Atheism is Evil - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013488
@anasawad,

Human natures do determine their politics because everything comes down to politics.

The corruption of the socialist states happened because many of the state workers were not socialists. They abused the systems because they're not socialists.

Patriarchy does exist in the developed countries. Women have to act weak, while men have to act hyper masculine. Just look at hip hop for example. Making women look like sex objects, and making men look hyper masculine.

Socialist economic views collectively became popular decades before Marx, yes that is correct. I never claimed other wise. Marxism is science. Marx himself called himself a scientific socialist.

"Technocratic socialism" is a viewpoint that sees that a society must be industrialized (industry is TECHNOLOGY) before they can have a socialist economy.

Socialism is a scientific process. An example of this is how China's economy is state capitalist today. This is because the socialist government made it capitalist on purpose to toughen the people up.
By anasawad
#15013490
@SSDR
Human natures do determine their politics because everything comes down to politics.

That's the same logical framework the alt right is currently using to justify their "race realism".
It's false.
Basic human instincts and biological inclinations are not the same things as their political beliefs.

The corruption of the socialist states happened because many of the state workers were not socialists. They abused the systems because they're not socialists.

The corruption and tyranny of the soviet union began from its very beginning with Stalin taking over.
The genocides committed by the Soviet leadership planted the seed of hatred that brought it down. Crackdowns don't help.
If an ideology needs to constantly blast its propaganda loudly every day and constantly indoctrinate everyone, then it's a fragile ideology that will crumble the minute it shows weakness.

Patriarchy does exist in the developed countries. Women have to act weak, while men have to act hyper masculine. Just look at hip hop for example. Making women look like sex objects, and making men look hyper masculine.

You mean men acting male, and women acting feminine?
How is that in anyway oppression? And in what way does this mean men are above or ruling over women?

Marxism is science. Marx himself called himself a scientific socialist.

If by science, you mean social science (i.e sociology), then sure.
Otherwise i.e STEM, then no.

"Technocratic socialism" is a viewpoint that sees that a society must be industrialized (industry is TECHNOLOGY) before they can have a socialist economy.

Technocracy is rule by technocrats.
Technocratic socialism is a system of socialist economy, governing structure ruled by technocrats, and social hierarchies where technocrats (experts, scientists, academics) are on top.
i.e social hierarchies based on expertise and knowledge. Rather than the capitalist model with hierarchies based on wealth.
Marxism attempts to envision a society without hierarchies or classes, however always fails due to the human inclination to form hierarchies ingrained in our basic instincts; As such, Marxist often end up forming hierarchies based on any set of factors relating to power and influence.

Socialism is a scientific process. An example of this is how China's economy is state capitalist today. This is because the socialist government made it capitalist on purpose to toughen the people up.

1- Look up what the scientific process is first.
2- Chinese state capitalism is a mixed system between socialism and capitalism economy wise, with an autocratic one party political structure.
3- Toughen the people up? or realized that their previous model had no incentives for people to work up the latter and develop themselves, and as such had to catter to another basic human instinct, greed ?
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013493
@anasawad,

No, corruption started with the revisionists who wanted to liberalize the union, making it more degenerate.

The reason why the "socialist ideology" had to 'blast' its "propaganda loudly" was because many of the People in the Soviet Union were NOT SOCIALISTS. And this doesn't have to do with socialism, or any certain political ideology. If a leading power has a different ideology than the majority of its population, then the leading power will release propaganda to get the people to support their ideology. This can happen With any political ideology.

Men having to act "male" and women having to act "feminine" is oppressive to some people. Some men don't like to be forced to act tough and hard. And some women don't like to be forced to act submissive and "caring."

"however always fails due to the human inclination to form hierarchies ingrained in our basic instincts"

- You just claimed that you believe in a fixed human nature by saying that social hierarchies are "natural" thus making you look more alt right style. I don't follow ANYONE. I don't look up to ANYONE. I don't look up to ANY PERSON.

Many of the Chinese people are not socialist. Chinese people in general are patriarchal, money loving, family oriented, and socially right winged. Their mindsets were needed before socialism to help them support pre socialist economics. When Mao started to gain power in 1949, these views were no longer needed since the economy was socialist leaning. Why should a woman be submissive to her husband if he doesn't own her resources such as shelter or food? Why should one love money if there is no currency (Mao introduced a points system)? Why should one rely on their families if there is an economic safety net, and that the economy is not close knit? And why should society be socially right winged if women are allowed to serve their armies?
By anasawad
#15013499
@SSDR
No, corruption started with the revisionists who wanted to liberalize the union, making it more degenerate

The corruption, tyranny, and genocides began all the way back with Stalin.

The reason why the "socialist ideology" had to 'blast' its "propaganda loudly" was because many of the People in the Soviet Union were NOT SOCIALISTS. And this doesn't have to do with socialism, or any certain political ideology. If a leading power has a different ideology than the majority of its population, then the leading power will release propaganda to get the people to support their ideology. This can happen With any political ideology.

When a century is not enough to get people to accept your ideology, along with tons of oppression and persecution, perhaps it's just wrong.

Men having to act "male" and women having to act "feminine" is oppressive to some people. Some men don't like to be forced to act tough and hard. And some women don't like to be forced to act submissive and "caring."

2 points.
1- They don't have to.
2- women don't act "submissive". Neotenic=/= submissive. Look it up. I believe I mentioned it earlier, and that's part of human biology, with more prominence in females.

You just claimed that you believe in a fixed human nature by saying that social hierarchies are "natural" thus making you look more alt right style. .

I don't "believe" in a fixed human nature, I know it's fixed. Because for human nature to change, it would take probably a few 10s of thousands of years and throughout countless generations. I don't think we need to consider that in discussions about the current day.
Just like we don't need to bring up the inevitable death of the sun into a discussion about climate change, it's meaningless.

I don't follow ANYONE. I don't look up to ANYONE. I don't look up to ANY PERSON

You are literally following feminist arguments, alongside with Marxist ideological framework and beliefs.
Those are people.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013502
@anasawad

It's not that the unpopular ideology is "wrong." It is that the majority don't support it. Why? It depends on the ideology. You're shifting away from politics and you're entering non political related psychology.

"They don't have to" Well it depends on the society. If the society is an extroverted, gossipy, Islamic society like Bosnia or the Arab states, then they pretty much do due to the extroverted behaviours that the majority display. If the society is an introverted, secular society like Sweden, then you could potentially be correct, depending on the case.

You will never know if human nature is fixed or not. You have no DIRECT evidence to prove your false belief.

I am NOT following feminist arguments. I am stating what I view from my heart. I could USE some feminist arguments as proof to go against your politics. And I am also NOT a Marxist. I do not follow Marx. I do not believe in him. I could use some of his writings to go against others who have alarming politics such as right wingers like @Truth To Power.
By anasawad
#15013503
@SSDR
If the ideology is oppressive and persecutes people, then clearly they wont follow it.

"They don't have to" Well it depends on the society. If the society is an extroverted, gossipy, Islamic society like Bosnia or the Arab states, then they pretty much do due to the extroverted behaviours that the majority display. If the society is an introverted, secular society like Sweden, then you could potentially be correct, depending on the case.


We're all aware of the shitty conditions in countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan, etc. But those aren't developed countries, those are known oppressive and tyrannic theocratic societies.
We're discussing developed modern countries, not ones still living in the dark ages.

You will never know if human nature is fixed or not. You have no DIRECT evidence to prove your false belief.

Funny enough, there is. It's literally what the fields of biology, psychology, neurology, and evolutionary biology all about.

I am NOT following feminist arguments. I am stating what I view from my heart. I could USE some feminist arguments as proof to go against your politics. And I am also NOT a Marxist. I do not follow Marx. I do not believe in him. I could use some of his writings to go against others who have alarming politics such as right wingers like @Truth To Power.


Exactly, and the fact that you acknowledge there are "authorities" on certain topics, and that you adhere to some of their ideas and use them is the point.
That is a hierarchy. One that is based on expertise and knowledge, but a hierarchy nonetheless.
As stated previously, hierarchies don't necessarily need to be based on wealth. It could be based on anything.
It could be based on wealth, knowledge and expertise, beauty, strength, piety and religiousness, wisdom, etc.
It doesn't matter what it's based on, there will always be hierarchies in human societies. And those hierarchies exist all over the mammalian world, not just in humans; You can see it in dogs with the alphas in the pack for example.

If you got rid of money, societies will simply re-arrange itself based on a different standard, or a whole set of standards. A classless society is simply not possible, there will always be leaders and followers.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013504
@anasawad,

It depends on what a society views as "oppressive." Whatever they view as oppressive helps define their politics.

"We're all aware of the shitty conditions in countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan, etc. But those aren't developed countries, those are known oppressive and tyrannic theocratic societies.
We're discussing developed modern countries, not ones still living in the dark ages.
"

YOU ARE still living in the dark ages.

"It's literally what the fields of biology, psychology, neurology, and evolutionary biology all about."

Those fields can be taught in any political ideology. Nazi psychology is very different than liberal psychology for instance.

Using someone or their views doesn't have to be a form of social hierarchy. You can use someone and follow them. You can use someone and not follow them. You can use someone and lead them.

"If you got rid of money, societies will simply re-arrange itself based on a different standard, or a whole set of standards. A classless society is simply not possible, there will always be leaders and followers."

You are not a socialist. You're just spouting your useless beliefs against socialism.
By anasawad
#15013505
@SSDR

YOU ARE still living in the dark ages.

And how is that exactly?

Those fields can be taught in any political ideology. Nazi psychology is very different than liberal psychology for instance.

There is no such thing as nazi or liberal psychology.
You need to look up what psychology is and what's in it.

Using someone or their views doesn't have to be a form of social hierarchy. You can use someone and follow them. You can use someone and not follow them. You can use someone and lead them.

The fact that at any instance, there will be an authority or a leader, and a subject or a follower, that's a hierarchy.
Thought leaders are leaders.

You are not a socialist. You're just spouting your useless beliefs against socialism.

1- Not an argument.
and 2- I'm a democratic socialist, and you yet don't seem to understand what socialism is.



Also:
Image
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013507
@anasawad

You defend patriarchy, the family institution, emotional ways of thinking, social hierarchies, and currency. You're stuck back in time.

Heinrich Gross was very different than Sigmund Freud.

In socialism there is no "leader." You're not a socialist because you support a currency.
By anasawad
#15013511
@SSDR
I didn't "defend patriarchy" so far, equal but different is not a patriarchal model. Though you did accuse me of defending patriarchy, as I'm sure you accuse anyone who disagrees with you.
The family unit is an important institution in society, you clearly have a flawed understanding of what that is if you think family is not important both personally and socially.

So far all I've done is state scientific facts, not sure how is that emotional?
You on the other hand have been throwing tantrums and accusations and all sorts of things, which does seem emotional.

For currency, I have made no statements regarding my position on money, what I did state is that removing money wouldn't remove hierarchies but rather will simply change their basis. Not sure how you still didn't get that after so many posts, but anyways.

And finally, Having two psychologists (i.e scientists) each holding a different set of political beliefs is irrelevant to the science of psychology.
Because psychology is related to the brain, to neurology, a physical thing that can be objectively measured and studied.
There is no philosophy involved.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013512
@anasawad,

The family unit is an important institution in society, you clearly have a flawed understanding of what that is if you think family is not important both personally and socially.


A tool that was used to prevent society from gaining real consciousness. If this is something you can't understand, then you are not a socialist.

I've done is state scientific facts


You have never stated a true fact.

You on the other hand have been throwing tantrums and accusations and all sorts of things


I am offending your religious views. You feeling this way is emotional by definition.

How did you go from this:

If you got rid of money, societies will simply re-arrange itself based on a different standard, or a whole set of standards. A classless society is simply not possible, there will always be leaders and followers.


To this?

I have made no statements regarding my position on money, what I did state is that removing money wouldn't remove hierarchies but rather will simply change their basis.


Psychology is related to the brain


So is why capitalists like you lack real consciousness.
By anasawad
#15013515
@SSDR
A tool that was used to prevent society from gaining real consciousness. If this is something you can't understand, then you are not a socialist.

By whom?
Family structures predates civilization.

You have never stated a true fact.

I did. And all you did is strawman and ad-hominems all the way through.

I am offending your religious views. You feeling this way is emotional by definition.

I'm an atheist.

How did you go from this:

This
If you got rid of money, societies will simply re-arrange itself based on a different standard, or a whole set of standards. A classless society is simply not possible, there will always be leaders and followers.

is a statement regarding human societies forming hierarchies, in which anyone with roughly 80 IQ points or above can understand that the statement is referring to money as just one of many tools to represent these social hierarchies, wherein removing money will simply move the theme to another one of the aforementioned themes that hierarchies usually take.

This is not a statement of personal position on money, this is a statement of fact regarding hierarchies in human societies driven by basic mammalian instincts.

This statement
I have made no statements regarding my position on money, what I did state is that removing money wouldn't remove hierarchies but rather will simply change their basis.

on the other hand, is one where I respond to an ad-hominem of yours by clarifying my previous statement (the above one) and how you either don't understand what you're reading or aren't reading and just throwing around buzz words.

So is why capitalists like you lack real consciousness.

I'm not a capitalist, and "real consciousness" is a buzz word you're throwing around without understanding what it actually means.
So bother reading up before moving further.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013516
@anasawad,

By whom?

Bourgeoisie.
I did.

You stated scientific "facts" that were mostly false.
I'm not an atheist.

Exactly, that's why your religious values were emotionally offended.
in which anyone with roughly 80 IQ points

So now you're claiming that IQ relates to politics?
how you either don't understand what you're reading or aren't reading

If I am not reading your false posts, then I wouldn't be replying to you.
I'm a fuckin capitalist, and "real consciousness" is a buzz word you're throwing around without understanding what it actually means.

Real consciousness is something you lack. If you don't lack it, then tell me in your words, what real consciousness is?
So bother reading up before moving further.

Reading content that is outside socialist terms doesn't fixate anything because it's useless opinions that goes against socialism.
By anasawad
#15013520
@SSDR
Bourgeoisie.

Family structures are present in all mammalian species.
Did Bourgeoisie cats also participate in this invention or did human Bourgeoisie taught cats those things?

Family structures predates civilization.

You stated scientific "facts" that were mostly false.

The scientists clearly believe it's right, and the evidence backs it up. So according to whom is it false? you?

Exactly, that's why your religious values were emotionally offended.

Don't misquote me.


So now you're claiming that IQ relates to politics?

If someone cant understand basic words, then how will they understand complex policies.


If I am not reading your false posts, then I wouldn't be replying to you.

but you're not replying to me.
So far most of your posts are literally just strawman and ad-hominems. You have yet to present an actual argument.
I've been waiting for a day now, and no argument has been presented. All you did is throw around buzz words and strawman my posts.

Real consciousness is something you lack. If you don't lack it, then tell me in your words, what real consciousness is?


Again. Don't misquote me.
What you're referring to is class consciousness and it's usually what drives class struggle.


Reading content that is outside socialist terms doesn't fixate anything because it's useless opinions that goes against socialism.

So basically, dogma.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013524
@anasawad,

Family structures predates civilization.

Anti Socialist.
So according to whom is it false?

Those who have real consciousness.
Misquote me.

Why do you want others to misquote you? You lack self respect.
If someone cant understand basic words, then how will they understand comple policies.

Psychology, and biology are more complex subjects than general IQ ratings. IQ's are just numbers that don't require lots of knowledge to understand.
I've been waiting for a day now, and no argument has been presented.

You want to argue? Why?
What you're referring to is class consciousness and it's usually what drives class struggle.

I asked you what definition of real consciousness you are using.
Dogma

It's not that you are dogma, it's that you lack real consciousness, so you believe that real conscious statements are lies.
By anasawad
#15013589
@SSDR
Anti Socialist.

Meh.

Those who have real consciousness.

Predates civilization, and exists in most mammalian species.

Psychology, and biology are more complex subjects than general IQ ratings. IQ's are just numbers that don't require lots of knowledge to understand.

True, but people with low IQ for some reason seem not to understand either. Wonder why?!

I asked you what definition of real consciousness you are using.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Kid, patriarchy has 5 definitions depending on the movement, so I can ask you what definition you're using.
Class Consciousness only has one in Marxism since it's the only movement using the term.

A class consciousness is an awareness of one's social and/or economic class relative to others, and the economic rank of this class within society. To have a class consciousness is to understand the social and economic characteristics of the class of which one is a member, and an understanding of the collective interests of their class within the given socio-economic and political orders.


It's not that you are dogma, it's that you lack real consciousness, so you believe that real conscious statements are lies.

You have dogma.


Anyways. I'm tired of this discussion. Going around in circles with no real arguments presented.
Farewell.
By Truth To Power
#15014015
SSDR wrote:A pre socialist brain is a personality that has faith in things that were used to keep people under class rule. Religion, family, patriarchy, shaming cultures, fucking dummies loving money, or social hierarchies are all examples of what society has conditioned onto people from the time one has left their mother's womb, to when they reach death.

None of those things keep people under class rule. It is privilege -- legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation -- that keeps people under class rule, not the family, religion, love of money, etc.
Patriarchy is when men are above women.

What do you mean, "above"? Taller?
Slave labour doesn't have to be compelled by force.

Yes, it does, or it is not slavery.
Other methods of having slaves support slavery

Slaves don't typically support slavery. They merely submit to it because they consider submission preferable to the punishment for defiance.
is shaming them for wanting to run away, making their personal lives a certain way so they could use religion to cope with it (some religions like Islam support slavery), scaring them in a non forceful manner, or brainwashing them into supporting slavery.

You are just trying to redefine slavery into such a broad term that it loses its meaning. That is a normal and expected form of deceit that socialists routinely engage in.
Not all victims of human trafficking are forced to be human trafficked. Some people don't even know that they were slaves or are human trafficked. These are some examples of how slave labour wasn't compelled by force.

Human trafficking is not the same thing as slavery. That's why we use different words to refer to them. You just think words should be used to prevent clear thought and communication rather than to facilitate them. If it is not compelled by force, it is not slavery. It might be exploitation, like seducing a child with candy, but exploitation isn't the same as slavery.
Humanity can evolve to socialism.

You mean like naked mole rats, the only known socialist mammals, which survive by eating each other's feces? Maybe. But it would take millions of years of intense selection pressure.
The dictionaries that define "socialism" that you are reading are lies.

Nope. Wrong. They are honest.
Those dictionaries that you used are pro capitalist dictionaries.

Nope. They simply describe how honest people use words to communicate meaning.
Each sex is NOT a certain way.

Yes it is.
There are women who stand their grounds. And there are men who like to be dominated by women.

There are also men who are shorter than most women, and women who are taller than most men. That doesn't mean men aren't taller than women.
Science does NOT have any political agenda.

Yes, it does. It is against evils such as socialism and capitalism because socialism and capitalism depend on lies, and science is inherently opposed to lies.
That is because there are so many different sciences.

Non sequitur.
Marxism is science.

No, it is not. Science requires replicable observations that confirm or falsify falsifiable hypotheses. Marxism posits no falsifiable hypotheses that have not already been falsified.
Marxist socialism is a form of scientific socialism.

There is no form of socialism or capitalism that is scientific, as explained above.
Hence, socialism in general would have to be a scientific process because of all of the non socialist economies that have existed such as the German Confederate Empire, Tsarist Russia, or the Kingdom of Italy.

That is a non sequitur fallacy. You apparently do not actually know any science, and seem utterly incapable of understanding or applying the scientific method.
"Evil" is a non scientific, romantic word.

No, it is not. It denotes deliberate abbrogation of others' rights with intent to inflict injustice, and rationalization of such acts.
There is no recognizing "evil" in science because feeling that something is evil is an emotion.

Feeling is an emotion by definition, but evil is not defined by anyone's feelings. See above. No one's feelings are even mentioned.
What one feels as evil or not depends on their political views.

Political views can color one's feelings about evil, and make people believe evil is good, but they don't affect the definition of evil.
You claim to being a sexist?

By your definition, which is someone who knows and does not seek to obscure or falsify biological facts about sex.
You're not a right winger? Then what are you? What is your political ideology?

The right is elitist, the left egalitarian. Elitism is the belief that human qualities are bimodally distributed between those who are superior and those who are inferior. Egalitarianism is the belief that people are all basically the same. I consider myself a centrist because I think human qualities are probably normally distributed: there are a few people with excellent and admirable qualities that enable them to contribute more to humanity than their fellows, a few horrible ones who take more from humanity than they contribute, but most are somewhere in the middle: net contributors, but not exceptionally so. My political "ideology" is simply to advocate liberty, justice and truth, as they are in humanity's best interest.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15014120
@Truth To Power,

None of those things keep people under class rule. It is privilege -- legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation -- that keeps people under class rule, not the family, religion, love of money, etc.

In socialism, everyone has an equal chance in their lives. "Legal entitlements to benefit" doesn't exist in socialism because that economically promotes the family institution via inheritance.
What do you mean, "above"? Taller?

"Above" meaning socially, economically, politically, and culturally. Men are manipulated to act tough, while women are manipulated to act submissive, and emotional. In lesser advanced economics, women have to rely on male fathers or male husbands due to how the obsolete economics are set up. There are not a lot of female politicians. Women in politics wasn't common until the mid 20th century. Margot Honecker (one of the best people to ever live) is a great example of someone who would go against patriarchy politically.
Yes, it does, or it is not slavery.

The false definition of slavery that you have shows that your statements are false. Slavery is when one human is OWNED by another human. It doesn't have to involve direct force.
Slaves don't typically support slavery. They merely submit to it because they consider submission preferable to the punishment for defiance.

Religion, family faith, and certain cultural norms existed in the past to prevent the masses from gaining real consciousness (slaves supporting slavery).
You are just trying to redefine slavery into such a broad term that it loses its meaning. That is a normal and expected form of deceit that socialists routinely engage in.

You are attempting to redefine slavery so that you can teach people that some kinds of slavery are not slavery. And here is an example:
Human trafficking is not the same thing as slavery.

Human trafficking is a kind of slavery.
It might be exploitation, like seducing a child with candy, but exploitation isn't the same as slavery.

Exploitation is a kind of slavery.
You mean like naked mole rats, the only known socialist mammals, which survive by eating each other's feces? Maybe. But it would take millions of years of intense selection pressure.

Eating another's feces is not an example of socialism. There is a difference between private property, and personal property. You do not know that, so you cannot criticize socialism if you do not know it. And comparing humans to rats is not useful.
Nope. They simply describe how honest people use words to communicate meaning.

If someone deceived you into supporting slavery, would you support slavery?
Yes it is.

Each individual is different. You cannot stereotype each sex individually because you do know know every single human.
Yes, it does. It is against evils such as socialism and capitalism because socialism and capitalism depend on lies, and science is inherently opposed to lies.

You're a Nazi. You're using science to politically go against capitalism and socialism.
No, it is not. It denotes deliberate abbrogation of others' rights with intent to inflict injustice, and rationalization of such acts.

Mixing emotional terms such as "evil" with non emotional subjects such as science is a Nazi act.
Feeling is an emotion by definition, but evil is not defined by anyone's feelings. See above. No one's feelings are even mentioned.

Different political ideologies have different views on what is evil.
Political views can color one's feelings about evil, and make people believe evil is good, but they don't affect the definition of evil.

What is your definition of "evil?"
By your definition, which is someone who knows and does not seek to obscure or falsify biological facts about sex.

You're imposing bullshit Social constructs that were created to control the masses. Your impositions cannot work since you support slavery, and others like myself don't.
The right is elitist, the left egalitarian. Elitism is the belief that human qualities are bimodally distributed between those who are superior and those who are inferior. Egalitarianism is the belief that people are all basically the same. I consider myself a centrist because I think human qualities are probably normally distributed: there are a few people with excellent and admirable qualities that enable them to contribute more to humanity than their fellows, a few horrible ones who take more from humanity than they contribute, but most are somewhere in the middle: net contributors, but not exceptionally so. My political "ideology" is simply to advocate liberty, justice and truth, as they are in humanity's best interest.

You're a Nazi who supports human trafficking.
Last edited by SSDR on 25 Jun 2019 00:57, edited 2 times in total.
By anasawad
#15014122
And this ^ is what I was referring to earlier.
These radicals will keep using these buzz words until it loses all of its meaning.
Nowadays, the words sexist, racist, misogyny, bigotry, prejudice, oppression, slavery, fascism, and even Nazi have pretty much lost their meaning since 'they' call everyone who disagrees with them these things.

If everyone is a Nazi, then the word Nazi means nothing. If everyone is sexist, racist, etc then no one is.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
The Evolution Fraud

The Genesis Theory - (Part 1) https://www.youtu[…]

Dude, it's called a smartphone. Lol. Posting wh[…]

Except there is no systematic destruction of whi[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Also, why would anyone admit to having a business[…]