People with PCOS who are too fat to defend themselves or run away are fun to abuse. I like to take a spoon, heat it up until it's glowing hot, then place it on the skin while they're asleep. The reaction when they wake up after the 25th time of being burned by a redhot piece of metal is amazing. You can literally piecemeal their mental stability down to complete insanity, then leave them in their own homes helpless and alone. :DDDDDDDDDD
Imagine thinking chapocels will get banned. They are the real world jannies of the status quo. They fail so hard at their own revolutionary analogy that the establishment they seek to overthrow runs puff pieces on the horrendous book they shit out lol.
I hope they don't get banned. I just want to see crybabies bitch about the status quo. They already got MDE, so they took the right from me. Goddammit if they think they are going to get the leftwing clone. Next will be the radical centrists, and there was no one left to speak for them, because everyone was throat deep in bussy-juice.
How the fuck do people who need to inject themselves with hormones and dilate themselves several times a day feel they would be able to take part in a violent Bolshevik style revolution?
YouTube rightards wouldnât be a problem if YouTubeâs algorithm didnât interpret âviewing 15 seconds of a videoâ as âPILE IT ON, THIS DUDE ONLY WANTS TO WATCH BEN SHAPIRO GANGSTER VIDEOSâ
Yeah if I were you I wouldnât want everyone able to tell true history like your dear leader Che killed fags. Especially weird looking non passable trannies
Imagine thinking you're smart because you can google and copypasta buzzfeed opinions. Hit the showers yangpede. BTW yangpede might be the cringiest name I've seen on drama.
So that's a "I decided to play ideological bingo on the internet, made an accusation I couldn't support, and after failing to find anything to prove my claim true in your post history, I'm going to call you a neet and imply said comment exists without ever linking it."
You are the Carlos maas of reddit, living in your own little world. If I wanted to be a dick I'd point out that you just linked the NYtimes as evidence. Maybe you should go back to arguing with retarded rightoids.
We talking about the Holocaust denying NY times? It may have had some legitimacy at some time, but it is nothing but a highly partisan rag, at this point.
What did The New York Times report about the Holocaust and how did its coverage affect Americaâs response to the Nazi genocide?
Throughout World War II, the American media published and broadcast timely, detailed, and accurate accounts of what was happening to the Jews in Europe. The New York Timesalone printed nearly 1,200 articles about what we have now come to call the Holocaust, about one every other day.
The articles in the Times and elsewhere described the propagation of anti-Semitic laws in German allied countries; death from disease and starvation of hundreds of thousands in ghettos and labor camps; mass executions in Nazi-occupied Russia; and mass gassings in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek. The articles also indicated that these were not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic campaign to kill all the Jews in Europe.
And yet, at the end of the war and for decades afterward, Americans claimed they did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening. How was it possible for so much information to be available in the mass media and yet simultaneously for the public to be ignorant?
The reason is that the American media in general and the New York Times in particular never treated the Holocaust as an important news story. From the start of the war in Europe to its end nearly six years later, the story of the Holocaust made the Times front page only 26 times out of 24,000 front-page stories, and most of those stories referred to the victims as ârefugeesâ or âpersecuted minorities.â In only six of those stories were Jews identified on page one as the primary victims.
Nor did the story lead the paper, appearing in the right-hand column reserved for the dayâs most important news â not even when the concentration camps were liberated at the end of the war. In addition, the Times intermittently and timidly editorialized about the extermination of the Jews, and the paper rarely highlighted it in either the Week in Review or the magazine section.
What kept American journalists from recognizing the significance of the systematic murder of six million people? Worldwide carnage on an unprecedented scale helped obscure the Jewsâ plight. There was also skepticism bred by fake atrocity reports during the previous world war. The Roosevelt Administrationâs determination to downplay the news also contributed to the subdued coverage. But the media had enough credible information to treat the news of the extermination of the Jews as important. And the New York Timesplayed a critical role in why it didnât.
For no American news organization was better positioned to highlight the Holocaust than the Times, and no American news organization so influenced public discourse by its failure to do so.
Because of its longtime commitment to international affairs, its willingness to sacrifice advertising rather than articles in the face of a newsprint crunch, and its substantial Jewish readership, the Times was able to obtain and publish more news about what was happening to the Jews than other mainstream newspapers. In addition, Jews of German descent owned the Times and thus knew the fate of family members, some of whom they sponsored to immigrate to the States, some of whom they didnât. The familyâs deep, if not always amicable involvement with the American Jewish community also led the Times to learn much about the Jewsâ situation.
So the New York Times was less likely than other news organizations to miss what was happening to the Jews. But it was also more likely to dismiss its significance. Fearful of accusations of special pleading or dual loyalties, the newspaper hesitated to highlight the news. In addition, the newspaperâs Jewish publisher believed that Jews were neither a racial nor ethnic group, and therefore should not be identified as Jews for any other than religious reasons. He also believed that Americans would only want to help Jews if their cause was melded with that of other persecuted people. He therefore ensured that his paper universalized the Nazisâ victims in editorials and on the front page.
The result: The New YorkTimes was in touch with European Jewsâ suffering, which accounts for its 1,000-plus stories on the Final Solutionâs steady progress. Yet, it deliberately de-emphasized the Holocaust news, reporting it in isolated, inside stories. The few hundred words about the Nazi genocide the Times published every couple days were hard to find amidst a million other words in the newspaper. Times readers could legitimately have claimed not to have known, or at least not to have understood, what was happening to the Jews.
The Timesâs judgment that the murder of millions of Jews was a relatively unimportant story also reverberated among other journalists trying to assess the news, among Jewish groups trying to arouse public opinion, and among government leaders trying to decide on an American response. It partly explains the general apathy and inaction that greeted the news of the Holocaust.
We do not know how many Jews might have been saved had the Times acted differently. We do know, however, that the possibilities for rescue were never truly tested.
It is also clear that had the Times and other news organizations decided that the extermination of the Jews was important, the paper could have and should have highlighted it, regardless of whether it would have saved lives. The press alone could not have altered the currents of public discourse that swamped the news of the Jewsâ destruction, and certainly a single newspaper by itself could not have accomplished that. Still, the Times had a moral and professional obligation to do more than be swept along with the tide.
Again, where in this quote of yours does it claim that the new york times denied the holocaust?
So the New York Times was less likely than other news organizations to miss what was happening to the Jews. But it was also more likely to dismiss its significance. Fearful of accusations of special pleading or dual loyalties, the newspaper hesitated to highlight the news. In addition, the newspaperâs Jewish publisher believed that Jews were neither a racial nor ethnic group, and therefore should not be identified as Jews for any other than religious reasons. He also believed that Americans would only want to help Jews if their cause was melded with that of other persecuted people. He therefore ensured that his paper universalized the Nazisâ victims in editorials and on the front page.
Yeah, really sounds like they were denying the Holocaust. I can't tell if you're actually illiterate or this is a troll.
Furthermore, I'm still waiting, what in the article I linked was factually incorrect?
So the New York Times was less likely than other news organizations to miss what was happening to the Jews. But it was also more likely to dismiss its significance. Fearful of accusations of special pleading or dual loyalties, the newspaper hesitated to highlight the news. In addition, the newspaperâs Jewish publisher believed that Jews were neither a racial nor ethnic group, and therefore should not be identified as Jews for any other than religious reasons. He also believed that Americans would only want to help Jews if their cause was melded with that of other persecuted people. He therefore ensured that his paper universalized the Nazisâ victims in editorials and on the front page.
In case you guys were wondering, that's a "I couldn't find anything wrong with your article, but my worldview depends on dismissing and hand-waving any and all facts that say I'm wrong."
Call it w/e you want, but white knighting for a putrid rag like the NYtimes is pretty pathetic. Next time just link something more credible. It's no different than the fact that I could have just linked a zerohedge article about the times, that has 'facts', but used better judgement. I think with a little help you could be a lot better at this IDFshill.
If I don't watch the videos, how am I going to win the arguments? Invariably they're all false, but I have to know what they're saying in order to refute it.
I'm not the issue, the issue is dumb ass kids getting indoctrinated in right-wing propaganda on youtube because they're very vulnerable to emotional appeals and don't fact check anything they hear.
Yangpede did you see how they have been attacking actual decent journalist Carlos maas of Vox? Not only is yt infested with rightoids, who should all be deplatformed, but they have the gall to verbally assault the few decent journalists telling the truth about climate change and the nazi threat we face on a daily basis!
You didn't respond to anything I said, but I'll still respond to this I guess.
From the anatomy of fascism:
Several consequences flowed from fascismâs special relationship to doctrine. It was the unquestioning zeal of the faithful that counted, more than his or her reasoned assent.79 Programs were casually fluid. The relationship between intellectuals and a movement that despised thought was even more awkward than the notoriously prickly relationship of intellectual fellow travelers with communism. Many intellectuals associated with fascismâs early days dropped away or even went into opposition as successful fascist movements made the compromises necessary to gain allies and power, or, alternatively, revealed its brutal anti-intellectualism.
Fascismâs radical instrumentalization of truth explains why fascists never bothered to write any casuistical literature when they changed their program, as they did often and without compunction. Stalin was forever writing to prove that his policies accorded somehow with the principles of Marx and Lenin; Hitler and Mussolini never bothered with any such theoretical justification. Das Blut or la razza would determine who was right. That does not mean, however, that the ideological roots of the early fascist movements are not important. We need to establish just what the intellectual and cultural history of the founders can contribute to understanding fascism, and what it cannot.
And Richard evens sums it up even better:
By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partyâs official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in mid-1920: the field was bright red, the colour of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white and red, the colours of the official flag of the Bismarckian Empire. In the wake of the 1918 Revolution these came to symbolize rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German, racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.
Furthermore, you can see the differences when you look at how pows were treated. Communism (I assume you're talking about the soviet union) was more ideological, more based in a doctrine, nazism was more so about ones sworn racial enemies, as Evans writes in the 3rd reich trilogy:
It was practical rather than moral considerations that led to an eventual change of policy. By the end of October 1941, the German authorities had begun to realize that Soviet prisoners could be used as forced labour, and measures were taken to provide proper, though still barely adequate, food, clothing and shelter for them.212 Many (though not all) were put into disused factories and prisons. A large number were still living in dugouts in January 1942, however. Conditions deteriorated again in 1943, though they never reached the absolute low point of the first months of the war; by this time, there were enough German prisoners in Soviet hands for the German armed forces leadership to be worried about reprisals. Over the whole course of the war, German forces took some 5.7 million Soviet prisoners. Official German records showed that 3,300,000 of them had perished by the time the war was over, or some 58 per cent of the total. The actual number was probably a good deal higher. By comparison 356,687 out of about 2 million German prisoners taken by the Red Army, mostly in the later stages of the war, did not survive, a death rate of almost 18 per cent. This was far in excess of the mortality rates of British, French and other servicemen in German captivity, which were below 2 per cent until the last chaotic months of the war, not to mention those of German servicemen taken prisoner by the Western Allies. But the high mortality rates of German prisoners in Soviet camps reflected the terrible conditions of life in the Soviet Union, and in the Gulag camp system in general, following the massive destruction wrought by the war, and the bad harvests of the immediate postwar period, rather than any particular spirit of revenge towards the Germans on the part of their captors. Indeed, there is no evidence that German prisoners were treated any differently from other prisoners in Soviet camps, except in the intensity with which they were subjected as âfascistsâ to programmes of political re-education.
By contrast, Red Army prisoners in German hands perished as a direct consequence of Nazi racial doctrines, shared by the overwhelming majority of the German officer corps, which wrote off âSlavsâ as expendable subhumans, not worth keeping alive while there were hungry German mouths to feed.214 This was, in a sense, the first stage of the implementation of the âGeneral Plan for the Eastâ. Only a few German officers protested against the maltreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. One such was Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, leading Army Group Centre. Bock noted on 20 October 1941: âTerrible is the impression of tens of thousands of Russian prisoners of war who, scarcely guarded, are on the march towards Smolensk. These unfortunate people are tottering along weary unto death and half-starving, and many of them have collapsed along the way, exhausted or dead. I talk to the armies about this,â he added, âbut assistance is scarcely possible.â And even Bock, the epitome of the traditionally âcorrectâ Prussian officer, was more concerned in the end with preventing such prisoners from escaping and joining the partisan groups formed by the thousands of Red Army soldiers who had been trapped behind the lines by the rapid advance of the German forces. âThey must be supervised and guarded more rigorously,â he concluded after seeing the bedraggled Russian prisoners, âotherwise we will be nurturing the partisan movement more and more.â215 Disquiet amongst senior officers like Bock was quelled by Hitlerâs insistence that the Soviet prisoners of war were not to be treated as ordinary soldiers but as racial and ideological enemies; the junior officers who had them in their charge on a daily basis had few qualms about seeing them die.216 Those prisoners who were eventually liberated and returned to the Soviet Union - well over one and a half million - had to face extensive discrimination following an order issued by Stalin in August 1941 equating surrender with treason. Many of them were despatched to the labour camps of the Gulag after being screened by Soviet military counter-intelligence. Despite attempts after Stalinâs death by top military leader Marshal Georgi Zhukov to end discrimination against former prisoners of war, they were not formally rehabilitated until 1994.
There's a difference between authoritarianism and fascism.
So according to you the main difference between the Nazis and Commies was that the Nazis were racist...
Cool. That's what we've been saying for years. Racism has nothing to do with left/right so it's totally fair to say that the Nazis were indeed left wing.
No, the main difference is that fascism is not a coherent ideology, does not have a doctrine, and is more so a set of emotional traits.
And no, you're just wrong. No credible historian, nobody with any formal education on this subject believes that. I can direct you to another comment I made, with even more on this:
Hahah, linking to a commie sub and expecting me to take you seriously.
That's an anti-commie sub, actually, the comments is me putting them down.
Nice try though.
The Nazis introduced socialised healthcare, took control over private business and killed people who spoke out against them.
Socialized healthcare isn't "left-wing" dude. The political right in Europe actually started adopting socialized medicine in an effort to hold the left off. At some point you should probably try to learn that the overton window shifts based on region and time period.
Also, the nazis were pretty friendly with private business, which is why many industrialists supported them.
Yet already in the 1960s, some Marxist historians were beginning to argue that in Nazi Germany at least, the economy was subjected to a âprimacy of politicsâ in which the key parameters were set by ideology rather than by capitalist self-interest. The truth is, the economic system of the Third Reich defied easy categorization. To some extent its sheer irrationality undermines any attempt to portray it as a system at all. Superficially, the Four-Year Plan in Germany was more than reminiscent of Stalinâs Five-Year Plan in the Soviet Union. But Nazi economic planning was clearly not designed to further the interests of the working class, as its Soviet counterpart was, at least officially. While Soviet planning under Stalin more or less eliminated free markets and free enterprise, Nazi planning left business intact, from great firms like I.G. Farben all the way down to small retailers and backstreet artisanal workshops. On the other hand, Nazi rhetoric, especially in the 1920s, had a strongly anti-capitalist flavour, so it is not surprising that business only swung round to support the Party after Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. The destruction of the labour movement in the following months convinced many businessmen that they were right to back the new regime. But as time went on, businessmen found that the regime had its own objectives that increasingly diverged from their own. Chief of these was the ever more frenetic drive to rearm and prepare for war. Initially, business was happy to accommodate itself to this objective, which brought it renewed and then increased orders. Even consumer goods producers benefited from the armaments-driven economic recovery. But within a few years, as the regimeâs demands began to outstrip German industryâs capacity to fulfil them, industrialistsâ doubts began to grow.
You're also right, they did kill people that spoke out against them, mainly the political left, the socialists, the communists, the liberals.
Several consequences flowed from fascismâs special relationship to doctrine. It was the unquestioning zeal of the faithful that counted, more than his or her reasoned assent.79 Programs were casually fluid. The relationship between intellectuals and a movement that despised thought was even more awkward than the notoriously prickly relationship of intellectual fellow travelers with communism. Many intellectuals associated with fascismâs early days dropped away or even went into opposition as successful fascist movements made the compromises necessary to gain allies and power, or, alternatively, revealed its brutal anti-intellectualism.
Fascismâs radical instrumentalization of truth explains why fascists never bothered to write any casuistical literature when they changed their program, as they did often and without compunction. Stalin was forever writing to prove that his policies accorded somehow with the principles of Marx and Lenin; Hitler and Mussolini never bothered with any such theoretical justification. Das Blut or la razza would determine who was right. That does not mean, however, that the ideological roots of the early fascist movements are not important.
Copy paste a single comment I've ever made that endorses communism.
Also, you realize Paxton is one of the most respected authors on this subject, correct?
I get you're likely a moron, but spamming "read evola" is worthless. I don't care what fascists say, what fascists say has little to do with what fascists do.
And that's why you're a virginal seriousposter on a Oaxacan gossip messageboard. The beauty of fascism is that the core principles are rock solid and everything else gravy. I love it, as do millions of others, and there's literally nothing you can do about it.
No, it's not socialism because it was primarily a far-right, anti-socialist movement.
We can go into this if you want, it's actually a favorite topic of mine and I have all of the books on hand.
We'll start out easy.
A) Why did conservatives lever Hitler into power?
B) Why were the steel helmets marching along side the nazis?
C) What does the following say:
To many readers of the newspapers that reported Hitlerâs appointment, the jubilation of the brownshirts must have appeared exaggerated. The key feature of the new government, symbolized by the participation of the Steel Helmets in the march-past, was surely the heavy numerical domination of the conservatives. âNo nationalistic, no revolutionary government, although it carries Hitlerâs nameâ, confided a Czech diplomat based in Berlin to his diary: âNo Third Reich, hardly even a 2½.â25 A more alarmist note was sounded by the French ambassador, AndrĂŠ François-Poncet. The perceptive diplomat noted that the conservatives were right to expect Hitler to agree to their programme of âthe crushing of the left, the purging of the bureaucracy, the assimilation of Prussia and the Reich, the reorganization of the army, the re-establishment of military serviceâ. They had put Hitler into the Chancellery in order to discredit him, he observed; âthey have believed themselves to be very ingenious, ridding themselves of the wolf by introducing him into the sheepfold.â
We can go into this if you want, it's actually a favorite topic of mine and I have all of the books on hand.
My god no you fucking sperg
Why would I argue with someone who knows so fucking little about this topic they don't even know where the computers to count people for the Holocaust came from.
Yeah, the guy citing well respected academic work saying you're wrong is the one that knows "so fucking little on the topic" not the historically illiterate internet rightoid.
Right, why don't you first look up what I'm talking about since you have no fucking clue than look up what happened to that German Branch than get back to me?
You still haven't actually addressed what I said just flailed around with your copy paste talking points retard.
not the historically illiterate internet rightoid repeating things no credible historian believes.
You get to a normal person this sentence is just REEEEE right?
Right, why don't you first look up what I'm talking about since you have no fucking clue than look up what happened to that German Branch than get back to me?
Your argument has no relevance to the question at hand. Again, explain to me, why were the steel Helmets marching with the nazis, why did the German conservatives lever Hitler into power?
Furthermore, why did Von Papan lever Hitler into power, a man that was interested in "uniting the right."
In March 1930, Papen welcomed the coming of presidential government.[37] As the presidential government of chancellor Heinrich BrĂźning depended upon the Social Democrats in the Reichstag to "tolerate" it by not voting to cancel laws passed under Article 48, Papen grew more critical.[37] In a speech before a group of farmers in October 1931, Papen called for BrĂźning to disallow the SPD and base his presidential government on "tolerance" from the NSDAP instead.[38] Papen demanded that BrĂźning transform the "concealed dictatorship" of a presidential government into a dictatorship that would unite all of the German right under its banner.[38] In the 1932 presidential elections, Papen voted for Hindenburg on the grounds he was the best man to unite the right, while in the Prussian Landtag's election of speaker of the Landtag, Papen voted for the Nazi Hans Kerrl.[38]
Your argument has no relevance to the question at hand
You complete fucking retard you asked for times you've ever been wrong.
You've actually fucking forgotten that even with me quoting it for you.
Why are you surprised you don't know about Business it should be normal for you, no wonder you can only communicate with Copy Pasts.
because the nazis were the left according to you.
Boy you are going to be just fucking shocked when I say I never said the Nazis were the left and you are literally so retarded you can't even function on reddit.
Feel free to quote me saying that, you just titanic mental juggernaut.
You complete fucking retard you asked for times you've ever been wrong.
What? You'll have to catch me up on whatever the fuck it is you're talking about.
You've actually fucking forgotten that even with me quoting it for you.
See above.
Why are you surprised you don't know about Business it should be normal for you, no wonder you can only communicate with Copy Pastas.
Again, no clue what you are talking about.
Boy you are going to be just fucking shocked when I say I never said the Nazis were the left and you are literally so retarded you can't even function on reddit.
Yes you did, actually. You literally responded to me in this thread, quoting me mocking conservatives for claiming the nazis were left wing. In fact, you even tossed out a "no real socialism" in your response, cleary implying they were left-wing:
It's Not real Socialism because Socialists never kill socialists and commies
Keep thinking about it, maybe you'll learn but I bet you'll just declare this "argument" "won" like all your other victories guy who is so retarded he can't remember something that happened 20mins ago.
what else am I to infer?
That you are too fucking dumb to be able to infer things. You are literally so dumb you don't realize how dumb you are it's amazing, no wonder you always "pwn roitoids with logic" because everyone who argues with you is on the right and no person would ever make fun of not real socialism.
You respond with a "not real socialism" very clearly implying that the nazis were socialist, and therefore left-wing.
I present multiple arguments, with citations for the things I'm saying.
You then respond that you never claimed they were socialist or left-wing.
I honestly can't tell if this is you attempting to troll, or save face after realizing you couldn't refute anything I said.
I don't know who it is you think you're fooling, I don't even know if english is your first language, but you absolutely tried to imply that the nazis were in fact socialist, and therefore left-wing.
or save face after realizing you couldn't refute anything I said.
You literally asked for times you've been wrong I provided them and you didn't know what I was talking about, that's a literal thing that happened you absolute moron.
No wonder you brag about winning ever online argument unironically you're a complete sperg who can't even handle someone saying socialism bad without copypasting lmao
You literally asked for times you've been wrong I provided them and you didn't know what I was talking about, that's a literal thing that happened you absolute moron.
I have no fucking clue what you're talking about, again, you'll have to expand on whatever it is you're talking about.*
No wonder you brag about winning ever online argument unironically you're a complete sperg who can't even handle someone saying socialism bad without copypasting lmao
I don't give a shit about socialism. You very clearly, and I mean very clearly tried to imply nazism was left-wing or socialist. That is a factually incorrect view, and I responded to it.
Wow you don't remember something you said? if only you could go back and look at posts on reddit.
You're so smart you can't figure out what direct quotes of you saying things that are wrong mean, no wonder you also are beating up a strawman of of something i've already told you I never said.
All I know here is you very clearly tried to claim the nazis were socialist.
I claimed saying a group killed Socialists so it can't be Socialist when Socialists kill Socialists all the time is wrong, it's called a joke, no wonder you sperged out over it.
copy paste where I was wrong link me to the comment
Or you could just use your genius IQ to navigate reddit instead of having me baby you Pizzashill lmao it really is you, how did leaving this place forever work out for you?
I'll give you one more reply to copy paste in which comment I was wrong.
I'm not interested in this weird reality denial where you pretend you weren't implying the nazis were socialists, even your excuse here doesn't work because I listed multiple reasons why they weren't.
Alright, it's obvious you have no ability to support anything you've said here, due to your profound illiteracy, cognitive problems, and blatant mental illness, I will have to dismiss you.
lol Classic Pizzashill, you aren't even embarrassed at being this predictably incompetent. because you can't find something means it doesn't exist but at least if you insult me you don't have to actually address a single point I made this entire fucking conversation and admit you are wrong.
You're the one who keeps talking to me you fucking retard who can't even use reddit.
Failing to support my claim that you don't know about IBM's German Branch god you are just the biggest sperg no wonder you have to warp reality to your needs and call literally everyone else dumb.
Dude please stop talking to me telling me how i'm dismissed this is actually just pathetic at this point and no longer funny. I've already told you twice.
I know you are too autistic to ever admit you are wrong and I shouldn't have goaded you like this.
Please go tell someone else they've been dismissed now.
Please stop, you are literally so autistic using a diff username doesn't cover up how dumb you are.
Please please stop talking to me, I have no interest in what a retard who doesn't know how to use reddit than fights with me over a post he claims he can't find for a literal day has to say.
What the fuck does left leaving just not a progressive even mean? Progressive is a meaningless term that a person doesn't even have to be left wing to use. If anything it's more right wing than liberal and liberal is right wing.
When I talk about the guillotines to the rich, it's not a threat, it's a warning. You can continue plugging your ears and just banning everyone who says anything about it if you want, don't go whining to me though when the blade comes falling down.
This. But when you are a chapo who constantly screeches that private property should be abandoned you should be mocked. Also they probably don't work and have no understanding of how life is really like alone, giving them no real reference for life.
185 comments
1 AutoModerator 2019-06-07
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SnapshillBot 2019-06-07
People with PCOS who are too fat to defend themselves or run away are fun to abuse. I like to take a spoon, heat it up until it's glowing hot, then place it on the skin while they're asleep. The reaction when they wake up after the 25th time of being burned by a redhot piece of metal is amazing. You can literally piecemeal their mental stability down to complete insanity, then leave them in their own homes helpless and alone. :DDDDDDDDDD
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 mayofoidNPC 2019-06-07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR24ocjqsJU i like tim pool for this, but i also support violence
1 tonguelessnitch 2019-06-07
I don't givr a shit about those youtube rightoid retards, but I'm happy that chaportards continue on digging their own grave.
1 Day_of_the_COPE 2019-06-07
Imagine thinking chapocels will get banned. They are the real world jannies of the status quo. They fail so hard at their own revolutionary analogy that the establishment they seek to overthrow runs puff pieces on the horrendous book they shit out lol.
1 tonguelessnitch 2019-06-07
Believe me, some inside agents are trying...ban or at least take over the sub.
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-06-07
Y? They're harmless. It's like when a kitten bites you.
1 Jeb4Pres2020 2019-06-07
Because imagine the absolute explosion of seethe if CTH gets banned while T_D isn't. It'd be so good for dramacoin.
1 Poes_Lawyer_Esq 2019-06-07
tbf the donald is pretty valuable discussion
1 collectijism 2019-06-07
The chapo book is a holocaust denial pamphlet novella for absolute retards.
1 watermark002 2019-06-07
Imagine being a fascist and thinking your not the status quo
1 Day_of_the_COPE 2019-06-07
U need a new handle so people actual bite on these
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-06-07
None of it is bait. Unless you consider his real convictions to be bait.
1 TheColdTurtle 2019-06-07
How do you know this isnt an extreme larp? It really seems like it.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-06-07
Years of observation including outside of this sub. Just trust me.
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
I hope they don't get banned. I just want to see crybabies bitch about the status quo. They already got MDE, so they took the right from me. Goddammit if they think they are going to get the leftwing clone. Next will be the radical centrists, and there was no one left to speak for them, because everyone was throat deep in bussy-juice.
1 lolcows63 2019-06-07
They are vital source of Lolcows
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
They have a hot take every once in a while. The centrist Dems are ripe for the mocking. And the rest? Lolcow material.
1 kaczynskireborn2 2019-06-07
reminder to always upvote (dont report) chaposperghouse users whenever you see them
1 Endless_mining_shaft 2019-06-07
Of course op is a tranny, so there are 40% chances that bullet will go the other way.
1 d4ddyd54m4 2019-06-07
One can only hope
1 volcel_wisdom 2019-06-07
How the fuck do people who need to inject themselves with hormones and dilate themselves several times a day feel they would be able to take part in a violent Bolshevik style revolution?
1 collectijism 2019-06-07
Uhm usually people who shave their face and cut off their penis and think they look like Britney Spears are often prone to other delusions of grandeur
1 volcel_wisdom 2019-06-07
Wow there's not even any way you can spin this... It's a literal targeted death threat against a single person.
At least MDE would put "in Minecraft" afterwords and stuff.
1 duchessHD 2019-06-07
im not one for agendaposting but MDE was baste
bad day for dramacoin when it got canceled but what can you do?
1 watermark002 2019-06-07
Real radical centrist lol đđđ
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-06-07
Tedposting was the only good thing to come from MDE
1 duchessHD 2019-06-07
whats going on big guy?posting and sweatyposting are not to be forgotten
1 wsbking 2019-06-07
Donât forget grillposting :â)
Say what you will about sams retard rightoid cult, at least they could do ironic humor without dipping it in an impenetrable layer of smugness.
1 duchessHD 2019-06-07
i miss those retards
dipposting and YEEYEEposting too i almost forgot đ
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
Me too, brother. Me too.
1 SideFumbling 2019-06-07
I'M JUST TYRING TO GRILL BROTHER
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
sniff sniff, what's that big guy? A BBQ over at mikes?
-Ted, posted from my unaphone
1 peacefulCAfugee 2019-06-07
mde was def going downhill but it and bss were the best things this site ever produced
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
We were the original TopMindsofReddit.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-06-07
YouTube rightards wouldnât be a problem if YouTubeâs algorithm didnât interpret âviewing 15 seconds of a videoâ as âPILE IT ON, THIS DUDE ONLY WANTS TO WATCH BEN SHAPIRO GANGSTER VIDEOSâ
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Tbh the far-right has been using youtube and social media in general to indoctrinate a bunch of idiots.
Youtube is just full of right-wing pseudointellectuals spewing historical illiteracy and other dumb shit. I'm glad they're finally cleaning it up.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-06-07
Opinion disregarded
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm not a yang supporter.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-06-07
Deja vu, I think we had this exact same exchange last week
1 trilateral1 2019-06-07
you just don't like the competition
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I don't enjoy having to slap down rightoids on reddit repeating far-right talking points they don't stand up to 5 minutes of scrutiny.
1 trilateral1 2019-06-07
oh sweaty
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
yes, sweatykins?
1 collectijism 2019-06-07
Yeah if I were you I wouldnât want everyone able to tell true history like your dear leader Che killed fags. Especially weird looking non passable trannies
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Find a single comment I have ever made in which I endorsed communism.
1 tHeSiD 2019-06-07
If you don't support nazis you are a communist.
1 collectijism 2019-06-07
This medicine tastes salty sir.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-06-07
imagine larping as a retard
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Yeah, better to let rightoids run rampant on the internet repeating absurdly false things uncontested.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-06-07
QUIT DOWNVOTING THE RETARD LOLCOWS YOU MONGS
1 collectijism 2019-06-07
The best way to tell your bussy is blasted? You downvote stuff
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
If I cared what uneducated dramatards tthought, I'd probably take you more seriously tbh.
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
Imagine thinking you're smart because you can google and copypasta buzzfeed opinions. Hit the showers yangpede. BTW yangpede might be the cringiest name I've seen on drama.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Can you please point out in which comment I've copy pasted from buzzfeed in?
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
I'm not a fellow neet so I don't I have the time, but don't play coy. You know exactly what I am talking about.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
So that's a "I decided to play ideological bingo on the internet, made an accusation I couldn't support, and after failing to find anything to prove my claim true in your post history, I'm going to call you a neet and imply said comment exists without ever linking it."
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
Everyone on this sub has got your number IDF. Cheers to being able to use google, just remember, your mom is likely right more often than you are.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Still waiting for that buzzfeed opinion.
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
You are the Carlos maas of reddit, living in your own little world. If I wanted to be a dick I'd point out that you just linked the NYtimes as evidence. Maybe you should go back to arguing with retarded rightoids.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
What in my new york times article is factually incorrect?
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
We talking about the Holocaust denying NY times? It may have had some legitimacy at some time, but it is nothing but a highly partisan rag, at this point.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
A) Show me the NY times "denying the holocaust."
B) Again, what in my article is factually incorrect?
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buried_by_the_Times
Read this book
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I know about this, you said holocaust denial, not shady reporting by the jewish publisher of the times, during world war 2.
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
You read that book quickly!
>
What did The New York Times report about the Holocaust and how did its coverage affect Americaâs response to the Nazi genocide?
Throughout World War II, the American media published and broadcast timely, detailed, and accurate accounts of what was happening to the Jews in Europe. The New York Timesalone printed nearly 1,200 articles about what we have now come to call the Holocaust, about one every other day.
The articles in the Times and elsewhere described the propagation of anti-Semitic laws in German allied countries; death from disease and starvation of hundreds of thousands in ghettos and labor camps; mass executions in Nazi-occupied Russia; and mass gassings in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek. The articles also indicated that these were not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic campaign to kill all the Jews in Europe.
And yet, at the end of the war and for decades afterward, Americans claimed they did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening. How was it possible for so much information to be available in the mass media and yet simultaneously for the public to be ignorant?
The reason is that the American media in general and the New York Times in particular never treated the Holocaust as an important news story. From the start of the war in Europe to its end nearly six years later, the story of the Holocaust made the Times front page only 26 times out of 24,000 front-page stories, and most of those stories referred to the victims as ârefugeesâ or âpersecuted minorities.â In only six of those stories were Jews identified on page one as the primary victims.
Nor did the story lead the paper, appearing in the right-hand column reserved for the dayâs most important news â not even when the concentration camps were liberated at the end of the war. In addition, the Times intermittently and timidly editorialized about the extermination of the Jews, and the paper rarely highlighted it in either the Week in Review or the magazine section.
What kept American journalists from recognizing the significance of the systematic murder of six million people? Worldwide carnage on an unprecedented scale helped obscure the Jewsâ plight. There was also skepticism bred by fake atrocity reports during the previous world war. The Roosevelt Administrationâs determination to downplay the news also contributed to the subdued coverage. But the media had enough credible information to treat the news of the extermination of the Jews as important. And the New York Timesplayed a critical role in why it didnât.
For no American news organization was better positioned to highlight the Holocaust than the Times, and no American news organization so influenced public discourse by its failure to do so.
Because of its longtime commitment to international affairs, its willingness to sacrifice advertising rather than articles in the face of a newsprint crunch, and its substantial Jewish readership, the Times was able to obtain and publish more news about what was happening to the Jews than other mainstream newspapers. In addition, Jews of German descent owned the Times and thus knew the fate of family members, some of whom they sponsored to immigrate to the States, some of whom they didnât. The familyâs deep, if not always amicable involvement with the American Jewish community also led the Times to learn much about the Jewsâ situation.
So the New York Times was less likely than other news organizations to miss what was happening to the Jews. But it was also more likely to dismiss its significance. Fearful of accusations of special pleading or dual loyalties, the newspaper hesitated to highlight the news. In addition, the newspaperâs Jewish publisher believed that Jews were neither a racial nor ethnic group, and therefore should not be identified as Jews for any other than religious reasons. He also believed that Americans would only want to help Jews if their cause was melded with that of other persecuted people. He therefore ensured that his paper universalized the Nazisâ victims in editorials and on the front page.
The result: The New York Times was in touch with European Jewsâ suffering, which accounts for its 1,000-plus stories on the Final Solutionâs steady progress. Yet, it deliberately de-emphasized the Holocaust news, reporting it in isolated, inside stories. The few hundred words about the Nazi genocide the Times published every couple days were hard to find amidst a million other words in the newspaper. Times readers could legitimately have claimed not to have known, or at least not to have understood, what was happening to the Jews.
The Timesâs judgment that the murder of millions of Jews was a relatively unimportant story also reverberated among other journalists trying to assess the news, among Jewish groups trying to arouse public opinion, and among government leaders trying to decide on an American response. It partly explains the general apathy and inaction that greeted the news of the Holocaust.
We do not know how many Jews might have been saved had the Times acted differently. We do know, however, that the possibilities for rescue were never truly tested.
It is also clear that had the Times and other news organizations decided that the extermination of the Jews was important, the paper could have and should have highlighted it, regardless of whether it would have saved lives. The press alone could not have altered the currents of public discourse that swamped the news of the Jewsâ destruction, and certainly a single newspaper by itself could not have accomplished that. Still, the Times had a moral and professional obligation to do more than be swept along with the tide.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-07
No, don't reply like this, please do another wall of unhinged rant please.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Again, where in this quote of yours does it claim that the new york times denied the holocaust?
Yeah, really sounds like they were denying the Holocaust. I can't tell if you're actually illiterate or this is a troll.
Furthermore, I'm still waiting, what in the article I linked was factually incorrect?
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
Imagine thinking anyone would click a NYtimes article. They had polls about whether or not it was real sowing doubt. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS823US823&q=ny+times+denies+holocaust&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD0sDNhNjiAhWQg-AKHRvICYEQsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=XRRWd7dwpR8YDM:
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I literally quoted your own source.
Does this seem like holocaust denial?
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
The poll posted above was obvious Holocaust denial propaganda. Imagine defending this fake news rag so vigorously.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I copy pasted your own source back to you.
You literally cited a source that refuted your own point.
And one more time, what in the article I linked is factually incorrect?
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
Again, imagine thinking I would click that smut. Go to college IDFshill, then come back to me with your nonsense.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
In case you guys were wondering, that's a "I couldn't find anything wrong with your article, but my worldview depends on dismissing and hand-waving any and all facts that say I'm wrong."
Classic dropper.
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
Hahah you think I'm that sperg. Plenty of people think youre a retard, believe me.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I don't know, citing a source that refutes your own argument is pretty retarded.
Failing to explain what in an article linked is wrong after implying it was wrong is strong evidence of retardation as well.
1 PoopShowPass 2019-06-07
Call it w/e you want, but white knighting for a putrid rag like the NYtimes is pretty pathetic. Next time just link something more credible. It's no different than the fact that I could have just linked a zerohedge article about the times, that has 'facts', but used better judgement. I think with a little help you could be a lot better at this IDFshill.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Again, what in the article I linked was not correct?
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-06-07
C O P E
1 Jeb4Pres2020 2019-06-07
Based.
1 ReBurnInator 2019-06-07
MEGA đ CORPORATIONS đ AREN'T đ THE đ GOVERNMENT đ THEY đ CAN đ DO đ WHAT đ THEY đ WANT
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
The boot doesn't just taste good. It taste Grrrreeeat.
1 Woolgun 2019-06-07
You deserve that for watching any remotely political YT video.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I argue with conspiratards a lot and click their links.
1 Woolgun 2019-06-07
>watches conspiracy videos a lot
>complains about "muh recommendations"
Literally asking for it. It just proves that YT recommendations work, since they suggest you content similar to the one you watch.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-06-07
This guy is a self admitted Russia truther too! đ
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
That's dedication right there. This guys an animal!
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
If I don't watch the videos, how am I going to win the arguments? Invariably they're all false, but I have to know what they're saying in order to refute it.
1 Woolgun 2019-06-07
Well for one, I'd tell you to not waste your time refuting some random people's arguments but we all spend our time doing dumb illogical activities.
But you wrote a comment complaining about your recommendations, which is stupid since only you yourself are responsible for how bad they are.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Waste of time is subjective, what people do in their free time for entertainment is subjective.
1 AnarchoTaylorist 2019-06-07
But then why do you watch the videos at all if you are upset that Youtube has done nothing about them so far?
Kinda seems like a self-inflicted punishment on your own part. Just close your eyes my man.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm not the issue, the issue is dumb ass kids getting indoctrinated in right-wing propaganda on youtube because they're very vulnerable to emotional appeals and don't fact check anything they hear.
1 LightUmbra 2019-06-07
Use incognito mode.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-06-07
Yangpede did you see how they have been attacking actual decent journalist Carlos maas of Vox? Not only is yt infested with rightoids, who should all be deplatformed, but they have the gall to verbally assault the few decent journalists telling the truth about climate change and the nazi threat we face on a daily basis!
1 CallousSnake 2019-06-07
Explain the difference between Nazis and Commies.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
You didn't respond to anything I said, but I'll still respond to this I guess.
From the anatomy of fascism:
And Richard evens sums it up even better:
Furthermore, you can see the differences when you look at how pows were treated. Communism (I assume you're talking about the soviet union) was more ideological, more based in a doctrine, nazism was more so about ones sworn racial enemies, as Evans writes in the 3rd reich trilogy:
There's a difference between authoritarianism and fascism.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-07
Have you owned the libs yet?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 CallousSnake 2019-06-07
So according to you the main difference between the Nazis and Commies was that the Nazis were racist...
Cool. That's what we've been saying for years. Racism has nothing to do with left/right so it's totally fair to say that the Nazis were indeed left wing.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
No, the main difference is that fascism is not a coherent ideology, does not have a doctrine, and is more so a set of emotional traits.
And no, you're just wrong. No credible historian, nobody with any formal education on this subject believes that. I can direct you to another comment I made, with even more on this:
https://np.reddit.com/r/QualitySocialism/comments/bxh5dc/the_goal_of_socialism_is_communism_national/eq9l5xl/
The conservatives levered Hitler into power for a reason.
1 CallousSnake 2019-06-07
Hahah, linking to a commie sub and expecting me to take you seriously.
The Nazis introduced socialised healthcare, took control over private business and killed people who spoke out against them.
How is that different from communism?
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
That's an anti-commie sub, actually, the comments is me putting them down.
Nice try though.
Socialized healthcare isn't "left-wing" dude. The political right in Europe actually started adopting socialized medicine in an effort to hold the left off. At some point you should probably try to learn that the overton window shifts based on region and time period.
Also, the nazis were pretty friendly with private business, which is why many industrialists supported them.
You're also right, they did kill people that spoke out against them, mainly the political left, the socialists, the communists, the liberals.
See above.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-07
Posts like this is why I do Heroine.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 SideFumbling 2019-06-07
Read Evola
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I prefer Paxton, Gregor, or Evans.
1 SideFumbling 2019-06-07
Totally irrelevant since no 2 communist movements are the same. Leninism, Maoism, &c.
Read Evola.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Not irrelevant, again, as Paxton says:
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-07
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 SideFumbling 2019-06-07
I will celebrate when Paxton kicks the bucket and I stop having his trash books quoted at me by teenage commie blowhards.
Read Evola first, and then we'll chat.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Copy paste a single comment I've ever made that endorses communism.
Also, you realize Paxton is one of the most respected authors on this subject, correct?
I get you're likely a moron, but spamming "read evola" is worthless. I don't care what fascists say, what fascists say has little to do with what fascists do.
1 SideFumbling 2019-06-07
And that's why you're a virginal seriousposter on a Oaxacan gossip messageboard. The beauty of fascism is that the core principles are rock solid and everything else gravy. I love it, as do millions of others, and there's literally nothing you can do about it.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Fascism is not "rock solid" outside of the underlying emotional traits and Darwinian bullshit.
1 SideFumbling 2019-06-07
read evola
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
I did, and now I've got a hankerin' for a calzone.
1 Throwaway847756438 2019-06-07
I dunno about you guys, but I'm pretty sold.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-06-07
lmao is that how you say that they know how to appeal to people more than you
as opposed to the lefts genuine intellectuals like contrapoints amirite
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
The dumbest leftoid is a genius compared to morons like Crowder.
It's pretty easy to appeal to people using demagoguery, falsehoods, and historical illiteracy.
Not really sure what your point is. Just because something is appealing does not mean it is logically sound or factually correct.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-06-07
lol have you seen breadtube or chapos
sounds like youre jealous that your falsehoods and historical illiteracy didnt have the same effect huh
it means we can shut your stupid shit down through popular belief and turn you into a meme regardless of whos right or wrong
its me btw im right
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Watch this.
What falsehood have I repeated, what historical illiteracy have I repeated?
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-06-07
the same ones as all modern american lefties presumably
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Copy paste one of my "lies" copy paste some of my "historical illiteracy."
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
It's Not real Socialism because Socialists never kill socialists and commies
Lmao Your so dumb for being such a serious poster
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
No, it's not socialism because it was primarily a far-right, anti-socialist movement.
We can go into this if you want, it's actually a favorite topic of mine and I have all of the books on hand.
We'll start out easy.
A) Why did conservatives lever Hitler into power?
B) Why were the steel helmets marching along side the nazis?
C) What does the following say:
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-07
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
My god no you fucking sperg
Why would I argue with someone who knows so fucking little about this topic they don't even know where the computers to count people for the Holocaust came from.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Yeah, the guy citing well respected academic work saying you're wrong is the one that knows "so fucking little on the topic" not the historically illiterate internet rightoid.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
Right, why don't you first look up what I'm talking about since you have no fucking clue than look up what happened to that German Branch than get back to me?
You still haven't actually addressed what I said just flailed around with your copy paste talking points retard.
You get to a normal person this sentence is just REEEEE right?
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Your argument has no relevance to the question at hand. Again, explain to me, why were the steel Helmets marching with the nazis, why did the German conservatives lever Hitler into power?
Furthermore, why did Von Papan lever Hitler into power, a man that was interested in "uniting the right."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJones2005205-37
Do you have a response to any of this?
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-07
If only you could put that energy into your relationships
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
You complete fucking retard you asked for times you've ever been wrong.
You've actually fucking forgotten that even with me quoting it for you.
Why are you surprised you don't know about Business it should be normal for you, no wonder you can only communicate with Copy Pasts.
Boy you are going to be just fucking shocked when I say I never said the Nazis were the left and you are literally so retarded you can't even function on reddit.
Feel free to quote me saying that, you just titanic mental juggernaut.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
What? You'll have to catch me up on whatever the fuck it is you're talking about.
See above.
Again, no clue what you are talking about.
Yes you did, actually. You literally responded to me in this thread, quoting me mocking conservatives for claiming the nazis were left wing. In fact, you even tossed out a "no real socialism" in your response, cleary implying they were left-wing:
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
Keep thinking about it, maybe you'll learn but I bet you'll just declare this "argument" "won" like all your other victories guy who is so retarded he can't remember something that happened 20mins ago.
That you are too fucking dumb to be able to infer things. You are literally so dumb you don't realize how dumb you are it's amazing, no wonder you always "pwn roitoids with logic" because everyone who argues with you is on the right and no person would ever make fun of not real socialism.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I say nazis weren't socialist or left-wing.
You respond with a "not real socialism" very clearly implying that the nazis were socialist, and therefore left-wing.
I present multiple arguments, with citations for the things I'm saying.
You then respond that you never claimed they were socialist or left-wing.
I honestly can't tell if this is you attempting to troll, or save face after realizing you couldn't refute anything I said.
I don't know who it is you think you're fooling, I don't even know if english is your first language, but you absolutely tried to imply that the nazis were in fact socialist, and therefore left-wing.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
You literally asked for times you've been wrong I provided them and you didn't know what I was talking about, that's a literal thing that happened you absolute moron.
No wonder you brag about winning ever online argument unironically you're a complete sperg who can't even handle someone saying socialism bad without copypasting lmao
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I have no fucking clue what you're talking about, again, you'll have to expand on whatever it is you're talking about.*
I don't give a shit about socialism. You very clearly, and I mean very clearly tried to imply nazism was left-wing or socialist. That is a factually incorrect view, and I responded to it.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
Wow you don't remember something you said? if only you could go back and look at posts on reddit.
You're so smart you can't figure out what direct quotes of you saying things that are wrong mean, no wonder you also are beating up a strawman of of something i've already told you I never said.
Are you a Pizzashill alt?
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Again, I have no clue what you are talking about. All I know here is you very clearly tried to claim the nazis were socialist.
I'll tell you what, copy paste where I was wrong, link me to the comment.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
So you are Pizzashill
I claimed saying a group killed Socialists so it can't be Socialist when Socialists kill Socialists all the time is wrong, it's called a joke, no wonder you sperged out over it.
Or you could just use your genius IQ to navigate reddit instead of having me baby you Pizzashill lmao it really is you, how did leaving this place forever work out for you?
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'll give you one more reply to copy paste in which comment I was wrong.
I'm not interested in this weird reality denial where you pretend you weren't implying the nazis were socialists, even your excuse here doesn't work because I listed multiple reasons why they weren't.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
Oh you'll give me?
You just can't find it yourself. Because you are Pizzashill and you are just this predictably stupid.
You listed reasons why you have autism yes I agree. Steel Helmets have a ton to do with what I was talking about and wasn't a random sperg out at all.
You know just so much about 1940s German businesses how could anyone know more about that topic than you.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
Alright, it's obvious you have no ability to support anything you've said here, due to your profound illiteracy, cognitive problems, and blatant mental illness, I will have to dismiss you.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
lol Classic Pizzashill, you aren't even embarrassed at being this predictably incompetent. because you can't find something means it doesn't exist but at least if you insult me you don't have to actually address a single point I made this entire fucking conversation and admit you are wrong.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm sorry, you were dismissed for failing to support your claims and general reality denial.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
You're the one who keeps talking to me you fucking retard who can't even use reddit.
Failing to support my claim that you don't know about IBM's German Branch god you are just the biggest sperg no wonder you have to warp reality to your needs and call literally everyone else dumb.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm sorry, you were dismissed for failing to support your claims and general reality denial.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
Dude please stop talking to me telling me how i'm dismissed this is actually just pathetic at this point and no longer funny. I've already told you twice.
I know you are too autistic to ever admit you are wrong and I shouldn't have goaded you like this.
Please go tell someone else they've been dismissed now.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm sorry, you were dismissed for failing to support your claims and general reality denial.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
Please stop, you are literally so autistic using a diff username doesn't cover up how dumb you are.
Please please stop talking to me, I have no interest in what a retard who doesn't know how to use reddit than fights with me over a post he claims he can't find for a literal day has to say.
Stop filling my inbox with cope posts.
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm sorry, you were dismissed for failing to support your claims and general reality denial.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
k
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm sorry, you were dismissed for failing to support your claims and general reality denial.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-06-07
yikes
1 zhcyiD9-png 2019-06-07
lol a fucking yanger calling anyone else indoctrinated
1 yangpede 2019-06-07
I'm not a yang supporter you retard, it's a name mocking them.
1 EyeseeFN 2019-06-07
Whats a political ideology that murders journalist called?
1 VicisSubsisto 2019-06-07
I think the official name is "Not Real Communism Real Communism Has Never Been Tried".
1 khmerspooge 2019-06-07
But it hasn't, we've really come a long way as a society since then. Now we have milkshakes.
1 zhcyiD9-png 2019-06-07
my milkshake brings all the kulaks to the yard
1 icefourthirtythree 2019-06-07
It means fig you dolt
1 Mamalgam 2019-06-07
This is pretty funny to be fair
1 collectijism 2019-06-07
Itâs funny cause itâs true Che their leader would have killed all his followers if he could see who the chapo users were in real life
1 SlowlyDying- 2019-06-07
Whatâs wrong with Tim pool lmao heâs left leaning just not a progressive.
1 watermark002 2019-06-07
What the fuck does left leaving just not a progressive even mean? Progressive is a meaningless term that a person doesn't even have to be left wing to use. If anything it's more right wing than liberal and liberal is right wing.
1 S0m4b0dy 2019-06-07
Left leaning = center / slightly towards the left
Progressive = Middle of the left line
1 zhcyiD9-png 2019-06-07
left-leaning = not a nazi
progressive = tankie
keep up now
1 Drama_banned_me 2019-06-07
What did Tim do?
1 icyartillery 2019-06-07
He didnât toe the line
1 watermark002 2019-06-07
Fascist
1 reeeditor 2019-06-07
He dared to film public things happening.
1 MacAndShits 2019-06-07
Be left of Stalin
1 Genuinetruthseeker 2019-06-07
You mean right you fuckin retard
1 MacAndShits 2019-06-07
Being retarded is part of my act. Except it's not an act.
1 watermark002 2019-06-07
He issued carefully edited propaganda supporting the position of organizations calling for the genocide of Muslims.
1 CallousSnake 2019-06-07
You should really get a new account mate, we've cottonned on to you.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-06-07
muslims should be genocided change my view
1 jolene_w_ 2019-06-07
It's like they want their subreddit to be banned
1 reeeditor 2019-06-07
BUT WHAT ABOUT /r/THE_DONALD? WHY ISN'T IT BANNED?
BUT WHAT ABOUT /r/THE_DONALD? WHY ISN'T IT BANNED?
BUT WHAT ABOUT /r/THE_DONALD? WHY ISN'T IT BANNED?
BUT WHAT ABOUT /r/THE_DONALD? WHY ISN'T IT BANNED?
BUT WHAT ABOUT /r/THE_DONALD? WHY ISN'T IT BANNED?
BUT WHAT ABOUT /r/THE_DONALD? WHY ISN'T IT BANNED?
BUT WHAT ABOUT /r/THE_DONALD? WHY ISN'T IT BANNED?
1 watermark002 2019-06-07
When I talk about the guillotines to the rich, it's not a threat, it's a warning. You can continue plugging your ears and just banning everyone who says anything about it if you want, don't go whining to me though when the blade comes falling down.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-06-07
WATERMARK WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO WARN YOU?
I swear to God I will never forgive you if you turn me into Titrc with you as Davidme.
1 ItsSugar 2019-06-07
REMINDER: 40%...
OF CTH USERS LIVE WITH THEIR PARENTS
1 QuantumFreakonomics 2019-06-07
There is literally nothing wrong with living with your parents
1 TheColdTurtle 2019-06-07
This. But when you are a chapo who constantly screeches that private property should be abandoned you should be mocked. Also they probably don't work and have no understanding of how life is really like alone, giving them no real reference for life.
1 zhcyiD9-png 2019-06-07
you mean communists want to murder journalists?
pikachuface.jpg
1 collectijism 2019-06-07
You guys ban me for np links but damn at least it isnât an entire removed comment section. Whoâs got the remove reddit link? I want some dramacoin
1 TheColdTurtle 2019-06-07
Ugh allfugee doesnt know about snappy