>>77046 STFU about what, bitchboy fuckhead?

>>77046 If you're not Japanese, then you're an anime tourist. End of the story.

>>77208 Prove it, nigger.

>>77046 Because tourists actually pose a threat to anime.

>>77407 Bleh. The people you're talking about are an extremely small minority of faggots. A lot of people frame is as a le sides issue (or are told to think of it as a le sides issue by people who have a vested interest in keeping people divided over nothing but that's a rant for another day), but no, the majority of leftists, especially leftists that identify as "anime fans", see these people as puritanical jerks trying to hide regressive sex-negative thought behind a progressive facade. Nobody likes these people besides themselves. Whenever their influence seemingly does make its way back into 2D media, which almost never happens by the way, it's literally always result of some kind of deeper issue that isn't being addressed (because it isn't politically expedient to do so). Beyond that, I hate talk of an "anime fandom", or an "anime community". Anime is a vast media; it has works in every genre large enough to name and even more that cannot easily be categorized, and there's enough of it that you'll probably die before running out of shows to watch. Just because we both watch Japanese cartoons it doesn't mean that we actually have anything else in common.

>>77523 Yeah, I hate talk of the "anime fandom" and "anime community" too. There isn't one community, we all have our own spaces and don't talk to each other much. r/anime can be awful all it wants, I'll never be there so it doesn't matter. I guess it makes more sense for Rev specifically to get upset with youtube and twitter anime tourists since that's where his community is, but presenting that as the whole space is dumb. Maybe he is that dumb though and doesn't realize there's more to the internet. Real problem is every single company that handles localizing anime and other Japanese media is exclusively staffed by puritanical leftists. Their shitty translations and dubs are what hit the pirate sites first, and there isn't much infrastructure to enable going around them. Either they need to get kicked out and replaced by people who like anime as it is, or we need to make more fan translations and get better at distributing them. There's also pre-censorship, where even the japanese release is butchered for Los Angeles sensibilities. Re:zero had some outfits covered up, and Dragon Quest is the most egregious recent example. Nintendo, Square enix, and Sony are all massive problems. Sega is also letting American tourists write sonic games.

>>77577 >>77577 >puritanical leftists I still think this framing makes it too much of a le side thing. I do my best to expose myself to people from all over the political spectrum, even people I strongly disagree with. It's valuable to know where people are at in terms of their opinions, and the most accurate way to know what someone thinks is to read what they have to say directly, rather than having it fed to you by others. And in my experience, most hardcore leftists are just as unhappy with the state of things as everyone else is. They see right through woke corporate pandering and resent it greatly, seeing it as an attempt to smooth over the predatory practices and abuse of employees that power these companies, and a cynical tactic to get people to consume mediocre products. The "modern audience" does indeed exist, but it's too smart to give money to Disney. They're also deeply opposed to censorship of sexuality, probably even moreso than the GamerGate crowd. There's this one troon that leftists I follow keep reposting whose made it his mission in life to conduct a harassment campaign agaist payment processors for censoring NSFW content. Speaking more generally, you should be weary of spectacle. In real life, the majority of people are politically center-left to center-right, agree on most social issues, and mostly care about simple things like having a home, a family, and putting bread on the table. But the media, which includes social media influencers, works very hard to convince you otherwise; that celebrity gossip between people watched by >5% of the population is news, that cheap corporate products are culture, and that weird fringe politics are the norm, all in service of getting you to buy their shit and vote for their guy. My advice is to spend at least a month eschewing all media that isn't fiction that you already know is good and apolitical. It gives you a chance to bring yourself back down to earth and focus on what really matters.

>>77046 >>not japanese Well, are you Japanese, OP? >>can't speak japanese for shit Well, can you speak Japanese, OP? >>never been to Japan Well, have you been to Japan, OP? >>everything he knows about Japan is from youtube or wikipedia Well, where did you learn about Japan, their history, their culture, etc., OP?

>>77829 I think you're missing OP's point, which is that it's fucking retarded to gatekeep a culture that you yourself don't even belong to. Calling people "anime tourists" as a westerner is like calling people 4chan tourists even though you yourself have only ever experienced the site through r/4chan. Even if you do understand anime better than they do, it takes an incredible amount of arrogance to claim ownership over it.

>>77850 >it's fucking retarded to gatekeep a culture that you yourself don't even belong to No, it's not. The people who actually LIKE Japanese content liked it for being Japanese. Meanwhile the tourists and rapefugees autistically screech about whenever Japanese content doesn't appeal to them and their sensibilities. >it takes an incredible amount of arrogance to claim ownership over it It's not about "claiming ownership", it's telling people to fuck off for being so self-centered that they think they think the world needs to bend over backwards in order to appeal to them. Meanwhile the people who actually LIKED Japanese content, and have for several years, embraced what is was, and despise the newfags who come in and demand that it's time for a "change" to take place.

>>77854 >No, it's not. Yes it is. Gatekeeping in general is stupid, because you're treating processes that are fundamentally driven by market forces as if they were the result of individual retards. Products do not get watered down because the wrong people with the wrong values request that they be watered down, they get watered down because the companies making them seek to expand their markets so as to appeal to sharholders (whether or not they actually see financial success with this is beside the point). You're confusing the cause for the effect. The people you're angry at don't actually exist in any meaningful capacity.

>>77857 >you're treating processes that are fundamentally driven by market forces as if they were the result of individual retards Because they are. >Products do not get watered down because the wrong people with the wrong values request that they be watered down Yes, they do >they get watered down because the companies making them seek to expand their markets so as to appeal to sharholders No, they don't. That isn't how stock prices work. The stock price of a company increases relative to the value of the dollar. The fact that, over the past 30 years, a garbage company has seen their stock price explode from $11 to $250 should be a prime example of that. Seriously, how the fuck do you "water down" the process of collecting and disposing of trash?

>>77859 >Because they are. No, not really. There's an element of it there, but at a fundamental level, things are driven by the power structures of the neoliberal world order, where the government uses corporations to enact authoritarian rule while pretending that it isn't, and corporations take as much power as they can to expedite this process. The problem is largely the system itself, not the people that exist within it. To the extent that it is individual people, the ones that actually matter are politicians, court judges, shareholders, and corporate executives, followed by the employees that do their bidding. >Yes, they do No they don't. Do you seriously think that people with screen names like "UwU Catgyrl says save trans kids!" have more sway in the way the world runs than giant corporations worth more money than entire countries? Get real. As an aside, I've heard people screeching about "Western puritan leftists" significantly more than I've actually seen them. The left that I know is incredibly "sex positive" and is deeply opposed to the censorship of fanservice and NSFW content. Sure, you'll see a retarded, ostensibly leftist news article every so often, but remember, this is the media, something that has a vested interest in keeping people angry and divided. It is extraordinarily uncommon for it to actually reflect the views of real human beings, let alone the reality being commented on. >The stock price of a company increases relative to the value of the dollar. Kind of? While there is technically a positive correlation between the value of the dollar and stock prices, it's not as strong of a correlation as you think. Stock prices only increase alongside the value of the dollar about 40% of the time, meaning, if we're being generous, it's basically up to a coin flip. And it's not as if there's an automatic, one-to-one relationship between an individual stock and the value of stock market as a whole; a company's stocks decreasing in value is not at all unusual, even in a good market. In terms of US dollar valuation specifically, companies that deal in international markets, which includes the majority of the big entertainment companies, actually tend to suffer when the dollar goes up. >The fact that, over the past 30 years, a garbage company has seen their stock price explode from $11 to $250 should be a prime example of that. Or maybe it's because these companies have no competition and as such can make a profit off of slop? Maybe it's because normoids don't actually care about media that much and will consoom whatever the latest thing is? We live in a culture that celebrates mediocrity, and have for a while now. It shouldn't shock you when shit like Wicked does well. >Seriously, how the fuck do you "water down" the process of collecting and disposing of trash? By making things that weren't disposable trash into disposable trash, which is where this conversation started.

>>77865 >things are driven by the power structures of the neoliberal world order No, they're not. If that was the case, then these companies wouldn't be bitching so much about people not paying for their shit, and complaining about how they "need" government subsidies to survive. >where the government uses corporations to enact authoritarian rule while pretending that it isn't, and corporations take as much power as they can to expedite this process You do realize that you're describing Fascism, right? And exactly how things operate in West Taiwan. >The problem is largely the system itself, not the people that exist within it Yes it is. You can have the "Best" system in the world, and it will still fail if you fill it with people who don't know (Or care) how it works. >the ones that actually matter are politicians, court judges, and corporate executives No, they don't. They only THINK they have all the power. But who are the people who put them there in the first place? Aside from the EU government, politicians are elected. Aside from private businesses, corporate executives are elected. Even my city elects judges who get to stay on the bench. >shareholders Hey, moron, know how easy it is to become a shareholder? You can open an account with a bank right now and begin buying shares by the end of the week. That's it. Not to mention how many companies are out there were you can buy hundreds or thousands of shares for absolute pennies. Yes, shareholders do have power, but they're not some big anonymouls group who operate in back rooms, like you're trying to imply. The moment you stop bitching and put on your "Big boy" boots, you can become a shareholder at any moment and begin playing the game and controlling the outcome. <But you need majority share to effect a company No, you don't. And you're moving goal posts. >followed by the employees that do their bidding Employees actually carry a lot of power, but they constantly never use it, or acquiesce that power to outside groups like labor unions who "pinky swear" they'll fight for the "benefit" of the worker but never actually do. >Do you seriously think that people with screen names like "UwU Catgyrl says save trans kids!" have more sway in the way the world runs than giant corporations worth more money than entire countries? Why else do they change their corporate profiles to rainbow flags every June for the past several years? >The left that I know is incredibly "sex positive" and is deeply opposed to the censorship of fanservice and NSFW content. Okay, do you see these people making a stir over Nintendo forcing the cancellation of games like Brave x Junction: >>>/bv/1361 And Corpse Party: >>>/bv/966 And the censorship of Bunny Garden: >>>/bv/910 Or even the forced cancellation of regular ass games like The Great Rebellion: >>>/bv/1362 And Glory Hunters: >>>/bv/1363 <And dozens of other games? And did these people ALSO go after Sony for doing the same exact thing? >Or maybe it's because these companies have no competition and as such can make a profit off of slop? No because that one garbage company I just mentioned is one of several that operate where I live. >Maybe it's because normoids don't actually care about media that much and will consoom whatever the latest thing is? Except that's not happening. People are not seeing the movies, people are not reading the comics, and people are not buying the games. Even my own family, the shows we're watching are cop shows from the 70's and anime from 20 years ago. >We live in a culture that celebrates mediocrity No, we don't. People celebrate and promote quality products whenever they see it. The problem is that you have various groups who ridicule those products because it doesn't satisfy their self-entitled notions of what makes something "good". I mean just look at films like Carpenter's The Thing. That was a film that was slammed by the media and the presses upon release because it didn't appeal to some elitist attitude of what makes a film "art". Some thing here. You have a bunch of smug intellectuals who believe that they know better than everyone else, and going to force their ideals down everyone else's throat. I mean it just happened to the anime Bocchi The Rock, as the screenwriter removed all the erotic content on the justification that it's "distracting" and "noise" when anime became popular because of it's sex appeal: >>>/a/72867 Also, where was your so-called "sex positive Left" who "deeply oppose the censorship of fanservice and NSFW content" when that article came out? >It shouldn't shock you when shit like Wicked does well. You mean a musical based on a book about witches and bestiality? Topics which ALWAYS sells gangbusters when it comes to the female audience. Especially in the current dry-spell where the only other recent Chick-flik on the market is The Barbie Movie.

>>77868 >Except that's not happening. People are not seeing the movies, people are not reading the comics, and people are not buying the games. Maybe it's because the economy is shit and has been shit since Biden. It's not a coincidence that most of the media people talk about now came from the 80s and 90s, back when the economy was booming and people had the expendable income to buy new things every week. >Even my own family Why "even"? I'd expect that your family would have similar tastes to you. >People celebrate and promote quality products whenever they see it. If that were true, we'd be seeing more successes more frequently from more studios than the current big ones. >I mean just look at films like Carpenter's The Thing. That was a film that was slammed by the media and the presses upon release because it didn't appeal to some elitist attitude of what makes a film "art". Some thing here. You have a bunch of smug intellectuals who believe that they know better than everyone else, and going to force their ideals down everyone else's throat. I mean it just happened to the anime Bocchi The Rock, as the screenwriter removed all the erotic content on the justification that it's "distracting" and "noise" when anime became popular because of it's sex appeal Spare me your NPC speech. I'm an oldfag, I've heard it a million times in a million ways. >Also, where was your so-called "sex positive Left" who "deeply oppose the censorship of fanservice and NSFW content" when that article came out? Not aware of it. Algorithmic social media means that different people often see completely different things. The sex positive left does exist by the way. Follow Dieselbrain and you'll see it for sure. I think the thing that frustrates me about modern internet politics is that people agree on most of the important stuff, but they're locked into echo chambers where they think that they don't. If people were able to put their differences aside, we'd have one of the most powerful anti-censorship forces in history. But they won't so we don't.

>>77876 >Maybe it's because the economy is shit That's not the reason. In fact, entertainment usually flourishes during economic recessions as people are looking for different methods of escape: https://archive.ph/kxlBI >I'd expect that your family would have similar tastes to you. I do tend to like a lot of their stuff, but they don't tend to like a lot my of stuff. >If that were true, we'd be seeing more successes more frequently from more studios That's not how it works. You cannot promote good works unless good works are actually coming out. >I'm an oldfag No, you're not. >Not aware of it. Algorithmic social media means that different people often see completely different things. That's not how it works when I just rattled off dozens of examples from the past seven years. And especially since you can choose who you follow and receive your content from. >The sex positive left does exist by the way But they seem to be conviently absent in regards to subjects that actually matter. Publishing porn doesn't make you a crusader of "Free speech". >I think the thing that frustrates me about modern internet politics is that people agree on most of the important stuff No, they don't. I've experienced this point blank where I've gone to places, that "claim" to care about these subjects, and proceed to ban any and all discussion because it doesn't adhere to their ideological ends. Don't bullshit me about people being in "echo chambers" when those places are created because people don't want to listen to anything that doesn't affirm their beliefs. Hell, why don't you try this out right now since you seem to be so certain that this is a problem that's "exclusively" caused by the algorithms? Go to your so-called "friends" and bring up how Nintendo forced BXJ and Corpse Party to cancel their releases, how Bunny Garden and Bocchi the Rock had to censor themselves, and report back on the response? I'm willing to be that they practically excommunicated you for being a "pedo", or talked about how that media "deserved" it, or any other number of response that is EVERYTHING BUT getting angry about companies doing this.

>>77878 I had a big long reply ready, but my browser unloaded the tab so I lost it. To summarize what I had <it's common for stories to only catch on within certain circles <"The left" and "the right" are extremely broad categories that lump multiple very different groups with very different ideologies in together <People who identify as "center left" and "center right" have far more in common with each other than they do others that are supposedly on their "side" <The specific subset of leftists that doesn't want sexual content censored has been running an anti-paypro campaign ever since they cracked down on Steam and Itch <My economic views are center-left, but otherwise I am most definitely not a leftist, and my opposition to transgenderism in particular have made me a lot of enemies within that crowd <Echo chambers are a two way street <You most definitely need to expose yourself to more perspectives, I can tell your knowledge of "the left" is primarily second hand I'm not coming back to this thread. I've wasted way too much time when ultimately, my audience is one lone NPC that won't be convinced of anything no matter what I say. This is a horrible habit of mine, treating internet shitslinging as if it actually matters in any way shape or form. I'm disgusted with myself.

>>77881 >I had a big long reply ready, but my browser unloaded the tab so I lost it. I've had that happen loads of times. >it's common for stories to only catch on within certain circles I don't think I've denied that. In fact, I attributed that as being the REASON Wicked is so popular despite it, I have to agree, being trash. That being said, it's not mine or anyone else right to come in and declare that these people should be denied their trash. There's even trash that I enjoy. But this is also a central part of the topic. The "anime fanbase", to term it, liked the trash that Japan was producing. But now you have these tourists coming in and declare that they are the "new fans" and "need" to be appealed, despite the fact that they hated anime until it became popular ( And some of them even still do), so all of this "trash" needs to be removed. No, it does not matter that anime became more "profitable" around the same time these retards entered the mix because I'll tell you a little fact of history: anime and manga has been popular and curbstomping Western media (Even in terms of revenue) since the 90's. It's sort of an open secret that Western media hates Asia. I mean G4 even devoted entire segements to lambasting Japanese games. And just look at how the fucking YEAR they begin accepting foreign flicks into the Academy Awards, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon sweeped over everything else, resulting in a foreign films never being given proper prominence again until I think Parasite 18 years later. >"The left" and "the right" are extremely broad categories No, they're not. I just had that exact argument with a retard in this thread: >>>/co/58260 <In Layman's terms, the dictionary is defining "Right wingers" as people who want to preserve society the way it is (Even if they don't like it) and only ever change it through a gradual process. MEANWHILE "Left wing" is defined as people who want to overthrow and abruptly change the system for the purposes of "The Greater Good". <So with those defintions in mind, the Nazis and the Christian Nationalists are "Left wing" because they're entire program is about how they want to overthrow the reigning system >The specific subset of leftists that doesn't want sexual content censored has been running an anti-paypro campaign ever since they cracked down on Steam and Itch I was there and saw the articles. "Leftist" didn't have a single fucking problem with Steam and Itch.io censoring games. What their problem was is Steam and Itch.io censoring games related to the Alphabet Sexualities: >>>/bv/748 <Per the IGDA: https://archive.ph/zxxcs >We are alarmed by the vague enforcement of policies delisting and deplatforming legal, consensual, and ethically-developed games, especially from LGBTQ+ and marginalized creators. <Eurogamer: https://archive.ph/Nkhsd >No one will lament the removal of No Mercy from sale on Steam, but whenever a net like this is thrown over an entire area of perceived problematic content, there will be well-intentioned games caught in the net too. Specifically, LGBTQ+ games are under threat - games that don't align with the Christian values underpinning the pressure group Collective Shout. >My economic views are center-left That's not how economics work. Economics is a hard science, not a political opinion. >You most definitely need to expose yourself to more perspectives At what point do you begin to say that to the person that you see in the mirror? Why is it always the "Far-right, Nazi, incel, virgin, pissbaby, white, Christian, men" who have to expose themselves to "alternative perspectives"? What makes you think that I don't ALREADY do that? It's funny how there's always one specific group who lectures people about being ignorant, being intolerant, and how they need to be "educated" without realizing the irony of that statement. >my audience is one lone NPC And you're the one who's demanding that "I" expose myself to "more alternative perspectives", when you've already made your conclusions on everything I have to say without even trying to see things from my perspective. Even to the point of dismissing the entire discussion using an original h8chan meme, a meme that people on h8chan even ridiculed for it dehumanizing people and only existing as a thought terminating cliche.

>>77886 I know I said I wouldn't reply again, but this pissed me off too much. You say >No, they're not. But then in the same breath say >So with those defintions in mind, the Nazis and the Christian Nationalists are "Left wing" because they're entire program is about how they want to overthrow the reigning system If you're placing Nazis and Christian Nationalists within the same catagory as anarchist troons then yeah, it's a broad fucking lable, even broader than my usage of the word. >I was there He says, referring to an ongoing movement in the past tense >and saw the articles. I didn't. You know what I saw, and currently am seeing? The actual people involved in the movement posting guides as to how you can harass and boycott payment processors. I don't experience the world through fakeass "games "journalists"", I observe things first hand. >That's not how economics work. Economics is a hard science, not a political opinion. Economics are pretty infamously the least rigorously scientific of the mainstream sciences (supply and demand is unfalsifiable, for example). And even if they weren't, science is not dogma, and competing theories are common. >Why is it always the "Far-right, Nazi, incel, virgin, pissbaby, white, Christian, men" who have to expose themselves to "alternative perspectives"? I've said the same thing to plenty of hysterical leftists. >What makes you think that I don't ALREADY do that? The way you talk about people you disagree with, the way you assume malice when honest to god ignorance is typically the answer. >It's funny how there's always one specific group That I'm not part of. >when you've already made your conclusions on everything I have to say without even trying to see things from my perspective I did try to see things from your perspective, and in fact had a very similar perspective to you back when I was a teenager, when GamerGate was just getting off the ground and I was just getting into imageboards. It's a perspective born of ignorance and a worldview defined by partisan politics. I call you an NPC because you assume I'm this weird SJW despite me explicitly telling you otherwise multiple times, and then proceed to go on the same autistic screeds with the same key words and phrases that I've been hearing since I was 14. I really do think I'm going to end it here. I've already said everything I had to say of value. We'd just be going in circles if we attempted to continue this.

Actually, I do have one more thing to say, something that I think is very important. The media landscape has changed dramatically since the mid-2010s, and things were even starting to shift back then. Thanks to the rise of the internet, things are extremely fragmented now. People's knowledge of the world around them no longer comes from a small handful of large MSM outlets, but instead a large number of small enterprises and individual content creators. So while individual Youtubers, even "big" ones like Dunkey and Cr1tikal, still have audiences that are dwarfed by the MSM of yore, collectively, they have a pretty big impact on culture as a whole.

>>77908 >If you're placing Nazis and Christian Nationalists within the same catagory as anarchist troons then yeah, it's a broad fucking lable No, it's not. It's the same ideology, right down to their Christ consciousness being born out of a feeling of alienation and that they have been "denied" their birth right. The only difference is how they spell the names. In classical Marxism, it was the Proletariat being kept down by the Bourgeoisie. Nazism is about the Germanic-Aryans being kept down by the Jews. And Transgenderism is the Queers being kept down by "Sexual Normativity". >The actual people involved in the movement posting guides as to how you can harass and boycott payment processors So you guys are paying for items in cash/Cyrpto/Goldbacks and/or using Discover/AmEx instead? Also, going after the payment processors doesn't solve the problem when Valve and Itch.io were already censoring games LONG before August, and have been doing it for years. So if you guys are actually looking to make some actual "change", then you also need to stop using Steam and Itch.io. Don't mistake as meaning that you can jump onto using GOG because they're just as guilty. So, you may ask, what should people be doing if they actually want to make a difference? Well, you could take that money and spend it somewhere else. Some of the storefronts that I'm aware of that don't practices these tactics are listed in this post: >>>/pol/46181 In addition, I also recently heard that Eastasiasoft is also starting up their own storefront, with one of the aspects of that announcement that I took particular interest in is the line about selling physical PC games: https://archive.ph/gEIRB Because, if you're not aware, physical PC games have exclusive existed as storefront activation keys since 2011. Outside of DRM-free platforms, there hasn't been a single method for one to personally own any PC games after 2010. >Economics are pretty infamously the least rigorously scientific of the mainstream sciences No, it's not. There's established rules like Gresham's law, the Pareto principle, and the Law of the Talents. >science is not dogma, and competing theories are common. Unless it's something related to medical science or climate science. Then the "science" is settled, right? And all those competing theories are just nonsense and "conspiracy theories" spouted by charlatans, who are "also" being funded by the "big evil companies", right? >the way you assume malice when honest to god ignorance is typically the answer Hanlon's Razor comes from a book of jokes, you idiot. <And like third vid explains, how can you "adequately attribute" stupidity or ignornace as being the reason or cause when you see everyone everywhere saying the same thing all at one? Hell, how can that even be the reason when you can provide every single source possible, and the person still denies it. Kind of like what you're doing where I showed exactly what Leftist interests are when it came to the Steam/Itch.io shoahing, and you immediately dismissed those claims because "Well, they don't represent the Leftists that I hang around." >That I'm not part of. Then why are you calling me an NPC? A term that directly implies that the person you're talking to has nothing but canned responses and is literally incapable of thought outside of what the person has been "programmed" to think. >I did try to see things from your perspective No, you haven't. The biggest example of your failure to do this is the lack of asking how I view the situation, how I came to the conlcusions that I currently have. You know, the simple process of asking questions, sometimes called the "Socratic method". But given how often I've seen people on the internet jump to calling people out for "Sealioning" or for making a "Whataboutism", I guess the process of actually having a dialogue and taking an interest in other people is now considered a "dead concept". Because "how dare" you entertain ideas, even if you disagree with the program. >when GamerGate was just getting off the ground and I was just getting into imageboards Okay, so you're a rapefugee from Cuckchan who never left after the exodus. Otherwise I wouldn't have to explain all of this shit because you'd already know since you already experienced it. Like I said, you're not an "oldfag". "Oldfags" is a term for people who predate the handover from Moot and even Project Chanology. >I call you an NPC because you assume I'm this weird SJW Because you keep refering to yourself as a Leftist. And the reality of Leftists ideologies is that there is no "end" point. There is no "going to far". The moment you establish a definate idea of what the "outcome" should be, you cease to be "Leftist" and have become a "Rightist". The Right is the "immoveable object" and the Left is the "unstoppable force", the Right is "reason" and the Left is "emotion". Just as a side note in case you bring it up, I'm not saying that people are "wholy" Left or Right. But the part that matters is "Which wolf" you choose to feed more often. Also, as another side note, have you ever considered the possibility that you only "call" yourself a "Leftist" because that's what you've always called yourself, or that you see the "Right" as this big evil group, when the reality is that you don't actually embody very many Leftist virtues and actually "belong" on the Right. But you denounce the thought because you would be excommunicated from your friends, or because you still think of the "Right" as being synonymous with "evil". >and then proceed to go on the same autistic screeds with the same key words and phrases that I've been hearing since I was 14 You're only further proving my point.

>So you guys Who is "you guys"? >are paying for items in cash/Cyrpto/Goldbacks and/or using Discover/AmEx instead? I have been using crypto, yes. I'd prefer that moving money from place to place be handled by the government, but crypto is the next best thing. >There's established rules like Gresham's law, the Pareto principle, and the Law of the Talents. So? I didn't say it was completely unscientific, simply that it was less scientific than the other sciences, which is true. >Unless it's something related to medical science or climate science. Then the "science" is settled, right? And all those competing theories are just nonsense and "conspiracy theories" spouted by charlatans, who are "also" being funded by the "big evil companies", right? No. They're both very open to questioning, especially medical science, which is very much negatively influenced by financial interests. >Hanlon's Razor comes from a book of jokes, you idiot. >And like third vid explains, how can you "adequately attribute" stupidity or ignornace as being the reason or cause when you see everyone everywhere saying the same thing all at one? How hard is it to believe that people who spend all of their time talking to each other and sperg out over even the smallest disagreement are going to end up with the same limited pool of knowledge? This isn't Hanlon's Razor, it's Occam's Razor. >Then why are you calling me an NPC? Because you keep asserting that I am someone that I am not, and then responding to points that I didn't make, using the same canned arguments that I've been seeing for my entire adult life. It seriously feels like I'm talking to an AI chatbot instead of a real human being, hence the term NPC. >Because you keep refering to yourself as a Leftist. And the reality of Leftists ideologies is that there is no "end" point. There is no "going to far". The moment you establish a definate idea of what the "outcome" should be, you cease to be "Leftist" and have become a "Rightist". The Right is the "immoveable object" and the Left is the "unstoppable force", the Right is "reason" and the Left is "emotion" According to the definitions you provided earlier, every major political shakeup in the history of society was "leftist". If we take this assertion to its logical extreme, hunter-gatherer societies and tribal superstition are based in "reason", because they came first and evolved gradually, whereas modern day capitalism, democracy, and scientific method are based in "emotion", because they required massive revolutions, not only politically but also technologically and intellectually, to achieve. >Also, as another side note, have you ever considered the possibility that you only "call" yourself a "Leftist" because that's what you've always called yourself I don't call myself a leftist, and I honestly don't think I ever have. I say that my economic views specifically a center-left, and it's mostly because I've seen other people describe the kinds of economic policies I support this way. >or that you see the "Right" as this big evil group I don't, and have already said as much. >when the reality is that you don't actually embody very many Leftist virtues and actually "belong" on the Right This kind of thinking only serves to benefit politicians and political activists. I think what I think and know what I know. >But you denounce the thought because you would be excommunicated from your friends I've already said, publicly, that declaring yourself a woman does not make you a woman, and that loli is not pedophilia. These two statements alone have excommunicated me from most leftist circles by default. >or because you still think of the "Right" as being synonymous with "evil". I associate "the right" with a lot of things, enough things that the only unifying factor I can think of is that they've been identified as such by a lot of people that aren't me.

>>77924 >I have been using crypto, yes Okay and through which platforms or processes? Because MasterCard also controls several crypto payment processors: https://archive.ph/fQREm >I'd prefer that moving money from place to place be handled by the government Why? The government can't even keep track of 2 trillion dollars. And you expect them to handle hundreds of millions of individual transactions every second of every day? It would be like the DMV. >simply that it was less scientific than the other sciences How? The Law of the Talents date back to the first century A.D.. The Ancient Greeks and the Hebrews were very much aware of Gresham's law five centuries before that. The only "recent" knowledge you can point to the Pareto princple, but even that dates back to a time predating the science of aviation. So you're trying to argue that economics, which dates back centuries with the records to prove it, is "less scientific" than the recent phenomenon of flight? That's just as retarded as that one fifth grade science fair judge I had who declared that Ohm's law "isn't real science". >especially medical science, which is very much negatively influenced by financial interests Is it really though? I'm just as willing to rake Phzier through the coals as much as the next guy, but how are these companies suppose to operate in the first place when Europe enforce strict price controls on medicine: https://archive.ph/ELsu5 Price controls which result in high drug prices in places like the U.S. (Just to cover the fucking manufacturing costs), and less ability to invest money in developing newer medical technologies. >This isn't Hanlon's Razor, it's Occam's Razor. <Hanlon's razor: Philosophical adage stating "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." <In philosophy, Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. No, you were invoking Hanlon's razor when you directly said: >>77908 >The way you talk about people you disagree with, the way you assume malice when honest to god ignorance is typically the answer. >Because you keep asserting that I am someone that I am not Okay, what are you "not" then? All you've established is that you're a "non-SJW Leftist newfag". >every major political shakeup in the history of society was "leftist" No, it wasn't. The American Revolution was an example of a "Rightist" political shake-up. Yes, "radical" in retrospect when looking at the ideals, but rather conservative in it's progression and execution considering how all the dailogue and politics that eventually lead to the event took over 20 years before even reaching that point. And even during the actual war, they were still declaring that they would lay down their arms if only the crown would let them be represented. Contrast that against the French Revolution just several years later. Where after several months of hunger, inflation, and public hysteria; a bunch of self-entitled idiots decided to overturn the entire government during a political gathering that was initially about tax reform. With one thing leading to another over the next three years, this being how everything happaned in the most literally sense, and the government suddenly decides that they need to rewrite the fucking calendar. >whereas modern day capitalism, democracy, and scientific method are based in "emotion" Do you know a fucking thing about history? Science has been with us since the very beginning. Until that brief period when the Muslims appeared (The Dark Ages), because science is herecy against Allah. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, and Carthage were republics and practriced democracy. And Capitalism and "laissez-faire" markets started in the Roman Empire during the time of Christ. >I don't call myself a leftist Yes, you did. Not to mention that you're even the one who brought up Leftists in the first place, specifically for the purposes of defending against something that I wasn't even talking about. >I don't, and have already said as much. Then why are you constantly running defense for those with a Left wing bias? And especially when you were the one who brought up one's political leanings into the conversation in the first place? A conversation that was 'INITIALLY about gatekeeping and people invading groups where they don't belong and demanding that people overturn the apple court just to please them.

>>77933 >Why? The government can't even keep track of 2 trillion dollars. And you expect them to handle hundreds of millions of individual transactions every second of every day? It would be like the DMV. All I'm asking is that Mastercard and PayPal do what they've already been doing just fine but now under the jurisdiction of a democratically elected government. Please look up what a "natural monopoly" is. >No, it wasn't. The American Revolution was an example of a "Rightist" political shake-up. Yes, "radical" in retrospect when looking at the ideals, but rather conservative in it's progression and execution considering how all the dailogue and politics that eventually lead to the event took over 20 years before even reaching that point. This would, logically, mean that postmodernism was a "rightist" shakeup as well; it's based in the works of the Frankfurt School and Martin Heidegger which were in turn based in the works of Max Stirner, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche, who were themselves influenced by Kant, Hegel, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Fourier, Feuerbach, and so on and so forth. >A conversation that was 'INITIALLY about gatekeeping and people invading groups where they don't belong Fine. I'll conclude with this: Gatekeeping people that don't actually have an interest in a product but are there for fashion reasons is dumb because the market will self-correct; either they see that they're not making enough money off of the new crowd and change course, or they'll go out of business. And defining your personality around media consumption is pathetic.

>>77933 As for why I'm defending "the left", it's because I know you're on "the right". I've done the inverse plenty in the presence of leftist audiences. My goal is to get things back to the way they were back in the 2000s, where the internet was united based on a mutual opposition to censorship, rather than divided by retarded culture war politics.

>>77952 >All I'm asking is that Mastercard and PayPal do what they've already been doing just fine but now under the jurisdiction of a democratically elected government That's not going to work. In fact, the government HAS done that several times at one period or another. And every single time they do it, they run the business into the ground because they have zero incentive to keep it running or retaining any value. The government managed to even destroy the value of a fucking strip club: https://archive.ph/c75NE And you expect those idiots to manage monetary transactions across an entire nation? >This would, logically, mean that postmodernism was a "rightist" shakeup as well No, it's not. Because one of the foundations of "Post Modernism" (Along with the Frankfurt School, Marx, Hegel, Rousseau, etc.) is wanting everything everywhere changed all at once. There isn't anything "consevative" about it. Especially when the ideology is entirely about pursuing never ending change for the expressed purposes of bringing about the end of the universe. >based in the works of Max Stirner Stirner was a shitposter, making the most extreme declarations just to see if he'd get a reaction out of people, when not being sarcastic. >and so on and so forth Because the enitre ideology is Gnostic in it's origin, which is a religion entirely based seeking "forbidden knowledge" and pushing extremes for the expressed purpose of everyone everywhere all-at-once "awakening" to the reality that we (Humanity) are THE God of everything who's being imprisoned by a demon (The demiurge). And that the only way to "free" ourselves is everyone awakening to this knowledge. Or those left alive "awakening" to this knowledge, as the Communists enforced it. >Gatekeeping people that don't actually have an interest in a product but are there for fashion reasons is dumb Why? >because the market will self-correct No, it doesn't. >either they see that they're not making enough money off of the new crowd and change course No, they don't. These companies then proceed to double down (Because they pushed out everyone who objected to appealing to the tourists). Or they "Declare" that they've changed course, but only as a superficial gesture in an attempt to bring back in the old crowd who has since already left and are never coming back. >or they'll go out of business No, they won't, because the company will either be bought out by someone else, or the government will come swooping in to save the company because of them being "too important" to let fail. >And defining your personality around media consumption is pathetic. That's the only part of that paragraph I actually agree with. >>77953 >As for why I'm defending "the left", it's because I know you're on "the right" There you are, again, assuming things. And like I said, I never brought that subject up. YOU DID. If I was to guess, it's because you cannoty actually have a discussion without attaching ideological labels to everything. >My goal is to get things back to the way they were back in the 2000s When Hilary Clinton was using the might of the federal government to attack Rockstar for daring to make Manhunt 2, a political campaign that turned into such a fucking joke that R* even immortalized her failed effort with the satirical "Statue of Happiness" in GTA4? Or do you mean when Western media was ridiculing everything Japanese related because of how they couldn't compete, like I referenced in this post: >>77886 Or do you mean the world focussed on the Middle East in a failed "nation building" effort that no one wanted a fucking thing to do with? Or do you mean the world during a time when we first begin living under a massiver surveliance state thanks to the government having passed the Patriot Act?

>>77964 >>77953 >where the internet was united based on a mutual opposition to censorship <Also, no, it wasn't.

>>77933 >Okay, what are you "not" then? All you've established is that you're a "non-SJW Leftist newfag". I'm not a lot of things. I think it'd be more worthwhile to say who I am, or more specifically what I think. In terms of political economy, I'm inspired largely by the forms of "communism" that reeled things back to systems more closely resembling capitalism, like dengism and the short lived Soviet NEP, but unlike these communists, I see such thing as a sustainable, rather than an unfortunate means. Basically, I'm extracting the right wing economic elements proposed and put in place by leftist politicians and thinkers, hence calling myself "center left". There's also quite a bit of geolibertarianism influence in there, pushing me even further right and thus closer to the center. I believe that a largely free market, but one with small restrictions to protect consumer rights, is the ideal system at the lower level. If you own a business, you should be free to produce whatever you want, however you want, with whatever employees you're willing to hire, and choose freely who your willing to sell it to, with the only real limitation being that you're not allowed to make people sign a license mandating that they owe you their next of kin or whatever. Beyond that, so long as you're able to stay in business and aren't damaging other people's property, you have free reign. But at the higher level, things should be handled by the government. Stuff like energy, banking, telecommunications, natural resources, etc. Why? It's for a bunch of reasons, but in short, it's because the alternatives are either letting them become monopolies/oligopolies, allowing them to assert even more control than they would be able to if they were part of the government, to interfere with the market and break them up, lessening efficiency, or to have some kind of monkey-patched solution that is in practice is what I'm suggesting but worse. I also think that people should be taxed primarily on land ownership. A major problem in modern society is people scooping up land so that nobody owns, everyone rents. Requiring people to pay more money to the government solves this problem very elegantly. It also means that people are encouraged to actually do something economically worthwhile with the land they own, rather than sitting on it like it's an NFT that they hope to one day sell. I'm fiercely opposed to most censorship, with one, and only one exception. If a work took a major crime to produce, it should be illegal to view. What exactly constitutes a "major crime" is something that I can't really provide a rigorous example, but it includes things like pederasty, murder, and rape. My loathing of censorship is the only thing that I consider truly non-negotiable. The very idea that there's something out there that I'm not allowed to see because some jagoff thinks he knows what's good for me better than I do makes me livid. I'm an atheist in the very literal sense that I don't believe in a god or gods. I do, however, believe in the spiritual at large, and it has a major impact on the way I live my life. The closest a mainstream religion comes to what I believe is Buddhism, although I came to my conclusions largely independently through spiritual revelation, and there are enough differences that I don't feel comfortable applying that lable to myself. I don't believe in an objective morality per say, but I do think that there's spiritual forces that are at odds with eachother, and I know where I personally stand. My philosophy of science is largely Popperian. Science is the domain of that which we can physically perceive, and in order for a scientific theory to be worth anything, it should, in theory, be possible to disprove it with observable evidence. I also believe in a somewhat Nietzschean form of perspectivism. You only know what you think you know, and everything in the material world must be processed through the senses and the brain, so while there may be an objective reality, it is impossible for man to truly know if his perception and conception of it is correct. I'm gay, but other than that I live a more "conservative" lifestyle than most straight people. I find casual sex repulsive, don't drink, smoke, or do any other kinds of drugs, and try my best to stay healthy. I value family greatly, have a good connection with my parents, and plan on adopting at some point, preferably a daughter because I feel bad forcing a son that will likely be straight to grow up with two fags for dads. I think the transgender movement is utterly retarded. I don't exactly have a moral issue with it you can do whatever you want with your body, but until you're capable of giving birth and passing on your DNA, you are not a goddamn woman. You're especially not a woman if you look sound and act like a man, which most of them do. What I do, however, take moral issue with, is being forced to "respect people's pronouns". Go fuck yourself. >>77964 >That's not going to work. In fact, the government HAS done that several times at one period or another. And every single time they do it, they run the business into the ground Maybe the US government just sucks? Other countries, countries with comparable or better standards of living than we do as well as a higher GDP growth seem to manage just fine. By the way, our GDP is only as high as it is because we were on the winning team of WWII and came out pretty much completely unscathed compared to Europe and Asia, which needed to rebuild after large scale destruction, giving us the leverage to orient the (non Soviet occupied, they also benefited a lot from WWII) world that was advantageous to us. Don't believe me? Look it up. >because they have zero incentive to keep it running or retaining any value. The incentive is that if they don't do a good job, we vote out the current admin and vote in someone else who fires all of them. >No, it doesn't. >No, they don't. These companies then proceed to double down (Because they pushed out everyone who objected to appealing to the tourists). Or they "Declare" that they've changed course, but only as a superficial gesture in an attempt to bring back in the old crowd who has since already left and are never coming back. >No, they won't, because the company will either be bought out by someone else, or the government will come swooping in to save the company because of them being "too important" to let fail. Sounds like a sign of a deeper problem. Maybe you should focus on that instead of getting into fights with randoms online. >On the 2000s Fair enough. I was a kid back then, so rose tinted glasses apply. >>77965 I never used SA, all I knew about it was that it was "the site that lost to 4chan", which was especially nebulous because for a very long time I knew 4chan itself as "the place where people post pictures of rotting corpses and doxx you". So it never really factored in to the equation for me. I do find it funny that Something Awful is the main reason 4chan hates furries (or at least pretends to hate furries). SA hated them the same way they hated every nerdy group. 4chan carried that hatred over, even though they themselves were very openly into most of the same weird shit furries were at the time, and even had to deal with pedophilia accusations the same way furries did beastiality. I'm genuinely done now, by the way, pinky promise. I got what I had to say out of my system, and I think I'm good now. That was a good conversation, something I say with zero irony. Goodbye and good luck.

>>77968 >I'm inspired largely by the forms of "communism" that reeled things back to systems more closely resembling capitalism That's called Fascism Strike one >I believe that a largely free market No, you don't. You're a self-admitted Fascist. >A major problem in modern society is people scooping up land so that nobody owns, everyone rents Yeah, the government is the most guilty of that. They own a third of the U.S. and prevent anyone from ever owning it. And the rest of the land, we have to pay rent (taxes) for living on that. >What exactly constitutes a "major crime" is something that I can't really provide a rigorous example So, you're NOT against censorship. You're all for it so long as it isn't censoring the things YOU specifically approve of as evidenced by the fact that you said "including", indciating that you do consider there being other things you would approve being censored but don't want to say. Strike two >I don't believe in an objective morality Strike three, you're out of here Let me sum up your entire essay into one sentence: you are a gay agnostic Post-Modern Fascist. Or to put it more bluntly, you're a fucking hipster who doesn't actually know what he's talking about. You cannot "mix" Communism with free markets because the result is ALWAYS Communism. You justifying the government getting involved in people's lives because that indicates that you think people (Which includes you, by the way) are "too stupid" to think for themselves and that they need some "council" (Or "soviet) deciding things for them, and even "protecting" them (Including from themselves). Progressive taxation means that you punish people for succeeding. Unless your firmly establish what the limits are, you are declaring that you are never NOT in favor of censorship. Relgions are not like trying out clothes that you find at Kohl's, they are a firm belief that answers fundimental questions about life. Science stopped being a "philsophy" around the time of the Roman Empire. Arguing against objective reality means that nothing is true and that everything is permitted. Meaning everything you just wasted your time typing is bullshit because, according to subjective reasoning, it doesn't matter. In fact, you shouldn't have even gotten involved in this conversation in the first place as, according to your philsophy, it isn't going to change a damn thing because there is no objective truths about anything. Both of us are right and both of us are wrong. So what the fuck are you even doing here?

Okay, actually I'm not done. I broke my promise. I won't make it again because I have no guarantees that I'll keep it. >>77972 >That's called Fascism Only if you ignore basically everything else in my post. >So, you're NOT against censorship. You're all for it so long as it isn't censoring the things YOU specifically approve of as evidenced by the fact that you said "including", indciating that you do consider there being other things you would approve being censored but don't want to say. That's an extraordinarily bad faith reading. I was vague because I don't have an exact definition and don't want to settle on one until I'm fairly certain in it. If you do want a tentative definition, <If the process of making something leads to a life sentence for the creators, it should be illegal to view is as good as any, thoughbeit maybe a bit too expansive. I definitely could be argued into saying no censorship at all though. It's most certainly preferable to the alternative. >You justifying the government getting involved in people's lives because that indicates that you think people (Which includes you, by the way) are "too stupid" to think for themselves No, I'm justifying the government getting involved in people's lives because the alternatives are either an unelected pseudo-government that is functionally the same but worse because it doesn't have to obey the constitution like the actual government, or anti-monopoly legislation. >Relgions are not like trying out clothes that you find at Kohl's, they are a firm belief that answers fundimental questions about life. Yes, I agree. Science stopped being a "philsophy" around the time of the Roman Empire. Philosophy of science is not science, but the philosophical backing of science; questions of what science fundamentally is and isn't, and of how we can aquire knowledge in a scientific way. >Meaning everything you just wasted your time typing is bullshit because, according to subjective reasoning, it doesn't matter. In fact, you shouldn't have even gotten involved in this conversation in the first place as, according to your philsophy, it isn't going to change a damn thing because there is no objective truths about anything. Both of us are right and both of us are wrong. I never said that objective truth didn't exist, it obviously does. But the mind and body have physical limitations that cause our knowledge of this truth to always be limited or at least uncertain. Your ears can only hear a limited range of pitches, your eyes a limited range of colors. And your brain heavily compresses all of the information it takes in before it's available for you to actually reflect on. This isn't philosophical navel gazing, it's physically observable fact. >So what the fuck are you even doing here? I like talking to people who disagree with me.

>>77995 >I never said that objective truth didn't exist, it obviously does That's not how it works. Either truth is objective or it's subjective. There is not "inbetween". An argument for a conception of "perspectivealism" is an argument for subjective truth. There is no other possibility. Either the sky is blue and 2 + 2 equals four, or it's all dependent on our "perspective".

>Either truth is objective or it's subjective. There is not "inbetween". Yes. I at no point suggested otherwise. >An argument for a conception of "perspectivealism" is an argument for subjective truth. Then it's a good thing I argued for perspectivism instead. Reality is objective, obviously. But our perception of it isn't. Your sensory organs are limited in what they can take in, and your brain is limited in what information it is able to process and store. This is an objective, biological fact. You don't actually know reality, but instead an imperfect representation of a reality that's inaccessible to you. >pic Ironic. I assume that you read by cueing, since if you actually read my post properly you wouldn't be scolding me for things I didn't say. Cueing is a terrible thing introduced by the modern education system and is the reason so many Americans are functionally illiterate. By the way, who the hell is that? Some random nobody on Twitter? Why should I care what this irrelevant retard has to say?

>>78004 >I at no point suggested otherwise. Previously: >>77968 <I don't believe in an objective morality <... <I also believe in a somewhat Nietzschean form of perspectivism And you even contradict that sentence to declare later: >You don't actually know reality But also you really don't because, according to your subjective understanding of the world, you and I could be reading entirely different sentences that mean entirely different things. Per subjective reality, for all I know, you could be reading your sentence and see it as a poem about eating cake. Nothing at all about political discourse. You don't know a single fucking thing you're talking about. And you're wasting time arguing to a god-forsaken retarded moron (Me) when your own fucking belief system declares that there is not a single fucking thing you can do to change my fucking mind. Because there's "my truthes" and "your truthes", and "all" truthes are valid. OH WAIT! No, they're not. The only valid "truth" is that there is no "truth", only power dynamics. Meaning that the only way to change my mind and my "truths" is to seize the means of societal production. Because then, when society is controlled by a "different" group, suddenly I'll come to the "realization" that about what the "real" truths are.

>>78009 Not believing in an objective morality is not the same as not believing in objectivity period. And I at no point said that all readings are valid (although judging by your actions ITT, you certainly seem to think so!), or that all truths are valid, or anything even remotely close to that. All I said is that the human senses and brain are imperfect machines, which is true. You can't remember every single car you drove past on your morning commute, even immediately after the fact. You hear people calling out your name when it's actually just random background noise. You see movement when you look at an image of static black and white rings. These might all seem small, but there's a million little ways in which your brain plays tricks on you, in which it doesn't properly process and/or retain information, and they add up. On top of that, your senses, the things you use to get this information to begin with, have their limitations. Your eyes, for instance, cannot see infrared light without a machine that converts it into a different color that you can see. To use an analogy, if you were to record the exact same footage with different equipment, the resulting video file will look and sound different. These differences might be imperceptible, but they do indeed exist. They're both taking in information from the same reality, but neither of them captures it perfectly. >vidrel I do not advocate for a welfare utopia where nobody has to work, mostly because such a thing isn't possible. I advocate for a primarily capitalist mixed market economy where industries that would become monopolies under laissez faire capitalism are part of the public sector, but everything else is more or less libertarian. You've barely criticized this proposition, by the way. And you haven't criticized my perspectivism at all. Mostly, you seem to insist that I believe things that I don't believe and argue against things I didn't say, and then double down when called on it. More than anything, you've only reaffirmed my suspicion that you spend most of your time in echo chambers. Your talking points are very familiar to me. While it's not one to one, I'm reminded a lot of Ayn Rand in particular. But it seems like my talking points are completely foreign to you.

>>78012 >Not believing in an objective morality is not the same as not believing in objectivity period Yes, it is. >And I at no point said that all readings are valid That's bait and you know it. Because "of course" not "all" truths are valid, but the only "valid" truths just happen to be yours, where you get to decide what's considered a "valid" truth and an "invalid" truth. That's the difference between you and me. I KNOW that there is a non-zero chance that I can be wrong about absolute anything because truth doesn't give one fucking shit about what my opinions are. However you, as a person who believes in subjectivity, believe that "truth" changes entirely because of who a person is. And the that never NOT leads down a path where you develop a fucking religion and priest class who are able to "tell" which "subjective truths" are correct and incorrect in order to rid yourself of your hypocrisy.

>>78015 >Yes, it is Care to elaborate? Because on its own, that's a highly questionable assertion. >That's the difference between you and me. I KNOW that there is a non-zero chance that I can be wrong about absolute anything because truth doesn't give one fucking shit about what my opinions are. However you, as a person who believes in subjectivity, believe that "truth" changes entirely because of who a person is. I feel like I almost had a stroke reading this. I don't believe in subjective reality. I don't believe that reality cares what my opinion is. I don't believe that the world exists solely within the mind, or anything else like that. What I do believe, is that the human brain does not always perceive the objective reality that does exist 100% accurately. That is it. I most certainly don't want a console of hooded figures telling people what is and isn't true. If anything, I want people to rely less on others for information and observe and analyze things for themselves more, because second-hand information takes your bias and adds someone else's bias on top of it. This is starting to become very frustrating for me. I'm not saying anything that's particularly hard to understand, and yet you seemingly refuse to understand it.

>>78018 >Care to elaborate? As I said, you don't care. And you're not going to care. The world is subjective as far as you're concerned, so I'm not even going to waste my time for a matter that will be lost on you. >I don't believe in subjective reality Yes, you do >I don't believe that reality cares what my opinion is Yes, you do >I don't believe that the world exists solely within the mind It's not about the world existing in your mind, it's that the very fabric of reality changes based upon your mind. Your "truths" change reality if you believe in subjectivity/perspectivity. It it's capable of changing white into black, or even changing man into woman. And none of it is "wrong" because everything is "subjective" and based upon "perspective". >What I do believe, is that the human brain does not always perceive the objective reality that does exist 100% accurately You're only digging yourself deeper. As with such a claim, it can be and IS said that if I hold a pencil in the air and let it go, it is wrong to attack the person who declares that they see the pencil floating in the air.

>>78019 >As I said, you don't care Yes I do. It's the whole reason I'm still talking to you. >The world is subjective as far as you're concerned No it isn't. >Yes, you do >Yes, you do No, I don't. You're doing it again. Stop insisting that I believe things that I do not and engage with my actual points. >it's that the very fabric of reality changes based upon your mind. Your "truths" change reality if you believe in subjectivity/perspectivity. It it's capable of changing white into black, or even changing man into woman. I also don't believe this. Inaccuracies in ones perception of reality do not change reality itself. >And none of it is "wrong" because everything is "subjective" and based upon "perspective". Yes it is. Someone with color blindness can clearly perceive reality less accurately than someone with "full" color vision. He might not know what the colors he is unable to see look like, but they nonetheless exist. >As with such a claim, it can be and IS said that if I hold a pencil in the air and let it go, it is wrong to attack the person who declares that they see the pencil floating in the air. Why? If you perceive that the pencil dropped to the ground, the only reasonable course of action is to tell him that he's wrong, that you observed something different. For me, perspectivism is one of the primary reasons that freedom of speech is necessary. Because it's impossible to know if any individual has a fully correct understanding of the reality around him, we need to check our observations against the observations of others, many others, in order to account for areas in which we failed to be objective. Without these kinds of exchanges of perceived information, a blind man may never know of the existence of light.

>>78049 >Yes I do Does objective reality/morality/perspective exist in your world, yes or no? >Inaccuracies in ones perception of reality do not change reality itself According to subjectivity and perspectivalism, yes, it does. >Someone with color blindness can clearly perceive reality less accurately than someone with "full" color vision. He might not know what the colors he is unable to see look like, but they nonetheless exist. You're doing it again. >Why? Because reality changes based on one's perspective. You even declared as such when talking talking about the colorblind person, especially when people do and have made the argument go both ways. That just like how a colorblind person is incapable of perceiving color, that extends to the possibility that YOU are incapable of knowing "anything" because your own "lying senses" are flawed. Therefore give up your independence and submit yourself before the Gnostic priests who "understand" the world better than you do. Then there's ALSO the fact the colorblind people actually are able to perceive certain colors different than regular people (The military actually have used colorblind individuals to scout and spot camouflage because it reflects light differently, and they can specifically see it because of their disability), meaning that it is "wrong" to correct those individuals because they know "certain truths" that you wouldn't know. Therefore give up your independence and submit yourself before the Gnostic priests who "understand" the world better than you do. >the only reasonable course of action is to tell him that he's wrong No, because his perspective is "different" and therefore "equally valid" according to your ideologies. <But that's not me. That doesn't matter >perspectivism is one of the primary reasons that freedom of speech is necessary No, it's not. In fact, freedom of speech is actually perpendicular to perspectivism. Because with free speech, you're able to tell a person that he's wrong. However under perspectivism, such an act is equivalent to heresy. >it's impossible to know if any individual has a fully correct understanding of the reality around him Like I said, you're ideology declares that "all" viewpoints are valid. No one can be objectively right or wrong because it all changes based on perspective. >we need to check our observations against the observations of others So don't believe your own lying eyes, you need to listen to the experts. A typical sentiment made by those who believe in subjectivity and perspectivalism. >a blind man may never know of the existence of light Why should a blind man care about the existence of light?

>>78049 >>78052 Should have also attached this video

>>78052 >Does objective reality/morality/perspective exist in your world, yes or no? Those are three very different things. But to answer your question, no, yes, and kind of. Reality is an objective thing that exists on a material level. There is also an objective metaphysical layer to things, although I do not categorize that as reality, but a separate "layer" that exists "above" reality. There is not, however a singular grand metaphysical authority that gets to define what is or is not, nor is morality some kind of observable physical force. Some perspectives are more correct than others, in that they are closer or further away from the aforementioned physical reality, however it's impossible to be 100% sure how far or close your own specific perspective is from reality itself, only how well it compares to what you know of other people's perceptions. >According to subjectivity and perspectivalism, yes, it does. Okay, but I don't think it does, and have stated as much multiple times throughout the thread. >You're doing it again. Doing what again? >Because reality changes based on one's perspective. No it doesn't. >That just like how a colorblind person is incapable of perceiving color, that extends to the possibility that YOU are incapable of knowing "anything" because your own "lying senses" are flawed. I didn't say that we're incapable of knowing anything, just that we're incapable of absolute certainty. >No, because his perspective is "different" and therefore "equally valid" according to your ideologies. I at no point said that all perspectives are equally valid, and in fact believe the exact opposite. Some perspectives are more valid than others. ><But that's not me. >That doesn't matter What did he mean by this? >No, it's not. In fact, freedom of speech is actually perpendicular to perspectivism. Because with free speech, you're able to tell a person that he's wrong. However under perspectivism, such an act is equivalent to heresy. I don't see why. Freedom of speech is necessary precisely because we can never fully be certain of anything. To enforce a state-mandated truth is to enforce that which might actually turn out to be complete and utter horseshit. >Like I said, you're ideology declares that "all" viewpoints are valid. No one can be objectively right or wrong because it all changes based on perspective. No it doesn't. >So don't believe your own lying eyes, you need to listen to the experts. Quite the opposite! The data gathered directly from the senses is what you should be looking to first and foremost. Why? Because everyone's perception is flawed, not just yours. As such, there's going to be additional generation loss every time information goes through someone else. The reason you get other people's accounts of things isn't so that you can get the singular correct perspective spoonfed to you, it's because you're not omniscient, and because knowing what other people see in a situation is useful to understanding how the world works as a whole. I don't believe in a society run by unquestioned experts. I believe in a society run by open markets, until markets create closed monopolies, at which point we switch over to democracy. I have repeated my actual beliefs over the course of this thread numerous times, but you seem to be caught up on a small handful of keywords, like communism, atheism, and perspectivism, and so despite me adding a million qualifiers to each, you persist on arguing with your conception of a "communist atheist perspectivist". It is genuinely, unironically, a picture perfect example of what I mean when I say "NPC behavior".

>>78054 >Some perspectives are more correct than others You're arguing every step of the way about how I don't "get" you, yet your proving that you're exactly what I say you are. >but I don't think it does Like I said, it doesn't matter one fucking bit what YOU "think" (Or at least say you "think"), what matters is where these types of ideologies lead us. You cannot get it through your thick skull that groups like the trannies, who you repeatedly say you "hate", are following your ideology exactly to the letter. Yet, for some reason, you cannot even fathom the possibility that such an inevitability may indicate that your ideology and conclusions are wrong or flawed. >Doing what again? Making my point for me >No it doesn't. Again, according to your ideology, it does. How many times am I repeating myself? >I didn't say that we're incapable of knowing anything, just that we're incapable of absolute certainty. That's the same thing. >I at no point said that all perspectives are equally valid You still haven't disproven my point. >Some perspectives are more valid than others. Yes, specifically the perspectives of your preist class. >Freedom of speech is necessary precisely because we can never fully be certain of anything That's bait >To enforce a state-mandated truth is to enforce that which might actually turn out to be complete and utter horseshit. It's not "state mandated" if it's "the people" who enforce the truth, which is the loophole every single Socialist regime has used. >No it doesn't. Yes, it does. >Quite the opposite You just established that certain perspectives are more valid than others. But you're so mentally deficient that you cannot fathom what such a system and mindset creates in practice. >The data gathered directly from the senses is what you should be looking to first and foremost <everyone's perception is flawed Which is it? Either we can rely upon our senses, or our senses are flawed and we need someone else to tell us what we see/hear/smell/taste/touch. >there's going to be additional generation loss every time information goes through someone else That's not even close to the reason why. >The reason you get other people's accounts of things isn't so that you can get the singular correct perspective spoonfed to you, it's because you're not omniscient, and because knowing what other people see in a situation is useful to understanding how the world works as a whole. You just admitted that your view of science is based upon a Marxist process known as "Critical Theory". >I have repeated my actual beliefs over the course of this thread numerous times Yes, and you have. And you've managed to prove that you don't even understand your own beliefs. And as a rather ironic set of affairs, considering you're the one arguing for "perspectivism", you have done nothing but attempted to defend your beliefs like your life depends on it, instead of considering the possibility that your own belief system are flawed and seek out the reasonings for why people hate everything having to do with your ideology. You are the very thing that you say that you oppose.

>>78063 I wrote another reply last night, but it wouldn't go through, so here's an abridged version. >Like I said, it doesn't matter one fucking bit what YOU "think" (Or at least say you "think"), what matters is where these types of ideologies lead us. I fail to see how those two are not functionally the same thing. >(Or at least say you "think") Not only is this an incredibly bad faith reading, it also makes no sense. What do I have to gain from lying about my ideology on an obscure anonymous imageboard? >You cannot get it through your thick skull that groups like the trannies, who you repeatedly say you "hate", are following your ideology exactly to the letter. In what way? Because I'm firmly committed to freedom of speech, whereas they generally advocate for a petty form of compelled speech. >That's the same thing. No it isn't. A camera might not capture what's in front of it perfectly, but to say that a camera can't capture anything is patently absurd. >Yes, specifically the perspectives of your preist class. The idea of anything even resembling a "priest class" is anathema to me. Because we can never be fully certain which perspective is the most correct, it's moronic to enforce a singular perspective from on high. >That's bait No it isn't, it's one of the main reasons I believe in freedom of speech. >You just established that certain perspectives are more valid than others. Yes, but that doesn't mean that we're actually capable of knowing, with certainty, which specific perspectives are more correct than others. >It's not "state mandated" if it's "the people" who enforce the truth Yes it is. >Which is it? Either we can rely upon our senses, or our senses are flawed and we need someone else to tell us what we see/hear/smell/taste/touch. Both and neither. Your senses might not be fully reliable, but they're more reliable than the word of others, because you're compounding their biases with yours. The word of others is mostly there to fill in gaps in your perception, things you either forgot or were unable to witness directly. >You just admitted that your view of science is based upon a Marxist process known as "Critical Theory". I too can compare unalike things by reducing them down to nothingness. For the record, the majority of practicing marxists, which is to say, people in communist parties with actual political clout, do not respect critical theory, seeing it as mental masturbation by western academia. >And you've managed to prove that you don't even understand your own beliefs. I find it much more likely that the inverse is true; that you still have no idea what I think and are arguing against a man that I am not. >you have done nothing but attempted to defend your beliefs like your life depends on it, Most of this conversation has been me clarifying my beliefs. I've scarcely defended them at all!

>>78172 >What do I have to gain from lying about my ideology on an obscure anonymous imageboard? I don't know. You're one who needed to bring up political ideologies in a topic about gatekeeping. >In what way? As I said, perspectivism and subjectivity. Just like you're talking about a (color)blind person who has a "flawed" understanding of the world; they see you as being a "flawed" person due to (1) your rigid standards of staying with homonormativity excluding your mind from wider knowledge of sexual possibilities that exist and (2) you define yourself by the one gender while as they "defy" gender norms. >I'm firmly committed to freedom of speech, whereas they generally advocate for a petty form of compelled speech No, you'll actually find the Communists and Socialists are some of the biggest adovcates for "Freedom of speech". Even the Constitution of the CCP declares that West Taiwan allows for "Freedom of speech". And before you bring up all the "censorship", that's because they define "freedom" differently. As in, they define there as being no "freedom" unless they're in charge and enforce their ideology of the world. After all, how can one actually be "free" unless they rid themelves of all that oppose them? >A camera might not capture what's in front of it perfectly, but to say that a camera can't capture anything is patently absurd. That doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes of the argument for your ideology, having 90% of a complete picture is no different than having 10% of it. As all that "matters" at the end of the day is achieveing that "110 percentage" (Yes, that ws intentional), and "that cannot happen" unless you include those with "the other ways of knowing". >Because we can never be fully certain which perspective is the most correct Yes, we can. It's called "Common Sense" (Which is ironically not so "common"). >it's moronic to enforce a singular perspective from on high Unless it's YOUR perspective. Again, back to what I said about "freedom of speech" and "other ways of knowing" >Yes, but that doesn't mean that we're actually capable of knowing, with certainty, which specific perspectives are more correct than others Unless you live in subjective reality, yes, we can. >Yes it is How? The declaration doesn't come from "the state", it's coming from "the people", and "the people" want you to shut up and get off of their lawn. >Both and neither That's not how it works. Again, either we can rely upon our senses, or our senses are flawed and we need someone else to tell us what we see/hear/smell/taste/touch. >For the record, the majority of practicing marxists, which is to say, people in communist parties with actual political clout, do not respect critical theory, seeing it as mental masturbation by western academia. <It's not REAL Marxism >Most of this conversation has been me clarifying my beliefs By confirming that you're everything that you're saying that you're not?

>>78174 >You're one who needed to bring up political ideologies in a topic about gatekeeping. I brought it up because someone else asked. >As I said, perspectivism and subjectivity. Again, you can compare any thing to any other thing if you reduce them down to nothingness. Nietzschean perspectivism is very different from postmodern subjectivism. >(1) your rigid standards of staying with homonormativity excluding your mind from wider knowledge of sexual possibilities that exist I do not believe in "homonormativity". Homosexuality is not normal, in the sense that the majority of people are not homosexuals. And I have tried to expand my sexual horizons, but I have always found vaginas putrid and likely always will. >No, you'll actually find the Communists and Socialists I thought we were talking about troons? >Even the Constitution of the CCP declares that West Taiwan allows for "Freedom of speech". And before you bring up all the "censorship", that's because they define "freedom" differently. As in, they define there as being no "freedom" unless they're in charge and enforce their ideology of the world. After all, how can one actually be "free" unless they rid themelves of all that oppose them? Okay, but what does that have to do with my conception of free speech? >That doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes of the argument for your ideology, having 90% of a complete picture is no different than having 10% of it. No, it's a pretty significant difference. Because you can get 90% of a complete picture, you should always trust yourself above others. >and "that cannot happen" unless you include those with "the other ways of knowing". You act as if I'm suggesting that there is a class of special people that automatically knows more than anyone else, when I have repeatedly stated the opposite. Listening to other people does not mean listening to "the experts", it means listening to your next door neighbor. >Unless it's YOUR perspective. No. I definitely don't want my perspective enforced because I may come to disagree with it later. I don't want any perspective enforced by anyone. >How? The declaration doesn't come from "the state", it's coming from "the people" If there is a political authority mandating a viewpoint, it comes from the state. It doesn't matter if the constituents of this state are democratically elected, it's still a state mandated perspective. >That's not how it works. Yes it is. A photo may not be 100% accurate, but it's impossible for it to be less accurate than a photo of a photo of the same shot. ><It's not REAL Marxism It isn't. China is real marxism. Cuba is real marxism. Nepal has a real marxist party. Belarus has a real marxist party. Nobody gives a flying fuck about the DSA or what it thinks. >By confirming that you're everything that you're saying that you're not? It takes a special kind of arrogance to not only ignore what's right in front of you and insist on a separate reality that is more convenient for you, but to proudly admit to doing so.

>>78179 >I brought it up because someone else asked. Then why didn't you reply to that person specifically instead of bring it up in an otherwise totally unrelated discussion? >Nietzschean perspectivism is very different from postmodern subjectivism. No, it's not. >I do not believe in "homonormativity" That doesn't matter. >I thought we were talking about troons? Same thing, they're Sexuality Marxists, or "Queer Theorists" as they've termed their denomination since the 90's. >what does that have to do with my conception of free speech? It's a version of "free speech" sprung from the very ideologies that you're championing. >No, it's a pretty significant difference. Not as far as the ideology is concerned, as neither result is "110%". >You act as if I'm suggesting that there is a class of special people that automatically knows more than anyone else You've directly said as such when declaring that people cannot rely upon their own fucking senses. >Listening to other people does not mean listening to "the experts" Yes, it does. When you have to deny your own lying senses and listen to someone else, it means you must ALWAYS listen to the experts, since they're the ones who see the "full picture". Because they see the "complete 110%" while you see only 90%. >I definitely don't want my perspective enforced That doesn't matter >I don't want any perspective enforced by anyone That's okay because they'll do it on your behalf anyway, even if you didn't ask for it and ESPECIALLY if you denounce it. Because your objections are only further proof that you're brainwashed. This is the inevitable result each and every single time your ideologies gains popularity and people begin to take it seriously. >If there is a political authority mandating a viewpoint, it comes from the state Not according to them. The state is an institution that only exists to keep them "oppressed" and "ignorant". Any claim that "the people" have any possibility of becoming "the state" is stupid babble as far as they're concerned as it doesn't and didn't happen at all. >It doesn't matter if the constituents of this state are democratically elected To them, yes, it does because it isn't a "true democracy". Just like their views on "Freedom of speech", no system is a "true democracy" unless all other opposing parties cease to exist. Ever wondered why you hear the phrase "OUR democracy" so much over the past several years? >A photo may not be 100% accurate, but it's impossible for it to be less accurate than a photo of a photo of the same shot. And want to know what's more "accurate" than a photo? Some art majors painting, because it's depicting a different PERSPECTIVE on the subject that you wouldn't be aware of otherwise. According to perspectivalism and subjectivity, the painting is more real than a photo or even your own senses. >It isn't They're following Marx's Critical Theory to the letter. You just don't like that they've correctly applied it to certain subjects that you see as protected according to your own Critical Theory. >It takes a special kind of arrogance to not only ignore what's right in front of you and insist on a separate reality that is more convenient for you, but to proudly admit to doing so. Talking about yourself, there?

>Then why didn't you reply to that person specifically instead of bring it up in an otherwise totally unrelated discussion? I don't know what you're asking for here. This site doesn't have DMs. >No, it's not Yes, it is. Postmodern subjectivism posits that individual perception is reality. Nietzschean perspectivism states that individual perception is distinct from reality. They're arguably the exact opposite of each other. >That doesn't matter. So why'd you bring it up? >Same thing, they're Sexuality Marxists, or "Queer Theorists" as they've termed their denomination since the 90's. And yet the actual content of their thought has virtually nothing to do with Marx himself, a man who would've laughed the very concept of intersectionality out of the room. >It's a version of "free speech" sprung from the very ideologies that you're championing. I don't care about their version of "free speech", I care about my version of free speech. I'm very eclectic intellectually. I've taken ideas from <John Stuart Mill <Henry George <Ayn Rand <Karl Marx <Karl Popper <Deng Xiaoping <Fredrick Nietzsche <Murray Rothbard <Richard Dawkins <Niccolo Machiavelli <Baruch Spinoza <Max Stirner And many others who've made smaller, but still significant, contributions. To box me in with any of these individual people is to reduce my ideas down beyond recognizablilty. >Not as far as the ideology is concerned Which ideology, the one I have, or the one you insist I have? >You've directly said as such when declaring that people cannot rely upon their own fucking senses. No I didn't. Nobody can fully rely on their own senses. The existence of an expert class presupposes the existence of a group of people that actually can fully rely on their own senses, which contradicts my initial claim that nobody can fully rely on their senses. >Yes, it does. When you have to deny your own lying senses I never said to do that, and in fact have said the opposite; that one should rely on his own sense data as much as possible, and use the knowledge of others to fill in the gaps only when necessary. >it means you must ALWAYS listen to the experts, since they're the ones who see the "full picture". Because they see the "complete 110%" while you see only 90%. As I said before, this contradicts my claim that human beings generally are incapable of having the full picture. >That's okay because they'll do it on your behalf anyway, even if you didn't ask for it and ESPECIALLY if you denounce it. Because your objections are only further proof that you're brainwashed. This is the inevitable result each and every single time your ideologies gains popularity and people begin to take it seriously. I have no idea what the fuck any of this is supposed to mean. >Not according to them. I don't care what them thinks. >They're following Marx's Critical Theory to the letter. Marx was not a critical theorist, nor could he have been, because he died 40 years before the Frankfurt school, from which critical theory originated, even existed. >You just don't like that they've correctly applied it to certain subjects that you see as protected according to your own Critical Theory. I myself am also not a critical theorist, and do not respect their work. >Talking about yourself, there? No, I'm taking about you, you retard.

>>78184 >I don't know what you're asking for here. That you should be linking to the guy's post if you're replying ot him? >Nietzschean perspectivism states that individual perception is distinct from reality. He also said that we cannot "know" reality without allowing for "other ways of knowing". In his own words: <There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective knowing; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our 'concept' of this thing, our 'objectivity' be. >So why'd you bring it up? Because these people don't care what YOU believe, except that you believe what they believe. Even if you deny "homonormativity", they still see the world as such because we don't burn fags at the stake. >And yet the actual content of their thought has virtually nothing to do with Marx himself Because you're so fucking focussed on the particulars that you cannot see the forest from the trees. Like I said earlier: >>77914 >It's the same ideology, right down to their Christ consciousness being born out of a feeling of alienation and that they have been "denied" their birth right. The only difference is how they spell the names. In classical Marxism, it was the Proletariat being kept down by the Bourgeoisie. Nazism is about the Germanic-Aryans being kept down by the Jews. And Transgenderism is the Queers being kept down by "Sexual Normativity". >a man who would've laughed the very concept of intersectionality out of the room Do you know who Marx even was? Here's a full biography of the guy's life in case you're curious: https://www.bitchute.com/video/YnwC8WxKMMc Attached vid's an even "shorter" version, but here's the highlights of his life: <Grew up in wealth <Got involved in Hegel's New Age religion <Leeched off every single person he ever knew <Had both a wife and a mistress <Spent years on end writing a book that almost never came out, and a second volume he hadn't even started <When not bitching about "The Man", was unironically high as a kite as he wasted all the money on drugs and trinkets <He was so non-caring about changing anything about his life that his deceased child was just left rotting in the house for months on end <Got kicked out of France, Germany (Twice), and Belgium for trying to destabilize the government The guy was a fucking nutjob. >I don't care about their version of "free speech", I care about my version of free speech That is YOUR version of "Free speech", sprouted right from the very ideologies you're attempting to champion. Stop bitching about how you don't "Agree" with that interpretation or even "intend" for that to be the resulting interpretation. This is what "free speech" means according to your ideologies. >I'm very eclectic intellectually No, you're not when you're listing the same handful of intellectuals that every OTHER self-important and so-called "intellectual" on the internet names off as the basis for their "super special, super smart, and never-been-tried-before theories". Where's William James? Or Leon Walras? Or Henry C. Link? Or De Tocqueville? Or Paine? Or C.S. Lewis? Or Norman Vincent Peale? Or G. Edward Griffin? Or George Clason? Or Jim Rohn? Even I've read Jung, only to walk away thinking that he was batshit insane. >To box me in with any of these individual people is to reduce my ideas down beyond recognizablilty. How, when we can look at previous examples of people who pushed for ideas that you are championing and see the exact results of what happened? History and the world is extremely boring, stupid, and predictable once you realize and learn that everything that is going to happen has already happened. The forms, people, places, and names may change, but it's all the same song and dance at the end of the day. >Which ideology, the one I have Yes >No I didn't. Nobody can fully rely on their own senses. <I never said to do that Which is it? >The existence of an expert class presupposes the existence of a group of people that actually can fully rely on their own senses Not necessarily, as they can also just declare that because you don't have "110% of the picture", then you're rendered invalid. It's also a system that promotes the person who bitches the most about nothing being "perfect". >this contradicts my claim that human beings generally are incapable of having the full picture Unless you're an awakened person and practice Negative Theology. >Marx was not a critical theorist Yes, he was. He outlined the process in several of his works. And the process didn't even start with him as you can find trace of it in Rousseau's theories of the "noble savage" and "the social contract". In fact, thinking about it, the clergy in the Biblical book of Job practicited it when grilling Job for why his life went to shit. >I myself am also not a critical theorist Then why are you repeating how Critical Theory operates?

>>78205 I'm getting sick of this. Here is the important part: I believe in classic liberalism. But I also believe that, under a fully free market, certain industries will become monopolies or oligopolies. Because these industries will not respond to market pressure, they should instead be rolled into the government, where they're made to respond to electoral pressure instead, and moreover, required to uphold the constitution. You do not have to agree with this. But it is what I stand for. Take it or leave it. I'm not coming back here. This has been one of the least productive experiences of my life.

>>78223 >I believe in classic liberalism. But... So you don't believe in Classical Liberalism. >I'm not coming back here If you were actually confident in your opinions, you wouldn't have to "announce" that you're leaving. You would just do it and leave the discussion at that, thinking that everything could be said on your behalf has been said.

>>78224 >you were actually confident in your opinions, you wouldn't have to "announce" that you're leaving. You would just do it and leave the discussion at that, thinking that everything could be said on your behalf has been said. That makes absolutely zero fucking sense.

Man I'm not going to read the text walls Yes, the usual few will attempt to destroy everything we hold dear, the solution IS to gatekeep anime, but not to a ridiculous degree Hopefully one day there wont be any jews and thus there wont be anyone trying to destroy the things that make us happy just because they don't want us happy

>>77046 The anime art style can be really good at expressing many important aspects of female beauty. That's a language that any male can understand.

>>78317 The TL;DR is that gatekeeping is like chopping down an invasive weed. It's a superficial, short-term solution to a much deeper underlying problem, and, at best, only serves to waste time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere. If you really want the problem to go away, you gotta pull up the roots and possibly apply pesticides. It's much messier, but it's a necessary mess. >>78320 It's good at expressing aspects of male beauty as well. I'm gay, and I prefer 2D men to anything I've ever seen in real life. Eastern media is the last bastion of media that does what media ought to do, which is to present a romantic, mind's eye view of the world. For a long time now, western intelligencia has been pushing the idea that for media to be mature, it needed to be "realistic" and "speak to the common man", which in reality, meant amateurish "art" and "entertainment" that depict a world uglier and less interesting than real life and lack any specific point of view. It took a while for this view to fully ingrain itself into everything, but you can see it as early as the 1970s with music critics shitting on prog rock specifically because of its virtuosity.

>>78369 >wrong on many levels anon Take the two analogies. One is to guard the entrance. The other is to pull up miscreants that have got in. Without weeding, plants eventually overwhelm a garden and this is true. But you would be a bad bouncer if you allowed every blue haired mugwump that circumvented your efforts at the entrance to frollick freely in the garden just because they got past your initial attempt to stop them. Go back there and drag the troublemakers out. The duties of 'keeping a gate' includes this. Further on the point is if you do not do any initial gatekeeping then any subsequent weeding will be extremely hard going, analogous to removing tree roots, or initial land cultivation. Keeping a gate is so important that if you do it wrong at the start then you are really fucked. You'll have it all to do. It's fortunate that the personality types attracted to anime at the very beginning were quite disagreeable people, which on a genetic level selects for better gatekeeping. I don't know what the state of modern anime is. Maybe there are a lot of blue weeds in there, maybe there are only a few trying to hide else they get yeeted. But the initial selection for who you let in and who you don't is huge. I wouldn't call it wasting energy at all. You can gatekeep so hard you become dogmatic and stifle free thought and that's it's own complaint, but gatekeeping, moderate or "middle way" as opposed to having none is crucial. It's not something you could do without.

>>78369 Have a second (You) just to say the latter point you gave is pretty good and whitepilled. I channel disturbing things a lot, rough upbringing enables that a lot of the time, but don't let all those exceptions or minutae disprove the rule. Romantic mind's eye is a good attitude to have towards it. The only thing I will say is that "what a romantic mind's eye" is changes, depending on how much those around you have drunk the soy. In Ardman's company, gromit being in peril and wallace passively crying about it is 'their' romantic view of kinship, but for me I'd want them to wrap the japanese battle flag round their heads and go hunting for revenge. Y'know as an ideal. Romantic mind's eye of how male friends ought to bounce off each other.