Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Would you rape Jess Phillips

  • Total voters
    2,409
carto-ro said:
James, I went to 4 years of online school.

The liberalism = communism take is bizarre coming from someone that did the whole classical liberal song and dance for years. After spouting off about all the 18th century thinkers who developed philosophies of liberty for a decade now you can’t turn around and say the philosophy is communist when that whole system kicked off over a hundred years later.
Besides, there’s tons of bleeding heart liberals that are capitalists and business owners. How does his thesis of liberalism = communism square that?
Click to expand...
It's his constant retardation nowadays where according to him, the "equality" that Locke/Hobbes/Rousseau/etc. mention is basically akin to the communist "equity."
Which allows commies to push the ideal of "liberalism isn't able to make things equal. This you must support us to get 'true equality.'" according to his interpretation.

The big issue is he's being retarded over this; none of the old liberals, not even Rosseau argued for a "total equality/equality of outcome" that he seems to be going on about. From what I know, the 'equality' they go on about is a general "equality under the law/equality of opportunity/'equality of humanity'".

Also, I can't wrap my head around why he seems to think the liberals talking about "man in a state of nature" was them thinking literally; and not a thought experiment. When some of them have even said the thing was effectively a thought experiment. This would be like taking "Schrodinger's Cat" or the "Vaush and the coconuts on the island" thought experiments and saying "well since the experiment was never actually conducted, any ideas drawn from it are false." It basically sounds like the "Imagine you didn't have breakfast yesterday" with Carl failing that.

I'm not gonna lie, but it feels to me like Carl is desperate to link Liberalism to communism, so he can espouse liberal values while still keeping himself endeared to the dissident right sphere he's shifted to because AA and other right-wingers he's surrounded himself with/read and considers himself knowledgeable about. Honestly, it seems to be why in that debate, he came off to me as a kinda "Everything bad is liberalism!"/"Liberalism is the devil!" preacher than anything.

Georgio Cocklord said:
The problem is Carl has the automatic assumption that Britbongism good due to his elitist smugness unlike what Nietzsche has said in striving for refining culture and positive values and he is closer to a neocon ethnonat type considering his gay obsession with Assyria, Mesopotamia, Rome and the like, we wuz aryanz shit. I can understand if Britbongistan is getting fucked demographically but Carl would have you think Brits invading other countries to spread Britbongism George Bush style is good which is counter to the kind of closed tradconism Enoch Powell advocated for. It also does not help that Carl is such an aristocratic smug bastard about it to other people, nobody would want to assimilate into Britistan if they meet people like Carl.
Click to expand...
I mean, Carl's had a real stick up his ass about how "the British Empire was a definite good!" because Hong Kong and them spending more money on some of their colonies than taking out from them. (Ignoring just how much they took from their crown jewel India and all the shit that went down there since the days of the British EIC.) I really just think Carl thinks being Bri'ish is naturally great; which I wouldn't mind, a healthy love and respect for one's homeland is a good thing. He's just retarded about it to a stupid extent; though I believe that is partly thanks to Bri'ain fucking itself harder than a $5 hooker and all the main leaders/main politicians/media seeming to hate the shit outta Bri'ain and the Bri'ish.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Silence of the Troons, Goku 1000000 O, carto-ro and 2 others
The Fuck's Going On Here said:
I mean, Carl's had a real stick up his ass about how "the British Empire was a definite good!" because Hong Kong and them spending more money on some of their colonies than taking out from them. (Ignoring just how much they took from their crown jewel India and all the shit that went down there since the days of the British EIC.) I really just think Carl thinks being Bri'ish is naturally great; which I wouldn't mind, a healthy love and respect for one's homeland is a good thing. He's just retarded about it to a stupid extent; though I believe that is partly thanks to Bri'ain fucking itself harder than a $5 hooker and all the main leaders/main politicians/media seeming to hate the shit outta Bri'ain and the Bri'ish
Click to expand...
Lol poo detected. I was with you until you started seething about how you're 5'4" because you didn't eat any beef growing up. India should consider itself blessed, everything they have now they have because of the British.

The real problem with 400 years of empire is that you end up with Carl Island. To be a modern Brit is to be a man who's lineage had so much inertia, for good or.bad, that there was.nothing to pull it to the colonies - and there can only be so many aristocrats.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Lonely khan and Chicken Neck Nelly
The Fuck's Going On Here said:
I can't wrap my head around why he seems to think the liberals talking about "man in a state of nature" was them thinking literally; and not a thought experiment.
Click to expand...
Because Rousseau's idea lines up far too well with the utopian ideals of secular humanism for it to have been a coincidence, whereas Hobbes' conception of people being nothing more than violent animals when divorced from society doesn't fit at all with Rousseau's beliefs or those of lefty types.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Chicken Neck Nelly
waffle said:
Lol poo detected. I was with you until you started seething about how you're 5'4" because you didn't eat any beef growing up. India should consider itself blessed, everything they have now they have because of the British.
Click to expand...
Nigger, what? I picked India because that's one of the easiest ones to pick when criticizing the Bri'ish Empire. I could just as easily talk about how much the Bri'ish fucked the Irish, but that doesn't make me a potato-nigger either.

It seems to me you have just as much a stick up your ass regarding the Bri'ish Empire as Carl does, if not more. Which'd make sense, because at least the Empire was filled with people who liked Bri'ain, unlike the current Bri'ish govt. But doesn't mean you need to be such a white nigger about it.

Midwit said:
Because Rousseau's idea lines up far too well with the utopian ideals of secular humanism for it to have been a coincidence, whereas Hobbes' conception of people being nothing more than violent animals when divorced from society doesn't fit at all with Rousseau's beliefs or those of lefty types.
Click to expand...
Well sure, but as we've all seen, that was Rousseau being a retarded idealist. Whereas, as you said, Hobbes (also considered a liberal) stated that without the "Leviathan in society", humans would inevitably fuck either in the ass because of 'natural badness in people'; partly because he lived within a monarchy which he liked and kinda felt was a necessity for civilization and shit, and also partly because of christianity and 'original sin'.
My issue is Carl acting as if
1) The "State of Nature" was liberals treating it like a real thing rather than just a thought-experiment.
2) the liberals' views on 'man within a state of nature' was all "it will be good" or something.
When clearly, both the works of Hobbes (and to a lesser extent, Locke) go against these two ideals. Even Rousseau acknowledges that it wouldn't be absolutely hunky-dory in there, and there'd be some major downsides (hence the whole society forming). So I don't understand why Carl doesn't seem to understand the liberal points and seems to approach it from an incorrect position in the first place.
It honestly seems to me that in his desire to jump to his new, more dissident right positions, he's forgetting all the shit he read back when he considered himself a liberal. I think it might be time to ask him "Have you even read Locke?" because he's acting like he hasn't.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Lonely khan, Cisna H. Scumale, Sammich and 1 other person

Sargon and the Lotus Eaters shove their entire foot into their mouths regarding marriage and the manosphere.
 
The Fuck's Going On Here said:
It seems to me you have just as much a stick up your ass regarding the Bri'ish Empire as Carl does
Click to expand...
No, I just think India is a shit hole and i constantly see online Indians cope about how they got done so dirty by the empire when in reality the subcontinent was just a collection of waring states before they showed up, and the Hindus basically made the Aztecs look like good guys.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rome's rightful successor and Chicken Neck Nelly
waffle said:
No, I just think India is a shit hole and i constantly see online Indians cope about how they got done so dirty by the empire when in reality the subcontinent was just a collection of waring states before they showed up, and the Hindus basically made the Aztecs look like good guys.
Click to expand...
They were a mildly classy collection of warring states at least (ritual predilections aside).
 
Blacklight said:
Sargon and the Lotus Eaters shove their entire foot into their mouths regarding marriage and the manosphere
Click to expand...
This really should have been a Harry & Dan segment rather than a Connor & Carl, you still get the Gen-X vs Zoomer thing but it'll far more balanced since Dan actually seems to understand where the young'uns are coming from and isn't stuck looking at everything from a purely ideological lens like Carl & Connor tend to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: "Not" Count Dankula, JesterTheMad, Vecr and 1 other person
Midwit said:
This really should have been a Harry & Dan segment rather than a Connor & Carl, you still get the Gen-X vs Zoomer thing but it'll far more balanced since Dan actually seems to understand where the young'uns are coming from and isn't stuck looking at everything from a purely ideological lens like Carl & Connor tend to.
Click to expand...
As with every episode and segment they do, Carl is always the worst part. I have no idea why he doesn’t just let the entertaining people run the show and collect all the money.
 
Donuteater said:
As with every episode and segment they do, Carl is always the worst part. I have no idea why he doesn’t just let the entertaining people run the show and collect all the money.
Click to expand...
Ego, he enjoys the attention and the dick fluffing. I want to note that all of them have the same fucking posture and mannerisms, its so goddamn stiff.

Also did anyone else notice the similarity?
1710041832969.png
 
  • Like
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Rome's rightful successor, Kit Marz, Scarface1 and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back