|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 13, 2019 17:51:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 13, 2019 18:05:38 GMT -5
I was going down the sovereign citizen rabbit hole a bit. Anyone who can explain to me what the ever-loving fuck this woman is talking about? Pretty please?
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 14, 2019 9:37:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 14, 2019 9:54:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Emig5m on Apr 14, 2019 13:21:22 GMT -5
Those hips and thighs.....mmmm...delicious...I mean check out the music and drumming skills...lol...
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 15, 2019 8:04:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 15, 2019 15:56:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coolverine on Apr 18, 2019 19:33:05 GMT -5
She's clearly living a lavish lifestyle and basking in fortune, not just from her man's inheritance, but also from the multi-million $ book deals and biography documentaries inspired by her criminal acts. Sickening. I watched the documentary about her recently, the whole time I kept thinking she looks exactly like Mark Zuckerberg.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 20:04:31 GMT -5
She's clearly living a lavish lifestyle and basking in fortune, not just from her man's inheritance, but also from the multi-million $ book deals and biography documentaries inspired by her criminal acts. Sickening. I watched the documentary about her recently, the whole time I kept thinking she looks exactly like Mark Zuckerberg.
|
|
|
Post by Coolverine on Apr 19, 2019 8:30:05 GMT -5
I guess it's because they both have that cold dead robot stare.
|
|
|
Post by Coolverine on Apr 19, 2019 13:12:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 19, 2019 19:33:49 GMT -5
I had no idea it was finally happening but people have been trying to get Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek to have a debate for years. Its live right now. Here is a livestream I need to go back and watch it all later
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 19, 2019 20:18:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 20, 2019 9:30:13 GMT -5
im going to finally see this in a couple hours
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 20, 2019 10:55:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coolverine on Apr 20, 2019 11:04:58 GMT -5
Those little mofos are smarter than they're given credit for, even if they chew holes in walls and piss and crap everywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 14:37:47 GMT -5
They were waxing so philosophical, it was difficult to follow. But I managed to watch 10 minutes or so. Basically, both guys take the God>Family>Country narrative and put their own twist on it. JP - happiness can be achieved through (loosely paraphrased)... 1) The individual. By following western Judeo-Christian values and toughing it out (overcome obstacles in one's life through sheer will), the individual can eventually achieve moments of self-actualization/happiness. 2) 1 (above) improves and strengthens the family unit 3) 1 & 2 (above) improves country, govt and society on the whole So Peterson more or less follows the traditional view, but without saying that you must follow God first. The emphasis is more on the value system, than being religious. I don't think he's religious in the sense that most of the left assumes he is because, in a podcast, he mentioned he doesn't attend church himself. Though, he's not opposed to organized religion... it's just not for him or something along those lines. Also, his frequent use of evolution (we evolved from lobsters and chimps) in his arguments. lol Zizek - gobbledeeguke... Admittedly, I had a difficult time understand him. His English wasn't that great and he appears to be suffering from a bad cold. But from what I gathered, he's saying (again, loosely paraphrased)... "Yes, such moral value systems can work to help ppl achieve happiness, but only if you put Marxist state/govt at the top of the list. Also, God isn't a necessary part of it and Democracy & Capitalism are bad." That's the debate in a nutshell. lol
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 20, 2019 16:09:57 GMT -5
They were waxing so philosophical, it was difficult to follow. But I managed to watch 10 minutes or so. Basically, both guys take the God>Family>Country narrative and put their own twist on it. JP - happiness can be achieved through (loosely paraphrased)... 1) The individual. By following western Judeo-Christian values and toughing it out (overcome obstacles in one's life through sheer will), the individual can eventually achieve moments of self-actualization/happiness. 2) 1 (above) improves and strengthens the family unit 3) 1 & 2 (above) improves country, govt and society on the whole So Peterson more or less follows the traditional view, but without saying that you must follow God first. The emphasis is more on the value system, than being religious. I don't think he's religious in the sense that most of the left assumes he is because, in a podcast, he mentioned he doesn't attend church himself. Though, he's not opposed to organized religion... it's just not for him or something along those lines. Also, his frequent use of evolution (we evolved from lobsters and chimps) in his arguments. lol Zizek - gobbledeeguke... Admittedly, I had a difficult time understand him. His English wasn't that great and he appears to be suffering from a bad cold. But from what I gathered, he's saying (again, loosely paraphrased)... "Yes, such moral value systems can work to help ppl achieve happiness, but only if you put Marxist state/govt at the top of the list. Also, God isn't a necessary part of it and Democracy & Capitalism are bad." That's the debate in a nutshell. lol It was a complete shit "debate" all around. Zizek has some kind of sinus issue that makes it very difficult to listen to him for long periods of time. A good speaker he aint. Hes a writer. Thats a strike against him right away because being a good speaker is just as good as having a good argument. JP came out of nowhere and has become one of the biggest pop philosophers in the world and is resoundingly anti-Marxist. Zizek has been big into philosophy for decades now and he is really big into Marxism, therefor people have been saying they should debate forever. JP says that he didn't read any of Zizeks work and just the communist manifesto.......so we are off to a bad start to begin with. To be fair Zizek has a million books and I wouldn't expect JP to sit and read most of them. Even a passing familiarity would be nice tho. The best exchange is here. JP goes on and on about "postmodern neomarxists" as his boogieman. So Zizek puts him on the spot and wants to know specifically who is talking about: JPs response is rather vague. Something about 25% of humanities professors? I wasn't aware humanities professors were tastemakers, influences, or cultural gatekeepers but what do I know. Please don't tell me hollywood with their private planes and mountains of cocaine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 16:27:48 GMT -5
They were waxing so philosophical, it was difficult to follow. But I managed to watch 10 minutes or so. Basically, both guys take the God>Family>Country narrative and put their own twist on it. JP - happiness can be achieved through (loosely paraphrased)... 1) The individual. By following western Judeo-Christian values and toughing it out (overcome obstacles in one's life through sheer will), the individual can eventually achieve moments of self-actualization/happiness. 2) 1 (above) improves and strengthens the family unit 3) 1 & 2 (above) improves country, govt and society on the whole So Peterson more or less follows the traditional view, but without saying that you must follow God first. The emphasis is more on the value system, than being religious. I don't think he's religious in the sense that most of the left assumes he is because, in a podcast, he mentioned he doesn't attend church himself. Though, he's not opposed to organized religion... it's just not for him or something along those lines. Also, his frequent use of evolution (we evolved from lobsters and chimps) in his arguments. lol Zizek - gobbledeeguke... Admittedly, I had a difficult time understand him. His English wasn't that great and he appears to be suffering from a bad cold. But from what I gathered, he's saying (again, loosely paraphrased)... "Yes, such moral value systems can work to help ppl achieve happiness, but only if you put Marxist state/govt at the top of the list. Also, God isn't a necessary part of it and Democracy & Capitalism are bad." That's the debate in a nutshell. lol It was a complete shit "debate" all around. Zizek has some kind of sinus issue that makes it very difficult to listen to him for long periods of time. A good speaker he aint. Hes a writer. Thats a strike against him right away because being a good speaker is just as good as having a good argument. JP came out of nowhere and has become one of the biggest pop philosophers in the world and is resoundingly anti-Marxist. Zizek has been big into philosophy for decades now and he is really big into Marxism, therefor people have been saying they should debate forever. JP says that he didn't read any of Zizeks work and just the communist manifesto.......so we are off to a bad start to begin with. To be fair Zizek has a million books and I wouldn't expect JP to sit and read most of them. Even a passing familiarity would be nice tho. The best exchange is here. JP goes on and on about "postmodern neomarxists" as his boogieman. So Zizek puts him on the spot and wants to know specifically who is talking about: JPs response is rather vague. Something about 25% of humanities professors? I wasn't aware humanities professors were tastemakers, influences, or cultural gatekeepers but what do I know. Please don't tell me hollywood with their private planes and mountains of cocaine. They both seem vague and looking at the world from 40,000 ft. JP's professional focus is psychology, so I wouldn't expect him to be an expert in philosophy, religion, or politics. I'm thinking he's regarded as a big philosopher because he became a big youtube sensation. Many people were already getting sick of overly PC culture & politics, and JP opportunistically appeared at the exact right time with alternate opinions and thus gained huge popularity. That doesn't mean all his ideas are bad, but he's not exactly a great oracle or know-it-all either. My beliefs probably fall somewhere in between their ideologies. I agree with JP that (politically/legally enforcing) universal equal outcomes are bad because then there's no incentive to work harder or better than the person next to you. At the same time, corporations with rights (even exceeding the rights of individuals, particularly with the power of lobbyists and political campaign contributions) is an affront & impedes to true Democracy. Afterall, how can the govt hope to successfully prioritize the needs of the people while it owes political favors to the corporations? /rhetorical
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 21, 2019 15:47:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2019 16:53:48 GMT -5
Readily available drugs (including prescription drugs) kill 1000's of times more people than readily available guns. Good luck solving either problem through govt regulations and bans.
I'm not a gun enthusiast, so such bans wouldn't affect me personally. heh, just calling it as I see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2019 21:10:49 GMT -5
Gene Roddenberry understood the root of our violence problem decades ago. getyarn.io/yarn-story/6d35fddb-b4a9-4733-9059-268c1e79e26c#HyggIr_q55V.copyhttps://getyarn.io/yarn-story/6d35fddb-b4a9-4733-9059-268c1e79e26c#HyggIr_q55V.copyEven if the left/govt takes guns off the market completely, people will make their own (unfortunately, i see articles saying it's easy to do these days with 3D printing), buy guns off the black market, or use alternate means & weapons in order to carry out their violence anyway. Gene hinted at in ST, that the root of the problem is that our society glorifies violence through various media & entertainment. Violence is glorified, as long as it's state sponsored & approved. Maybe someday we'll have WWIII with nuke wars resulting in billions dead, learn our lesson, barely claw our way back from the brink, find new purpose for humanity and create a utopia. For non-trekkies, that's Gene's vision of the future and the backstory of Star Trek.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 13:20:16 GMT -5
I agree but I'll still watch it.
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 22, 2019 22:15:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 23, 2019 22:06:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Apr 24, 2019 20:14:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 11:30:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 12:37:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 12:47:14 GMT -5
This vid is facking hilarious. Dating advice "guru" uses grocery shopping as analogy to dating. She tells women to go for the good guys, but admits that she always goes for the bad boys.
You could argue that she's being humble. But still, she admits she's bad at picking guys, so what business does she think she have advising other women about how to find a good guy, by comparing him to produce (no list of actual human characteristics to look for or avoid). lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 15:19:58 GMT -5
I've watched alot of these MGTOW videos recently and read many comments, mostly for entertainment and interesting stories about other men's experiences with women. I haven't seen anyone call for violence or hate against women. They don't appear to be a movement, much less have a leader or organization.
I think they're mostly a bunch of dudes who gave up on trying to make it work with women. I understand their pov, because typically women do expect men to do most of the work in relationships. Women want to be chased and want the men to plan things out in the relationships, and most of them have at least minimal expectations (even if they pretend they don't). That's just the way it is, imo, and you have to deal with it if you want a relationship with a woman.
Date tons of women (don't sleep around tho.. anti-biotic resistant STD's are on the rise), find that 1 out of 100 woman (or whatever the odds are) that's good, and expect to put in tons of work & effort to keep the relationship going long-term. Even then, don't expect her to stay the same after marriage (I've read about so many female chameleon stories) and that things still might not work out.
Or give up on reproduction, accept that you're an evolutionary dead-end ("choose to die," as it said in my college Biology textbook), go your own way. Well, as Canderous Ordo said in KotOR, "everything dies eventually." Basically, anyone could adopt a nihilistic pov on the subject of death & dying and MGTOW by no means holds monopoly on the topic.
I think they're right about one thing at least. They can enjoy their surplus money & comparatively drama-free lifestyle.
Personally, I still have hope that there are some decent women who are marriage material. But it's slim pickins' (on the good ones), especially the older you get.
|
|