"Black Pigeon Speaks channel terminated" by YouAreFucked.
Move everything to Bitchute ... before the Youtube zombie media catches up to you ...
https://www.bitchute.com
Get all the Dems/Laborites together, in a helicopter, then push them out at altitude into a giant milk shake. That isn't violence, because it is a milk shake.
I expect all you contemporary Left activists to salute your inscrutable masters ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W4YetUHhKM
Unofficial version ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqD0jAsegCo
I'm just waiting for someone to justify the censorship ...
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 13, 2019, 10:59:35 AM
I'm just waiting for someone to justify the censorship ...
already seen people doing so on other forums..
and its the usual suspects.
Orange man bad.
Offended by differing opinions.
Freedom of speech bad.
This thread is representative of a lot of right wing discussions I find on the internet. Because I literally have no idea what the fuck any of you are talking about.
Could we get some complete sentences in here, please? Could someone actually explain what happened instead of posting parody videos or saying "orange man bad"? My understanding of this thread would be helped immensely if I knew what the fuck was going on.
Only Baruch's hairdresser knows for sure...
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 13, 2019, 01:10:28 PM
This thread is representative of a lot of right wing discussions I find on the internet. Because I literally have no idea what the fuck any of you are talking about.
Could we get some complete sentences in here, please? Could someone actually explain what happened instead of posting parody videos or saying "orange man bad"? My understanding of this thread would be helped immensely if I knew what the fuck was going on.
A youtuber called black pigeon speaks had his account terminated on YouTube. He had no warning given, he wasn't demonitised, he had no prior warnings given before it. His content was aimed at talking broadly of the political climate and telling things for as he saw them. He never swore, made threats, never incited violence, he just talked candidly about his political views. And without any warning YouTube terminated his account and removed his content.
Going in line with YouTube's current act of removing people without just cause, which pushes the notion they are targeting people based on nothing more then their political views and ones the current leads in YouTube dislike.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sukdaC8ASpA&t=129s
Bit easier to understand?
Quote from: Munch on June 13, 2019, 03:13:22 PM
A youtuber called black pigeon speaks had his account terminated on YouTube. He had no warning given, he wasn't demonitised, he had no prior warnings given before it. His content was aimed at talking broadly of the political climate and telling things for as he saw them. He never swore, made threats, never incited violence, he just talked candidly about his political views. And without any warning YouTube terminated his account and removed his content.
Going in line with YouTube's current act of removing people without just cause, which pushes the notion they are targeting people based on nothing more then their political views and ones the current leads in YouTube dislike.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sukdaC8ASpA&t=129s
Bit easier to understand?
Thank you. We may have our differences, but I can always count on you to translate this stuff for me.
Based on a cursory googling, he doesn't seem like a terribly pleasant person. Exposed as a plagiarist by fellow YouTuber Kraut and Tea, author of such gems as "Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS - and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS." So most likely someone from the YouTube Heroes program found him and reported several of his videos, and YouTube reviewed the videos and decided to ban him.
I did pretty much the same thing to an old troll of ours named Zenklassen, or however it was spelled. Visited his YouTube channel, found a bunch of pro-Nazi videos (and I mean literally pro-Nazi, guy wasn't subtle about it), and reported basically all of them. YouTube banned him shortly after. Turns out if you have multiple videos worthy of a strike on your channel, YouTube doesn't bother with warnings.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 13, 2019, 03:24:35 PM
Thank you. We may have our differences, but I can always count on you to translate this stuff for me.
Based on a cursory googling, he doesn't seem like a terribly pleasant person. Exposed as a plagiarist by fellow YouTuber Kraut and Tea, author of such gems as "Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS - and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS." So most likely someone from the YouTube Heroes program found him and reported several of his videos, and YouTube reviewed the videos and decided to ban him.
I did pretty much the same thing to an old troll of ours named Zenklassen, or however it was spelled. Visited his YouTube channel, found a bunch of pro-Nazi videos (and I mean literally pro-Nazi, guy wasn't subtle about it), and reported basically all of them. YouTube banned him shortly after. Turns out if you have multiple videos worthy of a strike on your channel, YouTube doesn't bother with warnings.
Well I was subbed to black pigeon speaks, and in what I saw there never were anything along the line of pro Nazism like the guy you referenced, I looked at his content as non conformist political views, much in the same was someone like TJ Kirk would be. Maybe unpleasant for some people to listen to, but in no way breaking YouTube's policies, at least until whatever 1984 based rules they have no not showing anywhere.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 13, 2019, 10:59:35 AM
I'm just waiting for someone to justify the censorship ...
Easy. All posters are Hitler, unless vetted by Black-Hispanic-Tranies at the DNC.
Lefties think only Right we be liquidated ... bwahah ... the FOOLS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAJak8JVAl8
Quote from: Munch on June 13, 2019, 11:44:29 AM
already seen people doing so on other forums..
and its the usual suspects.
Orange man bad.
Offended by differing opinions.
Freedom of speech bad.
Not a warming. Not a demonetizing of a page. Not demonetizing a whole site. A crowbar to the head. This will generate Internet Brownshirts for sure. As a Jewish person I don't like Nazis or Commies roaming the streets.
His channel is back up, so...
More than likely it was taken down by an automated system due to flagging/phrases in the titles & descriptions, and then upon review they restored it. It happens.
Quote'm just waiting for someone to justify the censorship ...
You cant understand why a company might not be comfortable with an anti-feminist, anti-transexual, "race realist" posting on their service? Really?
Quote from: Shiranu on June 13, 2019, 08:36:30 PM
Also, his channel is back up, so...
More than likely it was taken down by an automated system due to flagging/phrases in the titles & descriptions, and then upon review they restored it. It happens.
hmm, so it is. Was gonna say, the new system they have in thats been banning thousands of accounts as being 'offensive', this is a broken automated system, I've not seen anything in his videos anyone should seriously classes as being worthy of banning unless it was based on nothing else but political bias.
Quote from: Munch on June 13, 2019, 08:43:37 PM
hmm, so it is. Was gonna say, the new system they have in thats been banning thousands of accounts as being 'offensive', this is a broken automated system, I've not seen anything in his videos anyone should seriously classes as being worthy of banning unless it was based on nothing else but political bias.
I'll completely agree, Youtubes system is complete ass. But it's not their "new" system that's the problem, their algorithms have been completely garbage since they became a big corporation rather than a user-oriented platform. They want to make it as squeaky-clean as absolutely possible to make it the most bland, commercially friendly service it can be... and fuck the people who made them big in the first place.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 13, 2019, 03:24:35 PM
Based on a cursory googling, he doesn't seem like a terribly pleasant person. Exposed as a plagiarist by fellow YouTuber Kraut and Tea, author of such gems as "Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS - and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS." So most likely someone from the YouTube Heroes program found him and reported several of his videos, and YouTube reviewed the videos and decided to ban him.
oh please he's not said anything worse then something george carlin would have said, and whos videos are there on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os
Quote from: Munch on June 13, 2019, 08:45:55 PM
oh please he's not said anything worse then something george carlin would have said, and whos videos are there on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os
Difference is George Carlin was trying to be funny. Somehow I get the feeling this Black Pigeon guy wasn't joking around.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 13, 2019, 08:45:45 PM
I'll completely agree, Youtubes system is complete ass. But it's not their "new" system that's the problem, their algorithms have been completely garbage since they became a big corporation rather than a user-oriented platform. They want to make it as squeaky-clean as absolutely possible to make it the most bland, commercially friendly service it can be... and fuck the people who made them big in the first place.
and yeah, I've said on another thread, youtube is where it is today because the everyday joe fucking built it up to this level of platform, and the ones who now take ownership of it just piss over them. It is also sadly true in this environment they can get away with it. Problem with that is, it ends up creating a vacuum, and people flood to creating things like unregulated platforms where anything can be put on there, even seriously messed up shit.
This is where doing things in moderation should be key, a little censorship for the most screwed up stuff is fine, but people should get to express things like political opinions either side of stuff, or shlock or suggestive thing, without full on graphic stuff (we have pornhub for that)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 13, 2019, 08:47:56 PM
Difference is George Carlin was trying to be funny. Somehow I get the feeling this Black Pigeon guy wasn't joking around.
*shrug* but again, I don't see anything offensive in his content, anymore then something the young turks would put out. I mean I detest people like the young turks or vice and would avoid them, but I wouldn't want them taken off any platform, they have every right to post stuff on it, likewise with people like BPS or computing forever.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 13, 2019, 08:36:30 PM
His channel is back up, so...
More than likely it was taken down by an automated system due to flagging/phrases in the titles & descriptions, and then upon review they restored it. It happens.
You cant understand why a company might not be comfortable with an anti-feminist, anti-transexual, "race realist" posting on their service? Really?
I wouldn't allow any Democrat leaning or Labor leaning Commie post on my service either. But then I don't own a website, nor do I own a vast platform for other people's websites.
If people hadn't complained massively, it would still be down. I will be happy when all people who disagree with me, are deplatformed, doxxed, and fired from their jobs ... hmmm sounds like something is wrong with this plan, right?
There are legal consequences. If it is a public service, then the provider of the service can't be sued for what is put on it (sued for libel etc). But if you are a publisher, then you can be sued. So do you want an Internet, where I can sue every post made by any Leftist ... for false advertising? Because everything they believe is psychotic.
If Leftists want a medium that they control, and have to manage to avoid lawsuit ... then let them publish a ... newspaper. Call it Pravda or some such. And let the Right do the same. Used to have a D and an R newspaper in every town, and you could sue them. Because nothing appeared that hadn't been vetted by their management. The free paper with simple pro bono news and garage sale notices ... wasn't held to that standard.
Quote from: Munch on June 13, 2019, 08:43:37 PM
hmm, so it is. Was gonna say, the new system they have in thats been banning thousands of accounts as being 'offensive', this is a broken automated system, I've not seen anything in his videos anyone should seriously classes as being worthy of banning unless it was based on nothing else but political bias.
Take all channels down every day. Presumed guilt. Then only for an appropriate donation to the Dem/Labor party and public humiliation, they will put it back up again. Sounds like blackmail to me?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 13, 2019, 08:47:56 PM
Difference is George Carlin was trying to be funny. Somehow I get the feeling this Black Pigeon guy wasn't joking around.
We aren't, we are going to kill and eat all political opponents ... and laugh at their families.
I would find it very funny if really evil things happen to really evil people. My standards vary from yours.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 13, 2019, 08:36:30 PM
You cant understand why a company might not be comfortable with an anti-feminist, anti-transexual, "race realist" posting on their service? Really?[/size]
No.
That's the thing about free speech, it also means allowing people you disagree with also having their say.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 14, 2019, 05:25:24 AM
No.
That's the thing about free speech, it also means allowing people you disagree with also having their say.
That's all fine and dandy, but that's not actually what free speech means... particularly in regards to corporations. If youtube was a government organization you would have a point... but they aren't.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 14, 2019, 07:47:47 AM
That's all fine and dandy, but that's not actually what free speech means... particularly in regards to corporations. If youtube was a government organization you would have a point... but they aren't.
Correct. The correct response to Youtube abuse is to stop using their product.
On the other hand, Alphabet/Google/YouTube is a CIA operation. As are Wikipedia and Facebook.
YouTube is a business end of the day, they make profit and pay people who operate within it. Still, they should keep their own identity politics to themselves if what matters most to building their platform is viewership, so doing stuff like banning people with millions of subs just based on their political affiliations is a bad business move (in BPSs case he was brought back but others might not so lucky)
Quote from: Munch on June 14, 2019, 09:06:12 AM
YouTube is a business end of the day, they make profit and pay people who operate within it. Still, they should keep their own identity politics to themselves if what matters most to building their platform is viewership, so doing stuff like banning people with millions of subs just based on their political affiliations is a bad business move (in BPSs case he was brought back but others might not so lucky)
I don't mind advocacy when properly labeled. If a website is pro-Labor, then mark that clearly. Laborites can go to town on that. If a website is pro-Gay, then mark that clearly (particularly in regard to underage people online). Gays can go to town on that. Same as with business law regarding cakes. A business that is open to the public cannot discriminate cakes against gays or straight IMHO. They are a public place of business. The board room of CNN is not. Major stockholders should have access to the board room at CNN. Same with wholesale business. The public is not invited, they have to go to retail outlets. But not on the basis of who they voted for.
But here it is ... if the Tube in London is only for Laborites, or the Red double decker busses are for French tourists only ... clearly mark that. But the British taxpayer of all kinds, is paying directly or indirectly for the Tube. It should be for all Brits. Britain gets many tourists, not just the French. It is obnoxious to ghetto the transportation system.
That is what the Left wants (and the Right also) ... they want segregation. They want Jim Crow (with a Marxist face). Fine, lets have separate water fountains for Left vs Right. I will piss in both, when y'all aren't lookin'. The giggle factor of politics today would be funny, if it wasn't so paranoid and psychotic. Like Jews for Hitler.
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2019, 10:15:44 AM
That is what the Left wants (and the Right also) ... they want segregation. They want Jim Crow (with a Marxist face). Fine, lets have separate water fountains for Left vs Right. I will piss in both, when y'all aren't lookin'. The giggle factor of politics today would be funny, if it wasn't so paranoid and psychotic. Like Jews for Hitler.
High five to that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfrWddAgug8
Yes, but what happens after the VoorTrek to outer Bitchute ... and the MSM doubles down, leaving a horses head in bed with the Bitchute management? (scene from Godfather)? Will a digital Boer War result? Aren't the SJWs just so many Zulus?
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 14, 2019, 05:25:24 AM
No.
That's the thing about free speech, it also means allowing people you disagree with also having their say.
Free speech doesn't mandate that people give you a platform, or even that people tolerate what you have to say. It means that the government won't censor you. Corporations like YouTube can censor whoever they want. Even with the government, however, there are certain limitations to free speech, such as with hate speech, plagiarism, or slander/libel.
I will say, however, that the methods YouTube uses to reinforce its rules are absolute bullshit. Hell, their rules aren't even clear. They're vague as hell, making it pretty much open to interpretation who is breaking them.
It's like we said earlier, it's because it's automated, and that's just as messy as any political division
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 14, 2019, 03:58:07 PM
Free speech doesn't mandate that people give you a platform, or even that people tolerate what you have to say. It means that the government won't censor you. Corporations like YouTube can censor whoever they want. Even with the government, however, there are certain limitations to free speech, such as with hate speech, plagiarism, or slander/libel.
I will say, however, that the methods YouTube uses to reinforce its rules are absolute bullshit. Hell, their rules aren't even clear. They're vague as hell, making it pretty much open to interpretation who is breaking them.
Yes ... free speech = D party/Labor party dictatorship. Prove me wrong.
With a newspaper, back in the day, they would take letters to the editor from the public. They were under no obligation to publish (because they will be held liable). Youtube isn't a curated newspaper. Libs interpret law, not as written, but as benefits 2020 election (Cons do the same).
But in the US, in political discourse, slander doesn't apply. That is only in private affairs. It is presumed that one political party will lie about themselves and their opponents. That they will smear their opponents with both true and false stories. Happens every day. But does that only apply to political parties, to elected politicians, or to the public at large acting in their political sovereignty?
Yes, the Constitution only protects you from the government. It has nothing to do with protecting you from corporations. But in an era of fascism (joining of corporations to government) there is no dividing line. Corps are govs, govs are corps. With computer algorithm banning, they are scott free of legal consequence. You can't arrest an AI. Facebook says ... don't blame me, that teenage Nazi, Tay, did it.
Either we can argue short of violence, or violence is inevitable. Prove me wrong.
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
Yes ... free speech = D party/Labor party dictatorship. Prove me wrong.
Yep. Democrats = Socialist Communist dictators. You're absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 14, 2019, 06:06:00 PM
Yep. Democrats = Socialist Communist dictators. You're absolutely ridiculous.
But people like you say ... Republicans = Nazis. Don't start a fire in a house of cards.
Keep it up, death for many people will result. Once people believe incendiary rhetoric, they will take matters into their own hands. Because the ends justify the means. All you need to do is convince me that person X is baby Hitler/Stalin ... then I am free to kill them.
V for Vengeance from the Left or Right is a very bad idea.
I'm just going to leave this here:
(https://i.redd.it/528cxmz7k3331.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2019, 06:07:45 PM
But people like you say ... Republicans = Nazis. Don't start a fire in a house of cards.
Keep it up, death for many people will result. Once people believe incendiary rhetoric, they will take matters into their own hands. Because the ends justify the means. All you need to do is convince me that person X is baby Hitler/Stalin ... then I am free to kill them.
V for Vengeance from the Left or Right is a very bad idea.
No. Nazis are Republicans. There's a difference. All huskies are dogs, but not all dogs are huskies. Your false-equivalence fallacies are childish.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 14, 2019, 06:13:28 PM
No. Nazis are Republicans. There's a difference. All huskies are dogs, but not all dogs are huskies. Your false-equivalence fallacies are childish.
And Unbeliever will get banned, if he keeps up the paranoid Youtubes ... though not on my behalf. Psychopathy has no place anywhere outside the padded cell. If he isn't banned for such behavior, then this is just a branch website for Jacobin.
No, Nazis are Germans. Stupid rabbit (Auschwitz are for real men).
On the pipeline ... I see no right of protest, just of assembly to redress grievances. You do that at the State capital, not at a pipeline. In fact, to mass assemble even for grievance, requires a prior license (crowd control costs etc). Protestors are trespassers. Arrest them. Send them to Venezuela. In fact, protesting, is an example of illicit abuse of freedom of speech. That was true with 60s sit-ins in the Deans office. I would have drafted the protestors, not arrested them.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 14, 2019, 06:13:28 PM
No. Nazis are Republicans. There's a difference. All huskies are dogs, but not all dogs are huskies. Your false-equivalence fallacies are childish.
Well, wait a minute here. All Nazis might vote Republicans because both are conservative as all Communists might vote democratic because they aren't conservative. But it doesn't mean that all republicans are Nazis. I'm met a FEW who aren't...
And all atheists aren't Democrats either.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 06:51:26 AM
Well, wait a minute here. All Nazis might vote Republicans because both are conservative as all Communists might vote democratic because they aren't conservative. But it doesn't mean that all republicans are Nazis. I'm met a FEW who aren't...
And all atheists aren't Democrats either.
Sh ... you are breaking the hippy dippy narrative.
Quote from: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 07:21:15 AM
Sh ... you are breaking the hippy dippy narrative.
Another content-filled detailed comment from you. (coff, coff)...
Quote from: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 06:51:26 AM
Well, wait a minute here. All Nazis might vote Republicans because both are conservative as all Communists might vote democratic because they aren't conservative. But it doesn't mean that all republicans are Nazis. I'm met a FEW who aren't...
And all atheists aren't Democrats either.
That's what I said...
Quote from: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 06:51:26 AM
And all atheists aren't Democrats either.
We don't have democrats here in the UK.
Well we kinda do with liberal democrats but they are more like a talking tumor hanging on the side of the labor party
Quote from: Munch on June 15, 2019, 04:52:05 PM
We don't have democrats here in the UK.
Well we kinda do with liberal democrats but they are more like a talking tumor hanging on the side of the labor party
You have Labor and Lib-Dem. Your Democrats are a multi-headed dog of Hades. Ours is too, but they like to pretend their big-tent party covers all.
Again ... Liberal = destroy my own country, Conservative = destroy someone else's country. Choose wisely.
Sorry, your "remoaners" have mutated into a fatal disease, like Confederates in the US in 1861. They desperately wanted Queen Victoria to invade and destroy the Union, and she nearly did. Somehow then the British Empire would have left the Confederacy free to do its own thing. Not likely.
In then end ... you will have to de-citizen the "remoaners" and deport them to Paris/Berlin. Or face endless terrorism. A gulag for Labor/Lib-Dem might still be required as well. Enoch Powell was correct, but not for the right reasons. There can never be peace between London/Paris or London/Berlin.
An interview between Sargon and BPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH4Fq_5_3gE&t=0s
Intresting stuff.
One thing I find most interesting is when talking about the western culture as it stands now, how here in the west while we have abandoned organised religion as a main governance (unlike islam), that doesn't mean the very nature of what it is that creates that need for that ideology has gone. Social and political ideology have replaced that religious one now, the heavy handed political and social messages we have now comes from humanities own need for that system in place.
This really does break down the very fault within the human psyche itself, doesn't matter if we think we've progressed beyond one system of ideologues, if we're to weak willed anyway, we just get dragged into another set of rules and standards someone else creates to follow, just like religion before it.
This is why I no longer vote, seeing this kind of way of thinking now being the mainstream on either end of the political spectrum or one extreme to another. As an atheist I gave up wanting to follow any ideologue, so dunno why I should follow any social driven group think either.
Quote from: Munch on June 19, 2019, 02:11:18 PM
An interview between Sargon and BPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH4Fq_5_3gE&t=0s
Intresting stuff.
One thing I find most interesting is when talking about the western culture as it stands now, how here in the west while we have abandoned organised religion as a main governance (unlike islam), that doesn't mean the very nature of what it is that creates that need for that ideology has gone. Social and political ideology have replaced that religious one now, the heavy handed political and social messages we have now comes from humanities own need for that system in place.
This really does break down the very fault within the human psyche itself, doesn't matter if we think we've progressed beyond one system of ideologues, if we're to weak willed anyway, we just get dragged into another set of rules and standards someone else creates to follow, just like religion before it.
This is why I no longer vote, seeing this kind of way of thinking now being the mainstream on either end of the political spectrum or one extreme to another. As an atheist I gave up wanting to follow any ideologue, so dunno why I should follow any social driven group think either.
Oh boy. Sargon. A real meeting of the minds there. I'll pass.
Prejudice much? Of course. We are all prejudiced. But some prejudices are better than others, right Comrade?
QuoteThis really does break down the very fault within the human psyche itself...
Those rules and standards the "weak willed" follow are precisely the reason humanity has thrived. Yes, it can be a bad thing; just like too much individualism is a bad thing. I would argue that someone who places them self as more important than the collective is just as weak-willed as the person who cant think for themselves.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 19, 2019, 08:58:00 PM
Those rules and standards the "weak willed" follow are precisely the reason humanity has thrived. Yes, it can be a bad thing; just like too much individualism is a bad thing. I would argue that someone who places them self as more important than the collective is just as weak-willed as the person who cant think for themselves.
so your saying it is a collective because of the inherent nature of people. Plus you need an example to uphold why individualism can be considered weak willed compared to collectivism. its true collective ideals can create great things, just looking at things like ancient architecture serves as examples, but you need an example why the individual is weak willed, since you would assume thinking for ones self is more a trail in any facet of humanity through time.
Quoteso your saying it is a collective because of the inherent nature of people.
Yes, as well as pragmatically... people that work together in an organized and coherent manner are happier and more productive.
QuotePlus you need an example to uphold why individualism can be considered weak willed compared to collectivism.
I think the most glaring example of this is the entire consumer culture; the entire premise of it is, "me, me, me and fuck anyone who gets in the way!". It is individualism cranked up to 11, and it is a major reason the Earth is where it is today; both environmentally but also socially. Particularly when you get to the top of the food chain, who C.E.O.s who are intrusted to run massive businesses or politicians to run entire governments, and they put the individual before the collective to massive harm.
Quotejust looking at things like ancient architecture serves as examples...
I would say you chose the absolutely weakest example though. Look at all the great philosophies of mankind from history... Daoism, Buddhism, Stoicism, even 'individualistic' philosophies like Hedonism promoted that one's own desires should not come at the cost of causing pain... they all, while stressing the improvement of the individual, are focused on helping the collective and not the individual. Some of them, like Buddhism, are explictly about escaping the concept of the individual.
I would also argue that the empire building of history is built squarely on individualism; you do not subjugate and exploit others for the "good of society", you do it for the good of yourself. Empires were (and are) built on powerful men who put themselves above all others (and compete to hold that power) while convincing the commoners it's for the good of "the Empire". So they show the flaws of both sides; it's individualism taken way too far and using collectivism to justify it. But the root evil remains the individualism. I would say the same could be said for the church throughout it's history... the truly evil acts were done by individuals, Popes, Cardinals, Priests, etc. who exploited the collective to further themselves.
Quotebut you need an example why the individual is weak willed...
Everyone can better themselves without harming others. However when one places the individual before the collective, they will begin to harm others to further their own agendas.
They have the choice to take the "harder" path, the one that causes less harm but might take longer or never make them excessively wealthy or powerful. Thus, they are weak willed.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 19, 2019, 09:27:49 PMI would also argue that the empire building of history is built squarely on individualism; you do not subjugate and exploit others for the "good of society", you do it for the good of yourself. Empires were (and are) built on powerful men who put themselves above all others (and compete to hold that power) while convincing the commoners it's for the good of "the Empire".
They absolutely were. Many of those famous monuments heralded individual greatness - "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
And these kings not only competed with their contemporaries, but also previous rulers to see who could have the biggest palace, the largest empire, the most gold, etc. A lot of people paid the price in many ways to make that happen - with their lives, with their taxes, with their labor, etc. Just think what wonders could have been wrought if all that jockeying had fallen by the wayside and everyone had simply agreed to pursuing common welfare. Alas, people aren't like that. At least not without a considerable cultural shift.
QuoteI would say the same could be said for the church throughout it's history... the truly evil acts were done by individuals, Popes, Cardinals, Priests, etc. who exploited the collective to further themselves.
At their root, all evil deeds are done by individuals. Though I'd argue that the system itself (leadership based on belief and tradition at the expense of all else and the nature of faith in general) was equally a part of the churches' violence and intolerance.
QuoteEveryone can better themselves without harming others.
Is this so? There's a certain amount of exploitation/harm in the simple act of buying a pair of shoes or filling up the gas tank. Theoretically, it's possible to never harm others. But in reality...
QuoteHowever when one places the individual before the collective, they will begin to harm others to further their own agendas.
I have a little thought experiment about that.
Let's say the morning local news draws a name out of a hat from their community and declares that punching this person in the throat will earn you $100 and publicly shows their full name and face. This offer is available for today only.
The details about this are left to the viewers' imagination. Can it be a light tap or hard strike? Is there a limit to how many times you can earn money a day? Imo, it doesn't really matter because the end result would always be the same - that person would be approached by a few people at first with reasonable demands (a light tap to help pay for some poor sap's daughter's chemotherapy, who could say no?) then eventually dogpiled to death by a desperate and increasingly violent crowd of people. In fact, I very much doubt more than 10% of the populace would forgo this opportunity entirely.
Think of it like the Milligram experiment, only with greed instead of authority as the key motivator, which imo makes it more damning. There's a weak case to be made for innocence when an authority demands blood and you fear to disobey. There's not much case for innocence when you stop what you're doing and actively hunt down another human being for your own benefit.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 19, 2019, 09:27:49 PM
Yes, as well as pragmatically... people that work together in an organized and coherent manner are happier and more productive.
except for the ones who aren't.
QuoteI think the most glaring example of this is the entire consumer culture; the entire premise of it is, "me, me, me and fuck anyone who gets in the way!". It is individualism cranked up to 11, and it is a major reason the Earth is where it is today; both environmentally but also socially. Particularly when you get to the top of the food chain, who C.E.O.s who are intrusted to run massive businesses or politicians to run entire governments, and they put the individual before the collective to massive harm.
The first part has a point yes, consumerism based on the individuals needs is a causal factor in so much of the waste produced now, yes. However you can just as much argue the collective in industry is as much to blame, people working low pay jobs, another drone in a massive industry, another cog in the wheel, all as much contributing to things like CO2, everyone joining the same rat race driving cars each day, that collective is as much damaging.
And sorry but lets be honest regardless of personal feeling of how someone like a CEO treats his staff or some political figure at the top, they are by no means weak willed, they simply don't give a shit.
QuoteI would say you chose the absolutely weakest example though. Look at all the great philosophies of mankind from history... Daoism, Buddhism, Stoicism, even 'individualistic' philosophies like Hedonism promoted that one's own desires should not come at the cost of causing pain... they all, while stressing the improvement of the individual, are focused on helping the collective and not the individual. Some of them, like Buddhism, are explictly about escaping the concept of the individual.
And they do that by spreading a collective ideal for how to live.
not all collectivism is bad, but its still displaying those traits mentioned before about the human psyche needing group think, which is at the end of the day people needing to be lead and told how to think instead of thinking for themselves.
QuoteI would also argue that the empire building of history is built squarely on individualism; you do not subjugate and exploit others for the "good of society", you do it for the good of yourself. Empires were (and are) built on powerful men who put themselves above all others (and compete to hold that power) while convincing the commoners it's for the good of "the Empire". So they show the flaws of both sides; it's individualism taken way too far and using collectivism to justify it. But the root evil remains the individualism. I would say the same could be said for the church throughout it's history... the truly evil acts were done by individuals, Popes, Cardinals, Priests, etc. who exploited the collective to further themselves.
And yet, in a godwin example, hitler himself didn't personally kill all the people under his governance, it was his ideals spread to his soldiers and followers who followed his words as a collective that did the majority of the mass killings. The individual might be the root of evil acts, but if one idea can spread to many and they follow it without question, then that lack of individuality caused far more harm on a larger scale then just what one individual can alone.
QuoteEveryone can better themselves without harming others. However when one places the individual before the collective, they will begin to harm others to further their own agendas.
which again, the reason why they place an individual above their own is because its in human nature to be lead. War might start by individual actions, but wars can't occur without a collective following them.
QuoteThey have the choice to take the "harder" path, the one that causes less harm but might take longer or never make them excessively wealthy or powerful. Thus, they are weak willed.
sorry, but no, your confusing moral choices for willpower. If a person has the willpower to command others for whatever that might be, then it doesn't matter if its for a morality good reason or a bad reason, its still a display of someones will commanding others into doing what they want. And that is still a display strength. Its only a weakness if they lose control of the collective they command, and don't know how to get it back.
QuoteIs this so? There's a certain amount of exploitation/harm in the simple act of buying a pair of shoes or filling up the gas tank. Theoretically, it's possible to never harm others. But in reality...
That's true.
I guess I should say that that people can try to keep exploitation to a minimum and do it only out of practical necessity... as well as being conscious of the situations and looking for alternatives when they are available... as opposed to intentionally, and more importantly directly, causing harm with the intent of it bringing you prosperity.
Quoteexcept for the ones who aren't.
Right. Outliers.
Just because someone breaks the norm does not mean the norm should break.
QuoteHowever you can just as much argue the collective in industry is as much to blame, people working low pay jobs, another drone in a massive industry, another cog in the wheel, all as much contributing to things like CO2, everyone joining the same rat race driving cars each day, that collective is as much damaging.
But the rat race is explicitly a form of individualism. People do not join the rat race to help the collective, they join it to help themselves.
QuoteAnd sorry but lets be honest regardless of personal feeling of how someone like a CEO treats his staff or some political figure at the top, they are by no means weak willed, they simply don't give a shit.
You contradict yourself; not giving a shit is the epitome of being weak willed.
Quote...but its still displaying those traits mentioned before about the human psyche needing group think, which is at the end of the day people needing to be lead and told how to think instead of thinking for themselves.
Which, again, there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with. Obviously people should spend some thought on everything, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no need to try and re-invent the wheel, re-write the rules, just to prove how smart and independent you are. There are social codes and rules that exist because they work... and that should be enough. There is nothing wrong with questioning why they work, but it is silly and pointless to question them just because they exist or work.
QuoteAnd yet, in a godwin example, hitler himself didn't personally kill all the people under his governance, it was his ideals spread to his soldiers and followers who followed his words as a collective that did the majority of the mass killings. The individual might be the root of evil acts, but if one idea can spread to many and they follow it without question, then that lack of individuality caused far more harm on a larger scale then just what one individual can alone.
Hitler's ideals didn't come from a vacuum, nor did people's hate of Jews.
Individuals hated Jews; they hated them because they had more wealth or social power, because they belonged to a different collective (a form of individualism that believes one collective is better than another), because they believed they were the cause of the problem.
That's not to say collectivism didn't have a role to play, but to say individualism wasn't a big part of the violence of WW2 is ridiculous as well. It was Hitler's desire for power and people's distrust of Jews (based, primarily, on envy) that was the underlying root of the Holocaust. It was exploited through a collective (which certainly the collective has to be held responsible for), but at the end of the day it was evil individuals who lead the charge.
Quotewhich again, the reason why they place an individual above their own is because its in human nature to be lead. War might start by individual actions, but wars can't occur without a collective following them.
What power do you have, if your PM told you right now that you were to be shipped over to Iraq and fight on the front lines, to say no?
Rarely does the collective "choose" to go to war; that's why events like Pearl Harbour and 9/11 are so monumental. As for the warrior caste, that is their job. Some will justify it for patriotism, for defending their county... but most will straight up tell you it's what they signed up to do and so they will do it.
The majority of wars throughout history were fought by mercenaries (killing for individualism) and peasant armies that were told they could either fight for their king or die... and the lords I think it is almost completely inarguable to think that they didn't go to war for their own personal gain. I wouldn't call that "collectivism", that is individualism exerting its will over the collective.
QuoteSorry, but no, your confusing moral choices for willpower.... its still a display of someones will commanding others into doing what they want. And that is still a display strength.
Strength over others comes from one's wealth, one's prestige... not one's will. And people who come by the wealth and prestige to control others almost always do so through taking the easy way, the way that hurts others, rather than through the hard work and integrity to gain those things by one's own merits.
That is not willpower, and it's telling that you mistake it as such.
Quote from: Munch on June 19, 2019, 09:03:43 PM
so your saying it is a collective because of the inherent nature of people. Plus you need an example to uphold why individualism can be considered weak willed compared to collectivism. its true collective ideals can create great things, just looking at things like ancient architecture serves as examples, but you need an example why the individual is weak willed, since you would assume thinking for ones self is more a trail in any facet of humanity through time.
Example of collective action ... building a giant stone pyramid for a pharaoh's ego. Jewish collectivism good, Egyptian collectivism bad.
There are two forms of collective action. Free and compelled. And either can be paid or not paid. I like free paid collective action. Some may prefer compelled unpaid (prison labor).
Shiranu .. yes power and wealth are important in commanding people. Have you ever done it or seen it done? Also prestige and rank. But no "will" to it? Just because I can do something, doesn't mean I have the will to do it (say hit my spouse). If you say there is no will, then you can rob a bank and say "the devil made me do it"
Here is a different opinion on willpower ... Triumph of the Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7hJVaTW45M
QuoteAlso prestige and rank. But no "will" to it? Just because I can do something, doesn't mean I have the will to do it (say hit my spouse).
And if you would hit your spouse, I would say you have
no minimal (I assumed people would understand I didn't mean absolute zero will but rather like saying "no integrity"... obviously integrity does still exist, it's just minimal.) will; that is how basic brutes behave. Willpower is the ability to be more than
that.Willpower is about controlling one's self, not others... and those type of people control other's through outside factors (threats, power, brutism) rather than their own will (integrity, intelligence, compassion). Just because society mistakes that as will does not make it so.
And I am not claiming that there is no will at all... I am saying that there is something far worse; the lack of effort to cultivate one's will.
Hitting your spouse is at best a gut reaction that requires no mental process. At worst it's a contemplated action to create fear. That means you lack the will power to take the harder path of having her respect you through what you have achieved.
Yes, the will to obey and the will to command. But pure individualists have neither. They are anarchists.
If you were a general, and you received an order to fire up a nuke, do you have the will to obey? Do you have to will to command down the chain to the man who has to push that button? The problem with will is that it is independent of conscience. In war, and dictatorship, evil collective actions are made to occur.
It's easy to spot propaganda. Propaganda is stuff that is designed to elicit an emotional response, and to stamp out calm, collected objective analysis.
If something in the news made you angry, sad, or fearful, then you really should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 21, 2019, 11:10:14 AM
It's easy to spot propaganda. Propaganda is stuff that is designed to elicit an emotional response, and to stamp out calm, collected objective analysis.
If something in the news made you angry, sad, or fearful, then you really should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts.
Why SJWs are losers. Except at Oprah hugging sessions.
QuoteIf something in the news made you angry, sad, or fearful, then you really should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts.
You should second-guess the documentation behind it and check the facts regardless of how it makes you feel.
Quote from: Munch on June 19, 2019, 02:11:18 PM
An interview between Sargon and BPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH4Fq_5_3gE&t=0s
Intresting stuff.
One thing I find most interesting is when talking about the western culture as it stands now, how here in the west while we have abandoned organised religion as a main governance (unlike islam), that doesn't mean the very nature of what it is that creates that need for that ideology has gone. Social and political ideology have replaced that religious one now, the heavy handed political and social messages we have now comes from humanities own need for that system in place.
This really does break down the very fault within the human psyche itself, doesn't matter if we think we've progressed beyond one system of ideologues, if we're to weak willed anyway, we just get dragged into another set of rules and standards someone else creates to follow, just like religion before it.
This is why I no longer vote, seeing this kind of way of thinking now being the mainstream on either end of the political spectrum or one extreme to another. As an atheist I gave up wanting to follow any ideologue, so dunno why I should follow any social driven group think either.
If you don't vote, don't complain about the election results...
Vote or don't vote. Unhappy species are always ... unhappy, regardless.
Quote from: Baruch on August 27, 2019, 08:10:06 AM
Vote or don't vote. Unhappy species are always ... unhappy, regardless.
I hear that a lot. People say they don't like the candidate who won. But then admit they didn't vote. That's like complaining you hate the color of your house because you let the neighbor choose it.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2019, 11:39:16 PM
I hear that a lot. People say they don't like the candidate who won. But then admit they didn't vote. That's like complaining you hate the color of your house because you let the neighbor choose it.
Woke. Too bad it took 90 years of experience to get there!
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 03:09:47 AM
Woke. Too bad it took 90 years of experience to get there!
Are you 90?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 03:29:23 AM
Are you 90?
Are you? Well, Joe seems that way. "Get the Hell off my Internet!"
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 03:33:08 AM
Are you? Well, Joe seems that way. "Get the Hell off my Internet!"
69. I don't mention that often because it really cracks teens up.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 03:38:45 AM
69. I don't mention that often because it really cracks teens up.
And sexy too. You corn flower.
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 03:49:24 AM
And sexy too. You corn flower.
Flower of corn? Does that make me a Kernal? "Kernal Cavebear"...
And I note that I became an Erectus sometime tonight. I dare not think about that with my age.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 03:55:03 AM
Flower of corn? Does that make me a Kernal? "Kernal Cavebear"...
And I note that I became an Erectus sometime tonight. I dare not think about that with my age.
Keep the blood pressure down. Think ugly thoughts.
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 03:56:41 AM
Keep the blood pressure down. Think ugly thoughts.
Blood pressure was 120/70 last exam. Heartbeat 72.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 04:02:26 AM
Blood pressure was 120/70 last exam. Heartbeat 72.
Good. Mine similar, no heart problems. Diabetes though. 140/70, but it varies.
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 04:05:01 AM
Good. Mine similar, no heart problems. Diabetes though. 140/70, but it varies.
What is a typical meal for you? Mine is usually 3 oz meat and several veggies. I love beets and spinach and broccoli. And tomatoes. Fresh fruit for dessert. I should make a new batch of tollhouse bars though.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 04:11:45 AM
What is a typical meal for you? Mine is usually 3 oz meat and several veggies. I love beets and spinach and broccoli. And tomatoes. Fresh fruit for dessert. I should make a new batch of tollhouse bars though.
I want to improve. Need to diet more. Ideal would be …
Breakfast with coffee (with creamer and sugar sub). With meat, eggs, vegetables otherwise low on carbs.
Lunch with flavored sparkling water. Soup or salad, club sandwich.
I love lots of things (except beef liver and other organ meat). Can't have fresh fruit or juice. Can't have deserts.
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 04:18:56 AM
I want to improve. Need to diet more. Ideal would be …
Breakfast with coffee (with creamer and sugar sub). With meat, eggs, vegetables otherwise low on carbs.
Lunch with flavored sparkling water. Soup or salad, club sandwich.
I love lots of things (except beef liver and other organ meat). Can't have fresh fruit or juice. Can't have deserts.
I make great bread (using beer instead of water adds depth), but bread and pasta aren't my favorite things. I love fruits. That's dessert to me.
I miss fresh fruit and fruit juice … I do allow some dried fruit.
Quote from: Baruch on August 29, 2019, 09:57:53 AM
I miss fresh fruit and fruit juice … I do allow some dried fruit.
What's wrong with eating fresh fruit? That's my dessert after dinner. I do snack on a prune or 2 daily. And nutritionists do point out that 100% fruit juice (no sugar added) is good in moderation too.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2019, 01:42:32 AM
What's wrong with eating fresh fruit? That's my dessert after dinner. I do snack on a prune or 2 daily. And nutritionists do point out that 100% fruit juice (no sugar added) is good in moderation too.
Fructose is bad for any diabetes. Any sugar or alcohol spikes the insulin.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2019, 10:15:47 AM
Fructose is bad for any diabetes. Any sugar or alcohol spikes the insulin.
Consider this link. https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/features/fruit-and-diabetes#2
WebMD has a good reputation.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2019, 11:25:05 AM
Consider this link. https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/features/fruit-and-diabetes#2
WebMD has a good reputation.
I accept my nutritionist, thanks.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2019, 04:49:10 PM
I accept my nutritionist, thanks.
Always trust an expert over an amateur of course. Those of us who just know how OUR lives work are never right. Fresh fruit is good for me, so of course it must be good for everyone else, right". I'm sorry, I was up too late. And still up, for all that's worth.