@Tim@pleroma.inumbra.xyz > Imagine being a Jewish apologist in 2021. Imagine whining about the Jews on the internet dot com all day. Imagine unironically adopting "You're with us or you're against us!" Imagine hearing "I don't drink Coke" and then responding "SO YOU LOVE PEPSI". > democracy and liberalism [...] have come to be the moral saints of the day. You sure haven't read anything I've ever written. > the direction this powerful political force has taken us shouldn't be ridiculed and are tired of edgy takes. I am tired of NPCs repeating stupid Nazi shit at me. It's useless and it gets old in a hurry. It's not edgy, the blade's never been sharpened. I can count on one hand the number of interesting, personable ones I've run into on fedi. The rest of you are just boring holes that make a whiny sound when the wind goes by. > What really prevents us from redefining progress to align with our own causes, families, and people? I'm already aligned with my own cause and my family (to some extent); I don't know what you mean by "people", I suspect you mean "race" in which case there's no possibility of treating people that have very different (and contradictory) goals as a unit for the purpose of alignment. I don't know what's preventing you, but if your cause can't handle someone refusing to sign up, maybe it's just not any good and you should find a new cause. No one's doing anything to stop you, because you're not doing anything worth stopping. Just bitching and moaning. What the hell am I doing to stop you? On the other hand, from my perspective, you people are SJWs with a different bogeyman: a constant annoyance, fractious and whiny, always making demands and offering nothing, while promising that this will somehow create a world that I don't want to live in. You realize that if your attempts to recruit rely on gullibility, you'll only get credulous idiots on your team, right? You realize that this has already happened, don't you? Go bother someone more gullible so you can create your Pure White Utopia out of the dumbest honkeys you can find. No one's stopping you.

@p@freespeechextremist.com You're talking past me and maybe I'm talking past you. I really don't recall you elaborating on what you think, mostly just you complaining about jew posters and race posters. And I don't appreciate you calling me an SJW while using the SJW signature move of grouping someone in with people who've given up on nuance so to dismiss a whole range of ideas you don't want to consider. Unless you like to keep yourself an enigma, maybe tell me where you really stand on the blatant social engineering that powerful groups employ. I by no means think this is an exclusively Jewish phenomenon. It's happened throughout history, between every group and within, for self interest and subversion. Tell me how you're above history and the influence of this engineering, because you're a strong independent individual who don't need no coalition. Which you don't, if you plan on living happily as a bug man within the confines of what we're told freedom is. You also seem to think I discount the agency of the individual simply because I concern myself with group dynamics. Individual agency and personal growth is important, without it you'd be valueless with or without a group. But I would hope we're at the level where that goes without saying. I'm focusing on how groups are able to wield power in their own interests without being as lame and meritless as communists or other retard and ineffective types of collectivists. There is no way for atomized individuals to safeguard their own interests. It is equally important to recognize how other groups lie to keep you atomized and working in alignment with their interests. These are things worth talking about. And no, being just another internet stranger on a fediverse dot com or in decentralized finance isn't enough to keep your interests from being pushed around or eliminated if they really rub the powers that be the wrong way. Do we not agree that things are heading downhill fast? The slope is only getting slipperier. There's no way to stop it that does not piss off the powers that be. I don't expect you to care this much, but here's a video that touches the heart of the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmN0HQH1Ek&t=14 As for jews and race, those are important players in this game, and it would be a mistake to have our views on them tainted by modern delusions pushed by ideologies on either side. Do you not like just the edgy takes or the idea of race being used in macro politics at all?

@Tim@pleroma.inumbra.xyz > You're talking past me and maybe I'm talking past you. I read posts before replying to them. This is a lengthy screed that misrepresents opinions that you've ascribed to me, and I told you last time. > I really don't recall you elaborating on what you think, mostly just you complaining about jew posters and race posters. I've been complaining about those people recently because, apropos of nothing, they've started complaining at me constantly. > I don't appreciate you calling me an SJW I don't appreciate unprompted cracker nationalism with from someone that has noted that I'm complaining the constant flood of cracker nationalism. I don't appreciate these lengthy screeds misrepresenting my opinions. We could call it even, but here you are again, so I owe you another, I guess. Do you also not appreciate being called an NPC? Because they can't hear me, either, they just make speeches. > to dismiss a whole range of ideas you don't want to consider. This is another similarity, in fact. It's not that I've refused to consider them, it's that I have listened and then I've answered these ideas over and over and over and over and over and I'm sick of it. > Unless you like to keep yourself an enigma, maybe tell me where you really stand on the blatant social engineering that powerful groups employ. This is another loaded question. I reject the premise. I'm not remotely enigmatic. > Tell me how you're above history and the influence of this engineering See the "Coke vs. Pepsi" analogy in the previous post. > if you plan on living happily as a bug man within the confines of what we're told freedom is. See the above remark about the analogy in the previous post. > You also seem to think I discount the agency of the individual simply because I concern myself with group dynamics. I've used my agency to reject your group. > There is no way for atomized individuals to safeguard their own interests. I do not care about your collective. If you reject collectivism, you must reject any concept of "group"! YOU ATOMIZED INDIVIDUAL BUGMAN, YOU WILL NEVER SAFEGUARD YOUR RIGHTS > These are things worth talking about. Maybe you think so, maybe you want to. I've had more than I care to tolerate recently of the dead horse you're beating and the specific style of argumentation that you are using as the blunt instrument. If you've noticed that and failed to take it into consideration, what should I conclude? > I don't expect you to care this much, but here's a video You're right, I'm not even clicking so that I can see the title. It is funny that you bothered to write that paragraph about "the powers that be" and then linked to...Youtube. > Do you not like just the edgy takes or the idea of race being used in macro politics at all? See previous remarks about how dull the edge is. You're not asking the right questions; when you have no idea what the right questions are, it's best to start with open-ended questions. "If you don't love Coca-Cola, you must be a Pepsi-drinker!" is retarded. "Do you prefer Coke or Pepsi?" is only marginally better. "What do you drink?" is open-ended. If you do know the right questions but you do it on purpose, that's worse than retarded. I don't know how to put it more plainly. I've said this several times: race is a bad heuristic. It's stupid to intentionally use a bad heuristic if there are better heuristics. If you're going to do something stupid, that's your call, I don't need to be involved. I've explained *why* it's a bad heuristic, several times, in very plain language. You've clearly come off with the wrong idea more than once, but if I say what I mean and your response is to read something else completely and then start with the "SO YOU'RE SAYING"s, then there's no hope of any sort of productive conversation. I'm already sick of hearing it.

@Tim@pleroma.inumbra.xyz > I touched on a number of things that have nothing directly to do with race, but you seem to only want to run back to that one point. You hop into the thread to bitch and moan about me being a "Jewish apologist" and then tell me that's not what you were *actually* talking about. I'm just not interested in hearing repeated mischaracterizations of everything I've said, I'm not going to try to tease out some nuance. Say what you've got to say instead of what you hate about what someone else said about something tangentially related to what I said. > There is no way for atomized individuals to safeguard their own interests. That's the second time you've said that. Who said anything about that? What are you addressing? It can't be something I said unless you've decided "individual rights" means something that it does not. > equally important to recognize how other groups lie to keep you atomized and working in alignment with theirs. Who says I'm "atomized", even? "No race-based groups" and "No involuntary groups" are very different from "No groups at all". > It is equally important to recognize how other groups lie to keep you atomized and working in alignment with theirs. If "I don't think Jews stole your lunch money" means I don't think theft exists, maybe you'd have a point, but as I have said several times, you have a habit of reading what isn't there. It's a pointless conversation. You don't even bother to read what I'm saying: I say something, you read something else and then complain about something I didn't say. > You're most childish response was to this most salient point. Why don't you elaborate on this for the elucidation of the peasantry? I don't even know what you're asking. If I don't mute this thread, how many more times should I expect to have to say "I didn't say that" over the course of this conversation?