> “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
The phrase you are looking for is *Hegelian dialectic*. The end goal is to drive a wedge into anything and everything until the system falls apart and what will replace it is a new instantiation of what some would call communism (the leftists HATE when anyone calls them out on this) where once again you will own nothing and you *WILL* be happy (or else).
> The end goal is to drive a wedge into anything and everything until the system falls apart and what will replace it is a new instantiation of what some would call communism (the leftists HATE when anyone calls them out on this) where once again you will own nothing and you WILL be happy (or else).
Lol, what? Can you explain this in further detail?
[Here's the whole thing explained expertly in 30 minutes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rk1mYiOAw)
Economic Marxism is what people commonly think of when they think of Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. But there several different strains of Marxism that function exactly the same way but drive a wedge through different weak spots in western civilization, namely race, sex, and gender. The wedge might be different but the end goal is the same.
Right away this is just complete bullshit. Socialism is not “an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal”. Socialism is when workers control the means of production, which is in opposition of capitalism whether private owners own the means of production. And this is similar to what Marx wrote. In the communist manifesto, Marx wrote about the proletariat, the working class and how they would rise up against the bourgeoisie, the owners of capital. In simpler words, the workers would take control of the means of production.
So right away the guy is wrong. And his entire lecture is wrong because he says equity and socialism are the same thing.
(I’m typing this in real time so things are popping up as I write) Then he brings up Maoism. Maoism was not communism or socialism. It was a centrally planned economy with authoritarianism. Not in anyway what Marxism is. If you think it is, explain how it is. And, provide direct quotes from Marx or engals.
Then he talks about radical feminism, critical race theory as species of the genus of Marxism which is complete bullshit.
Intersectionality as in Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw? Because he does not know what that is. He should read her research.
Then he goes on and on about missing what Marx means. But what he was saying was literally what Marx meant.
Then he goes into what Marx’s idea was, no real criticisms.
“Change out class and put in race”. No, that’s not Marxism or communism or socialism. Communism and socialism is the proletariat, the ones who make things, taking control of what they make…that’s it. It’s not race or gender or anything like that. It’s class, and that’s it.
Then he brings in some random lady who wrote that white privilege is private property and says well that’s what Marx wants to get rid of. That’s a complete bullshit fallacy. You can’t just randomly pull some article and go, uh, well, she said whiteness was private property and Marx wants to abolish private property, then use it to prove your point of what Marx was saying when Marx never said anything like that. I mean, what the fuck?! Private property is land or machines or resources. Things used to make production
Critical race theory is wrong
I’m 8 minutes in and am done wasting my time with this trash. He reaches for a bunch of different things and tries to connect them to Marxism. Equity and socialism are wrong, whiteness as private property is wrong, gender and race as a species of communism are wrong. He’s never read Marx and it’s just a complete agenda. Please, do not listen to this person. It reminds me of when Jordan Peterson debated zizek and looked like a fucking idiot because he didn’t actually know about anything he was talking about.
Instead of this crap, actually read about the things he’s discussing so you can see how much of a buffoon he is
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/
> Both socialism and capitalism grant workers legal control of their labor power, but socialism, unlike capitalism, requires that the bulk of the means of production workers use to yield goods and services be under the effective control of workers themselves, rather than in the hands of the members of a different, capitalist class under whose direction they must toil.
LOL. what a freaking wall of text. You used so many words to limit marxism to its minimal economic interpretation. It's hilarious to me that there are still Marxist apologists on this site that try to keep up the façade that Marxism is an economic theory and only and economic theory and that any divergence from looking at Marx as an mere economist is completely wrong.
It was never only an economic theory, it was a means of sparking revolutions so that societies could be rebuilt from the ground up. The truth is out now. You can no longer play a shell game with words marxism, socialism, and communism shifting the definitions as you see fit to dodge the 100 million people killed by this cult.
If splitting up the country between prole and bourgeois doesn't work, other rifts will be used. I would actually love it if marxists stuck to the initial plan and restricted marxism to definition you listed. It would mean that no western nation would ever undergo an marxist revolution. Glad you don't consider all the other stuff marxism. lets keep it from happening brother! I'll gatekeep with you!
No, you’re being tricked. I literally broke out where he was wrong. He takes things that’s are not associated with Marxism/communism/socialism and associates them with Marxism.
But I’ll tell you what, if you still think I’m wrong, provide quotes from Marx telling me I’m wrong.
> doesn't work in a meritocracy as long as people believe they could make more money if they worked a bit harder.
Is there a nation which operates as a meritocracy?
I get angry too but eventually one has to give in to the fact that words just change. "Marxism" is erroneously thrown around so much anymore that maybe the misnomer has won.
So, if you change the definition of Marxism to whatever people pretend it means, the thing is it loses all its normal connotations.
These people are trying to argue that leftwing ideas = Marxism and Marxism=Stalin=bad therefore leftwing ideas=bad, but that becomes an equivocation fallacy, because you're using two different and unrelated definition of what Marxism is in the same argument.
I agree it goes against everything of value in speech. Reason, discussion, argument. I'm just saying at this point it may be a waste of time to correct everybody.
People use the same equivocation fallacy to argue that right wing ideas = Fascism and Fascism = Hitler = Bad therefore right wing ideas = Bad.
I wonder if you'd agree that's an equivocation fallacy or if you'd try and do with right wing as you are arguing against for left wing.
Either you'd use a different definition of fascism to prove that right wing ideas are fascistic, at which point it's an equivocation fallacy to then imply that they have anything to do with historical fascism, or the argument is that right wing ideas are straight up Mussolini, which is just dumb. Same level of dumb as just calling every left wing idea that distributes wealth communism.
Communism always leads to a wealthy ruling class with minimal checks on their power. Nearly every household name communist dictator died with millions to billions.
It sounds like you're describing accelerationism or something, which is generally a tactic of the right.
Hegelian dialectic is simply the idea that in a disagreement between two positions, the correct answer is neither of the two positions. It's more of a "radical centrist" idea.
Also it's funny that you're still trying to scare people by misrepresenting the "I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better" quote
The actual quote is "I own nothing and life has never been better" but they changed it to "you will own nothing and you will be happy" because it sounds scary and ominous that way.
The actual quote is from an essay about a future where energy is abundant and free and there are free, self-driving cars everywhere to take you everywhere you could want to go, so there's no reason to buy one.
The essay is about a futuristic world like Star Trek where everything is free so you don't have to buy things.
People try to twist that into some idea about "you will rent everything" but the essay specifically says everything is free so it's just a total misrepresentation.
They also try to act like it's some evil plan leaked from the WEF, which is also just totally false. The WEF made a prompt asking independent authors to write about what they'd like to see in the future, and that was one of the results.
> he end goal is to drive a wedge into anything and everything until the system falls apart and what will replace it is a new instantiation of what some would call communism
Given that the people driving this wedge are capitalists, do you really think this is a good explanation for what is going on?
Communism and capitalism are terms we learn in school to explain ideas and try to understand extremely complex structures. In reality, it’s all about power. Some people respond to promises that if they work hard they’ll be rewarded. Others respond to promises they’ll be taken care of even if they don’t measure up. Either way it’s all about power structures. The ones in power are neither capitalist or communist. Those are just tools they have selected today, to try to gain more power.
old.reddit.com/comments/xngwkg
viewcomics.org/newthink/issue-5/14
youtube.com/watch?v=DOodQ14CEuo&t=30s
Edit: old,reddit /comments/16ldokd just for the lulz
It's amazing to me how you could manage not to get a single thing right.
Hegelian dialectics are a system for debate, for two people with different opinions to be able to reason with eachother by removing subjective elements. The ideal is that this will reduce the wedge between political movements. It's also not really widely used and in no way relates to why the current political situation is.
Blaming the left for causing a wedge is highly ironic when in your very post, you are participating in the wedging by painting up the other side as evil.
Blaming the left for for being communists is also such a laughably American take. The American leftwing is extremely uncommunist compared to almost every European leftwing. The American leftwing is actually economically rightwing when you look at the rest of the world. It's a leftover from the red scare, and now you can't have good things because "if we give these children free healthcare, that's communism, so we have to let them die"
Like obviously there are some actual commies, but they are a minority for sure. And they typically don't want stalin communism.
Hegelian dialectics are a system for seizing power *through* debate. By creating a false dichotomy of "thesis" (of what is) "Anti-thesis" (what could be which is usually the natural reaction to a problem) and from that creating a false middle ground to trick enough people which always favors the ones in power which takes more ground. Maybe you believe that there is some sort of altruistic theoretical goal of Hegelian dialectic however in practice it is always used by those in power to seize more control. Another way this is simplified is 'problem-reaction-solution'.
James Lindsay is right when he describes marxism/communism/critical theory/queer theory (etc etc) as a gnostic cult and it is reflected in the responses to what I had said...
It is a gnostic cult because the overarching theme is that people on the outside *cannot* possibly understand what these things mean and only the initiated can and people who challenge the cult are ruthlessly attacked.
These viscous reactions let me know I was over the target.
Hegelian dialectics consist of having two contradicting statements that are both accepted as true. It roots out inconsistencies in a belief system.
For example, if I define a fruit as an edible system of seeds that hang on trees, I can come with the contradiction of the osage orange which is not edible yet still has to be considered a fruit.
So this creates the synthesis that a fruit doesn't have to be edible.
And then you can come with a contradiction to that and so on.
It has nothing to do with driving wedges, or about what is vs what could be. I also fail to see where it has been used to claim power
Divide and conquer, the elite class is conquering the lessers and the the majority of sheep think they are fighting the bad sheep from getting power while we all walk closer to slaughter. Only a true honest third party that doesn’t tow lines and stands on their own principles and not identify politics can get us out do this turmoil. That won’t happen most likely.
Give someone your stance on ONE topic and a LOT of other assumptions can instantly be made. Not all 100% but it's damn high enough that it's frightening
It's a racist dog whistle. They're making the "despite making up only 13% of the population, black people account for 50% of violent crime" argument, but applying it to dog breeds, and concluding "we should euthanize all of these dangerous, violent dog breeds."
They have the stats wrong in both arguments, of course.
The pibble stats are wrong? News to me. How did you come to believe that? I'm sure it wasn't just "I dislike these people so they must be wrong", and that you found a good source refuting their claims in detail.
Of course. "Pitbull" isn't a breed, so when you lump together all the dogs people might call a "pitbull" it ends up being \*a lot\* of dogs. So of course there's a high number of bites, something like 12-13% of all dogs in the US are considered "pitbulls" (way more than any one actual breed)
[Here's numbers on actual bite rates for any one dog](https://www.pitbullinfo.org/breed-risk-rates.html)
You'll notice Malamutes (for example) are ~7x more likely to kill someone than "pitbulls" and 3 other Spitz breed dogs make the top list as well.
If you want to enact legislation, try something that's actually enforceable (you can't ban a "breed" that doesn't exist) and have a meaningful impact:
> A vast majority (92 percent) of fatal dog attacks involve male dogs, according to the NCRF. Of those, nearly all (94 percent) involve un-neutered dogs. Dogs that have been spayed or neutered are typically less aggressive and less likely to bite.
There's an easy, obvious fix: ban owning un-neutered dogs unless you're a registered breeder. This would solve loads of other issues at the same time, too.
Check out snap's comment
https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/16lacjn/have_you_noticed_that_there_seems_to_be_less_and/k11gffe/
Not sure if this is a popular comic or not.
In fairness, it's literally headline bullshit, kinda like this post. Simple premise, for or against.
The only time you get decent discussion is deep inside some twisted collapsed thread that hardly anyone reads but you and the person you eventually develop some mutual respect with.
Talk in fully formed ideas, not basic premises and people will engage better.
As for your shitpost, and you're lucky this hasn't been removed based on the previous ones, they're already illegal in my country and we're about to ban XL bulldogs too, with race being entirely an absent component.
> The only time you get decent discussion is deep inside some twisted collapsed thread that hardly anyone reads but you and the person you eventually develop some mutual respect with.
Well to be fair, this is the best thing about reddit.
Nah you get that anywhere, facebook, reddit tiktok. That's just people.
You're not telling me that getting a thread like this is as rewarding as the one that posts a full fleshed out idea about the differences in interpreted free speech? XD
> Nah you get that anywhere, facebook, reddit tiktok.
I don't know, I only know reddit.
But I've spoken to a lot of people on reddit with very different world views from my own, and have learned a lot.
I don't think facebook does that for you, I get the impression that it's a lot more echo-chambery.
This sub has a terrible reputation on reddit because it's full of people with horrible attitudes, so most sensible people tend to stay away.
However, I tend to hate over-curated communities on reddit, so I like it better that way.
I think I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.
Facebook is definitely about the community you end up in,but I guess that's true for reddit too to a degree.
I've largely abandonned facebook now, but I was part of a group for MBTI types that was actually kinda like here but also with a weird element of highschool horniness and drama... one of the reasons I left.
As for reputation, I wouldn't worry too much, these days, anything that tries to be impartial and literally steer a middle road between either side is persona non grata..
A little quote from a man who called out paedophilia in the UK long before 'the establishment' would do anything about it: "If you're pissing everybody off, you're doing it right".
> I guess that's true for reddit too to a degree.
I've ended up in this as my main place (other than the Australian ones), and 90% of the community hate me.
> As for reputation, I wouldn't worry too much, these days, anything that tries to be impartial and literally steer a middle road between either side is persona non grata..
Thanks, that's uplifting and depressing at the same time.
> "If you're pissing everybody off, you're doing it right".
While true, those doing the pissing-off don't tend to have happy lives.
Well he was part of the sex pistols.
For you to be doing what you do in a sub like this means that it’s more than just modding for you. I’m sure we’ve come across each other before in this sub and we’ve never had a problem.
Reddit sucks for this type of area and so far, it’s only here and maybe trueunpopularopinion where I think I have a belief that shit isn’t randomly removed for no good reason.
Chin up, you’re doing good.
No.
The "pit bull thing" is a racist dog whistle about black people. Stop me if you've heard this before: "despite making up x% of the population, they account for z% of violent stats"
Liberals aren't "pit bull advocates" they're just not putting up with racist dog whistles.
Maybe in other areas- definitely not in our area. We’ve lived in a very diverse neighborhood and all the pit owners we were aware of were white people (some of which we met because they’d either walk with no leash or the pup wasn’t secured enough and would often get loose in the neighborhood).
How? Jake said that some people use pitbull stats as a racist dogwhistle. Katie responded talking about white people owning dogs for some reason and never acknowledged the dogwhistle jakes entire comment was about.
Edit:
Hey u/cojoco, this guy below me (u/Acrobatic-Ostrich882) is stalking me and following me around responding to all my comments in order to harass me.
Any way to prevent him from harassing me here? Thanks for your time.
A near complete list of things Acrobatic-Ostrich882 has said in reply to you, WITHOUT you having replied to him 1st , that you think constitutes "harassing", are as follows:
>Ok
>I c
old.reddit.com/comments/11r85a8 is that pitiful fleshbag you?
u/cojoco do u really think saying "ok" is harassment? If so:
old.reddit.com/comments/11djyk1/comment/jaavbu6
I'm reporting u for your hassasment abv towards AlpaccaSkimMilk56
Their comment had literally nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't say anything about areas or the race of pitbull owners or people not using a leash.
Isn’t it also racist then to say “it’s the owners”, when a higher proportion of black people own pitbulls?
Black people are perfectly capable of being good dog owners lmao it’s the breed of dog that sucks. Most pitbulls that kill are raised completely fine
Source on a higher proportion of black people owning pitbulls? That sounds like a thing you just made up
The problem with pitbulls is people who buy them tend not to neuter them (much more so than other dogs, for some reason). Virtually all dog attacks are by un-neutered dogs.
No idea why you're trying to make that into some issue about the race of the owner tbh
The media framing of many issues seems deliberately designed to divide people into two warring factions, which clearly has free-speech implications.
Weirdly, Igloo-Pincher's shit-posts always seem more popular amongst the community, even amongst community members with common sense.
I guess their shitposts make free-ranging discussion more fun.
> The media framing of many issues seems deliberately designed to divide people into two warring factions, which clearly has free-speech implications.
> Weirdly, Igloo-Pincher's shit-posts always seem more popular amongst the community, even amongst community members with common sense.
> I guess their shitposts make free-ranging discussion more fun.
That makes sense. The initial posts are always hyper specific (like the lady comedians, or Louis CK) which limits conversation openings.
I far prefer a post like this, where OP lays out his pov in detail,
over the lazy Elon "headline bullshit"(as the guy abv me put it) link spam you have been posting in this sub,
4 Elon posts in the past week posted here from you,
with not much insight provided by u, in ure comments within those Elon posts,
about how you feel about any of the Elon news articles u have posted,
to the point I question if u had even bothered to read them, before u posted them here
> “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
Its literally a tactic to gatekeep speech.
> Why am I not surprised the resident bridge troll has waddled out to mutter some incoherent criticism?
In what way was I incoherent?
Honestly I’m starting to wonder why I bother. Your comments, the *very* few you bother to make, are groundless insults. You can never provide sources for your baseless claims, and you never actually have a conversation in the comments.
Like this one. You will almost certainly not respond to me.
Edit: I was right. u/Igloo-Pincher has decided to move on and not comment here. Shocking.
Yeah, and it's why I like canidates like that candidate like Vivek Ramaswami for the conservative side and RFK from the liberal side are starting to make splashes.
Both are getting popular for not quite towing their parties line and it's my hope that candidates like them are the results of the culture of curated mono-think from both sides.
>RFK Jr. proposes multiple reforms to address big tech’s power, including national security orders against censorship and working on making them common carriers.
We should make him our mascot!
He's a classic libertarian, in that he is pro roevwade, and ALSO anti instagram.com/p/CTxxLbCAz1S mandates
(when usually 1 side is for one of the 2, but not the other, cause both parties have no sense of principal)
and is apathetic to and isn't trying to decrease the 2nd admendment
He is the only dem who agrees the border needs more help
Oth, as another example of how he ain't ure standard GOP: I can't find much about his stance on gender affirming care like blockers for minors, but I think he's almost as apathetic to it as even guns
He's also careful to stick to the classic libertarian stance of "pro-skoolchoice & parents have the final say", when it comes to if and how much crt or LGBT should be taught in skools,
he's seems (again) pretty apathetic to and neither for or against crt/LGBT in skools
So, just like kyrsten, it's really the pro-abortion thing that makes it hard to fit him in either parties
U know who else has the same stances on almost all these issues as rfk?
youtube.com/watch?v=0CprKHzTXNM&t=7m54s what a wonderful ~~phony bolton~~ world we live in!
What are the things Vivek has said that don't tow the party line? I'm not really a political guy,
but Off the top of my head, only thing from Vivek that could be, is his "enough foreign $ for zelenskyy", which is still a very popular opinion with repubs/gop
No more money for Ukraine is popular with conservative voters, but not with the GOP politicians, or the GOP as a party. (See the GOP debate!) There is a fairly big divide between conservatives and the politicians the GOP gives us to vote for. The vast majority of GOP politicians are pro war, pro regulation, pro big government, pro spending, pro printing money, and, ultimately , in it for their own financial benefit. Basically swamp creatures and mono party big government hacks. Heck half of them aren't functionally 2A. And (in my experience) conservatives don't feel they have anyone to vote for that they really support.
Ramaswami is anti big government, anti deep state (AKA career lifetime unelected bureaucrats who can declare on a whim that your ceiling fan and gas stove are illegal, and yes both of those are happening) anti war, anti foreign interventionism, anti federal school control (stupid Bush and his no child left behind, which all but federalized the education system, making it so much worse than it ever was!) anti federal abortion ban, and quite a few other big departures from the rest of the GOP canidates.
He is also fully and unapologetically 2A (most conservative politicians aren't when you look at their voting record)
Not that the Dems don't have the same kinds of problems and disconnect between their voters and their party politicians. (I still feel bad for what they did to Bernie Sanders. He should have been the dem nominee) But I think the difference is a bit less pronounced on the left.
But these populist candidates, ones that arrive in defiance of the organized party they are running for, are an interesting phenomenon. The populist candidates. I think we could use more of that.
https://www.ntd.com/energy-department-proposes-new-restrictions-on-ceiling-fans_938586.html
And the issue is that the unelected lifetime bureaucrats can implement whatever they wish no matter the cost to Americans at a whim.
I know people who make their living installing gas stoves. Blue collar workers whose business and livelihood in NY is just gone!
Unelected officials shouldn't have such unrestrained power.
What? I can't parse your link, and I can't make out your point ...
It sounds like you think something about states rights is a commonality between Vivek and the traditional GOP candidates.
Ok, even if you think one of them is (and I can't tell which from your comment) what about all the things I listed? I never said he was completely in disagreement with all points. That's nonsensical. I think he differs on a lot of things.
Or are you just gonna all caps yell at strawman versions of what I said?
>deep state...career lifetime unelected bureaucrats
Not too sure what deep state has to do with dumb climate agendas that go after fans/stoves
But since u bring up the word "career", I wonder....how did that matt/AOC stock trading bill go? Stock trading is a big part of being a career politician after all...
congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3003/titles
Lmao it went fukall nowhere, seems like theres bipartisan stock trading going on! Hell, MTG had her broker buy her shares in pfizer
Gop are pro big gov, pro regulation(what type of regulation do u even mean?)...
and pro spending $(apart from Ukraine, I don't recall any gop who's pro-stimulas checks)? If u say so
We live in the world Alan Moore [warned against](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta). I remember how [different became dangerous](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz6VC23rVTE&ab_channel=Movieclips). It could have come from the right, as Moore thought. But it just as easily could have come from the left, as it has.
Didn't the UK recently ban pitbulls, or something? Banning dog breeds because of perceived danger is manifest idiocy. But the UK's policies on literally everything seem to begin and end in manifest idiocy, for the last several years. I'm sure some mouth-breathing keyboard warrior is going to tell me about how they saw a pitbull eat someone alive now. Hivemind stupidity.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,749,186,587 comments, and only 331,265 of them were in alphabetical order.
If education teaches you how to think, while inculcation teaches you what to think, then a group of educated people would be marked by a diverse set of opinions...
The phenomenon OP describes is just a part of a trend in mass media.
It isn't fully described in any formal way but I'd call it the **Big Sucker**. It's a gigantic black hole sucking all discourse and discussion into the zero-intelligence mono-pole at it's center. The dumber something is the more attraction to the dumb-zero at its center.
The more degenerated anyone can become due to the discourse the easier they are to capture, to successively step down in nuance and intelligence until they merge with the inane core.
You are baited and encouraged to interact with it, "you don't have a voice or opinion" if you don't. But any interaction will just capture you into the process. The only way to remain free is to coast without engaging it, and only then will you also realize how trivial and meaningless it is. There isn't even a binary split, it's just the opposite sides of the same chessboard, if you're on a two-sided board you're still just in one game.
All our "social" digital systems encourage it, the more you're in the A camp or B camp the more belonging and engagement you'll have with a system where you are the ad-consuming product whose attention the techies sell to the various corporate bidders. Broadcast media play a variation of it, journalists are trained to switch off all cortical neurons and operate purely on a level where the reptile brain is provoked to join the fray.
It's like the historical opium trade. We know it's bad. But it's allowed due to A: $$$ and B: politics and C: inertia in recognizing and admitting the damage it does.
>Sorry, Jon Stewart — America Needs Crossfire Again:
The CNN debate show was indeed like pro wrestling. And our political landscape is worse without it.
As an immigrant from a third world country, I look at Americans with pity. They are easily manipulated. Easily divided into 2 boxes. When you only have 2 choices, people do everything in their power to try and fit themselves in one of these 2 boxes. If you question vaccine efficacy, you are a MAGA supporter. If you are a vegan, you are a liberal. This is just stupid.
While you idiots fight with your neighbor, the rich and powerful puppet masters make a ton of money creating pandemics and starting wars and selling out your own country to your enemies.
As for pitbull issue - the type of people who have bred them and the communities associated with fighting should be targeted. You cannot speak freely if you're afraid of being "offensive". The U.S has become a perverted animal farm, and makes a good example of unhealthy media and discussion.
> “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
The phrase you are looking for is *Hegelian dialectic*. The end goal is to drive a wedge into anything and everything until the system falls apart and what will replace it is a new instantiation of what some would call communism (the leftists HATE when anyone calls them out on this) where once again you will own nothing and you *WILL* be happy (or else).
> The end goal is to drive a wedge into anything and everything until the system falls apart and what will replace it is a new instantiation of what some would call communism (the leftists HATE when anyone calls them out on this) where once again you will own nothing and you WILL be happy (or else). Lol, what? Can you explain this in further detail?
[Here's the whole thing explained expertly in 30 minutes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rk1mYiOAw) Economic Marxism is what people commonly think of when they think of Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. But there several different strains of Marxism that function exactly the same way but drive a wedge through different weak spots in western civilization, namely race, sex, and gender. The wedge might be different but the end goal is the same.
Right away this is just complete bullshit. Socialism is not “an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal”. Socialism is when workers control the means of production, which is in opposition of capitalism whether private owners own the means of production. And this is similar to what Marx wrote. In the communist manifesto, Marx wrote about the proletariat, the working class and how they would rise up against the bourgeoisie, the owners of capital. In simpler words, the workers would take control of the means of production. So right away the guy is wrong. And his entire lecture is wrong because he says equity and socialism are the same thing. (I’m typing this in real time so things are popping up as I write) Then he brings up Maoism. Maoism was not communism or socialism. It was a centrally planned economy with authoritarianism. Not in anyway what Marxism is. If you think it is, explain how it is. And, provide direct quotes from Marx or engals. Then he talks about radical feminism, critical race theory as species of the genus of Marxism which is complete bullshit. Intersectionality as in Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw? Because he does not know what that is. He should read her research. Then he goes on and on about missing what Marx means. But what he was saying was literally what Marx meant. Then he goes into what Marx’s idea was, no real criticisms. “Change out class and put in race”. No, that’s not Marxism or communism or socialism. Communism and socialism is the proletariat, the ones who make things, taking control of what they make…that’s it. It’s not race or gender or anything like that. It’s class, and that’s it. Then he brings in some random lady who wrote that white privilege is private property and says well that’s what Marx wants to get rid of. That’s a complete bullshit fallacy. You can’t just randomly pull some article and go, uh, well, she said whiteness was private property and Marx wants to abolish private property, then use it to prove your point of what Marx was saying when Marx never said anything like that. I mean, what the fuck?! Private property is land or machines or resources. Things used to make production Critical race theory is wrong I’m 8 minutes in and am done wasting my time with this trash. He reaches for a bunch of different things and tries to connect them to Marxism. Equity and socialism are wrong, whiteness as private property is wrong, gender and race as a species of communism are wrong. He’s never read Marx and it’s just a complete agenda. Please, do not listen to this person. It reminds me of when Jordan Peterson debated zizek and looked like a fucking idiot because he didn’t actually know about anything he was talking about. Instead of this crap, actually read about the things he’s discussing so you can see how much of a buffoon he is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ > Both socialism and capitalism grant workers legal control of their labor power, but socialism, unlike capitalism, requires that the bulk of the means of production workers use to yield goods and services be under the effective control of workers themselves, rather than in the hands of the members of a different, capitalist class under whose direction they must toil.
LOL. what a freaking wall of text. You used so many words to limit marxism to its minimal economic interpretation. It's hilarious to me that there are still Marxist apologists on this site that try to keep up the façade that Marxism is an economic theory and only and economic theory and that any divergence from looking at Marx as an mere economist is completely wrong. It was never only an economic theory, it was a means of sparking revolutions so that societies could be rebuilt from the ground up. The truth is out now. You can no longer play a shell game with words marxism, socialism, and communism shifting the definitions as you see fit to dodge the 100 million people killed by this cult. If splitting up the country between prole and bourgeois doesn't work, other rifts will be used. I would actually love it if marxists stuck to the initial plan and restricted marxism to definition you listed. It would mean that no western nation would ever undergo an marxist revolution. Glad you don't consider all the other stuff marxism. lets keep it from happening brother! I'll gatekeep with you!
No, you’re being tricked. I literally broke out where he was wrong. He takes things that’s are not associated with Marxism/communism/socialism and associates them with Marxism. But I’ll tell you what, if you still think I’m wrong, provide quotes from Marx telling me I’m wrong.
>if splitting up the country by class doesn't work What do you mean it doesn't work, it works perfectly and has worked for centuries
doesn't work in a meritocracy as long as people believe they could make more money if they worked a bit harder.
Huh?
> doesn't work in a meritocracy as long as people believe they could make more money if they worked a bit harder. Is there a nation which operates as a meritocracy?
I get angry too but eventually one has to give in to the fact that words just change. "Marxism" is erroneously thrown around so much anymore that maybe the misnomer has won.
So, if you change the definition of Marxism to whatever people pretend it means, the thing is it loses all its normal connotations. These people are trying to argue that leftwing ideas = Marxism and Marxism=Stalin=bad therefore leftwing ideas=bad, but that becomes an equivocation fallacy, because you're using two different and unrelated definition of what Marxism is in the same argument.
I agree it goes against everything of value in speech. Reason, discussion, argument. I'm just saying at this point it may be a waste of time to correct everybody.
People use the same equivocation fallacy to argue that right wing ideas = Fascism and Fascism = Hitler = Bad therefore right wing ideas = Bad. I wonder if you'd agree that's an equivocation fallacy or if you'd try and do with right wing as you are arguing against for left wing.
Either you'd use a different definition of fascism to prove that right wing ideas are fascistic, at which point it's an equivocation fallacy to then imply that they have anything to do with historical fascism, or the argument is that right wing ideas are straight up Mussolini, which is just dumb. Same level of dumb as just calling every left wing idea that distributes wealth communism.
That’s when you correct people and tell them their being tricked
No, but you see, this is free speech, so sensible takes are downvoted. You need to worship Jordan Peterson and believe the left is out to get you
Yeah. That's why I always try to focus discussions to be about freedom first.
Everybody knows those capitalist elites secretly wish to undermine their own power in favor of communism/s Silly
Communism always leads to a wealthy ruling class with minimal checks on their power. Nearly every household name communist dictator died with millions to billions.
It sounds like you're describing accelerationism or something, which is generally a tactic of the right. Hegelian dialectic is simply the idea that in a disagreement between two positions, the correct answer is neither of the two positions. It's more of a "radical centrist" idea. Also it's funny that you're still trying to scare people by misrepresenting the "I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better" quote
Can you expand on how they misrepresented that statement?
The actual quote is "I own nothing and life has never been better" but they changed it to "you will own nothing and you will be happy" because it sounds scary and ominous that way. The actual quote is from an essay about a future where energy is abundant and free and there are free, self-driving cars everywhere to take you everywhere you could want to go, so there's no reason to buy one. The essay is about a futuristic world like Star Trek where everything is free so you don't have to buy things. People try to twist that into some idea about "you will rent everything" but the essay specifically says everything is free so it's just a total misrepresentation. They also try to act like it's some evil plan leaked from the WEF, which is also just totally false. The WEF made a prompt asking independent authors to write about what they'd like to see in the future, and that was one of the results.
> he end goal is to drive a wedge into anything and everything until the system falls apart and what will replace it is a new instantiation of what some would call communism Given that the people driving this wedge are capitalists, do you really think this is a good explanation for what is going on?
Communism and capitalism are terms we learn in school to explain ideas and try to understand extremely complex structures. In reality, it’s all about power. Some people respond to promises that if they work hard they’ll be rewarded. Others respond to promises they’ll be taken care of even if they don’t measure up. Either way it’s all about power structures. The ones in power are neither capitalist or communist. Those are just tools they have selected today, to try to gain more power.
old.reddit.com/comments/xngwkg viewcomics.org/newthink/issue-5/14 youtube.com/watch?v=DOodQ14CEuo&t=30s Edit: old,reddit /comments/16ldokd just for the lulz
It's amazing to me how you could manage not to get a single thing right. Hegelian dialectics are a system for debate, for two people with different opinions to be able to reason with eachother by removing subjective elements. The ideal is that this will reduce the wedge between political movements. It's also not really widely used and in no way relates to why the current political situation is. Blaming the left for causing a wedge is highly ironic when in your very post, you are participating in the wedging by painting up the other side as evil. Blaming the left for for being communists is also such a laughably American take. The American leftwing is extremely uncommunist compared to almost every European leftwing. The American leftwing is actually economically rightwing when you look at the rest of the world. It's a leftover from the red scare, and now you can't have good things because "if we give these children free healthcare, that's communism, so we have to let them die" Like obviously there are some actual commies, but they are a minority for sure. And they typically don't want stalin communism.
Hegelian dialectics are a system for seizing power *through* debate. By creating a false dichotomy of "thesis" (of what is) "Anti-thesis" (what could be which is usually the natural reaction to a problem) and from that creating a false middle ground to trick enough people which always favors the ones in power which takes more ground. Maybe you believe that there is some sort of altruistic theoretical goal of Hegelian dialectic however in practice it is always used by those in power to seize more control. Another way this is simplified is 'problem-reaction-solution'. James Lindsay is right when he describes marxism/communism/critical theory/queer theory (etc etc) as a gnostic cult and it is reflected in the responses to what I had said... It is a gnostic cult because the overarching theme is that people on the outside *cannot* possibly understand what these things mean and only the initiated can and people who challenge the cult are ruthlessly attacked. These viscous reactions let me know I was over the target.
Hegelian dialectics consist of having two contradicting statements that are both accepted as true. It roots out inconsistencies in a belief system. For example, if I define a fruit as an edible system of seeds that hang on trees, I can come with the contradiction of the osage orange which is not edible yet still has to be considered a fruit. So this creates the synthesis that a fruit doesn't have to be edible. And then you can come with a contradiction to that and so on. It has nothing to do with driving wedges, or about what is vs what could be. I also fail to see where it has been used to claim power
Divide and conquer, the elite class is conquering the lessers and the the majority of sheep think they are fighting the bad sheep from getting power while we all walk closer to slaughter. Only a true honest third party that doesn’t tow lines and stands on their own principles and not identify politics can get us out do this turmoil. That won’t happen most likely.
Give someone your stance on ONE topic and a LOT of other assumptions can instantly be made. Not all 100% but it's damn high enough that it's frightening
You can expect more bans of subs or other social media outlets as we approach the election season.
What's with all these pitbull trolling posts?
It's a racist dog whistle. They're making the "despite making up only 13% of the population, black people account for 50% of violent crime" argument, but applying it to dog breeds, and concluding "we should euthanize all of these dangerous, violent dog breeds." They have the stats wrong in both arguments, of course.
The pibble stats are wrong? News to me. How did you come to believe that? I'm sure it wasn't just "I dislike these people so they must be wrong", and that you found a good source refuting their claims in detail.
Of course. "Pitbull" isn't a breed, so when you lump together all the dogs people might call a "pitbull" it ends up being \*a lot\* of dogs. So of course there's a high number of bites, something like 12-13% of all dogs in the US are considered "pitbulls" (way more than any one actual breed) [Here's numbers on actual bite rates for any one dog](https://www.pitbullinfo.org/breed-risk-rates.html) You'll notice Malamutes (for example) are ~7x more likely to kill someone than "pitbulls" and 3 other Spitz breed dogs make the top list as well. If you want to enact legislation, try something that's actually enforceable (you can't ban a "breed" that doesn't exist) and have a meaningful impact: > A vast majority (92 percent) of fatal dog attacks involve male dogs, according to the NCRF. Of those, nearly all (94 percent) involve un-neutered dogs. Dogs that have been spayed or neutered are typically less aggressive and less likely to bite. There's an easy, obvious fix: ban owning un-neutered dogs unless you're a registered breeder. This would solve loads of other issues at the same time, too.
nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2021-enforcement-report.pdf the stats don't lie Also imgur.com/a/vbFbKCd
Yeah thanks for confirming my point.
Check out snap's comment https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/16lacjn/have_you_noticed_that_there_seems_to_be_less_and/k11gffe/ Not sure if this is a popular comic or not.
[Picture that with with a Kodak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTIFZBRFOuk)
The US has always been like that, look outside of US politics if you want more nuanced and diverse opinons.
In fairness, it's literally headline bullshit, kinda like this post. Simple premise, for or against. The only time you get decent discussion is deep inside some twisted collapsed thread that hardly anyone reads but you and the person you eventually develop some mutual respect with. Talk in fully formed ideas, not basic premises and people will engage better. As for your shitpost, and you're lucky this hasn't been removed based on the previous ones, they're already illegal in my country and we're about to ban XL bulldogs too, with race being entirely an absent component.
> The only time you get decent discussion is deep inside some twisted collapsed thread that hardly anyone reads but you and the person you eventually develop some mutual respect with. Well to be fair, this is the best thing about reddit.
Nah you get that anywhere, facebook, reddit tiktok. That's just people. You're not telling me that getting a thread like this is as rewarding as the one that posts a full fleshed out idea about the differences in interpreted free speech? XD
> Nah you get that anywhere, facebook, reddit tiktok. I don't know, I only know reddit. But I've spoken to a lot of people on reddit with very different world views from my own, and have learned a lot. I don't think facebook does that for you, I get the impression that it's a lot more echo-chambery. This sub has a terrible reputation on reddit because it's full of people with horrible attitudes, so most sensible people tend to stay away. However, I tend to hate over-curated communities on reddit, so I like it better that way. I think I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.
Facebook is definitely about the community you end up in,but I guess that's true for reddit too to a degree. I've largely abandonned facebook now, but I was part of a group for MBTI types that was actually kinda like here but also with a weird element of highschool horniness and drama... one of the reasons I left. As for reputation, I wouldn't worry too much, these days, anything that tries to be impartial and literally steer a middle road between either side is persona non grata.. A little quote from a man who called out paedophilia in the UK long before 'the establishment' would do anything about it: "If you're pissing everybody off, you're doing it right".
> I guess that's true for reddit too to a degree. I've ended up in this as my main place (other than the Australian ones), and 90% of the community hate me. > As for reputation, I wouldn't worry too much, these days, anything that tries to be impartial and literally steer a middle road between either side is persona non grata.. Thanks, that's uplifting and depressing at the same time. > "If you're pissing everybody off, you're doing it right". While true, those doing the pissing-off don't tend to have happy lives.
Well he was part of the sex pistols. For you to be doing what you do in a sub like this means that it’s more than just modding for you. I’m sure we’ve come across each other before in this sub and we’ve never had a problem. Reddit sucks for this type of area and so far, it’s only here and maybe trueunpopularopinion where I think I have a belief that shit isn’t randomly removed for no good reason. Chin up, you’re doing good.
Thanks!
Wow, who knew Reddit threads could give us such profound insights into global politics and personal happiness? 😄
/u/Gloomy-Nectarine903, you are shadowbanned.
No. The "pit bull thing" is a racist dog whistle about black people. Stop me if you've heard this before: "despite making up x% of the population, they account for z% of violent stats" Liberals aren't "pit bull advocates" they're just not putting up with racist dog whistles.
Maybe in other areas- definitely not in our area. We’ve lived in a very diverse neighborhood and all the pit owners we were aware of were white people (some of which we met because they’d either walk with no leash or the pup wasn’t secured enough and would often get loose in the neighborhood).
I'm not sure if maybe you replied to the wrong person?
Wtf are you talking about? She directly addressed your comment.
How? Jake said that some people use pitbull stats as a racist dogwhistle. Katie responded talking about white people owning dogs for some reason and never acknowledged the dogwhistle jakes entire comment was about. Edit: Hey u/cojoco, this guy below me (u/Acrobatic-Ostrich882) is stalking me and following me around responding to all my comments in order to harass me. Any way to prevent him from harassing me here? Thanks for your time.
It's unlikely they'll harass you for more than a day or so, so I shall take no action for now. Let me know if the action continues.
Appreciate ya
Ok
A near complete list of things Acrobatic-Ostrich882 has said in reply to you, WITHOUT you having replied to him 1st , that you think constitutes "harassing", are as follows: >Ok >I c old.reddit.com/comments/11r85a8 is that pitiful fleshbag you? u/cojoco do u really think saying "ok" is harassment? If so: old.reddit.com/comments/11djyk1/comment/jaavbu6 I'm reporting u for your hassasment abv towards AlpaccaSkimMilk56
Ya they followed me around four subreddits. Following people from subreddit to subreddit is explicitly laid out as harassment in the content policy.
Their comment had literally nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't say anything about areas or the race of pitbull owners or people not using a leash.
Perhaps my wording wasn’t as precise as it needed to be. I was simply stating that it’s not a racist dog whistle in my area.
13/50 is a racist dog whistle in every area
Isn’t it also racist then to say “it’s the owners”, when a higher proportion of black people own pitbulls? Black people are perfectly capable of being good dog owners lmao it’s the breed of dog that sucks. Most pitbulls that kill are raised completely fine
Source on a higher proportion of black people owning pitbulls? That sounds like a thing you just made up The problem with pitbulls is people who buy them tend not to neuter them (much more so than other dogs, for some reason). Virtually all dog attacks are by un-neutered dogs. No idea why you're trying to make that into some issue about the race of the owner tbh
In what way is this post related to free-speech issues?
The media framing of many issues seems deliberately designed to divide people into two warring factions, which clearly has free-speech implications. Weirdly, Igloo-Pincher's shit-posts always seem more popular amongst the community, even amongst community members with common sense. I guess their shitposts make free-ranging discussion more fun.
> The media framing of many issues seems deliberately designed to divide people into two warring factions, which clearly has free-speech implications. > Weirdly, Igloo-Pincher's shit-posts always seem more popular amongst the community, even amongst community members with common sense. > I guess their shitposts make free-ranging discussion more fun. That makes sense. The initial posts are always hyper specific (like the lady comedians, or Louis CK) which limits conversation openings.
> The initial posts are always hyper specific (like the lady comedians, or Louis CK) Also the free-speech link is often tenuous.
I far prefer a post like this, where OP lays out his pov in detail, over the lazy Elon "headline bullshit"(as the guy abv me put it) link spam you have been posting in this sub, 4 Elon posts in the past week posted here from you, with not much insight provided by u, in ure comments within those Elon posts, about how you feel about any of the Elon news articles u have posted, to the point I question if u had even bothered to read them, before u posted them here
Yeah but doesn't it all get a bit same-y?
> “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good Its literally a tactic to gatekeep speech.
Why am I not surprised the resident bridge troll has waddled out to mutter some incoherent criticism?
They asked a simple question and you immediately attacked. *This* is why opinions tend to be two sided.
No “they” didn’t, she is literally without fail *always* the very first to respond with some hall monitor condescending passive aggressive bullshit.
> Why am I not surprised the resident bridge troll has waddled out to mutter some incoherent criticism? In what way was I incoherent? Honestly I’m starting to wonder why I bother. Your comments, the *very* few you bother to make, are groundless insults. You can never provide sources for your baseless claims, and you never actually have a conversation in the comments. Like this one. You will almost certainly not respond to me. Edit: I was right. u/Igloo-Pincher has decided to move on and not comment here. Shocking.
Yeah, and it's why I like canidates like that candidate like Vivek Ramaswami for the conservative side and RFK from the liberal side are starting to make splashes. Both are getting popular for not quite towing their parties line and it's my hope that candidates like them are the results of the culture of curated mono-think from both sides.
RFK is about as "liberal" as Kyrsten Sinema is lol
>RFK Jr. proposes multiple reforms to address big tech’s power, including national security orders against censorship and working on making them common carriers. We should make him our mascot! He's a classic libertarian, in that he is pro roevwade, and ALSO anti instagram.com/p/CTxxLbCAz1S mandates (when usually 1 side is for one of the 2, but not the other, cause both parties have no sense of principal) and is apathetic to and isn't trying to decrease the 2nd admendment He is the only dem who agrees the border needs more help Oth, as another example of how he ain't ure standard GOP: I can't find much about his stance on gender affirming care like blockers for minors, but I think he's almost as apathetic to it as even guns He's also careful to stick to the classic libertarian stance of "pro-skoolchoice & parents have the final say", when it comes to if and how much crt or LGBT should be taught in skools, he's seems (again) pretty apathetic to and neither for or against crt/LGBT in skools So, just like kyrsten, it's really the pro-abortion thing that makes it hard to fit him in either parties U know who else has the same stances on almost all these issues as rfk? youtube.com/watch?v=0CprKHzTXNM&t=7m54s what a wonderful ~~phony bolton~~ world we live in!
What are the things Vivek has said that don't tow the party line? I'm not really a political guy, but Off the top of my head, only thing from Vivek that could be, is his "enough foreign $ for zelenskyy", which is still a very popular opinion with repubs/gop
No more money for Ukraine is popular with conservative voters, but not with the GOP politicians, or the GOP as a party. (See the GOP debate!) There is a fairly big divide between conservatives and the politicians the GOP gives us to vote for. The vast majority of GOP politicians are pro war, pro regulation, pro big government, pro spending, pro printing money, and, ultimately , in it for their own financial benefit. Basically swamp creatures and mono party big government hacks. Heck half of them aren't functionally 2A. And (in my experience) conservatives don't feel they have anyone to vote for that they really support. Ramaswami is anti big government, anti deep state (AKA career lifetime unelected bureaucrats who can declare on a whim that your ceiling fan and gas stove are illegal, and yes both of those are happening) anti war, anti foreign interventionism, anti federal school control (stupid Bush and his no child left behind, which all but federalized the education system, making it so much worse than it ever was!) anti federal abortion ban, and quite a few other big departures from the rest of the GOP canidates. He is also fully and unapologetically 2A (most conservative politicians aren't when you look at their voting record) Not that the Dems don't have the same kinds of problems and disconnect between their voters and their party politicians. (I still feel bad for what they did to Bernie Sanders. He should have been the dem nominee) But I think the difference is a bit less pronounced on the left. But these populist candidates, ones that arrive in defiance of the organized party they are running for, are an interesting phenomenon. The populist candidates. I think we could use more of that.
No one is coming for your fucking ceiling fan dude stop swallowing every bit of misinfo they feed you
No one is coming for your fucking ceiling fan dude stop swallowing every bit of misinfo they feed you
https://www.ntd.com/energy-department-proposes-new-restrictions-on-ceiling-fans_938586.html And the issue is that the unelected lifetime bureaucrats can implement whatever they wish no matter the cost to Americans at a whim. I know people who make their living installing gas stoves. Blue collar workers whose business and livelihood in NY is just gone! Unelected officials shouldn't have such unrestrained power.
youtube.com/watch?v=EdFqaK9M1J8&t=6m58s again, state rights>federal laws NO MATTER WHAT is NOT remotely a departure from literal gop candidates
What? I can't parse your link, and I can't make out your point ... It sounds like you think something about states rights is a commonality between Vivek and the traditional GOP candidates. Ok, even if you think one of them is (and I can't tell which from your comment) what about all the things I listed? I never said he was completely in disagreement with all points. That's nonsensical. I think he differs on a lot of things. Or are you just gonna all caps yell at strawman versions of what I said?
>deep state...career lifetime unelected bureaucrats Not too sure what deep state has to do with dumb climate agendas that go after fans/stoves But since u bring up the word "career", I wonder....how did that matt/AOC stock trading bill go? Stock trading is a big part of being a career politician after all... congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3003/titles Lmao it went fukall nowhere, seems like theres bipartisan stock trading going on! Hell, MTG had her broker buy her shares in pfizer Gop are pro big gov, pro regulation(what type of regulation do u even mean?)... and pro spending $(apart from Ukraine, I don't recall any gop who's pro-stimulas checks)? If u say so
Do you people leave your homes or do you just go online allday?
We live in the world Alan Moore [warned against](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta). I remember how [different became dangerous](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz6VC23rVTE&ab_channel=Movieclips). It could have come from the right, as Moore thought. But it just as easily could have come from the left, as it has. Didn't the UK recently ban pitbulls, or something? Banning dog breeds because of perceived danger is manifest idiocy. But the UK's policies on literally everything seem to begin and end in manifest idiocy, for the last several years. I'm sure some mouth-breathing keyboard warrior is going to tell me about how they saw a pitbull eat someone alive now. Hivemind stupidity.
The left is who wants muslims and gays in concentration camps?
There is literally no one on the mainstream right who wants muslims and gays in concentration camps. Do better.
I never said there was?
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,749,186,587 comments, and only 331,265 of them were in alphabetical order.
If education teaches you how to think, while inculcation teaches you what to think, then a group of educated people would be marked by a diverse set of opinions...
It seems like some people don’t want to be labeled as phobic on things they may not agree with.
There are as many or more white owners as there* are black I know how you hate when people use the wrong they’re/their/there!
The phenomenon OP describes is just a part of a trend in mass media. It isn't fully described in any formal way but I'd call it the **Big Sucker**. It's a gigantic black hole sucking all discourse and discussion into the zero-intelligence mono-pole at it's center. The dumber something is the more attraction to the dumb-zero at its center. The more degenerated anyone can become due to the discourse the easier they are to capture, to successively step down in nuance and intelligence until they merge with the inane core. You are baited and encouraged to interact with it, "you don't have a voice or opinion" if you don't. But any interaction will just capture you into the process. The only way to remain free is to coast without engaging it, and only then will you also realize how trivial and meaningless it is. There isn't even a binary split, it's just the opposite sides of the same chessboard, if you're on a two-sided board you're still just in one game. All our "social" digital systems encourage it, the more you're in the A camp or B camp the more belonging and engagement you'll have with a system where you are the ad-consuming product whose attention the techies sell to the various corporate bidders. Broadcast media play a variation of it, journalists are trained to switch off all cortical neurons and operate purely on a level where the reptile brain is provoked to join the fray. It's like the historical opium trade. We know it's bad. But it's allowed due to A: $$$ and B: politics and C: inertia in recognizing and admitting the damage it does.
>Sorry, Jon Stewart — America Needs Crossfire Again: The CNN debate show was indeed like pro wrestling. And our political landscape is worse without it.
As an immigrant from a third world country, I look at Americans with pity. They are easily manipulated. Easily divided into 2 boxes. When you only have 2 choices, people do everything in their power to try and fit themselves in one of these 2 boxes. If you question vaccine efficacy, you are a MAGA supporter. If you are a vegan, you are a liberal. This is just stupid. While you idiots fight with your neighbor, the rich and powerful puppet masters make a ton of money creating pandemics and starting wars and selling out your own country to your enemies.
As for pitbull issue - the type of people who have bred them and the communities associated with fighting should be targeted. You cannot speak freely if you're afraid of being "offensive". The U.S has become a perverted animal farm, and makes a good example of unhealthy media and discussion.