lol if Rogan is right-wing, that basically means the vast majority of moderate liberals/moderate civil libertarians (right or left) are now right-wing. Which doesn't make any fucking sense.
It's better to think of the IDW as public figures with large platforms who don't subscribe to mindless partison shilling...
...which basically excludes Shapiro, as he's an obnoxious conservative shill (his only saving grace is that he isn't a mindless Trumptard).
I'd say the IDW is basically whatever stepped into the void left by the implosion of internet libertarians after the Global Financial Crisis made it pretty obvious that libertarians are a bit of a joke.
I'm under the impression you're missing out context here.
"Classical liberals" rarely go after the right. The left is free to critize the left, and many people like Sam Harris already do it. But those who call themselves "le epic classical liberal" rarely critize the right, and if they do it's generally the fringe right. It's because most "classical liberals" relay on right-wing viewership.
They're right wingers because classical liberalism is a right wing ideology. Not because they criticize the left.
I'm not talking about the classical liberalistilists, I'm talking about liberals who critisise the left only.
You're arguing against a strawman. I already admitted many left-wing people critize left, why are you telling me this?
You claim that people who only critisise the left and rarely critisise the right must be some sort of double agent. You can only critisise the left without critisising the right and still be a left winger due to the reaons I mentioned.
You can only critisise the left without critisising the right and still be a left winger due to the reaons I mentioned.
Your reasoning explains why someone should be able to critize the left while also being on the left. As said before, I'm not contesting this claim. However it does not explain the fact that if someone is criticizing the and and the left only, 99% of the time they're just right wingers.
We live in age where there the right is slowly going bonkers everywhere in the world. They lost it in the US and elected a man as incompetent as Trump because they felt the system wasn't unfair (Trump isn't wrong when he talks about corruption, "swamp", rigged system, etc). They're losing it in Europe because of the after-effects of the immigrant crisis.
You already know about the bomb & the shooting, but it was obvious even before that that USA has a right-wing terror problem. Islam is #1 cause of terror in the EU but in the US right-wing racism is, which is very telling given how close Islam is to terror.
So when this is the situation we live in 2018, and you have nothing to say about it other than "can SJWs stop pushing for made-up pronouns", it's time for you to question whether your priorities have a right-wing bias or not.
And I think I need to make this clear for a third time: critizing the left doesn't make you a right winger. Sam Harris complained about how the left was anti-science because they ignored race & IQ, or how identity politics had ruined the left and got Trump elected, or how we live in an outrage culture where anyone can be targeted on social media for the most mundane joke. He complains about SJWs, universities, reactionary communists- you name it. And he is absolutely right with his criticism of the left. But he doesn't ignore Trump, or all the white nationalists who are gaining traction in the US and in Europe. Many "classical liberals" do, however.
However it does not explain the fact that if someone is criticizing the and and the left only, 99% of the time they're just right wingers.
See, this is exactly why the center is constantly shrinking. Moderates aren't the ones who are becoming partisan, it's everyone else who litterally forces them into either us or them.
So when this is the situation we live in 2018, and you have nothing to say about it other than "can SJWs stop pushing for made-up pronouns", it's time for you to question whether your priorities have a right-wing bias or not.
The right is growing because exactly the left is constantly becoming more and more retarded pushing people away from it.
You have seen: "FEMINIST REKT COMPILATON #71 BEN SHAPIRO ASCENDS TO A HIGHER PLANE OF EXISTENCE AND REWRITES REALITY TRANSCENDING THE FABRIC OF SPACE AND TIME ALTERING HISTORY SO AS TO DEMOLISH PINK HAIRED LIBRERAL SNOWFLAKE WITH LOGIC AND FACTS***"
A lot of these videos have millions of views. When moderates are exposed to this much concentrated retardation over and over and over, and they see it in the news, in television, in media, in entertaiment, what do you think they are going to do?
The right hasn't changed it's message. It's still the same old message it always had.
You're not going to win any hearts by critisising the right exactly because they hasn't changed anything about itself. We've been hearing the same critisisms for 50 years because the right is the same as it was 50 years ago. What new are going to say?
The left are the ones who changed their message and the new message is pushing people away from them.
The right didn't become more attractive, the left became more repulsive.
See, this is exactly why the center is constantly shrinking. Moderates aren't the ones who are becoming partisan, it's everyone else who litterally forces them into either us or them.
If you think that moderates only criticize one side you're only kidding yourself.
You're not going to win any hearts by critisising the right exactly because it hasn't changed anything about itself.
In which case you don't understand the Republican party & Trump. To claim Trump is your average mundane republican is out of this world.
The other points won't be necessary to address. If there is corruption & a chase of illegitimate power within the right and you deem that unnecessary to point out due to how it's all the left's fault they exist in the first place (which is incorrect), you're indifferent from someone on the right.
Drop the "moderate" shit. If you aren't criticizing left & right alike you're indifferent from a partisan. If someone is only criticizing the right, they're effectively left wing. If someone is only criticizing the left, they're effectively right wing. If they're doing both, they can be in either one of the groups or just a centrist. Many actual moderates criticize both, and frankly you're doing a disservice to them by comparing them to culture warriors who only focus on one side because they find it more lucrative.
You pretend I'm pushing away moderates, but a) I don't identify with any western political camp, I'm indifferent to all sides & parties, and b) If someone is focusing on one side only they're not a moderate. You're only kidding yourself if you think that.
Again, I gave you the example of Sam Harris which you haven't addressed. The man's description sounds like that of a right-wing reactionary. But he's obviously left wing. He talks favourably of left-wing ideals, and he doesn't hesitate to call out bullshit whenever sees it right or left. Compare that to "classical liberals" who will i) Support libertarian policies ii) Won't address the trainwreck that is the right wing iii) Literally call themselves "liberal" which is considered right wing everywhere except Amerifat land. Yet they still pretend to be centre-left, and I find that amusing.
If you think that moderates only criticize one side you're only kidding yourself.
Wear a hat with a net so let the point fly over your head this high next time.
This isn't about moderates critisising sides. This is about partisans pushing moderates into the "US" vs "Them" camps forcing them to pick a side.
The other points won't be necessary to address. If there is corruption & a chase of illegitimate power within the right and you deem that unnecessary to point out due to how it's all the left's fault they exist in the first place (which is incorrect), you're indifferent from someone on the right.
You are missing the point so much I'm starting to wonder if you're doing it on purpose.
It's the left's fault that people are turning to the right, because the left is the one who changed it's message, and the new message pushes people away. The right is still the same it's always been. The right didn't make itself more attractive, the left made itself more repulsive.
Both sides were endlessly critisising each other. The right didn't change. The left changed. The left was winning untill it changed. Ergo, if you want to make the left win again, you critisise it, so that it changes back to how it was while it was winning.
Drop the "moderate" shit. If you aren't criticizing left & right alike you're indifferent from a partisan. If someone is only criticizing the right, they're effectively left wing. If someone is only criticizing the left, they're effectively right wing. If they're doing both, they can be in either one of the groups or just a centrist. Many actual moderates criticize both, and frankly you're doing a disservice to them by comparing them to culture warriors who only focus on one side because they find it more lucrative.
No, you aren't. I already explained to you why in my first response. Criticism is not hatred.
Again, I gave you the example of Sam Harris which you haven't addressed.
What do you want me to address? He's a leftie that critisises both sides. Ok.
And? I didn't say they didn't exist.
Compare that to "classical liberals" who will i) Support libertarian policies ii) Won't address the trainwreck that is the right wing iii) Literally call themselves "liberal" which is considered right wing everywhere except Amerifat land. Yet they still pretend to be centre-left, and I find that amusing.
Dude. I don't give a fuck about classical liberals. I don't like sargon or his fellowship. I don't get why you keep bringing them up. I'm not defending them nor am I representing them.
Trump is the biggest problem of the US right now. Someone who only criticizes Trump isn't a moderate.
Same goes for you- just because you think left is the biggest issue right now doesn't make you a moderate when you only criticize the left.
Both sides are absolutely horseshit. If you're ignoring one of the sides in favour of the other, you've picked your side. You're no longer a "moderate".
The right hasn't changed it's message. It's still the same old message it always had.
You're not going to win any hearts by critisising the right exactly because it hasn't changed anything about itself. We've been hearing the same critisisms for 50 years because the right is the same as it was 50 years ago. What new are you going to say? What original critisism do you have that we haven't already been hearing for the past half century?
The left are the ones who changed their message and the new message is what's pushing people away from them.
The right didn't suddently become more attractive, it's the left became more repulsive.
Attacking the right won't do jack shit, because the right isn't the reason the right is growing, the left is the reason the right is growing.
It's the left's fault that people are turning to the right, because the left is the one who changed it's message, and the new message pushes people away. The right is still the same it's always been. The right didn't make itself more attractive, the left made itself more repulsive.
Both sides were endlessly critisising each other. The right didn't change. The left changed. The left was winning untill it changed. Ergo, if you want to make the left win again, you critisise it, so that it changes back to how it was while it was winning.
I litterally can't imagine how to explain this to you any simpler, even a toddler would have understood it by now.
If you're ignoring one of the sides in favour of the other, you've picked your side. You're no longer a "moderate".
Already explained to you why this is false multiple times so far.
Dude was pissed at people who didn't mind that Bolsonaro won or even supported him. The betting related stuff is because he was told to put up or shut up after making several ridiculous predictions including that Trump would be impeached before the midterms.
81 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-10-29
I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 LightUmbra 2018-10-29
Wowzers that some good pasta.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-29
Whiteness is inferior because it elects a degenerate man who has never known sexual morality or discipline and tries to pass it off as presidential. Whiteness is inferior because it sees journalism that reflects badly on white people and assumes that it must be fake; its pathetic and weak attempts to imitate journalism end up backfiring and making whiteness look even more idiotic.
Whiteness has no masculine virtue. White people can't dance.
1 jaja10 2018-10-29
Imagine trying to come up with the best, most emasculating insult of a race you can and coming up with "they can't dance" lmao
1 damaged_unicycles 2018-10-29
Imagine hating a race but the worst example you can think of is their bad dancing :')
1 BeanerShnitzel 2018-10-29
And asking to eat marshmallows
1 Sojir 2018-10-29
This guy judges masculinity on dancing skill
1 Singulaire 2018-10-29
You can't dance? What are you a fag?
1 Sojir 2018-10-29
Only the Rick roll dance
1 wewladin 2018-10-29
I got the zoomer fortnite dance on lock and key tho
1 Anarcho_Autism 2018-10-29
lol I've debated Impassionata several times before. He writes and communicates like a dollar store Nietzsche:
Constantly vomiting bold, dramatic, contentious, comically self-important proclamations but refuses to support any of them with anything other than, "haha figure it out yourself. I've already figured it out. If you can't, you're hopeless."
1 Abu_Ivanka_alAmriki 2018-10-29
So much snapshillbot potential in one comment
1 FreeThe_Truth 2018-10-29
shit I just got cyber bullied
1 geeses 2018-10-29
I've have some of whatever he's smoking.
1 TatsuyaOW 2018-10-29
It’s over for mayocels
1 ffbtaw 2018-10-29
nondancer-cels
1 ffbtaw 2018-10-29
This is beautiful
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
What in the fuck is Slate Star Codex
1 ffbtaw 2018-10-29
A blog by Scott Alexander
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
How does that happen? Is he a ""classical liberal"" that constantly rants about "the left" and shit?
1 ffbtaw 2018-10-29
I think he's probably closest to center left. He's definitely a Democrat and probably wouldn't label himself a classical liberal. He seems reasonably progressive but certainly criticizes the movement at times.
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
So the question remains "How does that happen". I mean, Sam Harris literally talks about how race and IQ are correlated, and he often talks shit about "the left", SJWs, identity politics etc. but the alt-right still won't follow him (for a plethora of reasons- He's Jewish, a radical atheist, supports the status-quo, trashes Trump, is centre-left etc).
1 ffbtaw 2018-10-29
Scott's also Jewish, it's a pseudonym. They don't necessarily like him but he's smart and a good writer so they still read it.
1 -Kite-Man- 2018-10-29
He wrote a great series of articles on signaling and counter-signaling and how people adopt certain 'fashionable' politics in waves and trends, which speaks to their own perception of their hipness and intelligence, basically.
...which connected to two articles he wrote on "feminism" and the gender wars. I assume that's how most found him.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-10-29
It's an Intellectual Dark Web thing. The IDW largely consists of left-of-center individuals who are critical of the illiberal aspects of modern leftism, and since these criticisms are more substantive than the frog memes and smuggies that normal alt-right bastions produce they are popular with this crowd as well. To the point where the alt-right may be a majority of supporters of these IDW figures.
This isn't that uncommon. Whenever an apostate starts loudly criticizing "their side" they automatically become popular with the other side even if they have very little in common. You see this all over the political spectrum.
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
Not largely I think. Think about the 6 big names- Rogan, Weinstein, Harris, Shapiro, Peterson, Rubin. Only the former 3 are "centre-left" whereas the latter 2 are centre-right, and Shapiro is just right-wing.
And most of these people have non-alt-right followings. Partially because except Rogan & Peterson they're all Jewish lmao. But a lot of non-alt-right DDF watch Peterson, Rubin, and Shapiro.
The "sceptic" folks over at Youtube are more popular with the alt-right, but frankly almost none of them are centre-left. Sargon Daddy says he is but whenever you ask about a specific policy and how we should deal with, he responds with "I don't know lmao".
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-10-29
I don't know enough about the IDW to know if there really is a "big 6" - I mean I guess maybe those are the most-popular figures but I would also look to people like Jonathan Haidt and Glenn Loury and Stephen Pinker, all of whom are likely center-left on the American political spectrum.
1 LogicalSignal9 2018-10-29
How is Joe fucking Rogan part of an intellectual anything, are you doing a bit?
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
IDW is the collective name of intellectuals who are on the internet and who debate issues that aren't debated well enough on any main-stream outlets.
Rogan isn't an "intellectual", but he hosts intellectuals on his shows and participates in the debate by doing so. So he's considered a part of the IDW.
Same goes for Rubin, except I'd argue he is worse since Rogan's guests are way more diverse.
1 Anarcho_Autism 2018-10-29
Lol if Rogan is right-wing, that basically means the vast majority of moderate liberals/moderate civil libertarians (right or left) are now right-wing. Which doesn't make any fucking sense.
It's better to think of the IDW as public figures with large platforms who don't subscribe to mindless partison shilling...
...which basically excludes Shapiro, as he's an obnoxious conservative shill (his only saving grace is that he isn't a mindless Trumptard).
1 DaYooper 2018-10-29
You must listen to a different Rogan than I do cause he's certainly not right wing.
1 Anarcho_Autism 2018-10-29
I think you missed my point. I'm arguing the opposite.
1 trilateral1 2018-10-29
Peterson is centre-right?
What about Nick Land? Curtis Yarvin? Those are right wingers.
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
The alt right has been taking the everloving piss out of sargon and the skeptics since the krautastrophy. I doubt they have any affinity for him.
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
Doesn't change the fact they're a large part of his viewer-base.
1 wisty 2018-10-29
I'd say the IDW is basically whatever stepped into the void left by the implosion of internet libertarians after the Global Financial Crisis made it pretty obvious that libertarians are a bit of a joke.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-10-29
A lot of libertarians just moved a bit left and rebranded as classical liberals.
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-10-29
The alt-right doesn't like the IDW though
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-10-29
Basically yes. He does other, less stupid stuff too, but that's a big part of it.
1 wisty 2018-10-29
He's more of a rationalist (think LessWrong), but not Dark Enlightenment.
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
God forbid liberals take issue with the modern left's insanity amirite
I mean, the left is litteraly perfect, why would a leftist DARE critisise it?
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
I'm under the impression you're missing out context here.
"Classical liberals" rarely go after the right. The left is free to critize the left, and many people like Sam Harris already do it. But those who call themselves "le epic classical liberal" rarely critize the right, and if they do it's generally the fringe right. It's because most "classical liberals" relay on right-wing viewership.
Classical liberalism is right wing lmao
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
I don't care about the fellowship or akkad or the septics.
There's a reason liberals don't go after the right, because they don't care about the right.
They are not right wingers, the idea that you critisise something because you hate it is beyond retarded.
If your spouse is regularily shitting on the floor, and you tell them to stop, does that mean you want to fuck the neighboor?
No, it means you want your spouse to stop shitting on the floor because you both live in the same house.
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
They're right wingers because classical liberalism is a right wing ideology. Not because they criticize the left.
You're arguing against a strawman. I already admitted many left-wing people critize left, why are you telling me this?
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
I'm not talking about the classical liberalistilists, I'm talking about liberals who critisise the left only.
You claim that people who only critisise the left and rarely critisise the right must be some sort of double agent. You can only critisise the left without critisising the right and still be a left winger due to the reaons I mentioned.
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
Your reasoning explains why someone should be able to critize the left while also being on the left. As said before, I'm not contesting this claim. However it does not explain the fact that if someone is criticizing the and and the left only, 99% of the time they're just right wingers.
We live in age where there the right is slowly going bonkers everywhere in the world. They lost it in the US and elected a man as incompetent as Trump because they felt the system wasn't unfair (Trump isn't wrong when he talks about corruption, "swamp", rigged system, etc). They're losing it in Europe because of the after-effects of the immigrant crisis.
You already know about the bomb & the shooting, but it was obvious even before that that USA has a right-wing terror problem. Islam is #1 cause of terror in the EU but in the US right-wing racism is, which is very telling given how close Islam is to terror.
So when this is the situation we live in 2018, and you have nothing to say about it other than "can SJWs stop pushing for made-up pronouns", it's time for you to question whether your priorities have a right-wing bias or not.
And I think I need to make this clear for a third time: critizing the left doesn't make you a right winger. Sam Harris complained about how the left was anti-science because they ignored race & IQ, or how identity politics had ruined the left and got Trump elected, or how we live in an outrage culture where anyone can be targeted on social media for the most mundane joke. He complains about SJWs, universities, reactionary communists- you name it. And he is absolutely right with his criticism of the left. But he doesn't ignore Trump, or all the white nationalists who are gaining traction in the US and in Europe. Many "classical liberals" do, however.
If it quacks like a duck,
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-29
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
based
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
See, this is exactly why the center is constantly shrinking. Moderates aren't the ones who are becoming partisan, it's everyone else who litterally forces them into either us or them.
The right is growing because exactly the left is constantly becoming more and more retarded pushing people away from it.
You have seen: "FEMINIST REKT COMPILATON #71 BEN SHAPIRO ASCENDS TO A HIGHER PLANE OF EXISTENCE AND REWRITES REALITY TRANSCENDING THE FABRIC OF SPACE AND TIME ALTERING HISTORY SO AS TO DEMOLISH PINK HAIRED LIBRERAL SNOWFLAKE WITH LOGIC AND FACTS***"
A lot of these videos have millions of views. When moderates are exposed to this much concentrated retardation over and over and over, and they see it in the news, in television, in media, in entertaiment, what do you think they are going to do?
The right hasn't changed it's message. It's still the same old message it always had.
You're not going to win any hearts by critisising the right exactly because they hasn't changed anything about itself. We've been hearing the same critisisms for 50 years because the right is the same as it was 50 years ago. What new are going to say?
The left are the ones who changed their message and the new message is pushing people away from them.
The right didn't become more attractive, the left became more repulsive.
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-29
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
If you think that moderates only criticize one side you're only kidding yourself.
In which case you don't understand the Republican party & Trump. To claim Trump is your average mundane republican is out of this world.
The other points won't be necessary to address. If there is corruption & a chase of illegitimate power within the right and you deem that unnecessary to point out due to how it's all the left's fault they exist in the first place (which is incorrect), you're indifferent from someone on the right.
Drop the "moderate" shit. If you aren't criticizing left & right alike you're indifferent from a partisan. If someone is only criticizing the right, they're effectively left wing. If someone is only criticizing the left, they're effectively right wing. If they're doing both, they can be in either one of the groups or just a centrist. Many actual moderates criticize both, and frankly you're doing a disservice to them by comparing them to culture warriors who only focus on one side because they find it more lucrative.
You pretend I'm pushing away moderates, but a) I don't identify with any western political camp, I'm indifferent to all sides & parties, and b) If someone is focusing on one side only they're not a moderate. You're only kidding yourself if you think that.
Again, I gave you the example of Sam Harris which you haven't addressed. The man's description sounds like that of a right-wing reactionary. But he's obviously left wing. He talks favourably of left-wing ideals, and he doesn't hesitate to call out bullshit whenever sees it right or left. Compare that to "classical liberals" who will i) Support libertarian policies ii) Won't address the trainwreck that is the right wing iii) Literally call themselves "liberal" which is considered right wing everywhere except Amerifat land. Yet they still pretend to be centre-left, and I find that amusing.
Again, ducks.
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-29
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
Wear a hat with a net so let the point fly over your head this high next time.
This isn't about moderates critisising sides. This is about partisans pushing moderates into the "US" vs "Them" camps forcing them to pick a side.
You are missing the point so much I'm starting to wonder if you're doing it on purpose.
It's the left's fault that people are turning to the right, because the left is the one who changed it's message, and the new message pushes people away. The right is still the same it's always been. The right didn't make itself more attractive, the left made itself more repulsive.
Both sides were endlessly critisising each other. The right didn't change. The left changed. The left was winning untill it changed. Ergo, if you want to make the left win again, you critisise it, so that it changes back to how it was while it was winning.
No, you aren't. I already explained to you why in my first response. Criticism is not hatred.
What do you want me to address? He's a leftie that critisises both sides. Ok.
And? I didn't say they didn't exist.
Dude. I don't give a fuck about classical liberals. I don't like sargon or his fellowship. I don't get why you keep bringing them up. I'm not defending them nor am I representing them.
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-29
Your pulitzer's in the mail
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
I give up lmao
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
dude bussy lmao
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-29
Trump is the biggest problem of the US right now. Someone who only criticizes Trump isn't a moderate.
Same goes for you- just because you think left is the biggest issue right now doesn't make you a moderate when you only criticize the left.
Both sides are absolutely horseshit. If you're ignoring one of the sides in favour of the other, you've picked your side. You're no longer a "moderate".
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-29
The right hasn't changed it's message. It's still the same old message it always had.
You're not going to win any hearts by critisising the right exactly because it hasn't changed anything about itself. We've been hearing the same critisisms for 50 years because the right is the same as it was 50 years ago. What new are you going to say? What original critisism do you have that we haven't already been hearing for the past half century?
The left are the ones who changed their message and the new message is what's pushing people away from them.
The right didn't suddently become more attractive, it's the left became more repulsive.
Attacking the right won't do jack shit, because the right isn't the reason the right is growing, the left is the reason the right is growing.
It's the left's fault that people are turning to the right, because the left is the one who changed it's message, and the new message pushes people away. The right is still the same it's always been. The right didn't make itself more attractive, the left made itself more repulsive.
Both sides were endlessly critisising each other. The right didn't change. The left changed. The left was winning untill it changed. Ergo, if you want to make the left win again, you critisise it, so that it changes back to how it was while it was winning.
I litterally can't imagine how to explain this to you any simpler, even a toddler would have understood it by now.
Already explained to you why this is false multiple times so far.
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-29
Your pulitzer's in the mail
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ATissu 2018-10-29
Tldr: boomers
1 Prysorra2 2018-10-29
SSC is a blog holdout from the pre-Reddit/Digg era.
The people that visit these places often seek it out intentionally.
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-10-29
Hyperconcentrated autism, mainly. But a different, humorless flavor of the autism that we know and love here at /r/drama.
1 ATissu 2018-10-29
this but unironically
1 Ghdust2 2018-10-29
Context?
1 ffbtaw 2018-10-29
Dude was pissed at people who didn't mind that Bolsonaro won or even supported him. The betting related stuff is because he was told to put up or shut up after making several ridiculous predictions including that Trump would be impeached before the midterms.
1 wewladin 2018-10-29
The russia collusion joke is such a long running con lmfao
1 SeattleFingers 2018-10-29
1 Up-The-Butt_Jesus 2018-10-29
it's always bad when two people argue and the combined chromosome count adds up to 96.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-10-29
I'm 50% sure it's McAffee pasta.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-10-29
What even is the deal with SSC?! It’s like PizzaShill’s subconscious in subreddit form.
1 SJCards 2018-10-29
I'm convinced we have ping consent. Mods, please acknowledge if this is okay.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-29
He did type ping me harder in all caps, but he refused to say daddy which is gay as fuck.
1 SJCards 2018-10-29
Have to respect boundaries, friend.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-29
I wouldn't know enthusiastic consent if it walked up and grabbed me by the busy.
1 SJCards 2018-10-29
That's because your bussy is always quivering for attention. It's implied.
1 Fishofthetunavariety 2018-10-29
He basically gave a "hell yeah" https://youtu.be/BY61UazXiUs
1 Osterion 2018-10-29
This calls for a dance off
1 Up-The-Butt_Jesus 2018-10-29
thanks for introducing me to /r/slatestarcodex - sounds like an interesting place.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-10-29
It's less interesting once you realize how many retards are there.
1 jaja10 2018-10-29
low IQ being a sign of intelligence is one of the biggest brain takes i've seen in a while
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-10-29
oh my god I came twice reading that