He better bring his scout lance of 4 assault mechs.
PZK
joined 4 years ago
Reaching levels of copium not thought possible.
"This should be higher." "Savage." "Doggo." "Raises spork." "Russian bots are really active today." "CCP shills."
It would be even better if it said "and to the right."
I love how he capitalized DESTROYS.
Yes, nothing proves you are intelligence and power incarnate like obsessively criticizing a live movie adaptation of a children's toy.
Can you imagine this thumbnail posted in something like 2010?
I would think either some kid ripping apart Barbie dolls like Sid for 45 minutes... or porn.
The main issue I find with trying to argue on this front is that it is a fight that isn't needed.
Anyone who is usually arguing this, is usually is coming from some country that has literally no moral high-horse to speak on these issues. Especially if they are American. The genocide of Native Americans, enslavement of Black people, or even contemporary imperialism.
Why are they not up in arms about the largest imprisoned population in the world? Why don't they take issue with the treatment of homeless people? Why don't they take issue with the US ongoing support of coups and invasions of other countries?
They turn a blind eye to these issues because it isn't about the issues at all. The reason they bring up the Tianamen square massacre and the Uighur genocide is because they want to attack communism. You only need to point this out to them when they get upset and try to dismiss other issues as "whataboutism". Strip their intent down to its naked truth and expose their virtue signaling with the overwhelming amount of active atrocities they don't seem to care about.
Being succinct and to the point about why they actually care about arguing these things, because I fucking promise you they don't give a shit about those people. They want communism to fail. Hell, just troll them and talk about the My Lai Massacre or Kent State.
The point I make using this avenue of argument is that if you try to argue "what actually happened" its just going to be your facts vs theirs. They are the ones creating a moral argument, so show them that even they don't believe what they are preaching.
Another important thing to note is that they will not crackdown on "internet spaces" until a left-wing one becomes a "problem". Right-wing spaces will be monitored, but be allowed to fully exist forever until they are a source of direct threat to capital. Leftist spaces threaten capital by nature.
Case in point: when :reddit-logo: decided to ban the chapo sub because it was becoming popular. They had allowed The_Donald to exist all that time and used that as the excuse for banning "extreme forums" when really it was just an excuse to get rid of the leftist subreddit. They even went on a purge of the smaller offshoots that popped up after.
The sharp rise in Violent/Aggressive Discourse in the Extreme Left is an artifact of the inclusion of Hexbear.net. The amount of history that can be collected from Hexbear right now is minimal.
Remember guys. If you just police thought, and tell people they aren't starving or dying, they won't become radicalized. :so-true:
The fucking stupidity of shit like this. Both right and left radicalization is a result of failing material conditions, not "think groups" like liberals love to believe. If you want the "extremes" to go away, start providing a quality life to people without having to take it from someone else. But naturally that would require people like the ones that did this study to understand the system. It would also require these people to realize they are part of the problem.
I think if they had internet back they would have definitely memed about it.
The common era started 7 years ago. There was a significant event that happened that marked a turning point in history. A steady and consistent collapse of conditions has followed since. Everything has mostly taken a turn for the worse and it was forever marked with a tragedy.
The era we live in today is "PH".
Post-Harambe :the-gunman: :le-monke:
I keep seeing the claim that their are bots everywhere when liberals encounter something they disagree with... yet they have not been able to program their own chat bots to counter them?
Surely liberals would recognize this advantageous strategy and flood the internet with their own bots. Because we know that it couldn't just be them stepping outside of astroturfed reddit, only to find their ideas are not as popular as they we led to believe.
I suppose they will just keep labeling people uselessly when encountering conflicting evidence.