Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
User avatar
Rudiger
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1056
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2701
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: Finasteride, Dutasteride, minoxidil, Biotin, Dermarolling, Nizoral

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by Rudiger » 3 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago
Saad is not on Chomsky's level
Correct, Chomsky is nowhere near as nuanced and complex as Saad.
~get 1k likes and party~ 8-)

I'm embarrassed to have not realized this on such elegantly succinct terms.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1191
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2212
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by That Guy » 3 months ago

Admin wrote:
3 months ago
You already know my main rebuttal of that one: no one is making anyone do anything.
I could be more amicable to your opposing viewpoints if you didn't have this childish, hypocritical flair added to them.
Admin wrote:
3 months ago
The beauty of ideologies, the people who espouse them become easily predictable.
You should know best of all, every thought that enters your mind was first uttered by Jordan Peterson.
You already know my main rebuttal of that one: no one is making anyone do anything.
"Ideologies make you predictable! Ha! Let me hit you with my MAIN REBUTTAL now!"

This is the most asinine claim you make on the internet. By far.

You have bought so deeply into this idea that "we're all just individuals" that you don't realize that by believing so, you should be totally apolitical. You should identify yourself as a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist and leave it at that.

Because your thinking here is "It is literally impossible for anything ever to have any effect on society whatsoever."

Serious people do not believe this. You will not find any reputable scientist, social or otherwise, you will not find police or military strategists, you will not governments, media, etc. who believe this nonsense you espouse.

Why are you concerned about "the radical left" and feminists, then? Why are you concerned about Islam at all? Why are you concerned about Neo Nazis? Why do any of these ideas and presences bother you at all if they have no effect on anyone else's thinking? Surely, they're all totally harmless if no one can be made to do anything.

Suicide bombers? They all totally decided to do it on their own. There was no encouragement ever and there is no way they can inspire anyone else.

Propaganda? Doesn't work. "Fake news" is harmless.

All the Yellow Vests? They're just a random occurrence; nothing spurred them on. That's impossible.

This is not hyperbole: This is the sheer stupidity of what you actually claim to believe.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1671
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4114
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 3 months ago

Rudiger wrote:
3 months ago
Correct, Chomsky is nowhere near as nuanced and complex as Saad.
Funny retort. In practice, Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of the past fifty years. His writings and his analysis have been transformative in several different fields, he is widely read, widely informed, widely recognized in spite of being politically incorrect, and non-inevitable.

No disprespect to Gad Saad, but he's not on his level. It'd be equivalent to me thumbing my nose at Juan Maldacena or Yoshizumi Ishino -- punching up in that manner just doesn't work at all.

Added in 9 minutes 51 seconds:
That Guy wrote:
3 months ago
about "the radical left" and feminists, then? Why are you concerned about Islam at all? Why are you concerned about Neo Nazis? Why do any of these ideas and presences bother you at all if they have no effect on anyone else's thinking? Surely, they're all totally harmless if no one can be made to do anything.
Everybody has an ideology or ideologies. It's a necessary adaptation for the limited human mind to deal with a complex world. Somebody just having an ideology or being said to have an ideology is not in itself a valid criticism, in my opinion. Where it can become a valid criticism, is if the ideology is demonstrably too simplistic, if it is reliant on a false worldview, or if an individual is not aware of where his ideology might have limitations and thus not be applicable.

On this particular point, I don't find individualism versus collectivism to be particularly insightful, as both are true. Dismissing humans as individuals is reductionist and false. We're not just social animals, we're the most social animals on the planet. Recent human evolution is largely driven by the needs of humans to work in groups and bands. Speaking of humans without referring to culture is nonsense.

As for your defense of bagel man, had he been born in Munich in 1924, I think that it is more likely than not that brezel man would have not gotten much attention from women. There is a small caveat due to the fact that most victims of war were male, which could have changed dating dynamics.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1122
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2100
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by Hairblues » 3 months ago

In addition to the reported fact he lives in a van, here is more information that leads me to double down on assuming he’smentally ill.

Stable minded people, regardless of life history, don’t have a history of confronting strangers in stores and having Physical altercations with them.
He has a YouTube channel (before this happened) where he self documented altercations with strangers. It looks like he provokes them for the self for filling image of the victim. Kind of manipulative and obsessive if you ask me.

So this is not a one-off case of the poor victim whose fed up and defending himself. It’s a pattern of behavior from someone who is most likely unemployed, homeless. Probably living on welfare or mental disability.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tmz.co ... ontations/

nameless
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 559
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 283
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by nameless » 3 months ago

Admin wrote:
3 months ago
Of course short men are oppressed, they get paid less, told they have Napoleon syndrome if they show anger and have miserable dating prospects.

Does it mean we need equity policies to put an end to their oppression?

The left: of course not, it means xD .
My politics lean left and I would support the idea of equity policies for short people.

And before you say that I'm just saying that because I'm short, I'm 5'9" which is neither short nor tall.

Added in 31 minutes 22 seconds:
Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago
He was spontaneously shouting at and insulting strangers. Within that context, he does not deserve sympathy. There was also no way that he does not pose a threat as any maniac can get access to a gun.

Edited to add: And as you know, lots of women treat me like shit all of the time. If I actually liked booze I'd be an alcoholic for sure. But for various reasons, I don't attack strangers.

And yes, life is fucking unfair.

But he did NOT have a gun. Although he was walking right up to people and getting in their faces and shouting and yelling right up in their faces.

It was predictable that the way he was behaving would lead to violence from someone - either by him or someone defending himself against him. I actually thought violence would break out sooner than it did. I was expecting violence to start at any moment. All that having been said, I do think that to some degree the big guy got violent with the smaller guy because he knew the small guy would be easy to overcome. Like they say, discretion is the better part of valor.

I used to drink alcohol to help myself sleep. As that situation worsened it spilled over into the day as I would drink to kill the hangovers. But I never once initiated violence with anyone. I've been in 3 fights in my whole life and I tried to de-escalate those situations. I'm especially not into big violence one bit. Big violence is disgusting. Sometimes I think someone maybe deserves a smack or two but even small violence is more risky than it would seem. If someone (me, for example) were to get into it a little bit with some deserving guy I could get more than I bargain for. I read in the news media where someone ends up with severe physical injuries or even dead as a result of a common fight. You never know how capable of fighting someone else is. Some guys just have the know-how for pummeling other guys and a guy like that can do a lot of damage quickly. And then there's the issue that you never know what (weapon) some guy might have in his pocket. That doesn't mean I won't hit if a fight is becoming inevitable. I know from past experience that I will definitely hit but that's definitely not what I want. It's just too risky. If I knew I would just punch some deserving guy a couple times and he would just punch me a couple times then I might have gotten into a few more fights but there's just no telling where fights are going to end up. I view virtually all fights as potential life and death situations. Even that small skirmish in the bagel shop where the big guy tackled the smaller guy; I think even that small skirmish could have ended with someone going to the hospital or getting killed.

The world is becoming increasingly violent. The smart play is to stay out of these situations, to never be the cause of these situations, and maybe own a gun.
Last edited by nameless 3 months ago, edited 22 times in total.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1849
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4097
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by Admin » 3 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago
Funny retort. In practice, Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of the past fifty years. His writings and his analysis have been transformative in several different fields, he is widely read, widely informed, widely recognized in spite of being politically incorrect, and non-inevitable.

No disrespect to Gad Saad, but he's not on his level. It'd be equivalent to me thumbing my nose at Juan Maldacena or Yoshizumi Ishino -- punching up in that manner just doesn't work at all. It's more comical than anything else.
Noam Chomsky has never done it for me, it's like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, all thinkers who don't espouse a metaphysical framework, which is unfortunately the vast majority of them these days. To me they're on the same level as a good BBC documentary narrated by David Attenborough or the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan/Neil deGrasse Tyson, minus the amazing visuals.

Despite shitting on religion at any chance he gets, Gad Saad has this great sense of humor and this ability to go right to what actually matters in a situation. Anyway, they play in different categories, but we can already see who's been gaining the "popular vote" since the advent of YouTube. The common man will be way more interested to hear a Gad Saad than a Noam Chomsky.

Now one can either be elitist about that fact or recognize that some intellectuals have this gift that allows them to get a deeper and more meaningful insight into reality, possibly at the expense of specialization which you'd be more likely to find in Noam Chomsky's body of work. But even then, despite his analysis being accurate well-research, I just think they ultimately don't matter that much.

Here's an example with a quick YouTube search, one of the first videos is this one, "The interview that exposes the West":



I didn't know that much about Chomsky but this is not surprising. What is wrong with the West? Not much, compared to the rest of the world today or any point in history. So it's a given his focus will be something that doesn't matter much.

Gad Saad also insists on the power individuals have to change the world. While in Chomsky's worldview, it seems you're mostly a pawn of the system of course, how convenient. It's also where the strictly materialistic worldview inevitably leads: you're a speck of dust being moved by the cruel forces of a meaningless universe.

To reply to @That Guy, I believe the redemption of the world resides in the individual, and no, Jordan Peterson didn't come up with this idea, Christianity did. A radical idea which is still resisted by a lot of people to this day, and no wonder. That doesn't mean the collective doesn't play a role but you can't put it in the driver's seat, you should not see yourself as a pawn of the system that will only free himself by oppressing and massacring the people you perceive to be his ennemies.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 649
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1330
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by JLBB » 3 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago
Funny retort. In practice, Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of the past fifty years. His writings and his analysis have been transformative in several different fields, he is widely read, widely informed, widely recognized in spite of being politically incorrect, and non-inevitable.

No disprespect to Gad Saad, but he's not on his level. It'd be equivalent to me thumbing my nose at Juan Maldacena or Yoshizumi Ishino -- punching up in that manner just doesn't work at all.

Added in 9 minutes 51 seconds:


Everybody has an ideology or ideologies. It's a necessary adaptation for the limited human mind to deal with a complex world. Somebody just having an ideology or being said to have an ideology is not in itself a valid criticism, in my opinion. Where it can become a valid criticism, is if the ideology is demonstrably too simplistic, if it is reliant on a false worldview, or if an individual is not aware of where his ideology might have limitations and thus not be applicable.

On this particular point, I don't find individualism versus collectivism to be particularly insightful, as both are true. Dismissing humans as individuals is reductionist and false. We're not just social animals, we're the most social animals on the planet. Recent human evolution is largely driven by the needs of humans to work in groups and bands. Speaking of humans without referring to culture is nonsense.

As for your defense of bagel man, had he been born in Munich in 1924, I think that it is more likely than not that brezel man would have not gotten much attention from women. There is a small caveat due to the fact that most victims of war were male, which could have changed dating dynamics.
Chomsky lacks basic understanding of introductory level philosophy when he argues on a regular basis. He is consistently fallacious in his reasoning, makes constant appeal to authority fallacies in his arguments (climate change, economics, energy policy for example) and ultimately many of his more extreme claims are based on singular sources without broader understanding of the topic, and complete ignorance of the other side. Classic fascistic retort of asking for deference to a man that speaks so often on topics like economics and finance, quite literally espousing the opposite view of the ENTIRE working community in that industry. For a man that speaks so often against heirachy, authority and domination, its utterly hilarious that the only argument from leftists to back him up relates to his authority as an academic. On top of that his disdain and lack of trust for authority particularly the US government, but unquestioning trust in leftist academia, economics and government funded climate change advocacy for no apparent reason or thought.

Of course your response like most leftists will be of his "greatness" and being "widely read" "widely cited" etc, its pointless to argue with a leftist that Chomsky ever says something inaccurate or fallacious because they'll simply fall back on an appeal to authority fallacy.

"“It's not radical Islam that worries the US -- it's independence”"

For real, how the fuck can one argue against an army of pseudo-intellectuals that think a man that says something like this is the premier philosopher and academic of the left? Even if we are to pretend that oil is the issue at play, the US is hardly vying for control of Canada or Saudi Arabia, some of the most oil rich nations in the world. The other idiotic argument I see that his disciples make is that the US didn't want to allow the prosperous socialism of Venezuala because they didn't want the people of the US to see how brilliant it is. As if the US is considering behind close doors invading Denmark because they're afraid of people supporting Democratic socialism. What a joke.

Not to mention his lack of understanding of the practical impossibilities of an anti-hierarchical, non-oxymoronic anarcho-socialism which he's the premier proponent of. Not exactly surprising he has things this backwards, he once described a Serbian concentration camp as a refugee facility. Or compares working for a wage in a capitalist system to slavery. And that the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation IN HUMAN HISTORY because of their lack of a belief in climate change, (spoiler alert, C02 emissions weren't cut under Obama's Democrats and won't be under Biden's) He even said during the GFC that he foresaw a left-wing economic and social revolution in Latin America, another brilliantly moronic prediction. When asked what his biggest mistake as an academic has been in terms of his beliefs and things he has said, he literally can't give a direct answer, saying he wish he acknowledged climate change more, despite already doing this. A fifty year long career and the guy can't acknowledge he's got a single thing wrong. To be expected from the father of the modern left I guess.

Virtually the only thing of intelligence he has said lately is his disdain for the Russia nonsense, it being an excuse for the failing Democrats who can't admit their failings.

Added in 4 minutes 9 seconds:
nameless wrote:
3 months ago
My politics lean left and I would support the idea of equity policies for short people.

And before you say that I'm just saying that because I'm short, I'm 5'9" which is neither short nor tall.

Added in 31 minutes 22 seconds:



But he did NOT have a gun. Although he was walking right up to people and getting in their faces and shouting and yelling right up in their faces.

It was predictable that the way he was behaving would lead to violence from someone - either by him or someone defending himself against him. I actually thought violence would break out sooner than it did. I was expecting violence to start at any moment. All that having been said, I do think that to some degree the big guy got violent with the smaller guy because he knew the small guy would be easy to overcome. Like they say, discretion is the better part of valor.

I used to drink alcohol to help myself sleep. As that situation worsened it spilled over into the day as I would drink to kill the hangovers. But I never once initiated violence with anyone. I've been in 3 fights in my whole life and I tried to de-escalate those situations. I'm especially not into big violence one bit. Big violence is disgusting. Sometimes I think someone maybe deserves a smack or two but even small violence is more risky than it would seem. If someone (me, for example) were to get into it a little bit with some deserving guy I could get more than I bargain for. I read in the news media where someone ends up with severe physical injuries or even dead as a result of a common fight. You never know how capable of fighting someone else is. Some guys just have the know-how for pummeling other guys and a guy like that can do a lot of damage quickly. And then there's the issue that you never know what (weapon) some guy might have in his pocket. That doesn't mean I won't hit if a fight is becoming inevitable. I know from past experience that I will definitely hit but that's definitely not what I want. It's just too risky. If I knew I would just punch some deserving guy a couple times and he would just punch me a couple times then I might have gotten into a few more fights but there's just no telling where fights are going to end up. I view virtually all fights as potential life and death situations. Even that small skirmish in the bagel shop where the big guy tackled the smaller guy; I think even that small skirmish could have ended with someone going to the hospital or getting killed.

The world is becoming increasingly violent. The smart play is to stay out of these situations, to never be the cause of these situations, and maybe own a gun.
You're a fucking midget, probably explains the tiny brain of yours too.
Last edited by JLBB 3 months ago, edited 1 time in total.

nameless
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 559
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 283
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by nameless » 3 months ago

JLBB wrote:
3 months ago
Chomsky lacks basic understanding of introductory level philosophy when he argues on a regular basis. He is consistently fallacious in his reasoning, makes constant appeal to authority fallacies in his arguments (climate change, economics, energy policy for example) and ultimately many of his more extreme claims are based on singular sources without broader understanding of the topic, and complete ignorance of the other side. Classic fascistic retort of asking for deference to a man that speaks so often on topics like economics and finance, quite literally espousing the opposite view of the ENTIRE working community in that industry. For a man that speaks so often against heirachy, authority and domination, its utterly hilarious that the only argument from leftists to back him up relates to his authority as an academic. On top of that his disdain and lack of trust for authority particularly the US government, but unquestioning trust in leftist academia, economics and government funded climate change advocacy for no apparent reason or thought.

Of course your response like most leftists will be of his "greatness" and being "widely read" "widely cited" etc, its pointless to argue with a leftist that Chomsky ever says something inaccurate or fallacious because they'll simply fall back on an appeal to authority fallacy.

"“It's not radical Islam that worries the US -- it's independence”"

For real, how the fuck can one argue against an army of pseudo-intellectuals that think a man that says something like this is the premier philosopher and academic of the left? Even if we are to pretend that oil is the issue at play, the US is hardly vying for control of Canada or Saudi Arabia, some of the most oil rich nations in the world. The other idiotic argument I see that his disciples make is that the US didn't want to allow the prosperous socialism of Venezuala because they didn't want the people of the US to see how brilliant it is. As if the US is considering behind close doors invading Denmark because they're afraid of people supporting Democratic socialism. What a joke.

Not to mention his lack of understanding of the practical impossibilities of an anti-hierarchical, non-oxymoronic anarcho-socialism which he's the premier proponent of. Not exactly surprising he has things this backwards, he once described a Serbian concentration camp as a refugee facility. Or compares working for a wage in a capitalist system to slavery. And that the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation on earth because of their lack of a belief in climate change, (spoiler alert, C02 emissions weren't cut under Obama's Democrats and won't be under Biden's) He even said during the GFC that he foresaw a left-wing economic and social revolution in Latin America, another brilliantly moronic prediction. When asked what his biggest mistake as an academic has been in terms of his beliefs and things he has said, he literally can't give a direct answer, saying he wish he acknowledged climate change more, despite already doing this. A fifty year long career and the guy can't acknowledge he's got a single thing wrong. To be expected from the father of the modern left I guess.

Virtually the only thing of intelligence he has said lately is his disdain for the Russia nonsense, it being an excuse for the failing Democrats who can't admit their failings.

Added in 4 minutes 9 seconds:


You're a fucking midget, probably explains the tiny brain of yours too.
Thanks for the update. I see your anti-social personality disorder persists.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 649
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1330
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by JLBB » 3 months ago

Admin wrote:
3 months ago
Noam Chomsky has never done it for me, it's like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, all thinkers who don't espouse a metaphysical framework, which is unfortunately the vast majority of them these days. To me they're on the same level as a good BBC documentary narrated by David Attenborough or the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan/Neil deGrasse Tyson, minus the amazing visuals.

Despite shitting on religion at any chance he gets, Gad Saad has this great sense of humor and this ability to go right to what actually matters in a situation. Anyway, they play in different categories, but we can already see who's been gaining the "popular vote" since the advent of YouTube. The common man will be way more interested to hear a Gad Saad than a Noam Chomsky.

Now one can either be elitist about that fact or recognize that some intellectuals have this gift that allows them to get a deeper and more meaningful insight into reality, possibly at the expense of specialization which you'd be more likely to find in Noam Chomsky's body of work. But even then, despite his analysis being accurate well-research, I just think they ultimately don't matter that much.

Here's an example with a quick YouTube search, one of the first videos is this one, "The interview that exposes the West":



I didn't know that much about Chomsky but this is not surprising. What is wrong with the West? Not much, compared to the rest of the world today or any point in history. So it's a given his focus will be something that doesn't matter much.

Gad Saad also insists on the power individuals have to change the world. While in Chomsky's worldview, it seems you're mostly a pawn of the system of course, how convenient. It's also where the strictly materialistic worldview inevitably leads: you're a speck of dust being moved by the cruel forces of a meaningless universe.

To reply to That Guy, I believe the redemption of the world resides in the individual, and no, Jordan Peterson didn't come up with this idea, Christianity did. A radical idea which is still resisted by a lot of people to this day, and no wonder. That doesn't mean the collective doesn't play a role but you can't put it in the driver's seat, you should not see yourself as a pawn of the system that will only free himself by oppressing and massacring the people you perceive to be his ennemies.
"The common man will be way more interested to hear a Gad Saad than a Noam Chomsky."

I agree with most of what you said, but this is certainly incorrect and is easily proven false by Chomsky's popularity as the most widely cited and revered commentator on the left. The common man prefers to hear that they are in servitude to and a cog in a cold, uncaring system because they don't thrive in a hierarchical society. Or rather they don't feel like they thrive because of wealth inequality relative to those above them, people more psychologically concerned with this inequality than being poorer for example, as virtually the entire population would be in Chomsky's deranged, anarcho-socialist hellhole. Part of the problem with Chomsky is again despite his pseudo-disdain for hierarchical structures and authority he virtually only ever allows himself to be interviewed by or discuss with people who outright eat his asshole, unfortunately it goes much further than simple ass kissing. Similar to Peterson his following is borderline religious.

I've listened to a lot of Chomsky over time and a reasonable amount of Peterson, funny enough they are virtually the perfect antithesis to one another in regards to worldview (although often talk about separate issues and Peterson more from a psychological perspective), however Chomsky is further left than Peterson is to the right. Supposedly Chomsky has been questioned on what his thoughts are on Peterson and his response in classic leftist fashion was that he wasn't even worth addressing. Nice argument bro.

Added in 2 minutes 53 seconds:
nameless wrote:
3 months ago
Thanks for the update. I see your anti-social personality disorder persists.
Says the guy who literally wishes death on conservatives.

"One last thing I want to add is that I think I might actually be starting to hate right-wingers to the point that I wish they would die. "

Your Alzheimer's is showing, unfortunately you'll still die a bald virgin but maybe a cure for Alzheimer's will arrive before that hairloss cure does.

nameless
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 559
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 283
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by nameless » 3 months ago

JLBB wrote:
3 months ago



Says the guy who literally wishes death on conservatives.

"One last thing I want to add is that I think I might actually be starting to hate right-wingers to the point that I wish they would die. "

Your Alzheimer's is showing, unfortunately you'll still die a bald virgin but maybe a cure for Alzheimer's will arrive before that hairloss cure does.
The same repetitive babble over and over and over again.
Hopefully, it makes you feel better to release it.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1671
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4114
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 3 months ago

JLBB wrote:
3 months ago
Chomsky lacks basic understanding of introductory level philosophy when he argues on a regular basis. He is consistently fallacious in his reasoning, makes constant appeal to authority fallacies in his arguments (climate change, economics, energy policy for example) and ultimately many of his more extreme claims are based on singular sources without broader understanding of the topic, and complete ignorance of the other side. Classic fascistic retort of asking for deference to a man that speaks so often on topics like economics and finance, quite literally espousing the opposite view of the ENTIRE working community in that industry. For a man that speaks so often against heirachy, authority and domination, its utterly hilarious that the only argument from leftists to back him up relates to his authority as an academic. On top of that his disdain and lack of trust for authority particularly the US government, but unquestioning trust in leftist academia, economics and government funded climate change advocacy for no apparent reason or thought.

Of course your response like most leftists will be of his "greatness" and being "widely read" "widely cited" etc, its pointless to argue with a leftist that Chomsky ever says something inaccurate or fallacious because they'll simply fall back on an appeal to authority fallacy.

"“It's not radical Islam that worries the US -- it's independence”"

For real, how the fuck can one argue against an army of pseudo-intellectuals that think a man that says something like this is the premier philosopher and academic of the left? Even if we are to pretend that oil is the issue at play, the US is hardly vying for control of Canada or Saudi Arabia, some of the most oil rich nations in the world. The other idiotic argument I see that his disciples make is that the US didn't want to allow the prosperous socialism of Venezuala because they didn't want the people of the US to see how brilliant it is. As if the US is considering behind close doors invading Denmark because they're afraid of people supporting Democratic socialism. What a joke.

Not to mention his lack of understanding of the practical impossibilities of an anti-hierarchical, non-oxymoronic anarcho-socialism which he's the premier proponent of. Not exactly surprising he has things this backwards, he once described a Serbian concentration camp as a refugee facility. Or compares working for a wage in a capitalist system to slavery. And that the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation IN HUMAN HISTORY because of their lack of a belief in climate change, (spoiler alert, C02 emissions weren't cut under Obama's Democrats and won't be under Biden's) He even said during the GFC that he foresaw a left-wing economic and social revolution in Latin America, another brilliantly moronic prediction. When asked what his biggest mistake as an academic has been in terms of his beliefs and things he has said, he literally can't give a direct answer, saying he wish he acknowledged climate change more, despite already doing this. A fifty year long career and the guy can't acknowledge he's got a single thing wrong. To be expected from the father of the modern left I guess.

Virtually the only thing of intelligence he has said lately is his disdain for the Russia nonsense, it being an excuse for the failing Democrats who can't admit their failings.

Added in 4 minutes 9 seconds:


You're a fucking midget, probably explains the tiny brain of yours too.
You contradicted yourself in your otherwise eloquent rant.

You chastise Chomsky for not showing deference to the "entire field of economics", a false claim, when you yourself do not show the same deference to the field of climatology. The latter discipline is a genuine science, and much more robust. It's got a stronger predictive track record, and it's based on well-founded, fundamental principles of physics and chemistry.

"“It's not radical Islam that worries the US -- it's independence""

That statement is obviously correct. If that were Chomsky's premiere realization, he would be dismissed as superficial.

The historical record speaks for itself. The US has frequently aligned itself with Islamic fundamentalists (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Libya), but it cracks down hard on independent nationalist movements in the area.

Edited to add: your excessive use of hyperbole undermines your points.

Added in 6 minutes 36 seconds:
That Guy wrote:
3 months ago
jobs are taken by either "diverse" individuals or women, and we know that women will not marry men who make less than they do; there's a lot of women making more money than men today.
It looks like your views have changed. You used to argue, with great vigour, that women don't care about men's money.

Added in 29 seconds:
nameless wrote:
3 months ago
The same repetitive babble over and over and over again.
Hopefully, it makes you feel better to release it.
We often repeat ourselves around here.

As for his point, I encourage you not to give into the leftist temptation to "hate" conservatives. It's an obstacle to understanding.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

nameless
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 559
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 283
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by nameless » 3 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago


Added in 29 seconds:


We often repeat ourselves around here.

As for his point, I encourage you not to give into the leftist temptation to "hate" conservatives. It's an obstacle to understanding.
His repetition coupled with his stupid, course, and childish insults = disturbed, dumb, and obsessive.

And I don't really hate anyone. I just talk shit sometimes. It lets me draw out they who are easily drawn out.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1191
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2212
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by That Guy » 3 months ago

Admin wrote:
3 months ago
To reply to That Guy, I believe the redemption of the world resides in the individual, and no, Jordan Peterson didn't come up with this idea, Christianity did. A radical idea which is still resisted by a lot of people to this day, and no wonder. That doesn't mean the collective doesn't play a role but you can't put it in the driver's seat, you should not see yourself as a pawn of the system that will only free himself by oppressing and massacring the people you perceive to be his ennemies.
I don't really see how this is supposed to pass for a "reply", given that you really didn't address anything.

You are completely ideological yourself. The ideas you espouse are deliberately picked from particular sources. I think you chose them for the same reason most who pick them do: They're very good at making oneself feel "enlightened" and pious. The trouble is, they are overly idealistic and rely on the delusion that we are destined for "good to triumph over evil".

This kind of thing is good in fairytales, in boosting morale, and so on — but it is useless, self-righteous drivel when applied in serious matters. This is the fundamental problem with Christianity and ideologies derived from it: It creates principled losers like yourself. Cowards who are willing to leave their countrymen, their families, etc. to hell itself so that "ideas" and "values" can survive. It of course fails to account that, without the people who created said ideas in the first place around, said ideas will likely cease to exist.

This is why people who oppose "identity politics" are losing so badly, despite their protests to the contrary: Others are under no obligation to follow YOUR rules, and if they don't have themselves bound by the limits you trapped yourself within of your own volition so you can keep up the self-elating fantasy of being morally-superior, they will absolutely crush you.

As for your whole "oppressing" and "massacring" people, I don't even know what you're on about.
Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago
It looks like your views have changed. You used to argue, with great vigour, that women don't care about men's money.
I argue, with great vigor, that riches alone instill women with neither genuine lust nor love.

However, in a contemporary sense, money is equivalent to being able to provide for a family in most cases, and women still desire that their man can do so. The fact still remains, though, that sex is the basis of the family (as one can't truly exist without it), and physical and emotional attraction is the basis of sex. Therefore, I cannot believe that any woman who places the wealth of a man above the other traits — to the point of forgoing them entirely — in deciding which man she will start a family with, is genuinely interested in that man.

There are countless stories of princesses who are set to be married to some prince, but he's ugly or otherwise unattractive to her; she instead loves some handsome rogue far beneath her own station.

I'd say those stories are based heavily in fact.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1671
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4114
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 3 months ago

That Guy wrote:
3 months ago
I don't really see how this is supposed to pass for a "reply", given that you really didn't address anything.

You are completely ideological yourself. The ideas you espouse are deliberately picked from particular sources. I think you chose them for the same reason most who pick them do: They're very good at making oneself feel "enlightened" and pious. The trouble is, they are overly idealistic and rely on the delusion that we are destined for "good to triumph over evil".

This kind of thing is good in fairytales, in boosting morale, and so on — but it is useless, self-righteous drivel when applied in serious matters. This is the fundamental problem with Christianity and ideologies derived from it: It creates principled losers like yourself. Cowards who are willing to leave their countrymen, their families, etc. to hell itself so that "ideas" and "values" can survive. It of course fails to account that, without the people who created said ideas in the first place around, said ideas will likely cease to exist.

This is why people who oppose "identity politics" are losing so badly, despite their protests to the contrary: Others are under no obligation to follow YOUR rules, and if they don't have themselves bound by the limits you trapped yourself within of your own volition so you can keep up the self-elating fantasy of being morally-superior, they will absolutely crush you.

As for your whole "oppressing" and "massacring" people, I don't even know what you're on about.
I think that you do, but you feign ignorance because it is convenient.

I actually do fully agree that pride in one's nation, culture, family, etc is natural and good. However, many good forces can become noxious forces when taken to extremes, and in fact it is the case in human history that genocides are not uncommon.
That Guy wrote:
3 months ago
I argue, with great vigor, that riches alone instill women with neither genuine lust nor love.

However, in a contemporary sense, money is equivalent to being able to provide for a family in most cases, and women still desire that their man can do so. The fact still remains, though, that sex is the basis of the family (as one can't truly exist without it), and physical and emotional attraction is the basis of sex. Therefore, I cannot believe that any woman who places the wealth of a man above the other traits — to the point of forgoing them entirely — in deciding which man she will start a family with, is genuinely interested in that man.

There are countless stories of princesses who are set to be married to some prince, but he's ugly or otherwise unattractive to her; she instead loves some handsome rogue far beneath her own station.

I'd say those stories are based heavily in fact.
That's sensible.

Added in 9 minutes 20 seconds:
Admin wrote:
3 months ago
Noam Chomsky has never done it for me, it's like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, all thinkers who don't espouse a metaphysical framework, which is unfortunately the vast majority of them these days. To me they're on the same level as a good BBC documentary narrated by David Attenborough or the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan/Neil deGrasse Tyson, minus the amazing visuals.

Despite shitting on religion at any chance he gets, Gad Saad has this great sense of humor and this ability to go right to what actually matters in a situation. Anyway, they play in different categories, but we can already see who's been gaining the "popular vote" since the advent of YouTube. The common man will be way more interested to hear a Gad Saad than a Noam Chomsky.

Now one can either be elitist about that fact or recognize that some intellectuals have this gift that allows them to get a deeper and more meaningful insight into reality, possibly at the expense of specialization which you'd be more likely to find in Noam Chomsky's body of work. But even then, despite his analysis being accurate well-research, I just think they ultimately don't matter that much.

Here's an example with a quick YouTube search, one of the first videos is this one, "The interview that exposes the West":



I didn't know that much about Chomsky but this is not surprising. What is wrong with the West? Not much, compared to the rest of the world today or any point in history. So it's a given his focus will be something that doesn't matter much.

Gad Saad also insists on the power individuals have to change the world. While in Chomsky's worldview, it seems you're mostly a pawn of the system of course, how convenient. It's also where the strictly materialistic worldview inevitably leads: you're a speck of dust being moved by the cruel forces of a meaningless universe.

To reply to That Guy, I believe the redemption of the world resides in the individual, and no, Jordan Peterson didn't come up with this idea, Christianity did. A radical idea which is still resisted by a lot of people to this day, and no wonder. That doesn't mean the collective doesn't play a role but you can't put it in the driver's seat, you should not see yourself as a pawn of the system that will only free himself by oppressing and massacring the people you perceive to be his ennemies.
I think that a lot of the current left's obsession with identity politics is a manufactured distraction. I saw a beautiful quote on this recently -- I don't know who came up with it, but it went something like this:

"Democrats would be entirely OK with a society where 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth, as long as that 1% was itself 51% women, 10% Black, 10% gay, etc."

And that's the current situation where we find ourselves right now. A lot of Democratic voters -- I'm active on some of their boards -- actively dislike Bernie Sanders discussing poverty, and they're actually saying that they're sick and tired of hearing about "the poor working class". The term that they use for the ultra-privileged in society is "cis het white male" ... there is no universe in which those are the four most important attributes that describe a person's luck in society. At a basic level they are excluding "wealthy", which is obviously advantageous, demonstrated to be so, and was understood as such by many of the founders of the modern Left: Friedrich Engels, etc. And as we know on this forum, we've established that health and beauty are of incredible importance, but those rarely get mentioned. To be honest, I sometimes see "wealthy" mentioned, occasionally I see "able-bodied", and I nearly never see good-looking mentioned. What never gets said -- honestly I can't recall it -- is that simply being born in a rich country is a form of luck.

So I think that all of this is meant to distract people. The Democratic Party is largely controlled by rich donors: Wall Street, Silicon Valley, etc, and those people want to stay rich. So it makes sense that their associated media would re-direct people's desires for less inequity in society away from the axis that matters most to them -- money -- and toward other axes that they are less concerned about.

The Republican Party did the same thing with abortion in the 1970s and 1980s. It's well documented that most of their leaders did not actually give a shit about abortion. However, they realized that they could swing a lot of voters by pretending to care about their unborn, so they did and they built a majority that way.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1849
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4097
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Short guy goes on misogynistic rant in bagel shop

Post by Admin » 3 months ago

That Guy wrote:
3 months ago
I don't really see how this is supposed to pass for a "reply", given that you really didn't address anything.

You are completely ideological yourself. The ideas you espouse are deliberately picked from particular sources. I think you chose them for the same reason most who pick them do: They're very good at making oneself feel "enlightened" and pious. The trouble is, they are overly idealistic and rely on the delusion that we are destined for "good to triumph over evil".

This kind of thing is good in fairytales, in boosting morale, and so on — but it is useless, self-righteous drivel when applied in serious matters. This is the fundamental problem with Christianity and ideologies derived from it: It creates principled losers like yourself. Cowards who are willing to leave their countrymen, their families, etc. to hell itself so that "ideas" and "values" can survive. It of course fails to account that, without the people who created said ideas in the first place around, said ideas will likely cease to exist.

This is why people who oppose "identity politics" are losing so badly, despite their protests to the contrary: Others are under no obligation to follow YOUR rules, and if they don't have themselves bound by the limits you trapped yourself within of your own volition so you can keep up the self-elating fantasy of being morally-superior, they will absolutely crush you.

As for your whole "oppressing" and "massacring" people, I don't even know what you're on about.
If white people should rule supreme in their own countries, what will you do with the non-white people? Drive them out, you said so yourself, and if they refuse? Well, one can only guess.

As Afro said, we're all ideological, and of course our ideas have to come from somewhere. I wanted to make something clear, yes, I've embraced an ideology, if you want to call it that, personally, I call it a religion, and to me, it's not some kind of game. I know it's trendy to pick spiritual practices like buying groceries at the supermarket these days, but Christianity is a complete way of life, it's something in which you're all-in. It's not just an idea you hold in a corner of your head, something by which you define yourself, you have to live it fully.

It's no joke, to me, the Christian framework is absolutely correct and a dead-on description of the way reality is structured. When you free yourself from the materialistic worldview, you realize that the world is very much alive and that yes, we're living in a fairy tale, and I know how much this word has come to have a naive and positive connotation in the modern world. Somehow it never evokes Frodo's suffering during his hellish journey to Mount Doom.

Yes, we live inside stories, and you have one too: the poor angelic white people having their lives made hell by the evil people of color, and how they're going to free themselves from those annoying other races and reach their promised land: a white ethnostate, that will be filled with milk and honey and last a thousand years!

We all know that story, we've seen it play out. And to tie it back to what I was saying about Christianity: how are you actually living that story? This is a serious question, what are you doing now? Consuming alt-right articles and defending your case on internet forums? I'm not saying this to mock you or anything, I think that's great, because we all know what playing a bigger role in your story would mean. It's not like there's a way out of it, do you plan to become violent someday? Will you partake in far right riots if you get the chance?

In fact, other people are under the obligation to follow our rules, where do you think the Western ideals of freedom, freedom of speech, equality, truth, non violence, tolerance etc. come from? This is what you're trying to preserve, and the only way to try to undermine it would be to resurrect the spirit of the 20th century, is this really what you want? Just so you could get another shot at making Hitler's dream come true?

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago
I think that a lot of the current left's obsession with identity politics is a manufactured distraction. I saw a beautiful quote on this recently -- I don't know who came up with it, but it went something like this:

"Democrats would be entirely OK with a society where 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth, as long as that 1% was itself 51% women, 10% Black, 10% gay, etc."

And that's the current situation where we find ourselves right now. A lot of Democratic voters -- I'm active on some of their boards -- actively dislike Bernie Sanders discussing poverty, and they're actually saying that they're sick and tired of hearing about "the poor working class". The term that they use for the ultra-privileged in society is "cis het white male" ... there is no universe in which those are the four most important attributes that describe a person's luck in society. At a basic level they are excluding "wealthy", which is obviously advantageous, demonstrated to be so, and was understood as such by many of the founders of the modern Left: Friedrich Engels, etc. And as we know on this forum, we've established that health and beauty are of incredible importance, but those rarely get mentioned. To be honest, I sometimes see "wealthy" mentioned, occasionally I see "able-bodied", and I nearly never see good-looking mentioned. What never gets said -- honestly I can't recall it -- is that simply being born in a rich country is a form of luck.

So I think that all of this is meant to distract people. The Democratic Party is largely controlled by rich donors: Wall Street, Silicon Valley, etc, and those people want to stay rich. So it makes sense that their associated media would re-direct people's desires for less inequity in society away from the axis that matters most to them -- money -- and toward other axes that they are less concerned about.

The Republican Party did the same thing with abortion in the 1970s and 1980s. It's well documented that most of their leaders did not actually give a shit about abortion. However, they realized that they could swing a lot of voters by pretending to care about their unborn, so they did and they built a majority that way.
I think you're mostly right about identity politics being manufactured, but the main question is, why is it so easy to push on our societies? Since you've mentioned it a lot in your post, yeah, money, or wealth in general, most people, and especially the white liberals who are the most obsessed with identity politics have too much of it.

Yes, the poor are still with us, and they will always be (sorry if those pop up not so subtly in my posts :p), but we live in a time in which even the poorest among us in the West are not starving or lacking basic needs. They know they're going to eat, find shelter and even get to enjoy some leisure, and sometimes a lot if they're on welfare (that's more in Western Europe than the US of course).

People in general have too much time on their hands. I wish the main struggle of the left was still class too, but philosophers like Marx and Engels have been proven dead wrong like 60 years ago. Yes the rich are insanely richer, but the the tide has lifted everyone up, so much that in the West, every man has bread, and instead of rejoicing about it, we ask for more. It's quite natural since man doesn't live by bread alone (ah, again :p).

What a lot of people are starving for these days is meaning, and since for many religion has become a no-no, they turn to politics. The Marxist class narrative seems to have run out, it's become quite hard to complain about wealth in our society. We could still complain about some people being comparatively way richer than us though, and that was Occupy Wall Street a few years ago, that movement was the last of its kind, and journalists like Tim Pool had apparently noticed that the identitarians were already there trying to hijack the event saying it was all the straight white males' fault.

We're almost a decade after that and that narrative has been dying out even quicker than the class narrative, Trump was elected 3 years ago and is on his way to be reelected. And maybe it's only me, but after the recent tripling-down with the far left Democrats just calling basically everyone who's not on their team a racist, The Little Mermaid and James Bond becoming black women (if you're not up to date, this is not satire) and the strings of comments calling us racist for not agreeing with all this, I've just lost any desire to even react. At a point, it just becomes insanely boring, like listening to a Marxist student of the 70's saying that the West needs communism.

Well, personally, it has become more and more about rediscovering my Christian faith lately and 'resist not evil' seems to be the way to go at this point. And somehow I think the general public who's opposed to the radical left is starting to get it, with all those: "wow, stunning and brave!" comments. Let them die out, let them get outvoted, let their movies take a nosedive at the box-office, ignore them and the evil that inhabit them will slowly lose its power. Fighting back sends them the signal that they're a relevant and major force to contend with.

It's counterintuitive and it took me a while to get this, but it was kind of obvious from the early stages that their collective insanity would never be sustainable. They've developed a radical ideology of division which focuses on like the least meaningful permanent characteristics (sorry @That Guy) a person can have, especially in today's society: their skin color, their gender and their sexual orientation. It's funny how when the class narrative died out, part of the left basically turned to some kind of inverted nazism in which white people are now the enemy.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nameless and 1 guest