Hey Jerome, you socialist faggot.

[kthx]

Just wanted to ask you if you started making more from the tax cuts yet?

Also isn't that faggot cuck leader from Canada the absolute worst? I mean I know you hate Trump but could you imagine having that faggot as your PM or president?

Also how was your weekend man?

[Jerome Scuggs]

i remember when april 15th was the tax deadline and idk why people have been filing earlier and earlier but i'll be damned if i even give a shit before april 10th

though idk if i even have to pay taxes for 2017, i spent most of the year living off stock dividends so i could do that capitalist thing where i say i "worked hard" for my money while doing no work and cashing out every month. lucky me went hard in the fedex employee stock purchase program over a 5-year time period where fedex stock went from like 80 bucks to over 200 so that worked out super fuckin well

justin trudeau is trash and no amount of idpol pandering will change that & the Left has hated this guy for quite some time, so welcome to the party https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...isaster-planet

it's mardi gras season here so you know how the weekends be

[Jerome Scuggs]

Yeah, I knew someone whose personal pronoun was "D". It was quite annoying, but this was while much of this was still new and people just sort of went with it. Was awkward, to say the least.

The law that Peterson's talking about he's claiming would make using the wrong pronoun a crime. Whether or not that's actually correct is not something I have the ability to judge. It's what he believes is happening, and that's why he opposes it.

To say the far left or far right are inherently authoritarian doesn't make any sense, agreed. Or that identity politics are limited to any particular group, ideology or way of thinking.

One thing that has distanced me from identifying with leftist politics in recent years is the increasingly authoritarian bent of some of those who claim to be left-leaning (but are often just following identity politics on social issues and are usually fairly right-wing in terms of economic issues) -- what I guess you could refer to the mainstream left. The people who watch Colbert, guffaw at every Trump joke and are quick to post how disgusted they are whenever anyone says anything that's a bit out of line with respectable society. The people who always vote for the Democrats, often as a vote against Republicans.

The alternative to that crowd seems to be the hyper-ideological left. They're happy to argue, but mostly just in the context of which branch of Communism you think will cause the workers of the world to unite. Most love tight rhetoric and violent revolution with no plans for who does the dishes afterward.

I don't really see a takeover from either the right or left authoritarians, but I do see more polarization. And it feels as if antiauthoritarianism is becoming a sort of social faux pas. If you're not willing to regulate speech or condemn the other side as subhuman scum, you're a traitor. Talking with the "enemy" or considering that they could have a point is heretical. This doesn't mean you have to identify with a particular set of beliefs, but at the very least, you can't say anything that might be construed as something "those guys" would believe. Maybe negative belief, what Nietzsche called slave morality, bound together not so much by what you believe is good as what you hate.

the reason i cant buy peterson's larger points is because he really goes lengths to talk shit about alot of postmodern authors i've read and enjoyed, and in doing so i think he shows just how much he fails to understand the concepts these pomo fucks were pushing

like in the example you've shown, i think you sort of show why the concern is illusory: you knew someone who did it while "this was new" and to that extent noone can argue that yeah, individuals gonna be individuals and you're gonna see stuff like that. but at the same time i also think it's obvious that this is not what the more recent and more public trans acceptance movement has been about. and this sort of strikes at the core of one of my problems with peterson: he really wants to prove some sort of "cultural marxism" is out there ruining society but he continues to use examples that aren't really indicative of more overall, widespread trends.

i cant even begin to explain how deep and truly insightful the left's views on authoritarianism are... because the Left's entire existence is predicated on a rejection of authoritarianism, if you trace the idea of "leftism" through its etymological roots. conversely, the right wing embraces authoritarianism basically any time it aligns with their personal views. this is why the anti-immigrant Right has let ICE become a terrifyingly fascist group within America, not to mention the same folks allowing the NSA to tap into basically everything in the wake of post-9/11 hysteria. edit: and it sort of forces me to take extreme views on the opposite side because, for example, people are 100% okay with letting ICE just shit on the constitution because those people have a problem with immigrants, and in my frustration and love of sarcasm i shitpost stuff like "erase all borders and let 'em all come here" which leads us to the problem i mention in my edit below. but seriously though, i cant stress enough how ICE is very much literally and figuratively acting like a modern day Gestapo.

but there's a very real paradox here, which is: revolutions are inherently authoritarian. they just are and no successful revolution was able to succeed without some very dubious application of centrally-mandated force. but that being said, i very much trust the people who are aware of this to handle it if and when the time comes, as opposed to modern right-wingers who can't think beyond terms like "big" or "small" government, who speak of revolutions and/or "refreshing the tree of liberty with blood" etc yet don't know even the simplest concepts about literal real-world revolution.

edit 3: a very real-world example that i've witnessed in this regard is the Right-wing circlejerk over the 2nd amendment. guns guns guns guns guns will stop THE TYRANTS. meanwhile the Left considers the true point of the 2nd amendment to be a guarantee to organize an armed resistance. you can have all the guns in the world but if you can't form an organized, competent group to translate that firepower into successful resistance, it means nothing. This is why the Left is all about organizing and this is why the Right hates organizing, whether it be attempts to get rid of unions, or attempts to disrupt and mock protesting.

(i should point out here that personally i do hope for a political/nonviolent change as opposed to revolution but i also am 100% fine embracing whatever method leads to what i consider the best path for society, which leads us to the paradox above)

anyways to sort of tie these two thoughts together: yeah there are kooks on the left but i don't see these kooks who advocate arresting people for misgendering folks or whatever, gaining popular platforms or spawning significant movements. they're sensationalized by the media and by their ideological opponents and us on the left just sort of laugh+ignore them into irrelevance. however, when you look at the right, you see the radicals among them, the kooks, you see them gaining mainstream popularity, being elected to positions of power, getting prime time tv slots. and to me, i think it's obvious which one is, pragmatically, the bigger threat to the average american.

e: oh yeah i should also mention that meme culture and irony poisoning have led to alot of problems with really trying to nail down any ideology's premises. my brother, pave, is like 100% into the whole MAGA hat wearing, build-the-wall yelling pro-trump thing but when you sit down and talk to him he really doesnt care about that shit and would even advocate for a single payer health system. Conversely there's alot of "tankies" who like, post about how stalin did nothing wrong and how the DPRK is glorious and perfect et cetera but really just want like, bernie sanders to be president or something

that's a whole 'nother conversation that i think about fucking all the time because i wonder how modern historians are supposed to dig through gigaflops of internet posts and use them as evidence that people thought or said this or that at certain points in time. like how will future historians separate the truthfeels from the ironyposting, shit like that

[kthx]

Figured it was about time for a new thread, don't want Eph's posts getting buried in this bullshit.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Figured it was about time for a new thread, don't want Eph's posts getting buried in this bullshit.

i suspected this is why you started this thread lol

it was tearing me apart having to derail eph's thread, but the alternative was NOT replying to posts???? as if i would do that

and i feel dumb as shit that the idea of just starting a new thread flew right by me

[kthx]

Starting new threads is sorta my thing, I don't even feel like arguing tonight I am too tired and this coffee isn't really doing the trick. I mean I am arguing a little bit but with dipshits on reddit who all have the political and societal understanding ff your friend on the phone or someone like Jessup. Usually these actually require my full attention at the very least.

[kthx]

For instance someone just told me that Trump branded his name well and because of that he used my argument to prove that Nazi's and Islam did the same thing and therefore Trump isn't smart. Now I am schooling people on the fact that being intelligent isn't always about sounding smart but doing smart things, and there are different types of intelligence. So if you think Trump is an idiot but he just uses smart people to do his bidding that it reflects poorly on their argument as hiring the right people to do the job the way you see it is a skill in itself.

[Jerome Scuggs]

For instance someone just told me that Trump branded his name well and because of that he used my argument to prove that Nazi's and Islam did the same thing and therefore Trump isn't smart. Now I am schooling people on the fact that being intelligent isn't always about sounding smart but doing smart things, and there are different types of intelligence. So if you think Trump is an idiot but he just uses smart people to do his bidding that it reflects poorly on their argument as hiring the right people to do the job the way you see it is a skill in itself.

i 100% agree with this because i am all kinds of stupid throughout the day, but i've had enough people tell me i'm smart to realize there are different things people consider stupid, smart, etc

but also this is a nice time to post this tweet because i randomly just saw it and it ties together 1) a point i made about the overt right-wing direction this country has been on for quite some time as well as 2) showing the varied degrees of stupid



in particular trump's stupidity comes from the same place of ignorance that any white-collar person has: they simply don't have access to the society and culture the rest of us participate in. he genuinely thinks all DREAMers are MS-13 plants, that chicago is a war zone, that immigration is at an all time high, that cutting taxes inexplicably creates a good economy - these are all views symptomatic of people who watch too much tv and don't spend enough time walking down a street

i'm not ignoring, for example, the problems we face from things like gangs or gun violence in urban areas - i just have a more realistic perspective on what causes and what could solve these things, and i think anything trump (or any congressman for that matter) has put forward so far in terms of legislation reflects this obvious ignorance and lack of effort.

i hate to speculate but i would bet money that if you asked donald trump who the most persecuted people in america today are, he would reply with "the christians"

how smart he actually is or isn't is irrelevant when the facts clearly show he's clearly getting shitty information from somewhere, which if i had to make another bet i would say is 'fox&friends'

[kthx]

I don't think that he thinks those things at all. We have come to a point in our country where the culture is deteriorating, and now isn't really the time to be purposefully bringing in lots of people from other cultures to help muddy the waters. At a certain point America stops being America if we don't (pardon my risk terminology here) but stop and fortify. We need to give the people here a chance to actually become ingrained in American culture, to become Americans because there are too many people running around waving Mexican flags saying that they have the RIGHT to be here when they don't. What Trump is trying to do I believe is to bring back what made American the great country it was to begin with. Bring back the pride, the hard work, the ingenuity, the civil responsibility that made us such a powerhouse to begin with. Everything else economically and politically aside we are losing our way of life through culture deterioration. That is easy to see whether on TV or walking down the street, schools putting up BLM flags, kneeling for the anthem, and even in your case disrespect for what our country was and why we have it so well off here.

[kthx]

I mean I know you study history a bit Jerome, can you really not see the similarities between the fall of various empires in earths history to the way that America has become in recent years? If we didn't live in the age of Nuclear Weapons and technological superiority would we still even be an united country anymore? Would barbarians be at our gates on all sides like vultures, waiting to pick at the rotten core of our country?

[kthx]

I also have no problem with the re militarization of our country or for the religious like respect our military gets. I have no problem having military parades, or having flyovers at sporting events or any of that. I don't see why it bothers anyone to be honest.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I mean I know you study history a bit Jerome, can you really not see the similarities between the fall of various empires in earths history to the way that America has become in recent years? If we didn't live in the age of Nuclear Weapons and technological superiority would we still even be an united country anymore? Would barbarians be at our gates on all sides like vultures, waiting to pick at the rotten core of our country?

I think this in particular shows a very wrong side of history that is very inaccurate

I sense that you're most likely referring to the idea that "the romans basically opened the gates and let the barbarians in" version of The Roman Collapse narrative but it really sort of falls apart when you look at a fuckload of factors... starting with the fact that "the roman empire" was literally an empire built on a very diverse menagerie of cultures and societies FAR more diverse than even the most polar opposite cities in america today, and wrapping up with an examination of empires such as the mongols, the ottomans, the chinese that managed to flourish because of, and not in spite of, a massive amount of exposure to cultures and societies that were far more extreme than whatever "sharia law ms-13 hezbollah" spectre that conservatives think is infecting this country

[kthx]

Most civilizations die from cancer looming on the inside not from attacks from the outside, at least until the cancer weakens the body enough. I am saying that anti american culture in general is that cancer whether it be from any source.

[Leland]

canada #1

[kthx]

for fucking soyboys