SIGH... having dumb friends

[Jack]

[------------------------------------------------timeframe----------------------------------------------------]
[-----stability-----][chaos][-----stability-----][chaos][-----stability-----][chaos][-----stability-----][chaos] Suppressed, one less chaos, years of prosperity for innocent people.
[--stability--][chaos][--stability--][chaos][--stability--][chaos][--stability--][chaos][--stability--][chaos]    Unsupressed, one more chaos, one more round of destruction.

You're reminding me of something similar you and I once said to each other about this forum.

You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but getting butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.

The bickering is what keeps this site alive. The drama raises the number of people online. It gets dull, then spaz, evens out, dull again, then spaz,...

And every time, people think it's permament.

Reminds me when kids experience first winter snow - every year - and get heartbroken when it always rains away, "No snow for winter!? D':" yes you lil retard, but its gonna snow and rain away maybe 15 times before it settles. It does that _every year_.

Jack prefers Zeg's timeframe number 2, unsupressed, at least the chaos is no surprise; prefer it because it's honest and I can see it coming.

[Jack]

All human geopolitics are just large-scale waiting games anyway. What we percieve as anomalies, sudden, unexpected, are simply a continuation of the conquest-processes, economical or territorial conquests. The world map will continue to change, and those in power will do everything they can to drive towards the ultimate goal, the goal we all know, the domination of all the world
It is "the secret" driving force of all politics.

Was thinking more about this, and yes you're right, and concede our difference of viewpoint probably only exist simply due to our living within different legal and social boundaries. It's easy to see the sensibility in your points of suppressing the offensive, until of course the government tries to suppress what I want to say. Still, I see the same ultimate goal you do, and realize it probably doesn't matter much either way in the end, and if I lived in a land where strict legal suppression of speech is a normality and considered as socially acceptable, I'd likely agree with you completely.

[ZEGH8578]

I agree too!

Our governments are indeed starkly different as well, despite us belonging to the same camp, so to speak "the west", but "the west" can be anything from Iceland to Bulgaria to Mexico. From country to country, one will experience the role of the state as different. In Norway it has traditionally been very benevolent, even "gay" as Americans would put it. That seems to be changing now tho, with a lot more manlyness promoted in culture lately.
Let's just have a big bad war and get it over with.
I hope the Norwegian coast-line has less of a "strategic value" than it had the last shake-down :I

[El]

So then we agree? Free speech shouldn't really be about only allowing people to speak soundly with common sense. If you genuinely wanted genocides and stuff, then I'm inclined to allow you to say that openly without hiding behind pandas, so I can at the very least be aware of who you are.

Here is the problem:
Society consists of smart people and dumb people.

The free-speech limitation, is in place to prevent smart people from REACHING dumb people.
So far, it works pretty well. All the numbnuts I know are busy doing numbnut stuff, like fixing cars, farting, laughing at dumb comedies. None of them are browsing nazi material.

The dumb is the target audience. So by containing, to best effort, aggressive propaganda, you can keep it from reaching the impressionable, and thus DELAY the slowly inevitable.
(as in, people are tempted by cruelty and destruction, especially the next-generation-after-the-previous-who-experienced-it, it has to do with the constant generational contrasts that are also responsible for changing the language "I'm different from my parents!!!" if parents were in war, then you are different by not being in war. If your parents are children of peace, then you don't want to be lame, and want to be a warrior! Very simplified, but often observable)

But yes, we agree, and I totally see your point - like I say, the ultimate effect is inevitable, because the propaganda is there, and seeps out, drop by drop. But I maintain that containment successfully delays this, and allows for a normal population to experience as many decades as possible of normalcy, before shit hits the fan.

Oh ffs.  Did you have to throw in a dig at blue collar workers?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Oh ffs.  Did you have to throw in a dig at blue collar workers?

Of course he does. Having spent his life doing a whole lot of nothing, he hates people who actually work.     

[ZEGH8578]

Oh ffs.  Did you have to throw in a dig at blue collar workers?

Of course he does. Having spent his life doing a whole lot of nothing, he hates people who actually work.     

Do you actually believe the things you say?
Do you believe the things you THINK? <---this may be one of the most important things you have ever asked yourself.

Edit: Oh dear, I forgot you need things thoroughly explained. Let me explain.
The attack on blue collar workers was _tongue in cheek_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
PMS Elle then "attacked" me, ironically, she does not believe I truly wish ill on "blue collar" workers, but replied in order to play with facetiousness.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facetious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

My reply to you, about "believe what you say" and "believe what you think" has to do with you saying things that are outlandishly dumb. For example, how can I "hate" people who fix cars? What's there to hate?
I wonder to myself if you ACTUALLY think I have time and energy to hate people for repairing cars. If you do really believe that, then your mind is seriously at risk. This is something truly absurd to seriously believe. What other absurdities are you prone to falling for?
"Believe what you think" comes in here. Are you religious? Are you in danger of entering religious cults? Are you often depressed?

[odeon]

You should do a callout.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Bombed out, jobless druggies aren't worth the effort.   

[Gopher Gary]

You should do a callout.

It's much more secksy when they do it all over the place. 

[odeon]

/shrugs

Whatever. It might have been more entertaining if they had done a callout.

[El]

Oh ffs.  Did you have to throw in a dig at blue collar workers?

Of course he does. Having spent his life doing a whole lot of nothing, he hates people who actually work.     

Do you actually believe the things you say?
Do you believe the things you THINK? <---this may be one of the most important things you have ever asked yourself.

Edit: Oh dear, I forgot you need things thoroughly explained. Let me explain.
The attack on blue collar workers was _tongue in cheek_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
PMS Elle then "attacked" me, ironically, she does not believe I truly wish ill on "blue collar" workers, but replied in order to play with facetiousness.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facetious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

My reply to you, about "believe what you say" and "believe what you think" has to do with you saying things that are outlandishly dumb. For example, how can I "hate" people who fix cars? What's there to hate?
I wonder to myself if you ACTUALLY think I have time and energy to hate people for repairing cars. If you do really believe that, then your mind is seriously at risk. This is something truly absurd to seriously believe. What other absurdities are you prone to falling for?
"Believe what you think" comes in here. Are you religious? Are you in danger of entering religious cults? Are you often depressed?

Don't speak for me, please.  I did not assume you were being tongue-in-cheek, and I was responding by calling you out on that aspect of what you said, because if it wasn't ironically meant, it was tacky and ignorant.

[ZEGH8578]

Oh ffs.  Did you have to throw in a dig at blue collar workers?

Of course he does. Having spent his life doing a whole lot of nothing, he hates people who actually work.     

Do you actually believe the things you say?
Do you believe the things you THINK? <---this may be one of the most important things you have ever asked yourself.

Edit: Oh dear, I forgot you need things thoroughly explained. Let me explain.
The attack on blue collar workers was _tongue in cheek_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
PMS Elle then "attacked" me, ironically, she does not believe I truly wish ill on "blue collar" workers, but replied in order to play with facetiousness.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facetious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

My reply to you, about "believe what you say" and "believe what you think" has to do with you saying things that are outlandishly dumb. For example, how can I "hate" people who fix cars? What's there to hate?
I wonder to myself if you ACTUALLY think I have time and energy to hate people for repairing cars. If you do really believe that, then your mind is seriously at risk. This is something truly absurd to seriously believe. What other absurdities are you prone to falling for?
"Believe what you think" comes in here. Are you religious? Are you in danger of entering religious cults? Are you often depressed?

Don't speak for me, please.  I did not assume you were being tongue-in-cheek, and I was responding by calling you out on that aspect of what you said, because if it wasn't ironically meant, it was tacky and ignorant.

Well, then you're an idiot.
You made me call you idiot! And all for being too damn insecure to let ONE person "talk for you" ONCE.

I'm the "arch socialist" in here, after several years of it, and you seriously thought I needed to be confronted with my lack of respect for the poor and the less educated?

Go fuck yourself.

[El]

Oh ffs.  Did you have to throw in a dig at blue collar workers?

Of course he does. Having spent his life doing a whole lot of nothing, he hates people who actually work.     

Do you actually believe the things you say?
Do you believe the things you THINK? <---this may be one of the most important things you have ever asked yourself.

Edit: Oh dear, I forgot you need things thoroughly explained. Let me explain.
The attack on blue collar workers was _tongue in cheek_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
PMS Elle then "attacked" me, ironically, she does not believe I truly wish ill on "blue collar" workers, but replied in order to play with facetiousness.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facetious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

My reply to you, about "believe what you say" and "believe what you think" has to do with you saying things that are outlandishly dumb. For example, how can I "hate" people who fix cars? What's there to hate?
I wonder to myself if you ACTUALLY think I have time and energy to hate people for repairing cars. If you do really believe that, then your mind is seriously at risk. This is something truly absurd to seriously believe. What other absurdities are you prone to falling for?
"Believe what you think" comes in here. Are you religious? Are you in danger of entering religious cults? Are you often depressed?

Don't speak for me, please.  I did not assume you were being tongue-in-cheek, and I was responding by calling you out on that aspect of what you said, because if it wasn't ironically meant, it was tacky and ignorant.

Well, then you're an idiot.
You made me call you idiot! And all for being too damn insecure to let ONE person "talk for you" ONCE.

I'm the "arch socialist" in here, after several years of it, and you seriously thought I needed to be confronted with my lack of respect for the poor and the less educated?

Go fuck yourself.

u mad bro?   

Apparently I don't track who is the "arch socialist" or not.  We have, to my recollection, minimally interacted in a direct fashion.  Sometimes I read your posts, sometimes not.  Seems a little bit grandiose for you to assume I must have you and your personality clearly etched into some kind of mental "who's who" roster.

I'm not sure why you think that my preference for having you not talk for me (when you mistranslated, at that) means I'm insecure.  Please enlighten me.

[ZEGH8578]

I'm not sure why you think that my preference for having you not talk for me (when you mistranslated, at that) means I'm insecure.  Please enlighten me.

I know you couldn't know, but you could have allowed me some leeway, because you were watching me making some things clear, such as me not having any real antipathy against any kind of working class, quite the contrary. You opted to defend your own integrity, at the cost of my argument. Remember, you swung by solely to de-legitimize my entire argument, by "outing" me as some kind of upper class elitist. This is not only fodder for scrappy, but a delicacy for him, that you gave him, for no particular reason I can think of. You basically confirmed his whole "lefties, they're all talk!"-angle. This was the main source of my anger. When I saw that this had happened, you had the chance of siiilently allowing me to keep my own interpretation of it - no harm done, but you had to set records straight! "Don't speak for me, please. I did not assume"

Why could I not just keep my little peace, at the minimal cost of your integrity? By minimal cost I mean, people would go around thinking you made a joke-comment, when you didn't. Oh no, how could you live with yourself?

I'm no longer mad tho, cus I don't stay mad. I'm not even mad at scrappy, cus he's like a turtle or an iguana, they're not being so on purpose.
 

[El]

I'm not sure why you think that my preference for having you not talk for me (when you mistranslated, at that) means I'm insecure.  Please enlighten me.

I know you couldn't know, but you could have allowed me some leeway, because you were watching me making some things clear, such as me not having any real antipathy against any kind of working class, quite the contrary. You opted to defend your own integrity, at the cost of my argument. Remember, you swung by solely to de-legitimize my entire argument, by "outing" me as some kind of upper class elitist. This is not only fodder for scrappy, but a delicacy for him, that you gave him, for no particular reason I can think of. You basically confirmed his whole "lefties, they're all talk!"-angle. This was the main source of my anger. When I saw that this had happened, you had the chance of siiilently allowing me to keep my own interpretation of it - no harm done, but you had to set records straight! "Don't speak for me, please. I did not assume"

Why could I not just keep my little peace, at the minimal cost of your integrity? By minimal cost I mean, people would go around thinking you made a joke-comment, when you didn't. Oh no, how could you live with yourself?

I'm no longer mad tho, cus I don't stay mad. I'm not even mad at scrappy, cus he's like a turtle or an iguana, they're not being so on purpose.

I'm still not hearing an explanation of why you think my preference for having you not talk for me (when you mistranslated) means I'm insecure. 

What I am hearing is that you felt butthurt that I called you out 1) on an initial, elitist-sounding comment and then 2) on mistranslating me.

What I'm also picking up on is that you seem to believe that I should, for some reason, be siding with you/backing you in your ongoing beef with Scrapheap.  Or at least that that should be at the forefront of my considerations when I am responding to something you have said on a thread.

Am I in the ballpark?