- 0 Posts
- 22 Comments
That’s the correct attitude, but not the attitude you like apparently.
Yes, I’m shameless like that.
Bro, just work on yourself and you will be more fulfilled than trying to become the object of your desires.
You will never be an anime girl.
…Never seen someone just straight up admit that they were bullshitting. Props to you. >Just to be clear - you do realise that the thing that “happens every time” is people >claiming not to be married to the idea of society being led by an individual, then >going on to argue that this is the only way?
There are no problems with power structures per say, not only that, (yes) they are necessary. As long as those given power do not abuse it, there are no problems. I also never claimed to believe that society should be at the hands of one individual and their whims and desires. These two things do not contradict one another.
Secondly, the only one here bullshitting is you, and I will tell you why.
Citation needed.
So you are telling me, that as an employee, you can do whatever you want at work or even not show up at all, because you have no authorities above you? Or even better, maybe you think that when you are fulfilling your duties at work, you do so purely because you are interested in doing so. Not because you have to earn your salary, which you then must use to pay for your home and put food on the table in order to live. Come on.
Happens every time.
Yes, we can say that it happens almost every time. You are arguing against a very obvious fact of life. A father is a leader to his family. A teacher has authority in the classroom. An employer has authority in the workspace. When you want to efficiently combat criminals, you need commanders (detectives), like in the police. In general, you are going to have disputes between people regarding choice A or choice B. Leadership can resolve such disputes efficiently. Generally speaking, we cannot function without leadership structures.
I am not limited to conceptions that require a leader.
How about several leaders? Because you are not going to escape leadership completely. If you are a functioning member of society, you will have a leadership role over someone, and you yourself will have leaders. It does not mean that you worship them or that you are worshiped, nor does it mean that they have to be tyrants who take other people’s rights, or that you take other people’s rights.
I’m telling you this because you seem to have a very skewed idea of what leadership is supposed to be. You seem to think that it is nothing more than imposition of one’s own will over others.
I don’t think like that. I’m just saying that if a revolution is executed by bad people, they will just move the power to another tyrant. Revolts and revolutions have their place, but that does not mean that they always work. Look at Communist China or Russia. Look at the Arab Spring. Look at Libya, Gadafi was a really bad guy, a rapist even. But what happened after people revolted? Just more corruption, crime and foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.
This is why when people with a certain political leaning in the West say that they want to eat the rich, without having any further plan or clue what that would entail, look like dangerous retards. Excuse my French. Most people are pissed that they are litarelly being robbed every day by their governments, some have even been attacked physically or imprisoned unjustly. These are all legitimate grievences I do not inted to downplay at all. However, when people destroy order, leave everyone vulnerable to internal and external threats, will that make the situation better or worse? Are you willing to take that risk? What is the probability that your country will survive and prosper after such an event? Think hard about that!
If most people suck, and they would do the same as the elites had they been in power, then focusing on the current elites makes no sense. Because the current elites will just be replaced with people like them.
Lastly, in general, people will automatically rearrange themselves into power structures, even after a theoretical reset. That’s human nature. Of course there are degrees to this, but power structures will be there nontheless. You and many others don’t seem to have a clue if a revolution will lead to less totalitarianism, or more totalitarianism, you just assume that it would lead to a better state. Sorry to say, that’s a bit naive.
There is always going to be an elite. If sociery is bad, no revolution in the world will make things better. You’re just going to replace one tyrant with another.
To gain power of an entire country like China, Mao had to be very intelligent. Him not being informed of the consequences of his policies is highly unlikely. The consequence of claiming that he was ignorant is that it enables you to absolve him of some of his guilt. You are downplaying how bad he really was. This is not fair. Mao ruled China for 33 years and has caused more destruction in his own country than most rulers (if not all) in recorded history.
For the person that down-voted me, it is estimated that Mao was responsible for several times as many deaths as Hitler. Estimates range from 40 million all the way to 100 million people.
You don’t have to be a Nazi to point out that ~100 million people dead because of Mao is worse than ~20 million dead because of Hitler.
Unless you value Chinese lives less than the victims of Hitler, it shouldn’t be an issue to see Mao as having been more evil, even though both were very evil.
To be fair, Mao should be in the center.
Same dilemma
4·10 months agoThis demon got his head shopped off and impaled (if I recall correctly) outside of Istanbul.
In 1476, while marching to yet another battle with the Ottomans, Vlad and a small vanguard of soldiers were ambushed, and Vlad was killed and beheaded — by most reports, his head was delivered to Mehmed II in Constantinople as a trophy to be displayed above the city’s gates.
He got what was coming to him.
11·1 year agoYou’re not understanding what I’m trying to say. This ideology attacks the very idea that the conceptualization of things is bound to reality, ad-hoc, to justify fetishes, making money or other limited personal gains. Outside of these limited gains, these people must deal with reality, so they reintroduce concepts as if nothing happened. That’s why it’s ad-hoc. It’s hypocritical, anti-truth and illogical. Your example, just like other attempts to dismantle the idea of a sex binary (male and female) is fundamentally flawed. A “spork” has the function of being compact and easy to carry & distribute. Being an intersex person has no benefit, it’s a disability. It’s like being born blind or deaf. It’s unfortunate, and should not be fetishized or compared to being a transexual. It’s also highly uncommon to be intersex, so uncommon that redoing how society functions is simply too impractical. Introducing sporks has no such burden on society, and can be easily referred to in terms of a spoon and a fork, because it combines the function of both (albeit lackingly).
It doesn’t end there. They claim that there is a spectrum, not 3 sexes. So they further muddy the waters, and any attempt to categorize things can be waved away in a similar fashion to satisfy some people’s personal whims and desires. Not practical, not acceptable.
Whatever grievances we have with clothing designers or fashion, the point still stands that we will never move away from naturally putting things into boxes, especially when it comes to sex. We naturally see two sexes, and doing so turns out to be what is most in line with reality.
You put things into categories all the time, we all do. Take plates for example. If someone told you that you are not allowed to call two plates with different colors “plates”, then you would likely have considered it a bit wired. Wouldn’t you?
Also, tone down the arrogance.
You know Pakistan & India also recognizes a third gender? The Hijra. I guess the medical community has a long history of this grift all the way into antiquity such as Ancient Egypt (they wrote and described their notion of a third gender) or even somewhat recently the Mughal Empire (15th century). But yes it’s totally a grift.
Your lack of knowledge isn’t mine to fix though. You’ve set your opinion to be something malicious because you want it to be, but even a quick glance at a wiki page would tell you the much longer history.
I did not know about this term, so let’s take a look.
Wikipedia says: “In the Indian subcontinent, hijra is the generic term for trans women and may include eunuchs and intersex people […] Hijras are officially recognised as a third gender throughout countries in the Indian subcontinent”
It goes on to say: “Some hijras may form relationships with men and even marry,[32] although their marriage is not usually recognized by law or religion”
So the institution of marriage did not entertain the idea of “hijras”, that seems pretty significant to me! It begs the question which other norms, customs, practices and laws pertaining to sexes were not taking this idea into consideration. Again, you can make up a sex ad-hoc for specific purposes (fetishes, guarding harems, etc.) but you will not find it being truly recognized as another sex.
If we forward to today, you see the same thing. Medical doctors, architects, clothing designers, etc. all mostly operate according the concept of two sexes. Because that’s what’s practical, and that’s what’s most in line with reality.
Don’t bother doing this test. They ask for money to show your result once you’re done.