sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
No bio...
User ID: 2725
I've never heard of Stanislav Krapivnik. Posturing that Russia should nuke "the ones behind Ukraine" is a common pastime of some of the pro-Russian media people and is not serious IMO.
The aristocrats aren't doing anything to me. Literally, socialism is a bigger problem than billionaires by a magnitude of 10,000 times at least. Socialism takes all my money. I don't like the billionaires because they are not aristocrats, they are mostly lucky peasants or class traitors and that's that but they're basically not worth worrying about.
I am not talking about the billionaires. The billionaires are the equivalent of the rich who the aristocrats of old borrowed money from.
"I've paid you a small fortune."
"And that gives you power over me?"
Do you feel in charge? If you're the top 10%, why do you not feel in charge? What are you doing about it?
Stop criticizing how I spend my leisure time, it's rude and disrupts how I want to spend my leisure time. Do you never do anything for fun? The idea I have to spend all my time competing against Chinese rice peasants and white proletariat is what I'm against. Aristocrats philosophize. Maybe be happier that you're here also partaking in aristocratic leisure?
I'm criticizing your leisure time because you're the one here who's unhappy about not being handed things like convenient and enriching competition. I work for 1/3 of the money someone in my IQ cohort could and apply 1/10 the effort. I feel quite alright with the ratio of money to effort I'm getting, and spend the rest of my time engaging in laborer leisure. Meanwhile, you're larping at "aristocratic leisure" while very evidently not being an aristocrat. (You could tell if you were because you'd feel in charge.)
The reason you don't need to spend half your life demonstrating why you shouldn't be a farm animal is species segregation.
The reason I don't have to demonstrate that is that farm animals are much better at dragging plows and being tasty than me (and tractors beat them at the former, too). If you lived in the era where draft animals were scarce you'd have to prove why you'd be more useful in the office doing shape rotating/wordcelry than dragging a plow. We don't have species segregation, we just made animal labor cheaper than ours.
I didn't say without competition. I said without meaningless competition.
I didn't say without competition either. I said without competition with anyone you don't like. Naturally everyone is incentivized to eliminate as much competition as possible, branding it "meaningless" and "below them" and shit. That isn't how it works. Competition only becomes truly meaningless when you're strong enough to make your lessers compete against it instead. Like the actual aristocrats of the world are currently doing to you. You're the bear barrier. You'll remain one until you become the kind of person who's better at wrangling people than bears.
If you're truly too smart for your current position in the world then complaining on wordcel forums is both undignified and useless. You should be out there lobbying, colluding and scheming.
Whatever you call "let the high IQs work without taxes or competition with anyone they don't like", it's not "aristocracy" in any established meaning of the word. Aristocracy is not when you "get" to do things. Aristocracy is when you do things, while other people less versed in politics "get" to do what you allow them and no more.
Bemoaning that the world isn't fair because you only get to keep 100k/year instead of 200k/year is a useless and undignified activity.
Smart people are keeping the profits for themselves. Ergo, you're not smart enough to be an aristocrat if you're here complaining about taxes and nepotism.
Aristocracy is when high-agency people break rules, scheme and kill to fulfill their desire of getting things simply for existing instead of working hard. Those who complain about not being given things instead of doing the above are not aristocrats, they are failsons.
Then there is nothing to discuss, is there? The founding fathers did not secure a future (some future) for their descendants by posturing about it on the internet.
There are now those who do not respect blood claims on principle, and not dried blood in any other case.
Magical Britain is a small community. I don't find it unlikely that four years between finishing Hogwarts and dying (one year after Harry was born) wouldn't be enough to get their faces known. They literally were in The Resistance.
James' parents died of a magical illness and Lily's were killed by Death Eaters, but I think that was WoG and not mentioned in books.
Where did those mythical Americans come from before there was an America? Not outer space, surely?
Literally how does their age 7 years ago matter in the present? It's not even the "babysitter fucking their ward once the ward grows up", they had not known each other in this hypothetical.
I persuade in good faith to arrive to an objective truth.
You are mistaken about my beliefs.
They are trying to exploit us as if we were automatons powered by neurotransmitters.
Having theory of mind of people who don't think like you is evil and wrong, actually. As is trying to reach goals you think are mutual.
"I believe principle X should be followed."
"You seem to be ignoring principle X in case Y."
"I won't agree with you because you are coming from different first principles."
If anything makes me have contempt for backwards beliefs it's this. But go on and expose how you discard what you profess for tribal reasons further.
I don't think the population that answers "gay" in polls is the same population that is likely to be the top in dub-consensual male sex in prisons.
Do you consider restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman such a core part of Christianity that it beats all the rest of Christian practices and virtues, or lack thereof? It's hardly even exclusive to Christianity. Any run of the mill jungle tribe faith practices heterogamy.
I must note about Russia, from my perspective here it does not look like its trad values such as slightly lower (relatively when compared to both USA and Afghanistan) acceptance of LGBT is in any way connected to greater influence of Christianity.
The penetration of the Orthodox gilding on top of the Russian state into Russian society is dismal. From what I see, being either an adherent Christian or a cultural Christian is a lot more common and "mainstream" among Americans than Russians. Hell, Americans actually prioritize Christmas above New Year's Eve.
I have elaborated on that elsewhere. For now, as per your metaphor the only legacy of mice Russia seems to keep over USA is that we eat more real cheese rather than the synthetic orange stuff.
So if you can't prove that an exchange of money has taken place (or it did not yet take place at all), then no amount of evidence implicates a man who said "I will pay you to make X disappear" in the following murder of X?
a similar experiment by presenting you with photos of several cis women and one trans woman
Could mix it up a little by stating that the trans women might be all, a few, or none of them.
In blinded trials you withhold information, not tell the participant a lie.
On the other hand, getting taboos made acceptable under the guise of "it's only fiction" will also be used by those who really do want to fuck fourteen year olds, or six year olds, or consume imagery of small children being tortured and abused.
One of those things is something pretty much every male goes through during at least a few years of his life. It's impolite in polite society, however, to even speculate whether or not it's supposed to go away once the young man goes past the age of majority.
I dare say there are worse things about mankind than gays.
According to some people's sense, if it's a character with a child's proportions, a child's mannerisms and a child's face... but with tits tacked on - it's a child with tits, not an adult.
Kind of hard to take such profound arguments seriously when your usual argument is for removing the women's ability to select.
The way I understood the argument, it goes like this: the more chuds (chud, def.: the opposite of woke) hate something publicly, the more wokes are inclined to be that thing out of contrarianism. This also works the other way around, see: the hypersensitivity of chuds to even the slightest depiction of woke values in media (such as when female character is not white blonde bombshell with exposed D cups).
Thus, making anti-transness your personality as an opinion maker online means more young people who already disliked your memeplex identify as trans.
That's if the influential Jews physically flee to Russia. Why wouldn't they just invite Russia in to offer a marginally less shitty deal than the one you're proposing USA should offer them? Or China, for that matter.
Many Israeli are Russian Jews anyway (or just Russians with very thin Jewish ancestry).
They could offer Russia a buffer of tech that's not completely pozzed with Western values yet is better than the feeble attempts of Russia to create its own internet, for example.

At this point I think it's probably closest to:
The only ones interested in nuclear escalation in this picture are the armchair warriors (mostly ignorant/uncaring about consequences and just wanting to feel good about the Russian bear going apeshit, not unlike some who think USA should just glass Middle East until goals are achieved) and the rank and file soldiers (who'd rather Ukraine get nuked than have to lay down their lives for it any further). Consequentially they are getting very angry at Putin who pursues the image of "denazificator" (as opposed to "stone them into the bomb age") and the other power centers who pursue money handouts for building nationalized social media apps and the like.
More options
Context Copy link