- Joined
- May 24, 2020
Don't give them ideas for new videos.
BreadTube - The Unofficial ContraPoints Dickriders Club and the culture / drama surrounding the community.
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2018
Person: "Communism killed my family"
Western Commie: "YEAH!?, WELL WHAT ABOUT WHEN CAPITALISM...."
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2017
If capitalism is so bad and kills so many people, shouldn't their replacement be better and NOT kill tens of millions of people each time it's tried?
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2018
Their excuse is always that it either hasn't "really" been tried or that it totally would have worked if not for some outside force ruining it. Meanwhile they complain about actually effective methods for regulating capitalism because they still allow free-markets, even though it's worked significantly better than the failed attempts at "true" communism or socialism.
Last edited:
Islamic Creampie
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
Communism doesn't and will never work because it doesn't account for human nature, which is often ugly and contradictory. People are tribal and greedy. They may well wish their neighbour, but above all they care for them and theirs. I'd say it's hard coded into every living being on the planet on some level.
The only way a communist society larger than a room full of LARPers could exist is the same for any society based on a fringe ideology. Though violence and extreme prejudice.
The only way a communist society larger than a room full of LARPers could exist is the same for any society based on a fringe ideology. Though violence and extreme prejudice.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
Authoritarian communism legitimately makes more sense to me than anarcho-communism does. In order to believe that such a thing could exist, you need to buy into the idea that there is no inherent human nature and we therefore can mold humanity into uniformly docile and compassionate beings who are willing to share whatever they own with their extended community. This implies that humans aren't animals, and don't have certain instincts and behaviors that would contradict this ideology. It's extremely ironic coming from people who "FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE".
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
It also assumes an L-shaped intelligence curve with no people who are too stupid, too mentally ill, or anyone who is otherwise genetically predisposed to antisocial behavior.
Jarolleon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
Jason is clearly political, because it represents the idea that there are irredeemable and extremely dangerous psychos out there, which is an obviously right-wing propaganda designed to convince people that guns and police are necessary.
More seriously, it's political to the extent that any representation of the world (or a fictional world) is political, because political views depend partly on how you think the world works, what you consider good &c. That is to say, it's political if the reader/viewer is a complete shut-in who gets their entire worldview from the media, otherwise they're making mountains out of molehills.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
This guy obviously hasn't heard of the Crime Victimization Survey, which has the same proportions as the UCR data within the margin of error. That proves that the UCR data is accurate because the survey represents a random sample of thousands of crime victims including those who did not report the crime to the police. It nullifies the contention of the redditposter that they're just missing white crimes.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
"They might be lying" is one of the more insubstantial lines of argument to go down. Also I don't think that I've ever seen someone go on about 13 do 50 and not know they were specifically talking about murders. I get the same feeling when I see these people do stonetoss edits, but these people really do seem incapable of understanding what the people they despise online really think. It's both sad and a little funny.
Pump Meat
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2020
So what is the Iliad and Odyssey? They spanned archipelagos, crossed the Mediterranean, even numerous dialects in a fundamentally illiterate society didn't prohibit its consumption. It was universally enjoyed by Greek speakers from the Hellas, to Asia Minor, to the Levant, and totally shaped their worldview. How does that not qualify as popular culture?
DumbDude42
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
at best, it was enjoyed by the literate and cultured upper class of those societies. nobility, aristocrats, wealthy city dwellers, those people.
the overwhelming majority of people in those ages lived as barely literate peasants, farmers, or laborers, and did not have much contact with any of that entire literature / high culture thing at all
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
Don't worry, they could come up with reasons that anything and everything was bad if they wanted. Politically correct buzzwords and ten minutes and they can use bullshit to try and drain the fun out of anything. Complain and you'll just get the 'everything is political, bigot' response.
That their analyses are shallow, solipsistic exercises in utter wank as they manipulate everything to fit their worldview eternally escapes them. They have somehow come to believe their opinion has moral weight and their perspective has value, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Like all SJWs, the only thing that matters for them in a narrative is that it has the right politics - and now, that it was created by someone who has the right politics as well. Quality and creativity are irrelevant, especially as to them, everything can be destroyed if they choose to, using the tools of pseudo-intellectual grievance studies.
Tl;dr: They want you to know everything is problematic, so don't give them reason to go after something. Any similarities to protection rackets is intentional.
- Joined
- May 22, 2020
Tom is a fascist and Jerry is a minority. Duh.
I never understood the argument "it would have worked if not for...". They say things like "Ukrainian Free Territory was successful but was destroyed by the Soviet Union". How is that successful? If your state can be destroyed after 4 years of existence, that's the opposite of "succesful".
Another good one is "this socialist country would've been successful if not for trade tariffs". So, a socialist state can't survive because capitalist countries don't want to engage in free trade with it?
Basically "it would've worked if it worked".
Kropotkin thought it would work because of the existence of mutual aid in nature. What he seemed to miss is that most of the time animals only engage in mutual aid if they benefit themselves. Sharks don't allow remoras in their mouths out of goodness of heart but because the latter clean them. Similarly, humans who perform labor expect something in return. A relationship where one organism benefits but doesn't give anything in return is called parasitism.In social species, it may seem that organisms are selfless and help other specimens of their species, but that's only because they're related and carry the same genes, so it's still for selfish reasons and only works in small, tight-knit communities. What's even funnier is that while they can't examine other organisms' genes, they can look for physical manifestation of these genes to determine if they're related or not, such as skin color. So this theory basically advocates for small, ethnically homogenous communities (which, honestly, Kropotkin could advocate for; he was a 19-20th century Russian, not a modern woke progressive).
I can't be bothered to read the whole post and I honestly don't have knowledge about the topic and don't care, but the first paragraph contains a painful and deliberate (I think) strawman.
No one believes that it's literally the concentration of melanin in your skin that dictates behavior, lol. The point is that different genetics may dictate different behaviors, and one visible sign of different genetics is different skin color.
Also, I hate the word "dogwhistle", it has become another one of leftist buzzwords. I thought "dogwhistle" was a phrase that is completely benign for an average person but has some hidden meaning for those in the know. Like "cut the tall trees" during the Rwandan genocide. But apparently now the entire sentence "despite making up 13% of the population black people account for 50% of crime" is a dogwhistle, even though it doesn't contain any hidden meaning. It's literally the opposite of a dogwhistle, its meaning is loud and clear.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2020
Decided to join this thread because I decided to watch a PhilosophyTube video titled "Transphobia: An Analysis" which kept popping up in my youtube recommended. What a mistake that was. That video, and the entire channel and subgenre of breadtube itself reeks of fallacies, hypocrisy, over dependence on pathos, and most importantly soy. It broke my fucking mind, and hurts to think that these bugmen are the leaders in the youtube philosophy genre. These are all pseudo-intellectuals, and this is coming from a fucking /lit/ user.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
That's not true. For example Athens had gibs for its poorest citizens so they could attend theatre plays.
Jarolleon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
Because their definition of successful is not "Can survive outside threats and internal turmoil" but "I personally would like to live in that society the most".
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
Like nearly every buzzword from the left, dogwhistle is a useful term that is very good at defining something that's worth identifying, but through their overuse has become meaningless. Like gaslighting, for example.
The racist dogwhistle was a huge part of the Southern Strategy, for example (check Lee Atwater's quote in the 70s section) - but now everything leftys want to discredit gets called a dogwhistle for their mind-reading of what their opponent is really saying.
Because it's inevitably much easier to come up with an argument against what you pretend they mean than what they've actually said to you.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
It's not just their 19th Century stuff, Bakunin and Kropotkin were definitely not on the same wavelength as Breadtube as far as I'm familiar with it. They were harsh critics of Marxism and considered them inherent totalitarians. That's what got Bakunin kicked out of the International by Marx and Kropotkin banned in the Soviet Union by the Bolsheviks. The only thing they agreed upon was that after The Revolution™ eliminating the state, communism would form naturally. But the anarchists more or less said that because it would form naturally you didn't have to do anything except do the good yourself.
Breadtube has no patience that I can tell, if we had The Revolution™ they'd want to force communism into being, they'd never be content doing mutual aid themselves waiting for communism to form or else they'd already be doing it while giving Marx and Lenin no quarter. Revealed preferences are something something...
Breadtube has no patience that I can tell, if we had The Revolution™ they'd want to force communism into being, they'd never be content doing mutual aid themselves waiting for communism to form or else they'd already be doing it while giving Marx and Lenin no quarter. Revealed preferences are something something...