Bloody bunny
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2016
The Amazing Atheist / TJ Kirk / Thomas James Kirk / Terroja Kincaid / The Distressed Watcher - A banana up his ass and hot oil on his cock. Reddit atheist accused of pedophilia.
- Thread starter Snorlaxative
- Start date
The Penultimate Warrior
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
TJ continues to be a real life Principal Skinner meme
TL
R - everyone should just be nice to eachother then we wouldn't need borders or war.
TL
R - everyone should just be nice to eachother then we wouldn't need borders or war.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2018
His ability to talk without reaching a point or conclusion is mind-numbing. It almost reminds me of a schizo with just how completely random everything is. Everything he says is surface level, contradicts something else he said earlier or will later say and doesn't provide an actual solution to the issue.TJ continues to be a real life Principal Skinner meme
View attachment 3021523
View attachment 3021527
View attachment 3021529
View attachment 3021536
View attachment 3021537
View attachment 3021538
TL
Mistress of Troon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2021
Well I'm really sad now that TJ wasn't an ambassador that couuld have stopped the breaking apart of Yugoslavia! All of us here thought that the situation was very complex and difficult, but TJ actually gave us the answer: "War is bad!". Thank you TJ, now I understand what the actual problem was. If we just knew that war is bad, this would have never happened!
Joke aside, his positions, I don't mean this as an offense to other people in the West, are the positions of a person who has enjoyed quite a secure life and never had to experience the threat of war.
World peace cannot exist. This doesn't mean that the wars must be cruel and bloody, but some form of war (even if only mildly violent) will always plague humanity, unless we can somehow completely revamp our behaviour.
Even in one-party states like China, conflicts are actually more common that people might think. People are often able to agree to disagree as long as they are not in power. However, as soon as an ideology becomes dominant, people will sooner or later divide themselves in smaller camps that might actually become hostile to each other. This is the reason why most ideologies stop being radical as soon as they get power. You can be a fanatic Muslim in Afghanistan as long as you are the opposition, but as soon as you become the regime, you will have to deal with other countries and hence be able to compromise. The same is of course also true for domestic politics, you must have to find a way to make many people with power as happy as possible, otherwise you risk to be removed from your position, either peacefull yor very brutally. Some people are also just opportunists and will burn a country down for their own interests. Most nationalists in today's Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia etc. were once proud communists who saw nationalism as a threat against international socialims. As soon as socialism lost its appeal, they all became blood and soil nationalists and are still plundering the countries, just with a new label. Now they are not saving Yugoslavia from the decadent and capitalist West, but saving their country from the other who might live in a neighbouring country or literally in a neighbouring house.
Furthermore one small extremist group who isn't happy with the status quo is enough to destabilize the entire system. Woketards and right-wing incels are by no means the majority, but they extremly determine (at least the former) the tone of contemporary discourse. The majority of people actually have very tepid political ideas, but they can easily be pulled into a conflict because of radicals and will have to take a side. Yugoslavia is here a good example. Most people didn't war, most people didn't even want the country to break apart. For example one problem was that the republics of Croatia and Slovenia called for reforms in the government to get more autonomy in the federation, something which Serbian leaders heavily opposed. There was still no war but no decision was found, so Slovenia was the first republic to fight for independence and they succeeded. They were much more homogenous than the other republics and also the richest one. So their independence was mostly done without too much blood shed. The situation in Croatia was very different, since croatia had a big Serbian minority (which was even bigger before Croats massacred hundred thousands of Serbs in the WII). Most people didn't want the conflict, but are you going to do as a Serb when Croatia threatens the federation with independence? One small act of violence is enough and a conflict escalates very quickly. Someone from Group A attacks a person from Group B, and this might have been a single incident. Group B sees this as an attack against them and they retaliate: they burn an entire village down. Now if you have lost your family in this village, how high is the chance that you want to take revenge? Even if you don't want to take revenge, you will feel threatened and defend yourself by adhering to the principle of "I kill them first, before they can kill me or my family).
Most people also didn't act out of hate, but out of pure ideology. Many Serbs still believe to this day that Bosniaks are just Muslim Serbs who were brainwashed by Western powers. Croatians incidentally believe the same thing: Bosniaks are just Muslim Croats who have abandoned the old faith (Catholicism). In WII for example, founder of the ultranationalist and fascist Ustaše Ante Pavelić, saw Muslims as natural allies to Croatian Catholics and considered them Muslim Croats. He went even as far as claiming that Muslim Croats are racially even more pure Croats than Catholic Croats themselves, because they mostly marry other Muslims. Orthodox Serbs, on the other, were for him the natural enemy of the Croatian people and must be exterminated. This should show how complex the history is and that actual "Islamophobia" was actually quite rare in former Yugoslavian countries. Even such rather mild ideological and not hateful ideas can be enough to cause huge damage. This is for example different to the case of Albanians against Serbs, since Serbs saw Albanians as intruders in Kosovo, whereas Albanians see themselves as the only survivors of ancient Illyria who defend their homeland against the invading Slavic Serbs (Modern-day genetic studies show that South Serbs have around 45% Slavic ancestry on average, Albanians around 40%, but don't tell them). This is also why empathy can be so dangerous, because you might actually believe that you know what is better for this person, even though you don't know if this person actually wants that.
The war in Yugoslavia was really only desired by a small minority, but as soon as the war started people had to take a side or flee. So it might be difficult to understand how a country fell so brutally, but according to recent suveys in the last years the majority of people in Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia stated that their life was better in Yugoslavia and that the break-up did more harm than good. Even surveys about relationship between different ethnic groups show that former Yugoslavian countries are actually some of the highest in Eastern Europe in thinking that multiculturalism and multireligious societies are good. This contradicts quite the common narrative in the West (and the affected countries themselves) that the break-up was inevitable and caused by hatred between different ethnic groups.
I think this should be a very good example how the decision of a few people are enough to make a country break-up, even though the majority of people actually don't have that much hatred towards other groups. So why does TJ think that the same thing couldn't happen in other places as well? For eternity?
The problem wit this common take is that people always build artificial boundaries around themselves, as soon as they have to live with thousands of different people close to them. What is a house but an aritifical boundary to separate your family from a different family? The saying "good fences make good neighbours" is truer than some people might think. By establishing clear boundaries, everyone knows what is his and what's the propery of the others. Of course this will cause problems if people can't agree what belongs to whom. A good example for this is how several ethnic groups hated each other in the same country, but were able to coexist as neighbouring countries. Secession works of course only if ethnic groups in a country are clearly separated by geography, but even then you won't have a guarantee that the dominant ethnic group will give up its land, since it might have many resources, important industry or an important access to a sea etc.
Maybe class-wise, but otherwise? I doubt it. TJ doesn't speak Ukrainian or Russian, most of them don't speak (good) English. TJ doesn't really know what it means to belong to an ethnic group, since people in the USA have been stripped of their ethnic identity and got it replaced by cheap labels like "white" or "black". It's like Afro-Americans who believe in the greatness of the black race, while not realizing that most African populations hate each other. Ethnicity is very powerful and is barely weaponized by capitalism as many leftists like TJ believe. Global capital is much more interested in culturally sterilizing people because they make better consumers, whereas a strong ethnic identity might actually stand in way of capitalism.
Sure, not a very brave stance to take. I think almost everyone agrees with this, maybe with the exception of internet trolls.
So what should Ukraine do then? I only see few options:
1. Ukraine forms a new government that is pro-Russia and will consequently serve Russia's interest the same way Ukraine has done for several centuries.
2. Ukraine gives up and becomes a province of Russia.
3. Ukraine defends herself and might stay a sovereign state. People claim that Ukraine would then be a Western puppet-state because it might join NATO. But joining NATO isn't mandatory and often asked by Eastern European countries themselves. There are actually many countries in Europe who aren't in NATO and nothing happened to them: Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden etc.
Not supporting Ukraine's sovereignity automatically means that you support either option one or two. Sometimes you have to take a decision in life, because there is no middleground here. Because TJ sees supporting Ukraine in the conflict as bolstering the validity of nation-states, he indirectly supports its integration into Russia. Russia and Ukraine being one country is in any case one nation-state less than them being separate nation-states. I'm not even saying that it's wrong to take this position. Maybe someone really isn't intersted in what is happening to Ukraine and that's okay. But TJ is a bit dishonest here because his position supports option one or two or he just didn't think through it enough.
Good luck.
And what the value of this? Abolishing countries would only work when really all countries around the world would do it. The chance for this is practically zero. Nation-states are definitely not ideal, but they didn't develop because of pure evil, but out of necessity. We are too many people and don't live in tribes anymore. The nation-state is the most effective way to organize society at the moment. It also gives smaller countries some power, as they are considered sovereign nations that can decide for themselves to a certain extent. In a world government (or even worse, anarchy) one group that is either more numerous or wealthier might again decide what's "good for the people" and directly or indirectly mistreat the hundreds of minorities in such a government. If Taiwan were to become a part of mainland China again, it should be quite obvious that they will lose any autonomous power on the island. Why don't people think that the same thing would happen by "abolishing countries"?. Not even mentioning religious and cultural differences, I doubt that Muslims would like to be ruled by Western atheist overlords.
Well, me too and I actually think that the government is one of the most effective way to achieve such conditions.
So the reason why America retreated from Afghanistan is because of the petty elites there?
"I hate them", "We can all propser together". Why do you care for such a planet when you hate the people on it?
But that's the problem, you stand for nothing. Maybe you actually just don't give a fuck about the conflict, which would be a clear stance. But otherwise you are either pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia and we see now that most countries clearly take a position, with exceptions like Serbia who still tries to balance out their alliance to the West and Russia.
Joke aside, his positions, I don't mean this as an offense to other people in the West, are the positions of a person who has enjoyed quite a secure life and never had to experience the threat of war.
World peace cannot exist. This doesn't mean that the wars must be cruel and bloody, but some form of war (even if only mildly violent) will always plague humanity, unless we can somehow completely revamp our behaviour.
Even in one-party states like China, conflicts are actually more common that people might think. People are often able to agree to disagree as long as they are not in power. However, as soon as an ideology becomes dominant, people will sooner or later divide themselves in smaller camps that might actually become hostile to each other. This is the reason why most ideologies stop being radical as soon as they get power. You can be a fanatic Muslim in Afghanistan as long as you are the opposition, but as soon as you become the regime, you will have to deal with other countries and hence be able to compromise. The same is of course also true for domestic politics, you must have to find a way to make many people with power as happy as possible, otherwise you risk to be removed from your position, either peacefull yor very brutally. Some people are also just opportunists and will burn a country down for their own interests. Most nationalists in today's Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia etc. were once proud communists who saw nationalism as a threat against international socialims. As soon as socialism lost its appeal, they all became blood and soil nationalists and are still plundering the countries, just with a new label. Now they are not saving Yugoslavia from the decadent and capitalist West, but saving their country from the other who might live in a neighbouring country or literally in a neighbouring house.
Furthermore one small extremist group who isn't happy with the status quo is enough to destabilize the entire system. Woketards and right-wing incels are by no means the majority, but they extremly determine (at least the former) the tone of contemporary discourse. The majority of people actually have very tepid political ideas, but they can easily be pulled into a conflict because of radicals and will have to take a side. Yugoslavia is here a good example. Most people didn't war, most people didn't even want the country to break apart. For example one problem was that the republics of Croatia and Slovenia called for reforms in the government to get more autonomy in the federation, something which Serbian leaders heavily opposed. There was still no war but no decision was found, so Slovenia was the first republic to fight for independence and they succeeded. They were much more homogenous than the other republics and also the richest one. So their independence was mostly done without too much blood shed. The situation in Croatia was very different, since croatia had a big Serbian minority (which was even bigger before Croats massacred hundred thousands of Serbs in the WII). Most people didn't want the conflict, but are you going to do as a Serb when Croatia threatens the federation with independence? One small act of violence is enough and a conflict escalates very quickly. Someone from Group A attacks a person from Group B, and this might have been a single incident. Group B sees this as an attack against them and they retaliate: they burn an entire village down. Now if you have lost your family in this village, how high is the chance that you want to take revenge? Even if you don't want to take revenge, you will feel threatened and defend yourself by adhering to the principle of "I kill them first, before they can kill me or my family).
Most people also didn't act out of hate, but out of pure ideology. Many Serbs still believe to this day that Bosniaks are just Muslim Serbs who were brainwashed by Western powers. Croatians incidentally believe the same thing: Bosniaks are just Muslim Croats who have abandoned the old faith (Catholicism). In WII for example, founder of the ultranationalist and fascist Ustaše Ante Pavelić, saw Muslims as natural allies to Croatian Catholics and considered them Muslim Croats. He went even as far as claiming that Muslim Croats are racially even more pure Croats than Catholic Croats themselves, because they mostly marry other Muslims. Orthodox Serbs, on the other, were for him the natural enemy of the Croatian people and must be exterminated. This should show how complex the history is and that actual "Islamophobia" was actually quite rare in former Yugoslavian countries. Even such rather mild ideological and not hateful ideas can be enough to cause huge damage. This is for example different to the case of Albanians against Serbs, since Serbs saw Albanians as intruders in Kosovo, whereas Albanians see themselves as the only survivors of ancient Illyria who defend their homeland against the invading Slavic Serbs (Modern-day genetic studies show that South Serbs have around 45% Slavic ancestry on average, Albanians around 40%, but don't tell them). This is also why empathy can be so dangerous, because you might actually believe that you know what is better for this person, even though you don't know if this person actually wants that.
The war in Yugoslavia was really only desired by a small minority, but as soon as the war started people had to take a side or flee. So it might be difficult to understand how a country fell so brutally, but according to recent suveys in the last years the majority of people in Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia stated that their life was better in Yugoslavia and that the break-up did more harm than good. Even surveys about relationship between different ethnic groups show that former Yugoslavian countries are actually some of the highest in Eastern Europe in thinking that multiculturalism and multireligious societies are good. This contradicts quite the common narrative in the West (and the affected countries themselves) that the break-up was inevitable and caused by hatred between different ethnic groups.
I think this should be a very good example how the decision of a few people are enough to make a country break-up, even though the majority of people actually don't have that much hatred towards other groups. So why does TJ think that the same thing couldn't happen in other places as well? For eternity?
The problem wit this common take is that people always build artificial boundaries around themselves, as soon as they have to live with thousands of different people close to them. What is a house but an aritifical boundary to separate your family from a different family? The saying "good fences make good neighbours" is truer than some people might think. By establishing clear boundaries, everyone knows what is his and what's the propery of the others. Of course this will cause problems if people can't agree what belongs to whom. A good example for this is how several ethnic groups hated each other in the same country, but were able to coexist as neighbouring countries. Secession works of course only if ethnic groups in a country are clearly separated by geography, but even then you won't have a guarantee that the dominant ethnic group will give up its land, since it might have many resources, important industry or an important access to a sea etc.
Maybe class-wise, but otherwise? I doubt it. TJ doesn't speak Ukrainian or Russian, most of them don't speak (good) English. TJ doesn't really know what it means to belong to an ethnic group, since people in the USA have been stripped of their ethnic identity and got it replaced by cheap labels like "white" or "black". It's like Afro-Americans who believe in the greatness of the black race, while not realizing that most African populations hate each other. Ethnicity is very powerful and is barely weaponized by capitalism as many leftists like TJ believe. Global capital is much more interested in culturally sterilizing people because they make better consumers, whereas a strong ethnic identity might actually stand in way of capitalism.
Sure, not a very brave stance to take. I think almost everyone agrees with this, maybe with the exception of internet trolls.
So what should Ukraine do then? I only see few options:
1. Ukraine forms a new government that is pro-Russia and will consequently serve Russia's interest the same way Ukraine has done for several centuries.
2. Ukraine gives up and becomes a province of Russia.
3. Ukraine defends herself and might stay a sovereign state. People claim that Ukraine would then be a Western puppet-state because it might join NATO. But joining NATO isn't mandatory and often asked by Eastern European countries themselves. There are actually many countries in Europe who aren't in NATO and nothing happened to them: Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden etc.
Not supporting Ukraine's sovereignity automatically means that you support either option one or two. Sometimes you have to take a decision in life, because there is no middleground here. Because TJ sees supporting Ukraine in the conflict as bolstering the validity of nation-states, he indirectly supports its integration into Russia. Russia and Ukraine being one country is in any case one nation-state less than them being separate nation-states. I'm not even saying that it's wrong to take this position. Maybe someone really isn't intersted in what is happening to Ukraine and that's okay. But TJ is a bit dishonest here because his position supports option one or two or he just didn't think through it enough.
Good luck.
And what the value of this? Abolishing countries would only work when really all countries around the world would do it. The chance for this is practically zero. Nation-states are definitely not ideal, but they didn't develop because of pure evil, but out of necessity. We are too many people and don't live in tribes anymore. The nation-state is the most effective way to organize society at the moment. It also gives smaller countries some power, as they are considered sovereign nations that can decide for themselves to a certain extent. In a world government (or even worse, anarchy) one group that is either more numerous or wealthier might again decide what's "good for the people" and directly or indirectly mistreat the hundreds of minorities in such a government. If Taiwan were to become a part of mainland China again, it should be quite obvious that they will lose any autonomous power on the island. Why don't people think that the same thing would happen by "abolishing countries"?. Not even mentioning religious and cultural differences, I doubt that Muslims would like to be ruled by Western atheist overlords.
Well, me too and I actually think that the government is one of the most effective way to achieve such conditions.
So the reason why America retreated from Afghanistan is because of the petty elites there?
"I hate them", "We can all propser together". Why do you care for such a planet when you hate the people on it?
But that's the problem, you stand for nothing. Maybe you actually just don't give a fuck about the conflict, which would be a clear stance. But otherwise you are either pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia and we see now that most countries clearly take a position, with exceptions like Serbia who still tries to balance out their alliance to the West and Russia.
Attachments
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2022
For someone who thinks they're so smart and euphoric for not believing in da Jeezus and only believes in da science, his dum-dum take belies just how utterly retarded he genuinely is. Its not shocking that this diatribe of generic lefty talking points is his, hes a complete and utter dumpster fire of a human being, whats terrifying is that this is genuinely what most liberals believes.TJ continues to be a real life Principal Skinner meme
View attachment 3021523
View attachment 3021527
View attachment 3021529
View attachment 3021536
View attachment 3021537
View attachment 3021538
TL
For people who believe in da science, they believe in this innately anti-darwinian belief in human beings. We're all super nice, we are all the same in our big brains, the only reason we're violent is due to systems of control like churches or government (while never answering who created those systems) and genuinely believes once we all become mutt-baby atheists we'll fly around space on orgy ships in our wonderful death metal star trek future. this is utterly retarded and goes against everyrhing we know about the human animal but every single liberal believes this utter bullshit.
How is it the dum-dums who worhsip sky daddy and his jew on a stick son have a much more grounded and scientifically based understanding on the human condition than the big brain atheists?
Newsflash fatass, there is no star trek future, theres no john lenons imagine, there isn't going to be any combaya hippy shit. If there is not supernatural element to the universe, that there is only nature then we ourselves are of that same nature and that nature is hellish and cruel and a nightmare. We aren't going to transcend our natural state of creating tribes, going to war and having boundaries against rival tribes. This is darwin, its survival of the fittesr and theres no way out. You'd have an easier time to tell people to collectively stop shitting!
I would respect these fedoratippers infinitely more if they were just honest and told people "I dont want to believe in god or morals because I want to eat junk, fuck as much as I can and shove bananas up my ass". They can't do that, they have to pull Rousseau out of their ass again and talk about how they're super good people, even though theres nothing but rage and hate behind their eyes.
James Edwin
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
as an anarcho-faggist anti-war hippy reading that thread i have absolutely no idea what he is actually saying or if he's even sober, i think he took autism pills
thinking anything short of 'russia is the only one in the wrong' and 'the more russian soldiers dead the better' is truly exceptional and incomprehensible. peace is cool but nows not the time. bringing anti-borders discussion into this is a bad look because borders are the only thing protecting the ukrainian people from being melted right now. something something forests and trees.
i love paul but he's even worse at this. his entire idealogy is this weird utopian all or nothing. i think pauls been rubbing off on tee jay. whats worse is that its not even possible to have a sane conversation without paul going into a pants shitting fit where he stomps his feet. hes not even a good lolcow its actually just fucking depressing because its like watching a mans mental state decline.
thinking anything short of 'russia is the only one in the wrong' and 'the more russian soldiers dead the better' is truly exceptional and incomprehensible. peace is cool but nows not the time. bringing anti-borders discussion into this is a bad look because borders are the only thing protecting the ukrainian people from being melted right now. something something forests and trees.
i love paul but he's even worse at this. his entire idealogy is this weird utopian all or nothing. i think pauls been rubbing off on tee jay. whats worse is that its not even possible to have a sane conversation without paul going into a pants shitting fit where he stomps his feet. hes not even a good lolcow its actually just fucking depressing because its like watching a mans mental state decline.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2021
It stems from the ideology, a inherent axiom in the socialist's/communist framework is that humans are "perfect" and that societies corrupt humans. This is false, as societies are simply a evolutionary construct to keep humans in check form themselves (at least from a evolutionary physiology perspective).
This ultimately brings up a point that all socialist's/communist big names are absolutely weak on and can never counter: what is the future then? What immediate future do you think this ideology will bring with all of our scientific understanding of how humans communicate and operate?
Philosophically the ideology is bankrupt as it only relies on outcomes, not on actions and reactions. Thus the ends justify the means to them (as seen with Hasan and Vaush).
Economically the ideology only works in abundance, if there is a limited amount to go around there will be no equal way of distributing enough. Thus power hierarchies will appear one way or another dependent on need. Also the cuttoff of creativity (creative destruction).
Physiologically, it neither will ever work as it makes the assumption humans are inherently pure. Which is purely false, we are animals and will always be animals. We cannot reject our instincts. Only overcome and accept them through hard work and study.
And scientifically, they will only accept the science that fits into their world view. Thus, no actual revolutionary science in fields of gender, medicine, biology, or other disciplines will ever come out due to this false belief that everyone should be "Accepted and tolerated." No, there are some ideologies that can and will die once proven wrong, no matter how much morally bankrupt rhetoric you spew to galvanize your audience.
People like Vaush, Hasan, BadEmpanada, and ESPECCAILY TJ are the reason why I have no faith in the left anymore. They will talk, talk, and talk, but ultimately fall into the same pit all other stupid ideas and people do. In the dust and forgotten like the other note less, talentless, nobodies in history.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2015
Once you break down imperialism, and then the nation-state, you're still going to be left with ethnic tribes, and what's his response to the tribalism that isn't conducted by the global elite? I know he's fine with any white tribes or nations renouncing identity, but what about the others?
Should Maasai tribesmen in Kenya give up their identities for the sake of global homogeneity and peace? Should American and Canadian natives all give up the cultural heritage they've clung onto despite everything they've suffered to keep it just so they can better get along with everyone? Because that's what he's asking for ultimately. Break down the wider centralized power structures and people are going to congregate around ethnic and cultural lines, and while the globalized mystery meat mutts of the world might not have a place to go immediately, there are plenty who do, and with the power vacuum left by the abolishment of any centralized national authorities, they'll inevitably go back to the same thing every tribe in every period of history for the last two hundred thousand years of human history have done, and engage in bloody conflict of a genocidal level.
Unless he's willing to destroy every peoples' historic and cultural identity and force everyone on earth to live a few generations of homogeneous consoomerist globohomo lifestyles, ideally with as much intermarrying between different people as possible, you're not getting that vision you're wanting, TJ. And again, I'm sure you're more than willing to do this for certain groups, but even if TJ is enough of a retarded contrarian to declare he wants to do this for every poor BIPOC ethnic group out there, he'll have no support there from anyone else in his sektur.
Should Maasai tribesmen in Kenya give up their identities for the sake of global homogeneity and peace? Should American and Canadian natives all give up the cultural heritage they've clung onto despite everything they've suffered to keep it just so they can better get along with everyone? Because that's what he's asking for ultimately. Break down the wider centralized power structures and people are going to congregate around ethnic and cultural lines, and while the globalized mystery meat mutts of the world might not have a place to go immediately, there are plenty who do, and with the power vacuum left by the abolishment of any centralized national authorities, they'll inevitably go back to the same thing every tribe in every period of history for the last two hundred thousand years of human history have done, and engage in bloody conflict of a genocidal level.
Unless he's willing to destroy every peoples' historic and cultural identity and force everyone on earth to live a few generations of homogeneous consoomerist globohomo lifestyles, ideally with as much intermarrying between different people as possible, you're not getting that vision you're wanting, TJ. And again, I'm sure you're more than willing to do this for certain groups, but even if TJ is enough of a retarded contrarian to declare he wants to do this for every poor BIPOC ethnic group out there, he'll have no support there from anyone else in his sektur.
Mistress of Troon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2021
This reminds me of an interview with Alexander Bard, he said that he thought that the Bronze Age was better than Hellenic civilization because they "built things". After several years on the internet reading about different ideological sects, I'm quite sure now that no real world changing ideology will ever come out of the internet, the same way most pre-internet ideologies were only partially or never really implented. In 2015 I did actually think that the internet will change the world, but over the years I've lost the faith in this. Now I get just annoyed by seeing another guy or tranny on the internet citing several works and telling you why different philosophers like Hegel, Aristotle, Schoppenhauer and all the other freaks justify their internet ideology and why only troonerism can bring communism or why "gay" men are at fault for "straight" divorce, somehow even in countries were "homosexuality"is criminalized. People like Žižek and Peterson get away with the most laughable shit just because they are pretending to be the highest intellectuals of our time and people pay thousands of dollars to see these clowns. . At the end Žižek is just a fake rebel who will support most progressive policies anyway, whereas Peterson messed up his brain in Russia because he was addicted to meds and just rehashes thinkers like Jung at the same time.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
Episode 1000 of DP was a Vaush special.
Also, they seem obsessed with Nick Fuentes.
Nationalism is evil. Long live Ukraine.
𓇋𓈖𓊪𓅱𓃣
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2021
I've been watching them on and off every since the DFF/new DP spilt, and yeah their recent Nick Fuentes obsession and political segments in general are completely unbearable (Except their Jesse lee Peterson interview which was amazin.) I don't even like Fuentes, but holy shit I wish they'd stop.
However I do like some of the non-political content they do. Belive it or not somehow the manatee is still alive and is up to his usual shenanigans. One of my favorite people on new DP now is Joe, despite being a crazy asshole, he can be really entertaining. Two notable moments are that one time where he made Scotty rage quit near the end of old DP and his presence in the stream where Billy interviewed Onision.
Episode 1000 sucked even by new DP standards. One of the things that surprises me the most on episode 1000 and new DP in general is how Jeff Holiday comes off just as annoying and insufferable as Vaush. I don't know much about the guy, but holy shit is he annoying. Also it's crazy to me that somehow both TJ and Ben have befriended Vaush, despite going their separate ways. I hate how it feels like I can't escape that fat faggot.
Last edited:
Lobster Cult High Priest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2021
In that thumbnail both Ben and Billy the Fridge look like trannies.
At least Paul still looks like a man. Even though he is morbidly obese and depressed
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
One video I've been trying to find for some time that was taken down was one called "Amazing Atheist's message for Brett Keane". It was done with a voice that was modulated where he opened with.
"Hello Brett Keane. Fucking Ni**er. Fucking Welfare-cheating ass fucking fat-ass NI**ER. Little bitch. Yeah, I'm talking TO YOU. You've been on Youtube, fucking, for how long? Practically all seven years, that Youtube has been open for business. But I've never had that fucking problem. They're not waiting on me, I'm waiting on their fucking slow ass. "
It's almost impossible to find online now and I'm surprisingly nostalgic for it.
"Hello Brett Keane. Fucking Ni**er. Fucking Welfare-cheating ass fucking fat-ass NI**ER. Little bitch. Yeah, I'm talking TO YOU. You've been on Youtube, fucking, for how long? Practically all seven years, that Youtube has been open for business. But I've never had that fucking problem. They're not waiting on me, I'm waiting on their fucking slow ass. "
It's almost impossible to find online now and I'm surprisingly nostalgic for it.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2021
TJ just can’t stop sucking Vaush’s cock, not even for a second huh? Does he lust after him, or is he awed by how successful a grift Vaush has going? The world may never truly know.
I know that video, and if it’s the one I’m thinking of- then it’s not TJ. Brett Keane faked that video and dumped it live on air of I think the first DP religion debate mega-show.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
Yeah I know it's not TJ that much is obvious. I doubt it was Brett Keane who made it I think it was a troll. Do you have a link?
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2021
I think this is the one where it’s dropped, it’s fucking long so sorry for not singling out the moment- however, I believe it’s early in the video. If not this one, then RELIGION DEBATE II https://youtu.be/i5GEWEGAyho
Druveer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2018
TJ heard that Vaush likes bananas and now can't stop himself.
𓇋𓈖𓊪𓅱𓃣
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2021
I think TJ's reverence for Vaush stems from his respect for the grift and also the fact that he's been trying to ride the coattails of Vaush os he cane maintain what little viewership he has left. I also think is just another instance of him trying to go along with what's popular at the moment. He had the libertarian phase, the atheist phase, the Anti-SJW/classical liberal phase, and now the breadtube phase.
As a side note, TJ's reverence for Vaush is fucking pathetic. This "edge lord" or now former edge lord went crying to Vaush starting in 2020 to apologize for for his past sins of the politically incorrect things he said as little as 1- 2 years ago. The way he groveled before Vaush and disavowed a large portion of his older content in his first conversation with him was one of the most embarrassing things I've ever seen from him (and that's saying a lot.) I remember when TJ was a "free speech absolutist" , he would say nigger and just about every other offensive word in the book. When I stopped watching him in 2021 I remember that he wouldn't even say the word retarded anymore because it offends retarded people.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2017
TJ himself used to always say "never apologize" and made so many videos defending speech, even ranting about people who got assmad when he said retard. His groveling invalidates everything he says now as he showed the only thing he cares about is money. He has 0 integrity and no principles. Anybody like him is worth nothing.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2015
I can't quote the exact post right now but TJ tweeting he likes riots "when they are cool" made me want to throat punch him. I watched my city burn and have murders spike for a year and a half. Our murder rate effectively tripled during the blm riots of 2020 . There is nothing cool about people dying and small business being torched. Nothing was accomplished and peoples lives and futures were destroyed. My city used to be famous for how clean and safe it was and now it's a fear filled place. We have regular shootings now. Watching the place you grew up in become a violent hellscape is horrifying and saddening.