@seilsaturn This goy goons to "modern academia", rejects semantic relativism, reposts communist propaganda, wants the war in Ukraine to continue and says that North Korea is not a socialist country XD
What did you expect
@kenocryptomancy HOW FUCKING DARE YOU CALL JUCHE NOT REAL SOCIALISM, YOU UNGRATEFUL REVISIONIST?! WE HAVE STATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!! WE HAVE SOCIAL WELFARE!! WE HAVE FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTHCARE AND REVOLUTIONARY EQUALITY!!! OUR GLORIOUS COMRADE KIM JONG UN WILL FIND YOU
@FlatPotato22 >> I'm already an adult
Most hilarious thing I ever heard in my life lmfao
Plus, NK is not a socialist country. And I have American citizenship, so it doesn't matter unlike you ๐คช
You know, I have lots of friends who have different political views. Some of them don't agree that the nazis are left wing. Some of them don't agree with semantic relativism. But at least they don't want to kill me for that LMAO ๐ญ
@kenocryptomancy I'm already an adult
Btw, when the REAL socialists come to liberate your country from oppressive capitalism, you won't be allowed to leave the country. You will be forced to defend it.
Where are you going to escape? To North Korea or to the fishes?
I talk to ChatGPT a lot, that's why I can spot leftoid AI- generated sophistry from a mile away. The detector is just another proof. Next time at least change the dashes
You claim that modern academia is a leftist conspiracy simply because its peer-reviewed definitions do not conform to your echo chamber. This is a text-book anti-intellectual cop-out.
As I stated before, formal discussion and meaningful debate presuppose agreed-upon conventions and shared definitions. If you consistently reject universal academic terms and retreat into your own arbitrary terminology, you render all debate utterly meaningless. Relativism and tribalism cannot lead to any intellectual progress.
You complain about 'leftist terminology,' yet you are completely blind to the fact that the very definition of Privatizationโthe ultimate capitalist concept you loveโwas coined by western economists specifically to describe Nazi Germanyโs economic policies in the 1930s when they sold off state railways and banks to private monopolies. Is the history of economic language also a communist conspiracy?
If we are not obligated to respect modern academia just because they call themselves 'academia', then by your exact same logic, people are under absolutely no obligation to respect your fringe internet definitions or your stupid, retarded thoughts.
If you refuse to play by the rules of objective historical evidence and political philosophy, you are not 'debating'โyou are just having an ideological tantrum because the real world doesn't fit your narrative. Again, by your own logic, nobody has to agree with your nonsensical claim that Nazism is a form of socialism.
@kenocryptomancy WHAAAAT??? ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฑ
Ukrainian men illegally dodging the draft abroad are WANTED and considered TRAITORS to their country???
HMMMMM ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค
Let me think about that for a second...
I'm starting to feel something...
WAIT, I GOT IT...
I DON'T GIVE A FUUUUUCK LMAOOOO ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ๐
@kenocryptomancy If you reject relativism, you can't be an egoist at all. Nothing objective exists. Everything "objective" is a spook. Relativism is the main thing that leads to intellectual progress
Btw explain this
EVERY political sect uses its own terminology. "Objective political definitions" don't exist. All "objective" social terms are conventional constructs with an inflated ego. We are not obligated to adopt left-liberal terminology just because your favorite wikipedia tells us to
I have figured out why arguing with certain ancap assholes is so exhausting and why it feels like talking to a wall. (This is not a generalization of all of them, so do not misunderstand me.) Here is the result of my analysis.
1. These fuckers (not all ancaps) debate by defining words in ways that benefit them. There is something that must be established before a debate: a common understanding of the definitions of terms. Debating without establishing a common understanding of definitions is like arguing with a wall.
2. They have absolutely no healthy attitude toward debate. Their only goal is to logically defeat their opponents, and their only goal is to demonstrate the superiority of ancap. They are convinced that they are unconditionally 100% right, making ancap look like an ideology created for 4chan-style arguments.
3. They tend to oversimplify everything. They lump everything involving state intervention together as socialism, or make the leap that the Nazis were socialists. However, as I mentioned in point 1, they reject mainstream definitions of terms and define them however they want. In the end, when they shout "The Nazis were socialists!", what they are really saying is "The Nazis were Nazis!", which means absolutely nothing.
4. When it comes to defending their own ideology, they display a hypocritical attitude by demanding that their opponents follow their own precise definitions. When attacking socialism or other ideologies, they distort them and refuse to respect the definitions used by those camps, while simultaneously trying to redefine every term according to their own standards.
5. When their opponents criticize capitalism or the free market by bringing up historical examples, they shout, "That wasn't real capitalism! It was some weird thing mixed with socialism!" Yet, when their opponents praise capitalism, they suddenly acknowledge that it was indeed capitalism. They also place the free market and capitalism in some pure realm beyond history, where they can never be criticized, maintaining nothing but an optimistic attitude toward them. At the same time, they mock and ridicule those who argue that the Soviet Union, China, or the Nazis were not real socialism or communism. This is an obvious contradiction.
In conclusion, this kind of debate is meaningless and brings about no change whatsoever. It is like going into a debate with mathematical formulas, denying the fact that 1 is 1, and then arguing with mathematicians.
If, despite the fact that this piece does not engage in generalization, you find yourself feeling angry or inclined to offer a rebuttal while reading it, thenโregrettablyโyou might belong to that extreme fringe of ancaps.
@kenocryptomancy Yes, and? I don't agree with the modern academia, because it is biased and it spreads ideas I don't like. I'm not obligated to like modern academia
I'm glad that you start understanding semantic relativism
@kenocryptomancy Modern academia is leftist. Otherwise, they wouldn't say that "men can menstruate". I already explained to you how leftist it is. It's extremely leftist. I sent you a long text explaining it. But you answered this bullshit: