Efekannn02 And His Magical Lust For Philosophy And Classical Music Aswell As Lets Talk About That :D

[Efekannn02]

Lets Talk About Philosophy And Classical Music

I Love Listening To Mozart and Beethoven

[Efekannn02]

my current goal is to trigger everyone right now sooo lets talk about philosophy

[yzb25]

I attended a philosophy of gender lecture today for the hell of it.

Wanna have an argument about whether postmodernist feminism or marxist feminism is better?

[Efekannn02]

I attended a philosophy of gender lecture today for the hell of it.

Wanna have an argument about whether postmodernist feminism or marxist feminism is better?

hell yeah but first wanna argue what is philosophically better?


What is better? is it worse? what is worse? what is good and bad?

[yzb25]

hell yeah but first wanna argue what is philosophically better?


What is better? is it worse? what is worse? what is good and bad?

Awwh, looks like you won't bite.

If we simply have a discussion about what's good and what's bad, we'll realize we have different but understandable value systems which predetermine all our answers in other parts of ethics. We'll realize we're just different human beings with our own valid perspectives and getting angry about that is irrational! The salt will be lost!

But fuck it, let's do it anyway. Given a specific context and a specific set of choices you can make in that context, any choice you make will be your notion of a "good" choice in that context, and the other choices will be "bad" or at least "less good". A good action is essentially a good choice in a given context. A good person is a person which does lots of good actions, though of course to measure what "lots of" is we have to choose an arbitrary metric.

I don't have any fixed way of determining what good choices and bad choices are. I don't really relate to the idea that the good choice is one that maximizes happiness, or whatever other system you try to create. I admit that what I determine to be the good choice or the bad choice has more to do with my fickle emotions than any sort of higher logic. Any sort of system that measures what's good and bad is more or less decided by the society you're in, anyway. Of course, there are certain systems of measuring good and bad that would kill the society itself, so those notions of good and bad in practice don't get very popular. But it doesn't change the fact your notion of good and bad will be determined by your society unless you're extremely detatched from your society.

I think my POV is called "moral relativism".

[Ganelon]

I attended a philosophy of gender lecture today for the hell of it.

Wanna have an argument about whether postmodernist feminism or marxist feminism is better?

What's "marxist feminism"? Genuinely curious, and I don't know the difference between the two.

[Ganelon]

my current goal is to trigger everyone right now sooo lets talk about philosophy

Prove to me that you are self-aware.

[yzb25]

What's "marxist feminism"? Genuinely curious, and I don't know the difference between the two.

Marxist feminism believes women's oppression is a natural consequence of capitalism. By giving the state all means of production, the state can force "reproductive roles" like looking after kids and shit to be divided equally between the genders. Alternatively, the state could pay women for looking after kids which is essentially "free labor" right now. Some argue that this may sound like a very pervasive invasion of one's family life, but they'd argue the government is already pervading family life via. stringent divorce laws and domestic abuse laws - laws that have already brought good things.

Marxist feminists will take it further and actually link other perceived aspects of women's oppression back to this fundamental way the economy is run. Like, they'll view society's focus on a woman's chasticy and stuff as a means to ensure inheritance is reliably passed down to a man's actual son and not some bastard child. And overly strict divorce laws as the product of the male ruling class wanting to "own" their woman like property.

Postmodernist feminists on the other hand take a deconstructive lens to basically all aspects of gender and stuff. They'll argue oppression cannot be neatly explained in terms of narratives. They'll even argue that gender and sex are just social constructs and by trying to build a feminist model with them we automatically build a model on the flawed ideas we're trying to abolish. We need to step away from even the narrative built by previous feminists, as those ideas themselves fed into a gendered narrative.

An ideal marxist feminist world would have stringent laws on how men and women should interact and how families should be run. This may sound restrictive, but in a society used to these laws, these laws would rarely impede on their every day life, because they would already subscribe to the principles underpinning the laws. An ideal postmodernist feminist world probably wouldn't make any sort of reference to gender or sex in the first place, nor would it need to - society would have been raised to view the whole notion of a sex or a gender as reductive and primitive. There would still be laws to regulate and stuff, but they'd probably be phrased in gender neutral terms like: "those who give birth and pay taxes will receive state support in raising the baby they give birth to and will not be expected to raise the baby, nor will it be assumed they have a partner supporting them exc."

I'm not sure how many philosophers actually subscribe to one of these notions and how many just view them as interesting ideas to fuck about with intellectually.

[yzb25]

Marxist feminism believes women's oppression is a natural consequence of capitalism. By giving the state all means of production, the state can force "reproductive roles" like looking after kids and shit to be divided equally between the genders. Alternatively, the state could pay women for looking after kids which is essentially "free labor" right now. Some argue that this may sound like a very pervasive invasion of one's family life, but they'd argue the government is already pervading family life via. stringent divorce laws and domestic abuse laws - laws that have already brought good things.

Marxist feminists will take it further and actually link other perceived aspects of women's oppression back to this fundamental way the economy is run. Like, they'll view society's focus on a woman's chasticy and stuff as a means to ensure inheritance is reliably passed down to a man's actual son and not some bastard child. And overly strict divorce laws as the product of the male ruling class wanting to "own" their woman like property.

Postmodernist feminists on the other hand take a deconstructive lens to basically all aspects of gender and stuff. They'll argue oppression cannot be neatly explained in terms of narratives. They'll even argue that gender and sex are just social constructs and by trying to build a feminist model with them we automatically build a model on the flawed ideas we're trying to abolish. We need to step away from even the narrative built by previous feminists, as those ideas themselves fed into a gendered narrative.

An ideal marxist feminist world would have stringent laws on how men and women should interact and how families should be run. This may sound restrictive, but in a society used to these laws, these laws would rarely impede on their every day life, because they would already subscribe to the principles underpinning the laws. An ideal postmodernist feminist world probably wouldn't make any sort of reference to gender or sex in the first place, nor would it need to - society would have been raised to view the whole notion of a sex or a gender as reductive and primitive. There would still be laws to regulate and stuff, but they'd probably be phrased in gender neutral terms like: "those who give birth and pay taxes will receive state support in raising the baby they give birth to and will not be expected to raise the baby, nor will it be assumed they have a partner supporting them exc."

I'm not sure how many philosophers actually subscribe to one of these notions and how many just view them as interesting ideas to fuck about with intellectually.

That was useful revision for the exam I'm never taking I guess LOL

[Efekannn02]

Prove to me that you are self-aware.

in what kind of self aware? i am aware of everything well almost everything

[Efekannn02]

Awwh, looks like you won't bite.

If we simply have a discussion about what's good and what's bad, we'll realize we have different but understandable value systems which predetermine all our answers in other parts of ethics. We'll realize we're just different human beings with our own valid perspectives and getting angry about that is irrational! The salt will be lost!

But fuck it, let's do it anyway. Given a specific context and a specific set of choices you can make in that context, any choice you make will be your notion of a "good" choice in that context, and the other choices will be "bad" or at least "less good". A good action is essentially a good choice in a given context. A good person is a person which does lots of good actions, though of course to measure what "lots of" is we have to choose an arbitrary metric.

I don't have any fixed way of determining what good choices and bad choices are. I don't really relate to the idea that the good choice is one that maximizes happiness, or whatever other system you try to create. I admit that what I determine to be the good choice or the bad choice has more to do with my fickle emotions than any sort of higher logic. Any sort of system that measures what's good and bad is more or less decided by the society you're in, anyway. Of course, there are certain systems of measuring good and bad that would kill the society itself, so those notions of good and bad in practice don't get very popular. But it doesn't change the fact your notion of good and bad will be determined by your society unless you're extremely detatched from your society.

I think my POV is called "moral relativism".

... he actually did it that mad man
im sorry but you won

[Efekannn02]

i think Marxism Feminist and Postmodernism Feminism have no big difference at all

one blames the state with reasons and the other one everyone

[Ganelon]

i think Marxism Feminist and Postmodernism Feminism have no big difference at all

one blames the state with reasons and the other one everyone

well, I blame you for everything.

[Efekannn02]

well, I blame you for everything.

what did i do now?

[yzb25]

i think Marxism Feminist and Postmodernism Feminism have no big difference at all

one blames the state with reasons and the other one everyone

tfw 50 yrs of feminist philosophy is destroyed in 2 lines

[Efekannn02]

who would win


50 years of feminist philosophy or one annoying troll

[Ganelon]

who would win


50 years of feminist philosophy or one annoying troll

>implying feminist "philosophy" could win in the 21st century

[yzb25]

>implying feminist "philosophy" could win in the 21st century

You're all lolling now but when the marxist feminist utopia is enacted in 100 yrs Dworkin will have the last lol from her grave!!!

[Efekannn02]

why cant we just get along like we are supposed to?


equalism for the best


not really idc just get along and everyone is happy

[blinkskater]

Even when things are equall one side will always think it isn't equall... Lol

[Efekannn02]

thats why i said not really idc just get along

[Arsonist]

feminism is bad

[yzb25]

ftr, though there's a lineage of unhinged peeps in the feminist movement, they've contributed a lot of good things to humanity (I ain't just talkin about the basic legal rights). 50 years ago, people upheld the belief that the family unit was sacred and should have minimal interference from the law and little deviation from the norm. While that's a really sweet idea, it allowed domestic violence to run rampant and resulted in a lot of intolerance towards people who's sexuality / gender / other stuff didn't fit well into the established framework.

However, it was feminist campaigners and feminist thinkers that tore those naiive ideas to shreds. People have finally begun to accept that the family unit can and should to some extent be regulated and that the human experience can't be crammed into such a narrow view of gender.

They've been admittedly less relevant for the last 20 years, and the internet has made many aspects of them (as well as everything else) gut-wrenchingly facile. There's also this culture of stuck up middle class women whining about how there aren't enough female CEOs and fabricating a wage gap. However, there's still work to be done today that justifies their existence.

[DJarJar]

Even when things are equall one side will always think it isn't equall... Lol

Oh, the irony

[Efekannn02]

Oh, the irony

i blame you

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Awwh, looks like you won't bite.

If we simply have a discussion about what's good and what's bad, we'll realize we have different but understandable value systems which predetermine all our answers in other parts of ethics. We'll realize we're just different human beings with our own valid perspectives and getting angry about that is irrational! The salt will be lost!

But fuck it, let's do it anyway. Given a specific context and a specific set of choices you can make in that context, any choice you make will be your notion of a "good" choice in that context, and the other choices will be "bad" or at least "less good". A good action is essentially a good choice in a given context. A good person is a person which does lots of good actions, though of course to measure what "lots of" is we have to choose an arbitrary metric.

I don't have any fixed way of determining what good choices and bad choices are. I don't really relate to the idea that the good choice is one that maximizes happiness, or whatever other system you try to create. I admit that what I determine to be the good choice or the bad choice has more to do with my fickle emotions than any sort of higher logic. Any sort of system that measures what's good and bad is more or less decided by the society you're in, anyway. Of course, there are certain systems of measuring good and bad that would kill the society itself, so those notions of good and bad in practice don't get very popular. But it doesn't change the fact your notion of good and bad will be determined by your society unless you're extremely detatched from your society.

I think my POV is called "moral relativism".

Doesn't this lead to justifying everything? Let's take something most people know: the Holocaust. If my point of view is "Jews are inferior beings that pollute the human race, and therefore need to be exterminated for our race to evolve". It is neither good nor bad, it is my point of view therefore it is justified to murder millions of people... and then, taking this same example, if my point of view is that this is bad, well a war against you is justified.

So you're saying that objectively, everything is "ok", not good nor bad, still? Because it implies this.

[Ganelon]

Awwh, looks like you won't bite.

If we simply have a discussion about what's good and what's bad, we'll realize we have different but understandable value systems which predetermine all our answers in other parts of ethics. We'll realize we're just different human beings with our own valid perspectives and getting angry about that is irrational! The salt will be lost!

But fuck it, let's do it anyway. Given a specific context and a specific set of choices you can make in that context, any choice you make will be your notion of a "good" choice in that context, and the other choices will be "bad" or at least "less good". A good action is essentially a good choice in a given context. A good person is a person which does lots of good actions, though of course to measure what "lots of" is we have to choose an arbitrary metric.

I don't have any fixed way of determining what good choices and bad choices are. I don't really relate to the idea that the good choice is one that maximizes happiness, or whatever other system you try to create. I admit that what I determine to be the good choice or the bad choice has more to do with my fickle emotions than any sort of higher logic. Any sort of system that measures what's good and bad is more or less decided by the society you're in, anyway. Of course, there are certain systems of measuring good and bad that would kill the society itself, so those notions of good and bad in practice don't get very popular. But it doesn't change the fact your notion of good and bad will be determined by your society unless you're extremely detatched from your society.

I think my POV is called "moral relativism".

Morality would essentially be a set of rules that govern the way of dealing with other conscious beings, correct? Insofar as interacting with an inanimate object influences another person's wellbeing, a set of moral values would also have to account for indirect ways of affecting an individual.

There's also the issue of intent. Some would argue that intent is irrelevant (c.f. the proverb "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"), and that results are the only thing that can determine whether an action was morally "good" or "bad". However, in some philosophies or, shall we say, "ethical theories", intent trumps result (e.g., in Christianity).

If there were a list of (basic) moral values (e.g., honesty, integrity, kindness) that, say, 80-90% of all societies in world history employed, one could argue that there is an inborn tendency to upholding values X and Y as supreme moral values. Whilst this wouldn't completely dispel moral relativism, it would show that morality is only relative up to a certain point.

Edit: I remember talking to my father the other day and the issue of "genetic memories" came up. Apparently, some guys performed an experiment on mice, using (I believe it's called operant conditioning?) to instill a sense of fear in the rats in response to a specific smell. They found that the subsequent descendants showed an aversion to that smell as well, in spite of not being conditioned to have one. Here's the full study if you want to take a look at it:

• Dias, Brian G; Ressler, Kerry J (2013). "Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations". Nature Neuroscience. 17 (1): 89–96. doi:10.1038/nn.3594. PMC 3923835. PMID 24292232. Lay summary – New Scientist (December 1, 2013)

Where I was going with this is that perhaps such moral values would be transmitted genetically as well as culturally/societally.

[Ganelon]

On another note, take fringe cases such as a poor man stealing food in order to save his family. Would that action be morally reprehensible? Perhaps not. Let's take an even more middle-of-the-line case: Suppose that two families were trapped on a small island (e.g., in the Pacific, in the Arctic Ocean?). Suppose that they had pinpointed their coordinates to a nearby port city (let's say it's a really small, isolated city or outpost: somewhere like South Georgia?). Also suppose that they only have enough water reserves to last for another day for everyone. So they couldn't all survive. Suppose then that one of the parents kills the other family in order to save his own. Would that be morally reprehensible?

What I'm saying here is that morality isn't always clear cut, even if you have a set of "principles" to abide by, and thus morality is mostly subjective. Some would argue that the father would be morally right to do what he did, some would be fully against it.

One of the common themes seems to be that saving yourself is not a moral action, but that saving others is.

[yzb25]

Doesn't this lead to justifying everything? Let's take something most people know: the Holocaust. If my point of view is "Jews are inferior beings that pollute the human race, and therefore need to be exterminated for our race to evolve". It is neither good nor bad, it is my point of view therefore it is justified to murder millions of people... and then, taking this same example, if my point of view is that this is bad, well a war against you is justified.

So you're saying that objectively, everything is "ok", not good nor bad, still? Because it implies this.

If I had the power to stop the holocaust, I would. I'd expect others to and get mad at them if they didn't. I'd be interested in punishing people who enacted it and if someone asked me why, I may even say "because genocide is bad".

However, just because I care deeply about something, doesn't mean I see it as some kind of universal truth. I don't think there is some higher being determining the "correct" way to live. On some level, we're just glorified computer programs arbitrarily imposing the morality we've been raised with on eachother.

That doesn't mean I'm a depressed sad-sack though. You don't need to bullshit yourself into believing what you do is "justified" in some higher sense to take conviction in what you do. You can just do it anyway.

So, to answer your question literally:

'So you're saying that objectively, everything is "ok", not good nor bad, still? Because it implies this.'

Yes, I guess. But you seem to be suggesting that if something fails to be objective it immediately loses some value.

[yzb25]

Mag's reply looks like it might take some time. I'll reply to it later.

[Efekannn02]

wait wtf is this history or philosophy?

[yzb25]

Morality would essentially be a set of rules that govern the way of dealing with other conscious beings, correct? Insofar as interacting with an inanimate object influences another person's wellbeing, a set of moral values would also have to account for indirect ways of affecting an individual.

There's also the issue of intent. Some would argue that intent is irrelevant (c.f. the proverb "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"), and that results are the only thing that can determine whether an action was morally "good" or "bad". However, in some philosophies or, shall we say, "ethical theories", intent trumps result (e.g., in Christianity).

If there were a list of (basic) moral values (e.g., honesty, integrity, kindness) that, say, 80-90% of all societies in world history employed, one could argue that there is an inborn tendency to upholding values X and Y as supreme moral values. Whilst this wouldn't completely dispel moral relativism, it would show that morality is only relative up to a certain point.

Edit: I remember talking to my father the other day and the issue of "genetic memories" came up. Apparently, some guys performed an experiment on mice, using (I believe it's called operant conditioning?) to instill a sense of fear in the rats in response to a specific smell. They found that the subsequent descendants showed an aversion to that smell as well, in spite of not being conditioned to have one. Here's the full study if you want to take a look at it:

• Dias, Brian G; Ressler, Kerry J (2013). "Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations". Nature Neuroscience. 17 (1): 89–96. doi:10.1038/nn.3594. PMC 3923835. PMID 24292232. Lay summary – New Scientist (December 1, 2013)

Where I was going with this is that perhaps such moral values would be transmitted genetically as well as culturally/societally.

I'd extent your definition of morality to literally include all things people do. Because this part: "Insofar as interacting with an inanimate object influences another person's wellbeing" can be applied to any action a person takes. For example, I personally don't regard masturbation as immoral, but some people would regard it as extremely self destructive and hence immoral. If you include actions that "hurt/benefit the self" in some ethereal sense, you basically open the door to every single action.

God knows how one could reasonably work intent into that definition LOL

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

I mean, empathy for those you care about is something most people have. From that, it can be reasonably argued that it's "natural" for people to create a morality where hurting those you care about is wrong.

Though, if I wanted to really hunker down on the whole "society determines everything" shtick, I guess I could make an argument like this:

Your compassion is simply another emotional drive you have, like your lust to cheat on your SO or your bloodlust when you get into a fight. We may very well have ignored the compassion drive in the same way we ignore the bloodlust drive. However, because it was socially optimal to ban hurting others (to keep order), compassion happened to be a convenient drive - and hence it became a moral drive - while bloodlust became an immoral drive.

With a similar argument, I could extent this to other supposedly genetic aspects of our morality and say that, ultimately, though sometimes genes may be a convenient help, the needs that society has / had always have the last say in what's moral.

This may be backed by how warmongering societies view bloodlust. I haven't researched, but they probably view it as this beautiful, spiritual thing... like how we view compassion lol.

Though, to be honest, that's not necessarily what I believe. I'm just throwing ideas out.

[Ganelon]

I'd extent your definition of morality to literally include all things people do. Because this part: "Insofar as interacting with an inanimate object influences another person's wellbeing" can be applied to any action a person takes. For example, I personally don't regard masturbation as immoral, but some people would regard it as extremely self destructive and hence immoral. If you include actions that "hurt/benefit the self" in some ethereal sense, you basically open the door to every single action.

God knows how one could reasonably work intent into that definition LOL

Let's first define what exactly morality is. Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour".
Morality is a list of principles that defines the inherent "goodness" of behavior. Let's take a look a bit at the idea that society defines what is morally good and what isn't, and that not all societies define the same things as being moral (i.e., moral relativism). You could say that morality is shaped by the experiences, beliefs and the context a certain group finds itself in.

It then follows that morality cannot exist in a vacuum - it needs a society to enforce it (and one might argue that moral laws were created in order to police large groups of people (e.g., tribes). Let's imagine the following scenario - there exists only one man on the whole planet; he spontaneously burst into existence by some unknown means, and he is also somehow immortal. Let's also endow the man in question with intelligence (unlike a "wild child" that little to no contact with others). Would the idea of "good" or "bad", in terms of moral behavior, occur to him?

Let's also take note of the fact that most (presumably, all) societies that adhere to a certain code of moral values have an idealized representation of the perfectly moral individual (according to their standards) - let's call such individuals 'saints' for brevity.

Where I am going with this is, without further ado, the idea that society rewards individuals who are perceived as saintly (and, therefore, rewards or ignores "saintly" behavior), thus promoting it, and punishes (or, at worst, ignores) immoral behavior. This tends to lead to a more morally homogenous populace. But it can also be seen not all societies have survived, and that cultures are in a constant battle for domination with one another. It could be argued that the "best" moral conduct is subject to natural selection, and that thus there is an objective way of comparing two moralities. For instance, (modern) society tends to abhor slavery and tyranny - and indeed it can be seen that (relatively) tyrannical governments tend to have shorter lifespans than (relatively) free governments. Another example would be slavery.
Slavery is only common practice in a few corners around the world (e.g., China).
People also tend to migrate to areas of the world which a) have the same moral values as them and b) enable them to thrive.

At the risk of being called racist, I can give you as an example India, or, for instance, Africa How many Americans emigrate to Africa or India on an yearly basis? I can't imagine it's a lot, but I can 100% guarantee that there's a lot of Indians/Africans in the United States - there was a project in the late 1840s to establish an Afro-American colony in Africa (yes, it's Liberia; clearly it wasn't very successful), and there was a lot of criticism thrown at the project, many blacks being unwilling to depart from the land in which they were born (and one of the leaders of the abolitionist movement - Frederick Douglass - staunchly opposed the project).

[Efekannn02]

holy freaking shit i cant type long texts i feel stupid

[Ganelon]

holy freaking shit i cant type long texts i feel stupid

Man, my previous block of text is poorly worded and structured LOL. Don't feel bad.

[Ganelon]

Omg I hate this website. I had a nice post typed up and it disappeared -.-
yzb, don't reply to my post yet cause it's trash. pls.

[yzb25]

Man, my previous block of text is poorly worded and structured LOL. Don't feel bad.

At least you didn't make a typo in the first line XD.

Omg I hate this website. I had a nice post typed up and it disappeared -.-
yzb, don't reply to my post yet cause it's trash. pls.

dw I'm deliberately spacing out my replies cuz I don't want this to consume my life LOL

[Efekannn02]

Man, my previous block of text is poorly worded and structured LOL. Don't feel bad.

thanks for the supportive help but nah im pretty sure youre more talented than me in writing

[Ganelon]

Second attempt at making a worthwhile post.

---

First of all, it's important that we agree on a definition of morality. Oxford Dictionary states that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior".

---

Second of all, let's state that the fundamental premise of moral relativism is that there are no absolute moral truths, and that morality is inherently subjective, being primarily a societal system which isn't necessarily homogenous throughout time or space.We'll come back to that in a second, but first, let's explore the origins of morality.

---

Let's go back in time, precisely 42,000 years ago. Modern humans (Homo sapiens) are beginning to displace the original inhabitants of Europe (the Neanderthals). About 3-4000 years after modern man migrated into Europe, the Neanderthals disappeared. Some have attributed this to Homo sapiens' superior ability to work in larger groups; that this ability allowed them to outcompete the strong but relatively scattered groups of Neanderthal humans (one other trait that may have reinforced this disparity was Neanderthal women's inflexible birth canal; giving birth was a dangerous and not at all pleasant prospect for Neanderthals, as it was both physically painful and sometimes resulted in the death of the woman).

---

Now, since morality is, according to moral relativism, dictated primarily by society, one can argue that morality itself originated as a code of laws to promote group cohesiveness and mutual support; after all, the individual's primary interest was (and is) in its own well-being, correct? So, any moral code would invariably have as its core focus the person, and interactions between two (or more) humans.There are two arguments that I see coming out of this, namely:

---

a) The semantic argument: Since morality is a societal standard, the most "correct" moral code is one that best promotes the well-being of the society as well as social unity.

b) The idea that not all societies are equal, and that better moral codes result in societies following them exhibiting higher "fitness" than others and being thus more likely to perpetuate themselves. This can be seen even today; for instance, there are comparatively (relative to, say, the Middle Ages) fewer societies not promoting individual(ism) freedom and Western or Christian values of morality, and indeed one could say that the history of the world since the last few centuries represents simply an homogenization of moral values. The Soviet Union, the CSA, Nazi Germany all collapsed and are seen as morally abhorrent (usually) nowadays; even staunch defenders of the USSR, CSA and Nazi Germany typically ignore the regimes' poor human rights record and attempt to paint their actions as morally justified by bringing up a completely unrelated positive side-effect, such as the literacy rate in the USSR and in most Soviet countries, or even the rate of industrialization in the USSR (which by the way was mostly brought about with Ford's assistance; he was a real cutthroat capitalist, guy really didn't give a shit about who he traded with; he even traded with Nazi Germany before the 40s, and lauded Hitler, but that's another matter).

---

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Efe, I officially announce you that this is the most meaningful thread you have ever made. Congratulations!

[Efekannn02]

Efe, I officially announce you that this is the most meaningful thread you have ever made. Congratulations!

gtfo

[Kenny]

Pretty sure mag is just shitposting intellectually here

[Ganelon]

Pretty sure mag is just shitposting intellectually here

speaking of shitposting, did you guys know that there are actually people out there who identify as another species? I saw a video about a Norwegian girl who said she was born a "cat'. I'm not even fucking joking and I wish I were.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

speaking of shitposting, did you guys know that there are actually people out there who identify as another species? I saw a video about a Norwegian girl who said she was born a "cat'. I'm not even fucking joking and I wish I were.

What is the surprise? We have one here too! @Gyrlander

[Helz]

I enjoyed the fact that this thread was a discussion and not an argument. I would throw in my 2 cents but I have already been declared a 'victim blaming sexist' last time I poked the bear that is feminism.

A part of me wonders if there has ever been an attempt to measure the bias thrown towards specific points of view/movements to gauge the cultural climate..

[Efekannn02]

I enjoyed the fact that this thread was a discussion and not an argument. I would throw in my 2 cents but I have already been declared a 'victim blaming sexist' last time I poked the bear that is feminism.

A part of me wonders if there has ever been an attempt to measure the bias thrown towards specific points of view/movements to gauge the cultural climate..

you can argue with me if you want but it would pain me more than it would to you i hope (i can hurt others pretty easy and i dont like this)

[Helz]

you can argue with me if you want but it would pain me more than it would to you i hope (i can hurt others pretty easy and i dont like this)

I don't even know how to respond to this in context to what I said... Its like you said "I also do not like this thing that you do not like but we can both do it and not enjoy it if you want to..."

[Efekannn02]

lets argue then

[Distorted]

lol the title.