Society/Culture Why are young males now more right wing then older males?

[sr36]

Division, over sensitivity and censorship, cancel culture, Identity politics, victim mentality, soft stances on crime..

Why do you think right wing politics are making comebacks around the world?

Do you view your "leftie woke" comments as being divisive? Do you view your posts about percentages of Islam as being identity politics? Do you view people complaining about right wing views being criticised and calling it censorship as being over-sensitive? Do you view calls to boycott supermarkets due to a lack of Aussie kitsch as a form of cancel culture? Or the enormous number of people who've been cancelled over the years for offending conservatives? Or the enormous number of things that have been censored by tconservatives to be a form of censorship? Do you view people complaining that migrants are taking their jobs as identity politics and victimhood?

Or are these concepts and political tactics to shape culture only issues when they come from views that you disagree with?

 

[Gethelred]

Your claims are subjective as well. There is full proof evidence to either argument.

Uno reverse cards do not work in argument, 10571z. You need to demonstrate your claims objectively if you want them assessed as such. Hitchen's razor: that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

You've also replied to a rather lengthy post that supported the claims made in it with evidence - which you clearly didn't view - with two sentences of unsupported claims that are barely relevant to the subject under discussion. What relevance they have is undermined by the fact that in order for them to be relevant at all they need to generalise over every single thing stated, some of which simply doesn't work. "Full proof evidence" is a tautology, and what is referred to by 'either argument'? Mine? Yours? Both?

Are you trying to pen the most reductive deconstructionist argument in history?

 

[247Tigers]

... is a subjective characterisation, that doesn't hold up any real weight when assessed objectively.

Are behaviours exhibited by both the left and right, which can be demonstrated factually.

... is an urge old as time, and is not a behaviour isolated to the left, either.

This one's a joke.

The right have eternally been about identity; who you are, where you sit within hierarchies seen as natural. The right created hierarchies of races to justify their treatment of non-whites (and other groups, in non white parts of the world); created hierarchies of class seen as natural, with the king and aristocracy at the apex. The way the right treats the wealthy classes - obsequiously - based entirely on who they are; the way the right treats people seen as lower on the hierarchies - such as how they treat unions - when they seek and achieve political power.

The right have always played identity politics. They're only getting a bit up and angsty about it because progressives are shooing in on their game.

This is a subjective judgement, not an objective characterisation.

This is - again - completely subjective.

Easier marketing, less censors, easier dissemination of information since the internet.

This is pretty easily demonstrable. It takes years for the full effects of a communication medium to truly be felt; before the internet, right wing groups were isolated and their ability to grow and spread ideas was as good as the best propagandist within each individual group. Now, the right can see which methods and ideas work and which don't.

See, the various RW groups seeking to replicate Trump's methods, including our very own Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. The consistent 'Make (insert whatever) Great Again', as though that slogan was originally Trump's.

So - to summarise - you have a series of claims which are mostly subjective, and those which aren't are incorrect. Indeed, you might have misunderstood what you were being asked to do: to be asked to prove something objectively is to demonstrate that it is true beyond opinion. Something that is subjective - such as how you feel about something - might be shared between multiple people - such as how you feel the left is soft on crime - is something that arises from your own personal experiences, something that is not able to be demonstrated with fact or cannot be proven beyond it being what you think or feel.

Do you see where you might be going wrong now, 10571z?

So a person that talks about viewing and characterising everything objectively. And yet points to all hierarchical structures and says everything morally wrong associated with a hierarchical structure has been generated by those with views on the right of the political spectrum. Hate to shatter your wildly inaccurate university postmoderist properganda. The left and right political spectrum was a concept created during the french revolution in 1789. Evidence of slavery predates written records 10,000 years ago. Slavery of course being the first racial hierarchal structure not owned by the left of right because it didn't exist. All humans engaged in the slave trade irrespective of tribe or race. It still exists today and is ofter largest in developing countries without democratic structures. Asian, Africa, Arab nations. Hierarchial structures first appeared in the transition from tribes to those of farming communities and agriculture structures. Which required leadership, organisation and the management of resources to fairly distribute the proceeds throughout society. In other words the only reason you are still receiving the food on your plate is because of a hierarchical structure.

But what would I know, lets let the university educated person come up with a fair equitable system with no structures. One where no person is required to listen or obey to any law. Let's see how going to the hospital works out for you when your having a stroke but the person who has a cold is to be treated before you.

In trying to prove something that is based on facts rather than personal opinions you have provided no facts.
You have pushed a postmodernist ideolgy that all hierarcial structures were created after the politial specrum was created which is innaccurate as these structures have exisited (to the best of our knowledge) since 10,000 BCE.

Do you see where you might be going wrong now?

 

[sr36]

You are very confused about your politics.

The greens are a far left party that have talked about their policy desires to defund financial institutions unless they they agree uniformly with their policies. In other words no business gets a loan unless the greens party approve you.

Their policy on their website to name one of hundreds of extremist policies is:
Elections of boards of publicly listed companies are to be conducted by an independent statutory body.
The independant statutory body is required to independently audit the company and publicly report their performance against economic, environmental and social criteria on an annual basis.

layman's terms: Any corporation that is publicly listed must appoint directors/executives that align with the greens party's policies or you will be defunded. Ofcourse when your hierarchical structure is appointed aligning with their world views, then no employee would be employed unless they simialarly held those views.

The liberal party in Australia is a centre right party.
A liberal voter in any other country is centre left.
A typical liberal voter in the united states would be: a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.

You should read my post on the page 31 that talks about extremism in both the left and right of politics.
Liberal voters in Australia or around the world (despite their counter views) are not the problem.

The greens parties around the world are a problem because their agenda is nothing to do with climate change and more about ensuring everyone "shares" their world view or be defunded.

I was responding to your suggestion that voting for one of the furthest left parties makes someone an extremist. I think you're confused about voting and what it means about the voter.

I'm not going to get into a debate about policy as I think it's close to irrelevant in terms of voting as most voters don't read it and/or are unable to predict the ramifications of much of it. Even experts on various policy areas disagree wildly on what the ramifications of various policy will be, made even more complicated and difficult to evaluate by party based propaganda

Voters vote for a party for a variety of reasons:

perceived personality, competence and ethics of the party leader or candidate
what the party is perceived or portrayed as representing

These are the big two. The first says nothing about extremism of the party. The second will only when the voter perceives the party as representing something that you'd categorise as extreme.

The minor parties also attract a fair bit of strategic voting. Many voters aren't viewing them as a potential government - thus their policy doesn't matter - they're voting to try to shift politics in a left or right direction - or towards a particular stance on a single issue that is a big issue for the voter and party - pretty clear to see why many would vote Greens or another minor party for this reason - be the issue the environment, immigration or Gaza or something else.

Even amongst those voters who do analyse policy closely - they will regularly disagree with a fair bit of the policy that they're voting for, but they prefer the overall package, so cherry picking a couple of policies that you think is outrageous doesn't say much about the extremism of voters who are actually voting on policy.

Essentially, you're confusing policy with people and incorrectly think that people are fully aligned with the policies of the party they voted for.

 

[Gethelred]

So a person that talks about viewing and characterising everything objectively. And yet points to all hierarchical structures and says everything morally wrong associated with a hierarchical structure has been generated by those with views on the right of the political spectrum. Hate to shatter your wildly inaccurate university postmoderist properganda.

It's propaganda.

The left and right political spectrum was a concept created during the french revolution in 1789.

... to categorise fields of thought related to societal and political organisation.

Tell me, do you think feudalism didn't exist until 1944, when François Louis Ganshof defined it?

Evidence of slavery predates written records 10,000 years ago. Slavery of course being the first racial hierarchal structure not owned by the left of right because it didn't exist. All humans engaged in the slave trade irrespective of tribe or race. It still exists today and is ofter largest in developing countries without democratic structures. Asian, Africa, Arab nations. Hierarchial structures first appeared in the transition from tribes to those of farming communities and agriculture structures. Which required leadership, organisation and the management of resources to fairly distribute the proceeds throughout society. In other words the only reason you are still receiving the food on your plate is because of a hierarchical structure.

From the post you quoted:

The right created hierarchies of races to justify their treatment of non-whites (and other groups, in non white parts of the world)...

... so, der. I said that in the post you quoted.

But what would I know, lets let the university educated person come up with a fair equitable system with no structures. One where no person is required to listen or obey to any law. Let's see how going to the hospital works out for you when your having a stroke but the person who has a cold is to be treated before you.

Strawman.

At no point have I ever said that all hierarchies should be dissolved, nor have I even hinted it.

I also would like to note here that I'm being rather kind playing defense here. I don't actually have to defend myself against shit I never said.

Why don't you justify the hierarchies inherent in fascism to be correct, seeing as it's been your position in this thread to this point?

You have pushed a postmodernist ideolgy

Post modernism is in complete ideological opposition ot objectivism, and I'm the one asking for an objective argument. Perhaps you need to reread the posts again, seeing as you're attacking me for the complete opposite to what I've argued.

Then again, you would have to have read them the first time around to reread them, wouldn't you?

... that all hierarcial structures were created after the politial specrum was created which is innaccurate as these structures have exisited (to the best of our knowledge) since 10,000 BCE.

Strawman, and a very silly one.

Do you see where you might be going wrong now?

This is rather childish of you, my friend.

 

[Gough]

Division, over sensitivity and censorship, cancel culture, Identity politics, victim mentality, soft stances on crime..

Why do you think right wing politics are making comebacks around the world?

So the Liberal Party whose two former leaders wrote references for George Pell at his trial and whose current leader attended his funeral, the party of Alan Jones who only didn't become an MP because his predatory behaviour was well but who continued to enjoy his considerable patronage are going to be tough on crime?

 

[247Tigers]

I was responding to your suggestion that voting for one of the furthest left parties makes someone an extremist. I think you're confused about voting and what it means about the voter.

I'm not going to get into a debate about policy as I think it's close to irrelevant in terms of voting as most voters don't read it and/or are unable to predict the ramifications of much of it. Even experts on various policy areas disagree wildly on what the ramifications of various policy will be, made even more complicated and difficult to evaluate by party based propaganda

Voters vote for a party for a variety of reasons:

perceived personality, competence and ethics of the party leader or candidate
what the party is perceived or portrayed as representing

These are the big two. The first says nothing about extremism of the party. The second will only when the voter perceives the party as representing something that you'd categorise as extreme.

The minor parties also attract a fair bit of strategic voting. Many voters aren't viewing them as a potential government - thus their policy doesn't matter - they're voting to try to shift politics in a left or right direction - or towards a particular stance on a single issue that is a big issue for the voter and party - pretty clear to see why many would vote Greens or another minor party for this reason - be the issue the environment, immigration or Gaza or something else.

Even amongst those voters who do analyse policy closely - they will regularly disagree with a fair bit of the policy that they're voting for, but they prefer the overall package, so cherry picking a couple of policies that you think is outrageous doesn't say much about the extremism of voters who are actually voting on policy.

Essentially, you're confusing policy with people and incorrectly think that people are fully aligned with the policies of the party they voted for.

No this is all inaccruate. I'm not confused about policy or voting on single issues versus a multi policy platform.

There is no interpretation needed on what their platform would mean for economics if they openly talk about defunding banks not aligned with a environmental and social platform.

It is very simplistic. Any party which openly promotes demostrations which they know are not going to be peaceful are an extremist party. The greens repeatedly talked about demonstrations such as by people at the Sydney Opera House being peacful. They stated this numerous times even after seeing the video footage of the protests.

The guardian innacturely reported there was no video evidences of any such unpeacful behavior. I watched video's of protestors throwing projectiles at people and screaming gas the jews.

I'm not saying if you support the greens you are an extremist if you are bellow the age of 30. You are just an ignornant kid like many of us were. But if you are above the age of 30 or thereabouts and you are not reading the policy your party is pushing then you are an ignorant person. I'm not sure how you vote but if you are older, reading their policy and agree with their policy then you have some extremist views.

Threatning people or companies that do not agree with your views is extremism. You do not have to be beheading women in baghdad to be considered an extremist. If you believe that violence or civil disobedience is an answer as opposed to civil discourse you are engaging in extremism.

 

[CM86]

No this is all inaccruate. I'm not confused about policy or voting on single issues versus a multi policy platform.

There is no interpretation needed on what their platform would mean for economics if they openly talk about defunding banks not aligned with a environmental and social platform.

It is very simplistic. Any party which openly promotes demostrations which they know are not going to be peaceful are an extremist party. The greens repeatedly talked about demonstrations such as by people at the Sydney Opera House being peacful. They stated this numerous times even after seeing the video footage of the protests.

The guardian innacturely reported there was no video evidences of any such unpeacful behavior. I watched video's of protestors throwing projectiles at people and screaming gas the jews.

I'm not saying if you support the greens you are an extremist if you are bellow the age of 30. You are just an ignornant kid like many of us were. But if you are above the age of 30 or thereabouts and you are not reading the policy your party is pushing then you are an ignorant person. I'm not sure how you vote but if you are older, reading their policy and agree with their policy then you have some extremist views.

Threatning people or companies that do not agree with your views is extremism. You do not have to be beheading women in baghdad to be considered an extremist. If you believe that violence or civil disobedience is an answer as opposed to civil discourse you are engaging in extremism.

Just be honest with your actual position.

Then you wouldn't need pages and hours of dialogue to muddy the water with semantics about things you don't even care about.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

No this is all inaccruate. I'm not confused about policy or voting on single issues versus a multi policy platform.

There is no interpretation needed on what their platform would mean for economics if they openly talk about defunding banks not aligned with a environmental and social platform.

It is very simplistic. Any party which openly promotes demostrations which they know are not going to be peaceful are an extremist party. The greens repeatedly talked about demonstrations such as by people at the Sydney Opera House being peacful. They stated this numerous times even after seeing the video footage of the protests.

The guardian innacturely reported there was no video evidences of any such unpeacful behavior. I watched video's of protestors throwing projectiles at people and screaming gas the jews.

I'm not saying if you support the greens you are an extremist if you are bellow the age of 30. You are just an ignornant kid like many of us were. But if you are above the age of 30 or thereabouts and you are not reading the policy your party is pushing then you are an ignorant person. I'm not sure how you vote but if you are older, reading their policy and agree with their policy then you have some extremist views.

Threatning people or companies that do not agree with your views is extremism. You do not have to be beheading women in baghdad to be considered an extremist. If you believe that violence or civil disobedience is an answer as opposed to civil discourse you are engaging in extremism.

Do you think Labor and LNP supporting an apartheid regime is extremism?

 

[CM86]

If you disagree, then what is a positive aspect of being masculine, that you can't also ascribe to being a woman/female?

Is there any way to engage with this kind of person?





Is there

 

[247Tigers]

It's propaganda.

... to categorise fields of thought related to societal and political organisation.

Tell me, do you think feudalism didn't exist until 1944, when François Louis Ganshof defined it?

From the post you quoted:

... so, der. I said that in the post you quoted.

Strawman.

At no point have I ever said that all hierarchies should be dissolved, nor have I even hinted it.

I also would like to note here that I'm being rather kind playing defense here. I don't actually have to defend myself against shit I never said.

Why don't you justify the hierarchies inherent in fascism to be correct, seeing as it's been your position in this thread to this point?

Post modernism is in complete ideological opposition ot objectivism, and I'm the one asking for an objective argument. Perhaps you need to reread the posts again, seeing as you're attacking me for the complete opposite of what I've argued.

Then again, you would have to have read them the first time around to reread them, wouldn't you?

Strawman, and a very silly one.

This is rather childish of you, my friend.

I read your original post in detail it was just littered with inaccuracies.

Your responses are not making sense. They are not coherent or logical.
This is what people do when they get engaged in a conversation which they are struggling to understand.

Using responses like. Der, multiple strawman responses, Pointing out a spelling mistake, your childish.
If anything, you are proving exactly the opposite.

'a logical fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to defeat'.

Reading a sentence that says "So a person that talks about viewing and characterising everything objectively. And yet points to all hierarchical structures and says everything morally wrong associated with a hierarchical structure has been generated by those with views on the right of the political spectrum. Hate to shatter your wildly inaccurate university postmodernist properganda"

Your response was: It's propaganda - That my "friend" Is a strawman argument. Because you couldn't defeat the argument your actions were to point out any logic rendering the whole statement defeatable. so, you pointed out the logic of a spelling mistake.

Simply saying you are objective or follow a life of objectivism (which is hilarious in itself, thanks for the laugh) does not lead me to believe you are the reincarnation of ayn rand.

When you show your birth certificate and prove you are above the age of 30 I'll continue this conversation. Until then adios, arrivederci, fare thee well.

Talking to someone with postmodernist ideals, who doesn't think they need to justify their ignorance of pointing out that everything evil in hierarchical structures is a right-wing ideology, I don't need to debate. They have already defeated themselves.

 

[CM86]

Pointing out a spelling mistake, your childish.

You're*

 

[247Tigers]

Do you think Labor and LNP supporting an apartheid regime is extremism?

Are you talking about South Africa? Be specific. If you are talking about Palestine/israel I'm not engaging in that conversation.

 

[Chief]

At the last state election 15% of the population voted for the greens, socialst party and other fringe left parties.

How many voted for the LNP, One Nation and all of the other fringe right parties?

 

[247Tigers]

How many voted for the LNP, One Nation and all of the other fringe right parties?

LNP are not a fringe right party they are centre right.

Approximatly 3-5% Voted for One nation and other fringe right parties. Look the facts up on the Victorian Election results 2022.

 

[Gethelred]

I read your original post in detail it was just littered with inaccuracies.

... that you have thus far been unable to unearth.

Your responses are not making sense. They are not coherent or logical.

Where your responses have been simply the perfect illustration of an unwillingness to countenance logic that leads to conclusions you don't like.

This is what people do when they get engaged in a conversation which they are struggling to understand.

Oh, I'm struggling to understand you, am I?

Tell you what, how about you explain my argument back to me in a way that I will agree with, and I'll do the same to you. How's that for a demonstration of a willingness to understand?

Using responses like. Der, multiple strawman responses, Pointing out a spelling mistake, your childish.
If anything, you are proving exactly the opposite.

A) it was a spelling mistake, while you were telling me how filled my post was with mistakes. Irony is clearly not your strong suit, my friend.
B) Der is what you say to someone who has reasserted something you've already said in support of an argument you made, and tone policing is a method of dismissal. While I can appreciate why you might want to dismiss me, it doesn't really confront what I've said now, does it?
C) if you misrepresent my argument, I'm going to call it out. That you don't like being called out is not really my problem.

Look inwards, my friend. Wisdom is only a consideration away.

Reading a sentence that says "So a person that talks about viewing and characterising everything objectively. And yet points to all hierarchical structures and says everything morally wrong associated with a hierarchical structure has been generated by those with views on the right of the political spectrum. Hate to shatter your wildly inaccurate university postmodernist properganda"

Your response was: It's propaganda - That my "friend" Is a strawman argument. Because you couldn't defeat the argument your actions were to point out any logic rendering the whole statement defeatable. so, you pointed out the logic of a spelling mistake.

As stated, irony is not your strong suit.

And - again - why do I have to defend an argument I did not make?

I'll make you a deal. If you stop using strawmen, I'll defend the arguments I have actually made. Sound fair?

Simply saying you are objective or follow a life of objectivism (which is hilarious in itself, thanks for the laugh) does not lead me to believe you are the reincarnation of ayn rand.

Rand was not the only objectivist in history, nor was objectivism hers alone.

Permaybehaps you need to broaden your reading.

When you show your birth certificate and prove you are above the age of 30 I'll continue this conversation. Until then adios, arrivederci, fare thee well.

... sorry, are you asking me to dox myself?

Bad idea. Don't do it, if you want to stick around.

 

[sr36]

No this is all inaccruate. I'm not confused about policy or voting on single issues versus a multi policy platform.

There is no interpretation needed on what their platform would mean for economics if they openly talk about defunding banks not aligned with a environmental and social platform.

It is very simplistic. Any party which openly promotes demostrations which they know are not going to be peaceful are an extremist party. The greens repeatedly talked about demonstrations such as by people at the Sydney Opera House being peacful. They stated this numerous times even after seeing the video footage of the protests.

The guardian innacturely reported there was no video evidences of any such unpeacful behavior. I watched video's of protestors throwing projectiles at people and screaming gas the jews.

I'm not saying if you support the greens you are an extremist if you are bellow the age of 30. You are just an ignornant kid like many of us were. But if you are above the age of 30 or thereabouts and you are not reading the policy your party is pushing then you are an ignorant person. I'm not sure how you vote but if you are older, reading their policy and agree with their policy then you have some extremist views.

Threatning people or companies that do not agree with your views is extremism. You do not have to be beheading women in baghdad to be considered an extremist. If you believe that violence or civil disobedience is an answer as opposed to civil discourse you are engaging in extremism.

My initial point was essentially that extremism or some similar label is used to write off the views of huge numbers of people - be it from the left or right. It was a response to you suggesting that voting Greens or other small left wing parties makes you an extremist:

At the last state election 15% of the population voted for the greens, socialst party and other fringe left parties.

That is before you look at other populations of society that engage in voilence during their protests.

1/6th of the population cannot be considering minuscule.

You've now gone on to further illustrate my point by claiming that it's extremism to want to protect the right to civil protest - with some strange claim that everyone knows which civil protests will or won't become violent. It's not extremism to advocate for the right to civil protest. Nor is it extremism to want to stop ones that you genuinely believe will result in serious threats. But both sides will throw around that term or something similar like you've just done when there is debate about individual protests and whether or not they should be stopped.

In many ways the political spectrum is a tighter spectrum than it's ever been before, without much divergence in likely policy between the two likely parties taking government. What's occured though is a far greater use of divisive rhetoric to try to capture votes and shift sentiment on the minor points of difference.

In terms of ignorance, the truly ignorant don't know that they're ignorant. Legislation has an intended goal. Most people don't have the time or inclination to analyse policies to come to informed conclusions on whether a particular policy is a good one that will achieve the intended goal. And many who do have that time are smart enough to know that they don't have the knowledge or skillset in the broad range of policy areas to analyse the likely effectiveness of the policy proposals being pushed by the different parties. Some ignorantly believe that reading a biased left or right wing commentary about the likely impact of a policy makes them informed and in a position to make an informed judgement of different policies. They're wrong. Who the hell knows the macro and micro impact of cutting fringe benefit taxes or whatever the policy is. Economists - th actual experts - certainly don't agree. So instead, people vote not so much on the policy itself, but on whether the intended goal is one they prioritise or quite simply how well it's been marketed.

And lefties tend to prioriitise equality and fairness and righties tend to prioritise economic opportunity and security. Most people want all of those things, but the supposedly massive left vs right divide pretty much comes down to which order you prioritise them. And an industry has grown up to pretend that this is some massive division. And you divide and sepaerate and it does become a division - but the actual division is primarily irrational hostility fuelled by divisive rhetoric rather than much difference at all in thinking or belief.

 

[Gethelred]

Cue acccusations of censorship. Everyone ready?

 

[Chief]

LNP are not a fringe right party they are centre right.

I suppose so. I mean, all that denial of Musk's Nazi salute is proof of their centre-right cred.

 

[247Tigers]

... that you have thus far been unable to unearth.

Where your responses have been simply the perfect illustration of an unwillingness to countenance logic that leads to conclusions you don't like.

Oh, I'm struggling to understand you, am I?

Tell you what, how about you explain my argument back to me in a way that I will agree with, and I'll do the same to you. How's that for a demonstration of a willingness to understand?

A) it was a spelling mistake, while you were telling me how filled my post was with mistakes. Irony is clearly not your strong suit, my friend.
B) Der is what you say to someone who has reasserted something you've already said in support of an argument you made, and tone policing is a mathod of dismissal. While I can appreciate why you might want to dismiss me, it doesn't really confront what I've said now, does it?
C) if you misrepresent my argument, I'm going to call it out. That you don't like being called out is not really my problem.

Look inwards, my friend. Wisdom is only a consideration away.

As stated, irony is not your strong suit.

And - again - why do I have to defend an argument I did not make?

I'll make you a deal. If you stop using strawmen, I'll defend the arguments I have actually made. Sound fair?

Rand was not the only objectivist in history, nor was objectivism hers alone.

Permaybehaps you need to broaden your reading.

... sorry, are you asking me to dox myself?

Bad idea. Don't do it, if you want to stick around.

"Bad idea. Don't do it, if you want to stick around"

The man who can't make a logical argument say's if you don't like his point of view he can remove me from the site.
Tell me the story again how your outlook of life is one of objectavism and not postmodernism .

 

[Gethelred]

"Bad idea. Don't do it, if you want to stick around"

The man who can't make a logical argument say's if you don't like his point of view he can remove me from the site.
Tell me the story again how your outlook of life is one of objectavism and not postmodernism .

Called it:

Cue acccusations of censorship. Everyone ready?

 

[247Tigers]

I suppose so. I mean, all that denial of Musk's Nazi salute is proof of their centre-right cred.

I can see by your likes your opinions on this site are not widely representative of others. Are you not one of the original contributors to this site?

 

[Chief]

I can see by your likes your opinions on this site are not widely representative of others. Are you not one of the original contributors to this site?

Nah just got here.

 

[247Tigers]

Called it:

How is that an accusation? Was that not your words?

"Bad idea. Don't do it, if you want to stick around"

Is English your second language or is all that objectivism*cough postmodernism just clouding your judgement?

 

[247Tigers]

Nah just got here.

Cool maybe I'll see you around on Bluesky with all your friends

I'm happy to disengage with all these conversations on this thread. Way too many iintellects here for me!