Jump to content

zlemflolia

Supporting Member
  • Posts

    6,045
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by zlemflolia

  1. 11 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    lol apparently he was a hack long before all this: https://x.com/davidhamer_1951/status/1753383161893880036?s=46&t=lzb--cRIkaiKMari_HPNtg

    which makes me wonder - how fucking low are the University of Toronto’s hiring standards??

    okay elon?  what was the "different gig" ? i assume this site wont render cuz im not logged in? literally cant see shit, fuck twitter

    jordan BAFFOON peterson gets NO gigs.

    jordan BULK peterson devoirs growth hormone infested steak exclusively for 6 years, left with nose dripping antibiotics, closet uncleaned

    • Like 1
  2. 16 minutes ago, ignatius said:

    qpyhyjvo88cc1.png?width=551&auto=webp&s=

    great example of how fascism can come about so easily even among people who ostensibly were victims of fascism in the past.  absolutely disgusting government.  fuck them.  they say this with that flag behind them.  imagine showing this to a victim of the holocaust

    • Like 5
  3. 15 minutes ago, ignatius said:

    So true. I think the nazis killed even more Soviet’s than Stalin did. 🫠

    but seriously I think ussr suffered around 20 million deaths during ww2

    and yes absolutely accurate about the non aggression pact. The early days of the nazis on the world stage were full of appeasement and countries stalling while they built their war machines preparing for the fight. That history is still being uncovered in some places

    the date of that Churchill quote is relevant. When did he say that? 

    1935

    https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/winston-churchill-and-the-gathering-storm.html

    and i would hardly call it relevant.  hitler was a fascist anti-semite from the very beginning

    and stalin's quote is even earlier, 1931

  4. 1 hour ago, trying to be less rude said:

    this is insane.  

    no, i mentioned that they fought with hitler. they had a non-aggression pact and worked together as each was conquering neighbors. hitler turned on stalin later.

    i agree

    just cuz modern russia is invading ukraine doesnt mean you have to revise history to create narratives of russia being pro-hitler or something.  fought with hitler?  sources please.  they had a non-aggression pact because stalin was left with no choices after UK+France refused an anti-fascist pact with them

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2018.1458043

    "ussr fought with hitler" borders on nazi apologism considering the nazis killed more soviets than ANY other group of people.

    your writings piss me off because youre so anxious to stay on some side that you lie and write falsities

    even extremely anti-soviet biased wikipedia says the same thing

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

    The treaty was the culmination of negotiations for an economic agreement between the USSR and Nazi Germany which the Soviets used to obtain a political agreement – see Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941) § 1938–1939 deal discussions. On 22 August, Ribbentrop flew to Moscow to finalize the treaty, which the Soviets had sought before with Britain and France

    USSR was not exactly in a position to be invaded and needed time for rapid industrialization in deeper territories to manufacture equipment in preparation for WW2.  tell me, did UK + France shut down economic relations with Germany in that time period that USSR maintained them?

     

    Meanwhile, Churchill on Hitler:

    Churchill went on to conclude: “We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the great Germanic nation. . . . [History] is replete with examples of men who have risen to power by employing stern, grim, and even frightful methods but who, nevertheless, when their life is revealed as a whole, have been regarded as great figures whose lives have enriched the story of mankind. So may it be with Hitler.”Churchill concluded his essay on a hopeful note: “We may yet to live to see Hitler a gentler figure in a happier age.” ((Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”, 173-174.))

     

    As opposed to Stalin...

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm

    In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

     

    So cut the shit, two wrongs don't make a right and your historical revisionism in an attempt to be disproportionately anti-Russian simply result in you writing outright Nazi apologism.

    • Like 1
    • Facepalm 1
  5. 4 minutes ago, custom knob said:

    I agree, I think the Palestinians and hamas should take that approach too, there’d be far more people alive now if they simply submitted to the Israelis 

    This principle can be extended to all conflicts - if the invading force is more powerful than you and more likely to win - just roll over and take it so you can save some lives - clearly the only humane option

     

    palestine is being actively occupied by israel who is funded and armed by the US, explain how this is even remotely a similar scenario

  6. ukraine has been violating peace agreements for a decade, attacking their own citizens in russian border regions through drawn out civil wars, cutting off crimeans' water supply.  if you want to make these evil great man arguments youll fool yourself into thinking putin is some all powerful dictator and the only person making decisions. 

    you think you hold a moral high ground on "russia bad, ukraine good" and so you can just say any old bullshit and hope it sticks.  but if you do it you only do a disservice to the ukrainian people who have been mistreated so badly by their government, which by the way is a government instated with CIA backing during 2014 far right coup. 

    is putin/russia treating the ukrainian people worse?  yeah, definitely, but youre missing even basic nuance and context when you continually try to simplify things.  ignoring the crimes of the ukrainian government, which used to often be called out in western media, before this of course, isn't going to help anyone

    not only that, you are denying any US involvement in this whole conflict which is disingenuous extremely and becomes nothing more than pro-US propaganda.  US, surely known for its antiwar stances right?  while its weapon contractors make billions. and you say the US has no involvement?  give me a fucking break

    i see people doing this a lot, being on "the side of the ukrainians" and instead actually being on "the side of the ukrainian government" which was and is a far right dictatorship, which is drafting its citizens to fight in this war because they dont want to actually fight. being "on the side of the ukrainian people by shipping them weapons" when those weapons prolong the war and result in more ukrainians dead, a quick defeat of the Ukrainian government by Russia, without Ukraine getting US weapons aid, would have saved more Ukrainian lives.  but this isn't ideologically convenient for you, you'd prefer a long drawn out war for the ideology of nationalism

    everyone would be better off and far less dead if ukraine gov met putin's terms of surrender set at the beginning of the war but people think nationalistic jingoism is the answer.  whose side do you think you are on wanting the war to continue with more and more US weaponry?

    war is not the answer, and being on any "side" except the ukrainian people, who are objectively harmed by the war, is contrary to the true side you should be on, wanting the war to end.  "but i do want it to end" you say, then why do you support US weapons aid and support trying to have ukraine "win" it?  its too late, ukraine is destroyed at this point, they lost, and it's the US's fault.  a true win would be a quick loss to Russia in the beginning.  far more would be alive.

    • Like 1
  7. 6 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

    @decibal cooper you're either drinking swill or making it, i can't tell which. trying to make this about USA furthers russian propaganda. russia invaded ukraine. that's what happened. USA is standing by an ally, along with many other countries that are supporting ukraine against murderous aggression. ukrainians are the ones choosing to fight and asking for support. 

     

    also putin reiterated again last month his intention to effectively conquer ukraine 

    i couldn't say it better myself brother.  the only way to understand this is to remove all historical context, especially the history of the past decade

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  8. 52 minutes ago, EdamAnchorman said:

    Or perhaps they lost their job due to their inferior skill set or intellect, and they look around and see all these foreigners coming in and getting jobs because they're willing to take any job, or they see immigrants coming here for college and then landing good jobs...

    It's the immigrants' fault that they're out of work, obviously.

    due to their false consciousness instilled into them by the owning class, they are unable to realize that the hardships due to losing a job are caused by that very owning class, and capitalism and private property itself, rather than the other fellow workers with whom they are forced to compete.  this contradiction between immigrants workers and those born here is intentionally exacerbated by the owning class itself as well who owns right wing media spreading these ideas 24/7 on radio and TV

    a massive propaganda campaign meant to demobilize the working class, confuse them, and prevent them from understanding Marxism, or even class consciousness in general.  but it is no exaggeration to say that anti-Marxism is the aim, given that it was the primary goal of the entire Cold War which never ended but was merely won

    the common rejection of Marxism as being a relevant concept is interesting and definitely ahistorical considering it was the driving force of almost all 20th century politics, and all of  our 21st century political problems are all derived from that reaction against Marxism

  9. this balancing act of wondering whether next year youre going to have {insert bad thing here} happen to you depending on who draws a bunch of circles in the right place, is definitely a democracy, trust me......

    • Haha 1
  10. 25 minutes ago, decibal cooper said:

    I am very uninformed about this topic, but I hear often how AI is going to be the death of humanity and how dangerous it is. Seems like it is just chat bots and image generators so far, though. Also is not the issue of human intelligence itself, how to define it, and how to understand it at a fundamental level (physiologically, psychologically, spiritually etc.) still intensely debated among scientists, philosophers, artists and the like? How will there be an artificial version of something that humans do not really understand all that well? Is there any recommended reading or videos that explain what, if any, the real threat of artificial intelligence is or will be?

    there is an extremely real threat of ai, but there is also marketing where companies say "ai is a huge thread, invest in us because were going to do it safely with guardrails".  a terminator scenario is literally very possible and not even sci-fi. at the same time. its not even the ai thats the primary threat, its the whole system, hardware is the real threat, and its being developed unrelentingly

    • Like 1
  11. problem is what hes saying has no teeth, no usefulness, literally useless, even if he got all his demands climate change would not be solved, because its incoherent, its not a real plan of action, theres nothing to act on from anything he said, because its not substantial and its idealist, at best liberal reformism

  12. he never once bothers to mention those who own the means of production and those who are actually driving this fossil fuel usage, he talks about politicians, consumers, feelings, culture.  i listened to the whole thing i dont think i even once heard him mention "owning class" or any synonym or even the word "billionaires".  a lot of what he said materially made sense but he refused to go further, not surprised since hes an ex wall street oil trader

  13. its just that when i see people talk about this and try to talk materially then refuse to even mention the word "capitalism" and propose an alternative i cant take them seriously, especially since this dude keeps saying "i feel bad for politicians" and "(bourgeois) economists arent bad they just used the wrong playbook" like ok whats your solution exactly?  "change our values" lol its about the monopoly on violence literally forcing us into wage labor daily, he cant even pick up on that.  fast food is bad, but getting food while in transit quickly and easily? not inherently bad, its called a canteen and they can use glass plates, something socialists used most prevalently

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.