Facebook and twitter seems to be deleting posts/tweets supporting Palestine against Israeli genocide & blocking accounts/pages whoever/whichever writes against Israel. That's a shame!

  • 5
    nothing new under the sun.

    btw thats why im here. devrant is one of the last places on the web where you can express yourself without fear of censorship.
  • 4
    Stop the presses!
    A huge asocial media platform is censoring their user's speech!

    +++ Rice bag fallen over in China +++ American scientists confirm wetness of water +++
  • 0
    @Nanos completely agree.
    the problem is with the party sytstem. direct representation with short mandates would be a practical way to go. a suiting platform for everyone to express their ideas would be a logical part of it.

    now that i think of it, you could begin at the platform level, and use it to build localised "lobbying groups". groups of citizens taking an active part of modern democracy.

    and a separate platform (as opposed to a facebook group or anything of the sort) could be the way to go marketing-wise (communication-wise too) because you get over some of the media noise.

    but since you would go against the grain you would need infrastructure. and for that someone who has the money.

    sooner or later someone is gonna want to pull the plug
  • 0
    @Nanos the more i think of it the more it seems like a thing to try
    also the idea is attractive to both sides of the aisle
  • 1
    @Nanos too much freedom will lead to pretty violent anarchy
  • 2
    Oh yes please let us start talking about politics and never stop

    That is the one missing piece this platform needs
  • 1
    If they delete it regardless, they can't be accused of leaving up incorrect info. Makes a lot of sense.
  • 0
    speaking of which...
    this just came in:
  • 0
    @Nanos look at the internet right now. That is what total freedom creates. Hateful groups which know no bounds.

    Peaceful people are silent people. They don't speak up, because speaking up causes conflicts.

    Constraints are there not for peaceful people in the first place
  • 0
    @Nanos early days of internet were agent there were not a lot of people and everyone knew everyone. That's a totally different social group type than thousands of people together
  • 0
    "you can use usenet"
    @Nanos yes, i know. but it has its downsides.
    as far as i know (and i dont know much) its chiefly badwidth and resource disponibility.

    lbry (framework? protocol?) it seems is a newer version of it. but still has its problems, chiefly: badwidth. or at least, thats what my user-experience showed me.

    but, now that i think of it its used for up to 4k vids. so it shouldnt be a problem if the application is basically a message boards me thinks.

    i dont know how it (lbry) works exactly, but my nose tells me its still a good idea to have hard servers somewhere, doing at least session stuff.

    i had the idea to keep users anonymous- which is gonna be a tough nut to crack because the page needs to be moderated somehow. which is basically mutually exclusive.

    maybe use a natural langugage censor bot. it could work, in theory (automatically moderate the post before it is posted. no need to know id then, as opposed to acting after the fact)...
  • 0
    @iiii "That is what total freedom creates. Hateful groups which know no bounds."

    curb you palpatine, bruh

    if people go fucknuts, its because on one side you have media blasting left wing extremist propaganda 24/7, people get blue checkmarks for wishing for all white men to get castrated, while on the other people get tortured, sent to jail or killed for walking the opposite side of the aisle.

    the problem is not freedom since its very limited for an enormous (in fact major) part of the population.

    the problem is killing dialog , and creating echo chambers.
    the former prevents leftards to see how fucked they are and the latter prevents them from accidentally breaking off the cult.
  • 0
    @Nanos back then you didnt have trans teaching kindergartners to twerk or sexchange at 11
  • 0
    @Nanos i mean the only thing that really changed is the existence of dialog.

    its a forced change these pepole have to resort to hiding the scolar curriciulum for instance
    (its 1am where i live im a little ot tired to send you sources. but i could if you insist and/or are patient)
  • 0
    i hurt your fee fees? good. now i have your attention.
    communism is thrash. and you are the new nazi.
  • 0
    @Nanos as for the page idea , thats why i used theoretically.
    and its impractical and a bad idea altoegether to have distributed session control, so we would be stuck with having to have hardware at some point.

    actually we are stuck with a static ip if we are to think usability. how are you gonna make a domain work otherwise?

    as for the ai, the idea is just to block direct insults so it shouldnt be that hard.
    its not supposed to become /pol/ 2.0
  • 0
    @Nanos you could say so.
    you could even say that as soon as you levy taxes its communism:
    its planification of the economy, or rather a part of it, and a centralized redistribution of ressources.

    the real difference is in the way of governing,
    and in private property, if we take communism to its conclusion.
  • 0
    @ostream lmao such triggered

    commie libshit confirmed
  • 0
    @ostream it's not the communism that kilked people, but the government
  • 0
    @Nanos i meant session like in the osi model(ish): verification of credentials and subsequent access control.
    you might not wanna have that on computers which you dont control, and this might be an issue with usenet-like approach.
  • 0
    @iiii dependending on the approach you might be both right and wrong.
    because communism, as in ideology, is used to destabilize an existing government and replace it.

    the believer and the reactionary always end up in the same communal grave.

    and nothing changes. just the names in the management. and even that is not a rule.
  • 0
    @bad-frog your words only reinforce what I've said: it's not the regime to blame, but the people at power.
  • 0
    @iiii key problem with that is the "people" part.
    the only way to hold them accountable is with working democracy.

    because the party idea has a glaring weakness:
    what do you do when the the dog supposed to guard the hens turns out to be a wolf?

    unless you think more about the soviets era, but thats basically democracy
  • 0
    @Nanos communism is a sneaky bitch.
    because depending on the period it has been many things. both in ideology and how it was applied.

    but in any case the ideology is adjusted to appeal to downtrodden people. with marx, it was the workers. readjusted with lenin to appeal more to the rural classes (who got hit the hardest in the end, cf. kulaks). also lenin have laid down the foundations of stalinizm which was a meme.

    so much so that khruschchev carried out a "de-stalinization" extending to reburying stalins body outside of moscow.
    also then communism was re-centered on collectivism - sacrificing oneself for the greater good, and modernism. its the period of the space race.
    after that you have brzehnev. and under him communism became bunker mentality. and the subsequent collapse of the soviet union.

    you could say that after the fall russia reforged a new ""communism, which i think ideologically could be the merging of collectivist parts of communism and nationnalism
  • 0
    @Nanos because economically-wise or politically-wise its pretty straightforward. kinda.

    economically: nobody has private property. everyone has a quota of everything.
    internationnal exchanges occur in ressources and/or products and are regulated by the party. regulating includes fixing the exchange values.

    politically: you have one party. party members are at all decision-taking posts. all the rest are workers.

    with a small caveat: lenin introduced a temporary organ to incite the people to accept the revolution: the soviets. those were "groups of elders" of each village/district who had political and representative powers.
    and were a big part of the ideology because its through these soviets that the people could have self determination, oversight, and representation.

    but once he solidified his power, those were disbanded.
  • 0
    @Nanos i dont know cuban or chinese revolutions and ideology, and even less how theose evolved throughout time, but i think russia alone give a pretty good set of examples that communism is whatever those in power/conspiring to take power need it to be.

    it can be a daydream, a tool or a weapon.
    but in any case serves to take and then solidifiy power.
  • 0
    @Nanos whats the opposite of communism? democracy.

    communism's aim is to centralize power.
    in a democracy the power is to be distributed.
  • 0
    @bad-frog the only problem is working democracy is unachievable. It falls apart if applied at a large scale.
  • 0
    @bad-frog also you know nothing about communism.
  • 0
    @Nanos communism is rather opposite to centralized power. The communism itself is about distribution of power among communities.

    That, what happened in USSR was not communism but some step towards it through power which could force people to change the way of life. But in the end it have not achieved the goal, partially because communism as a concept is mostly alien to human species. Humans are egotistical creatures and that directory contradicts communism.
  • 0
    @iiii @nanos

    obviously power centralization is not exclusive to communism. but communuism leads to centralization of power by virtue of its nature.

    the whole concept of "cental party" is the ultimate expression of centralization. because... rly am i explaining this?

    a central party. with advancement dependent on internal rules, with no possible oversight, where absolute political, economic and military powers meet.

    the party would be also responsible for regulating trade and quotas. so basically the nwo and globohomo except you cant do anything anymore because the one party system solidifed their power.

    its pretty much the same as monarchy, its "divine rights". and as obvious as a fist to the nose.
  • 0
    @bad-frog the whole notion of "central party" is not communism though.
  • 0
    @iiii are you sure?
    because even the communist manifesto is called 'manifesto of the communist party'

    it has been a long time since i learned those things but the central party was used as a crutch for indeological "plotholes" since marx already
  • 0
    @Nanos I cannot, because it haven't been implemented in practice. I also think that it is impossible, because it directly contradicts with egotistical human nature. And because of that any communism implementation required some strong authority to force people to go against their nature.
  • 1
    @ostream nope, anything people do is out of their own selfish motives, even if it looks like pure altruism outside. And the main reason is that animals participate in altruism out of instinct but people do that out of reason.
  • 1
    @ostream yes, they are, but only to a point when collective interest doesn't oppose personal one. Personal interest will always be in higher priority and that is the problem of implementing pure communism and socialism. People value their ego more than society around them, so the system that is based on valuing society first will inevitably fail.
  • 0
    @iiii id say that people are actually animals.
    the only difference is that we no longer have environmental pressure to calibrate our instincts:

    in other words, back in the time if someone is an asshole and eats the provisions, or the group lacks cohesion, everybody dies: environmental pressure

    today if someone is an asshole, they block dissent on social media if social media doesnt do the blocking themselves and get a blue check mark.

    the only thing that you can trust is people's self-interest.
  • 1
    @bad-frog well, yes. People ARE animals and are subjects of the same animal laws, and most animals aren't altruistic at all. Altruism is an exception, just like self awareness is an exception.

    If you assume that everyone has a personal interest,everything comes together rather easily than while assuming unbased altruism.
  • 0
    @iiii yup, and thats why im so skeptical about communism, even if it weren't used as a weapon.

    for resiliency sake, a system has to account for human nature, instead of trying to change it.
  • 1
    @bad-frog yeah, I do agree that it is impossible to implement due to fundamental incompatibility with the subjects it should be applied to: humans
  • 0
    @iiii im glad we agree on that.

    i recognize the appeal of communism, especially today: most countries in the world have a shit system, full of inequity, built on lies.

    but communism is not the only alternative.

    we could reforge representative democracy and make it actually representative and democratic if we do away with the party system;

    any party of any sort is a group of people, subject to internal, non democratic rules. it is the oppostie of democracy. so are lobbying groups associated with those.

    if you remove the parties, and implement regional representation* and drastically shorten the mandates of representatives you'll end up with basically the same as worker commitees, but extended to all matters.

    *)like a ctiy or county- wide election to get a rep, who represents said community at a state level, then at a state level you elect one rep from regionals, who then goes to rep the state at a federal level)

  • 0
    economically, you dont need to collectivize production to create enough economical surplus to build a better, more durable society.

    you could nationnalize (partly at least) energy, transport, metallurgy and central bank to:

    -do away with subventions (instead you lower the price of these fundamental goods for the supported sector)

    -lessen or even remove taxes thanks to the enormous rentability of theose industries

    -go for social projects or megastructures to better everyone's life. also solves the problem of unemployement because mega in megastructure

    -lessen the ties between intl market prices and domestic ones. (cf egypt circa 2015 when people were adding wood chips into bread because of the price of grain)

    so basically all that is good in communism, without cultural revolution, without tanking your economy because of collectivization, and preserving the rights of your citizens, even enhancing those.
  • 0
    @iiii and ideologically, there's not much to say, except that social darwinism is used only for the revolution phase of communism, and is dropped as soon as the new power is comfortably seated, because, obviously, nobody would want those ideas applied to the party;)

    as for the rest, pretty much all of it is not exclusive to communism. so yeah, id say there weren't much to begin with.

    all that i mentionned above is called centrizm. or nationnalizm. and it should become obvious by now why is it the one ideology you never hear about-
    its the only ideology which truly attacks the oligarchs, redistributes the power to the people, could be realistically implemented, even if in only one country, and above all; satisfies both the left and the right.

    also it is the only ideology which go agains big global monobloc domination such as was with the pax americana.
  • 0
    again, you cannot trust altruism, but you can count on everybody's egoism. and incidentally a peaceful and constructive world is in the interest of everybody.

    one mono-bloc of power is what we had up to today. slavery.

    also if a politician is dependent on his country well-being instead of rich lobbying groups or his party it would be a strong incentive to do the right thing even if said person is an asshole.
    especially if said person is an asshole.
  • 0
    @bad-frog two things:
    1. Democracy is a failed experiment, just like communism and capitalism
    2. No one pure system will suffice. Only a hybrid of several can address different aspects which require different approaches.
  • 0
    @bad-frog do not mention nationalism... Do not... If that's your solution I'd prefer to burn everything down instead.
  • 0
    @iiii yeah, obviously you need a hybrid, you wouldnt want democracy during a frontal attack on a battlefield.

    thing is, for the rest democracy is a good thing because of the multiple failsafes and recourses it leaves.

    dont count today's "representative democracies" as democracies tho.

    same with capitalism.
    you need capitalisation to allow for diversification in society. and if by capitalism that you mean speculation, it becomes irrelevant with a nationnalized system because of its inherent economical solidity.

    also you have to leave space for human ambition. otherwise you will have dissent which is bad for resilience.
  • 0
    @iiii lmao what does nationnalism mean to you?
  • 0
    because its not fascizm or whatever

    because the reason we have for instance nationnal identities is because of nationnalism.
    nationnalism = patriotism.

    americana is nationnalism.

    nationnalism is napoleonian integration model:
    you come to france, you are french now, no matter the colour.

    opposed to this is anglo-saxon model of integration ie "tolerance" which leads to lack of integration. "communautarisme" in french, the fact that pepole stick toegether within their comunity instead of mixing freely.(!= comunatarianism in english)

    >>>its the root of racism btw.

    also the way you were made to react towards the term 'nationnalism" is the very proof of the part where i say the ideology is supressed.

    wonder why that would be, humm...
  • 0
    @bad-frog national identity is the root of alienation. Praising it as something good is utterly stupid.
  • 0
    @bad-frog nationalism is a tool of war first of all. No one cares about their national identity unless there is some outside enemy.

    Secondly, I have had enough of it right here where I am. Politicians using it to gauge their power, and radicals just being rampand with discrimination. Fuck nationalism at its core.

    If you think it is good, you're an idiot
  • 0
    @iiii lol.

    you know of something called supra-counsciousness?

    i mean in the freudian model sense.
    in short its the seat of ambition and by extension morality.

    usually it is a projection of the self against a "fatherly figure" which can be an actual father, a mentor, but also history as it is an extention of ancestors.

    without nationnalism you have no link between the individual and history.

    and so you have no link between past standards of morality and courage and the ambition of the individual.

    its not like you cant be a good person without being a nationnalist, but a nationnal identity is very important in the grand scale of things: for joe mc schmuck

    calling nationnal identity utterly stupid is profoundly ignorant
  • 0
    @bad-frog now you're going full on in the opposite direction. The idea of national identity which makes people go in the same direction is in the same alley as all the idealistic ideas like communism.

    It does not work. It cannot work. It is used as a manipulation mechanism. Period.

    Common uniting ideas work on a small scale, not on a large one. Just like democracy utterly fails at a large scale.
  • 0
    @iiii "Politicians using it to gauge their power, and radicals just being rampant with discrimination."

    > discrimination

    >>>> D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N

    "coca cola promotes guidelines to be less white"

    (mental facepalm)
  • 0
    @iiii also it has worked since before humans existed. left-wing politicians took power, nationnal identity is under attack everything goes to shit.

    and now you say much more of it pls.
    no thanks ill pass. and ill call stupid where i see it.
  • 0
    @ostream I think, the problem with america is not in trying to find communism but thinking that it is something demonically bad, while it is not inherently bad at all.
  • 0
    @ostream who do you mean?
  • 0
    @Nanos with communism you still have a party;)

    as for human nature, you contend with eons of evolution.

    let's take opportunism. in predatory animals it enhances survivability.

    in humans it leads to thieving, is an important part in egoism, but also is useful in career-building, or rather in advancement in life as a whole.

    im not saying changing human instincts cannot be done, but its impractical considering the timescale.
    you can change the *expression of those instincts tho. it has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. it occurs by itself, but as you wrote, you can promote change in one direction or another.

    as for the civilitude part, its undeniable you have profound retards on both sides of the aisle.

    from qtards to critical race theory the selection is wide.

    @ostream getting offended at me pointing out that fact classed him/her in the category of people who seem to have replaced logic by emotions. his later response confirmed that suspicion.
  • 0
    @Nanos ...and i really have more interesting things to do than to rectify a twitterhead's delusions.
  • 0
    @ostream assuming things like...

    "i bet you think reading books and going to uni is communism too lmao."


    yeah, i say twatterhead confirmed.
    its hard to have such a lack of self-consciousness otherwise

    just so we get this straight, im not a qtard. try again.
  • 0
    btw here's the whore who made that tweet about castration:


    she has a whole article about her and her racism. wouldnt be a big thing if she didnt work for the NYT.

    and for a leftie this is a-ok. (ultra-facepalm)

    also: im still waiting for that left ball...
  • 0
    @ostream yeah idgaf about that whore either.
    what im pointing out is that twatter was cool with that and many more like these. so is leftie america.
    thence: i call them leftards
  • 0
    @ostream did i say so?

    here's the tldr:
    current "democracy" is no democracy at all.
    we need to reforge the system or we are done for it.
    communism wont work bc of humans humaning.

    the biggest problem is parties (one central, or multiple) interfering with democracy.

    and if you nationnalize heaviest industry you can lessen or remove taxes, have all the social programs you want and build megastructure for, i dont know, scrub the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, or invest in actual water purification.

    the only part where france
    comes in is in the integration model because they formulated it (theirs, opposed to the anglo-saxon model). couldnt care less about frogeaters otherwise
  • 0
    @ostream its you who made the choice of being offended.
    after that i just responded in kind
  • 0
    ps. take your time
  • 0
    @Nanos i dont mind.
    you can always filter out with "find" "@anybody"
    also there is the option to send messages privately

    another reason why i dont mind is because of the entertainment value of some shitstorms i have witnessed:p

    yeah, ima filthy lurker, spank me
  • 0
    @Nanos yup, all the while they ignore issues that affect us today like 99% of potable water being shit, or mercury poisoning of the seas, to such an extent that one shouldnt eat fish if pregnant.

    thats the problem with your average leftie.
    they go for easy gratification by doing something superficial everybody talks about bc its on the news.

    were back to human instincts, ie gregarity, without natural pressure to calibrate them, perverted and abused by a group of people i like to call "the management".

    and plenty more of such examples where that one came from:)
  • 0
    @Nanos another example; gulf 2: the return.
    why do you think they came back?

    wmd? -no
    terrorism? -they created it instead by creating a power vaccum
    reptilian relics from babylon? -no tinfoil hat today i say

    it was because of dinar-gold. a new currency S.H an M.G intended to introduce.

    a gold standard currency to compete with fiat euros and fiat dollars, to serve as reserve currency for africa then the world.

    were talking about two countries with plenty of petrol.

    in M.G's libya you had free petrol for a symbolic dollar a year, 50k free money when you marry, to buy a home, extremely diversified population with tons of blacks, as opposed to other arab countries (thats a good one too), and a life expectancy > to european.

    after intervention they have isis strat. depth and tribal warfare.

    and it isnt about the money because they basically print it, they dont care.

    and its exactly why gold standard is so dangerous to bullshit fiat. its the fundation of their power.
  • 0
    New to internet?
  • 0
    @Nanos like i said much more where that one came from. we can go gradually more fucked since then.

    yeah, for our communist friends, @iiii and @ostream;

    in 1947, a few months after the famous speech of churchill which is considered the beginning of the cold war, and more than a year after berlin was cut in half with barbed wires and armed guards, britain invited soviet scientists to teach them how to make jet engines;
    at thta time air superiority was everything and the soviet union wouldnt exists without those, or at least wouldnt be dangerous with 5+ years of western advance in this area.

    would have completely shifted the balance of powers and the fate of milions of people, betrayed at yalta already.

    "communism" and "capitalizm" are two sides of the same coin. the common point is both tend to centralize power instead of distributing it, because in both thats what its about: power and nothing else.
  • 0
    @Nanos as for the lurking part go check https://boards.4chan.org/pol/

    its called politically incorrect not without reason.
  • 0
    @Nanos if you work against them, they will work you out.

    its a part of the problem. they wont let you in position of power if they dont have dirt on you.

    to change things you would have to start with the masses.
    -> been thought about' : here, a healthy dose of marxist dialectism so that you wont have the dialectic tool to express controversial ideas.

    anarchism goes well with youth, by virtue of rebellion against extablished order, shouldnt be a tough sale
  • 0
    @Nanos a civilised platform of free discussion i think -> the object of our original discussion:)
  • 0
    @Nanos i think like, within a forum, do like two categories:
    why communism is good, why communism is bad

    good, eloquent thinkers will naturally emerge.

    then make a category like "communism, why not, why yes?"

    people are bound to understand they have the same grievances and same aspirations i say
  • 0
    @Nanos yeah, well, the idea would be to just let it go.
    it could be a "selling point": no censorship whatsoever.
    the only constraint: has to be political.

    you could influence the debate by controlling sub-categories, but that would allow only for directing the subject. you could implement a democratic way of creating subjects by the users. it would be ground for shitposting, but also would limit shitposting to these categories.

    if the limit is something reasonnable like 1M unique ip votes to create a subcategory it would limit shitposting too, yet leave the possibility to submit real issues.

    its just back of a napkin-ideas, but i think the whole enterprise is looking good.
    besides even if i dont have the level of expertise to do something like that yet, it isnt given that it wont be the case tomorrow:)
  • 2
    @bad-frog anything tends to centralize power at some point. That's how people generally operate. And that's why I believe that some sort of "monarchy" is actually the most viable or stable option of government. It just works for humans inherently.
  • 0
    @iiii thats food for thought.

    humans indeed have a tendency to follow by virtue of gregarity.

    also, with monarchy working as it does, it binds the ruler to the destiny of his lands.

    modern belgium is a good example in this:
    blm is promoted here. there were riots for... a full hour. brussels black neighborhood got burned down, and once they started to expand, they got sealclubbed by the police.

    now lets compare it to france:
    several months of manifestations, still going on.

    as much as belgium has a bloody colonial history, france has too (mainly algeria), but never caused a country's population drop by 60% in 20years (im talking about belgian congo). in a way you could say that in belgium race riots are somewhat justified.

    so it isnt an ideological problem. its just that in belgium central power is much stronger than in france-> a monarch is bound to his lands. a politician can move away to some island if thigs go south.
  • 0
    @iiii but monarchy allows for excesses like said belgian congo, because of a lack of accountability.
    also, if the monarch is weak or incompetent, or has bad advisors, things go awry like was the case during the french revolution.

    also there is the feeling of self-importance that can be ground for dissent.
    a democratized system could disarm such dissent before it will become an issue.

    one could think of parliamentary monarchies as being the golden middle, but, in fact, its just democracy with a big fat parasite on top of it.

    and in cases, like england, said parasite is almost completely powerless.
  • 0
    @Nanos heh, even moderation could be considered influencing the debate, in absolute.

    i think the only way the debate should be influenced is to drive the users to confront their ideas with eachother. and, obviously, to block vulgarity. or spam, but the latter could be blocked with ai.
    death threats and racism shouldnt be too hard to block either. i already have a few ideas how to do so.

    so it would reduce the need for moderation to a minimum.

    well, that, and making sure posts are in their relevant category.

    to make the debate even more efficient the forum could be divided into regions/global.

    as for hosting, i think having the data in the user cloud and possessing physical servers for accreditation could be the way to go.

    lbry works in a similar manner from what i hear. haven't looked into it yet, tho.
    and even if there wouldnt be any other way than centralizing all the posts, im sure there is a feasible way.

  • 0
    ... like building a network of old machines to process the requests. you would be dependent on your network connection, but if you have a different ip for the domain and for the servers, the domain acting as a portal to backend ressources would be the only element that's really vulnerable.

    especially if your servers are in another country. like in the EU. or even russia.

    if you add an app on top of that, id say the project would become pretty resilient.

    one could start by building such a project in the eu too. the laws and customs of these lands are much more favorable for such an enterprise.
    especially concerning freedom of speech.

    in the EU, however, you dont have a "net neutrality act". you are responsible for what is posted on your platform so moderation should be top notch.

    yet, looking at it from another perspective, in europe people have very strong humanist ideology so it shouldnt be too hard to find moderators worth their salt.

  • 0
    @Nanos (cont.)
    in fact, we have a project with a friend of mine. an element of said project is my friend's facebook group. its not like its an enormous group, but he has 20K members. and not much trouble administrating it.

    good moderators shouldnt be an issue.
  • 0
    I just came back to DevRant after a few days and holy shit! What's happening here? 😕
    To be honest, I don't have the energy or will to read all of your comments, but I just saw somebody commented something regarding LGBTQ. Just wanted to say something about it:

    Whether you believe it or not, being gay or lesbian is not genetic, its a mental disease. How? If it was not, it wouldn't have been cured. How do I know? Here's a news link: https://theconversation.com/gay-cur...

    So yeah, whoever supports these mental illness: Fuck you disgusting people!
  • 0
    @Xoka now thats controversial:)

    yeah, by definition homosexual activity is deviant.
    it is a distortion of the libido. but then workaholics and (many) serial killers "suffer" from it too.

    and kissing is a deviant behaviour, by definition as it doesnt lead directly to procreation;

    id say the question is where to set the cutoff limit?

    and id answer to that: where bedroom ends.

    i dont care about the kinks and quirks of other people.

    but when sexual identity becomes substitute for merit, or becomes a political agenda, we're headed into a heap of trouble.

    if those who promote gey agenda really were supporters of human dignity, they would be against the sexualisation of our society, instead of promoting it.
  • 0
    @bad-frog also Belgium is tiny. I also believe that large countries are impossible to control. You can control Switzerland, Belgium or Austria, but not France, Geanu or Russia, just because of sheer size of land and population.
  • 0
    @iiii fair point.
    but russia has no issue with "control" of its population.

    that reviled nationnalism comes into play here.
    when people are united in purpose, they dont need control, only to be shown a direction.

    it is so because russia, like most countries of the eastern bloc, didnt undergo full westernisation.

    and by westernization i mean imposing new ideologies and changing the linguistic framework.

    new ideologies like economical libertarianism, which doesnt impact the life of the common people yet opens the door wide open for corporate takeover,

    and new linguistic frameworks like supressing the idea of subversion.

    besides, you dont need to control all of a population to control the narrative, you only need to control key elements. the decision making cadre; which can be accomplished by infiltrating and disseminating chosen ideas within the academic circles- the future decisionmakers.
  • 0
    @iiii it is a well known fact in revolutionnary circles that students and teachers are the least educated politically, and thats where modern revolution should start. (regardless whether said revolution is just or not)
Add Comment