Far-Right rising around the world... - Politics Discussion

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

We are rising! o/

And we are coming for Skavau.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

Reported again.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

For what? For making fun of you?
You bring it on yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

Don't care. Mods have been clear. Make threats and your posts get removed.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Except it wasn't a threat.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

What was it then? What is "we are coming for Skavau" supposed to mean?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

The fascists that you see everywhere are coming for you. They are under your bed right now. Run!!!!

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I don't see fascists everywhere. I only respond to people like this who express pro-fascist ideas.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Seig Heil!
o/

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 25 days ago

Grow up, ya cunt.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

How am I being immature?

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 25 days ago

Boo-hoo'ing about something somebody said on a message board? Very, very puerile.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

Should threats be allowed on here? There are few rules on here, but one consistent rule is that threats of violence are not tolerated.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 25 days ago

Who gives a shit? A threat conveyed on the internet from one anonymous person to another has no substance. You should be laughing at it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I didn't say it did. But that doesn't change my position. Why don't you ask the moderators why they remove threats?

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 25 days ago

immature
im = not
immature = not mature

The burden is on you to prove that you are something, not for him to prove that you are not something, regardless if you use a word that inherently implies a negative. If you're going to pretend to be a debater on here, at least stick to the basic precepts.

So answer how it is that you are mature, 🌈 bitch.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

He made the claim about my behaviour. The burden of proof is on whoever made the claim, and in this case I was after an assessment of my conduct that he finds immature.

And how am I a rainbow bitch? I thought you claimed to be a moderate. For a supposed moderate, you do a lot of nodding and winking towards solid reactionary talking points.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 25 days ago

Your behavior on these forums does.

Citation: https://moviechat.org/user/63210bd10596e9102d699a63

Specifically, you are a cunt and/or 🌈 bitch. Your pretensions and puerile behavior, for a dumbass like you in this context that means trivial and simplistic in a freshman level of debate, as opposed to immature. You gloat about getting posts reported, you gloat about how people may be banned from you reporting, and your general discussion habits are simply annoying as fuck, most notably your spamming of asinine questions in each of your posts. You also stay up all night on this fucking website asking dumb/irrelevant/conflated/shifted question after question until people get tired of playing your games, which in your stupid mind equates to a win.

Now go ahead, ask me some dumbass question about my proof of such and such. I'll redirect you right back here to your post history of being a puerile, 🌈 bitch-cunt.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

So put me on ignore?

People barely answer any questions of me (or rather, specific users don't). I simply ask people to back what are often outright absurd claims. They double-down, refuse to answer and try to deflect. The discussions sometimes draw other people in, or they make more points, or more claims. Why should people not be questioned when they make absurd claims?

You can't name a single irrelevant or shifted question (relative to the claims being responded to) that I've asked.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 25 days ago

I can't name them offhand by precise thread name because you aren't that important to me. But what's my prize if I take the time to look up my last discussion with you where you did so multiple times? You shifting the conversation again, right?

I've been there and done that. That's why it's logical to not play your games and to instead simply dismiss you as a cunt.

Oh, and nodding and winking towards "reactionary" talking points? Here's another one of your shifty games; you went from "far right" to "reactionary." You must think your slick conflating terms like that, getting people to use your terms with their alternate meaning, and then attacking them for the implication that they support the alternate meaning, don't you?

You're a cunt Skavau. Instead of constantly playing your games with the ideas of others, why don't you make some threads espousing your own political views instead of these asinine attacks of yours that ironically direct people into hating the shit you claim to support even more than before they encountered you?

My guess is that's not your real goal here; you're simply on here to be a contrary cunt.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>I can't name them offhand by precise thread name because you aren't that important to me. But what's my prize if I take the time to look up my last discussion with you where you did so multiple times? You shifting the conversation again, right?

Your problem, not mine.

>I've been there and done that. That's why it's logical to not play your games and to instead simply dismiss you as a cunt.

So why not put me on ignore?

>Oh, and nodding and winking towards "reactionary" talking points? Here's another one of your shifty games; you went from "far right" to "reactionary." You must think your slick conflating terms like that, getting people to use your terms with their alternate meaning, and then attacking them for the implication that they support the alternate meaning, don't you?

I generally try to avoid using far-right or far-left as economic positions can muddy them. You definitely seem to have reactionary tendencies.

I do remember you whining about me supposedly conflating centrist and moderate, as if they're two wildly different and divergent concepts that must not be confused.

>You're a cunt Skavau. Instead of constantly playing your games with the ideas of others, why don't you make some threads espousing your own political views instead of these asinine attacks of yours that ironically direct people into hating the shit you claim to support even more than before they encountered you?

Most people here don't make such threads. They share news articles. Or launch attack threads. I see no reason to think a social democrat sharing their worldview as a thread would not receive the same vitriol from the same people that I do here now.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 25 days ago

I miss dominating people like you in debates where, unlike here, rounds are timed and you wouldn't be able to spam shit post after shit post until people are tired of dealing with you, as I already am.

At least here though I can refer to you aptly as a 🌈 bitch-cunt. Until next time.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I answered all your points.

reply

[–] maixiu (1175) 25 days ago

This insistence on always having the last word is a bright red warning about some pathology that Skavau is possessed of.

If you've ever been unfortunate enough to watch two sheboons attack each other in public, you'll note that they have a single tactic: repeat the same phrase at each other in ever-increasing volumes. For example, one will keep saying, "You a ho, bitch! You a ho, bitch! You a ho, bitch!! You a ho, bitch!!!" in the desperate hope that her foe will give up and abandon the field of battle. There's no difference between that and the way Skavau engages with others on this board.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I only repeat myself when the other post refuses to address my points. I do respond to people when they, in their prior post, make claims about me (as you just did here). It's time consuming at times, but the point is to defend myself.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 25 days ago

I've seen enough videos on World Star to know what you're referring to, though I wouldn't use that analogy myself. I would refer to something like a tranny faggot that picked the most ostracized group to identify with in order to justify a reason for why people in his life don't like him in general. Someone so pathetic that they spend their waking, unemployed hours on a forum nominally directed at discussing movies picking fights over his edgy, presumed identity.

Of course I am only talking a hypothetical here and am not referring to anyone in particular.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I don't recall ever identifying with, or as a transperson. Or anything in the LGBT world.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Sheboons? LOL
Shut yo' bitch ass up! You know what I sayin fam? Sheeiitt.
We wuz kangs n' sheeeittt! Daz Rite mothafucka! Daz Rite!

reply

[–] maixiu (1175) 25 days ago

Ooga booga.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Are you familiar with Gypsy Crusader?

reply

[–] maixiu (1175) 25 days ago

Nope.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I think you would enjoy his livestreams.
@Jokerwaffengc on Twitter

I posted a link to his livestream a few days ago but it got removed. His content is a little too spicy for this board.

But if you go to his twitter you can find his livestreams archived.
I think you should check it out. Or at least watch some clips.
It fun times. Certainly better than most of the stuff you see on Netflix.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 25 days ago

Ignore is just short for ignorance. Only babies put people on ignore. The need for a safe space shows ineptness. You should just take a page from me where I just post my opinions then move on to other things, lol. While I do sometimes respond when I have more time, a lot of the times I don't. Writing numerous questions just makes conversations drawn out like what I am seeing here with around 20+ posts.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 24 days ago

"I simply ask people to back what are often outright absurd claims."

No, you ask for an external confirmation for any opinion that conflicts with whatever you post. My opinions don't come from links and I'm not going to spend 30mins Googling to satisfy your juvenile need to support every single fucking thing I say with some bullshit link. Only to debate the validity of said link to infinity and beyond. At that point, we're just the go-between for whatever sources we're using to argue. That's not a conversation. You're incapable of having an actual debate because all you can do is repeat whatever you heard or read somewhere else. You're obviously part of this current generation of people that the internet has made morons. You have unprecedented access to all this information but you never actually 'learn' anything. You didn't learn how to think, so you just Google it.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 24 days ago

The fact that they constantly rely on the internet proves that they can't think for themselves.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 24 days ago

And they're too dumb to realize it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

Some of your nonsense conspiracy theories come directly from online sources.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 24 days ago

Because people like me, post them on the internet and they turn out to be true 99% of the time.

We don't have to rely on the internet to deduce, discern or use common sense.

NPCs like you constantly have to rely on dumbass fact checkers, propaganda and internet scriptures to think and decide for you.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

>Because people like me, post them on the internet and they turn out to be true 99% of the time.

And how have you verified they are true? How have you determined that Obama is gay, or that Lady Gaga is a Jew? Or that Obamacare is a front for child trafficking? You read them online. What makes those claims so obviously true?

>We don't have to rely on the internet to deduce, discern or use common sense.

You literally read conspiracy websites. That is relying on the internet.

>NPCs like you constantly have to rely on dumbass fact checkers, propaganda and internet scriptures to think and decide for you.

The fact checkers literally cite their sources. You claimed (or supported the claim) that a photo of Hunter Biden with children being pedophilic was leaked in 2022. Not only is this not true (as the photo existed at least in 2020), but there's no evidence or tie or association with Hunter Biden. The fact-checkers you so decry literally found the source for that picture and the timestamp is right there.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 24 days ago

Dumbass. Independent thinkers like me have our own suspicions based on various factors that we use by deducing and discerning and then we share them on the internet.

We don't rely on state and/or global funded fact checkers and propaganda to make our own conclusions.

You continue to conflate everything as usual.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

>Dumbass.

Fascist shithead.

>Independent thinkers like me have our own suspicions based on various factors that we use by deducing and discerning and then we share them on the internet.

What "suspicisions" exactly? How have you determined that Obama is gay, or that Lady Gaga is a Jew? Or that Obamacare is a front for child trafficking?

What factors are you referring to?

>We don't rely on state and/or global funded fact checkers and propaganda to make our own conclusions.

You continue to claim, without any basis that all fact-checkers are state funded.

And as I said, and will repeat because you're apparently such a peabrain everything needs to be spelled out to you over and over: The fact checkers literally cite their sources. You claimed (or supported the claim) that a photo of Hunter Biden with children being pedophilic was leaked in 2022. Not only is this not true (as the photo existed at least in 2020), but there's no evidence or tie or association with Hunter Biden. The fact-checkers you so decry literally found the source for that picture and the timestamp is right there.

I investigated the actual data in the fact-checker I used there. It's trivial to do. You speak like you've never read any objection to the flaming bullshit you huff over ever.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 24 days ago

You made the claims about 2022.

The laptop has been around long before 2022 so the dates are irrelevant.

The FC pointed to a picture, one of many from his own confirmed and verified laptop with dozens of other pictures.

The Fact Checker proves nothing and disproves nothing, it's simply obfuscating information for gullible idiots like you.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

>You made the claims about 2022.

No, I didn't. That's what the person who "leaked" the Biden picture, or supposed Biden picture claimed. Have you done any independent verification yourself to determine if it is actually him? Why is it in an irrelevant 4chan thread years before?

>The laptop has been around long before 2022 so the dates are irrelevant.

But the *leaks* only happened, supposedly, in 2022. So it shouldn't have been on the internet prior to that.

>The FC pointed to a picture, one of many from his own confirmed and verified laptop with dozens of pictures.

And where did they confirm that picture, specifically?

>The Fact Checker proves nothing and disproves nothing, it's simply obfuscating information for gullible idiots like you.

And as I said, and will repeat because you're apparently such a peabrain everything needs to be spelled out to you over and over: The fact checkers literally cite their sources. You claimed (or supported the claim) that a photo of Hunter Biden with children being pedophilic was leaked in 2022. Not only is this not true (as the photo existed at least in 2020), but there's no evidence or tie or association with Hunter Biden. The fact-checkers you so decry literally found the source for that picture and the timestamp is right there.

I investigated the actual data in the fact-checker I used there. It's trivial to do. You speak like you've never read any objection to the flaming bullshit you huff over ever.

----

You also did not answer this:

>Independent thinkers like me have our own suspicions based on various factors that we use by deducing and discerning and then we share them on the internet.

What "suspicisions" exactly? How have you determined that Obama is gay, or that Lady Gaga is a Jew? Or that Obamacare is a front for child trafficking?

What factors are you referring to?

>We don't rely on state and/or global funded fact checkers and propaganda to make our own conclusions.

You continue to claim, without any basis that all fact-checkers are state funded.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 24 days ago

They mentioned the date and you regurgitated it as usual.

Stop relying on fact checkers and do your own independent investigation/research.

When they first mentioned the laptop, there were several fact checkers that were released, trying desperately to discredit the authenticity of the laptop and it was all lies, mis/dis-information and obfuscation.

99% of FCs are fake, lies and misdirections.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

>They mentioned the date and you regurgitated it as usual.

The SOURCE claimed they were leaked in 2022. If the picture was already online (and we know it was), then it wasn't leaked. Have you done any independent verification yourself to determine if it is actually him? Why is it in an irrelevant 4chan thread years before?

>Stop relying on fact checkers and do your own independent investigation/research.

I did. I READ THE fact-checkers and followed the sources they gave. What constitutes "independent" research, in your mind? Just reading random conspiracy scrolls?

>When they first mentioned the laptop, there were several fact checkers that were released trying desperately to discredit the authenticity of the laptop and it was all lies, mis/dis-information and obfuscation.

The snopes, specifically is referring to the allegations of pedophilia as supposedly corroborated by that image. It is not referring to Hunter Biden being some weird horny drug addict, as he seems to be.

>99% of FC are fake, lies and misdirections.

And where did you pull this number from? This is yet another one of your completely unsubstantiated bullshit claims you can't hope to defend.

As I said, and will repeat because you're apparently such a peabrain everything needs to be spelled out to you over and over: The fact checkers literally cite their sources. You claimed (or supported the claim) that a photo of Hunter Biden with children being pedophilic was leaked in 2022. Not only is this not true (as the photo existed at least in 2020), but there's no evidence or tie or association with Hunter Biden. The fact-checkers you so decry literally found the source for that picture and the timestamp is right there.

I investigated the actual data in the fact-checker I used there. It's trivial to do. You speak like you've never read any objection to the flaming bullshit you huff over ever.

----

>Independent thinkers like me have our own suspicions based on various factors that we use by deducing and discerning and then we share them on the internet.

What "suspicisions" exactly? How have you determined that Obama is gay, or that Lady Gaga is a Jew? Or that Obamacare is a front for child trafficking?

What factors are you referring to?

>We don't rely on state and/or global funded fact checkers and propaganda to make our own conclusions.

You continue to claim, without any basis that all fact-checkers are state funded.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 24 days ago

I did. I READ THE fact-checkers and followed the sources they gave.

No, you didn't, you followed their bullshit crumbs.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

By "bullshit crumbs" you mean the actual sources? If you have your own sources that contradict them, then by all means. Present them. Otherwise, as you've still not answered:

>99% of FC are fake, lies and misdirections.

And where did you pull this number from? This is yet another one of your completely unsubstantiated bullshit claims you can't hope to defend.

As I said, and will repeat because you're apparently such a peabrain everything needs to be spelled out to you over and over: The fact checkers literally cite their sources. You claimed (or supported the claim) that a photo of Hunter Biden with children being pedophilic was leaked in 2022. Not only is this not true (as the photo existed at least in 2020), but there's no evidence or tie or association with Hunter Biden. The fact-checkers you so decry literally found the source for that picture and the timestamp is right there.

I investigated the actual data in the fact-checker I used there. It's trivial to do. You speak like you've never read any objection to the flaming bullshit you huff over ever.

----

>Independent thinkers like me have our own suspicions based on various factors that we use by deducing and discerning and then we share them on the internet.

What "suspicisions" exactly? How have you determined that Obama is gay, or that Lady Gaga is a Jew? Or that Obamacare is a front for child trafficking?

What factors are you referring to?

>We don't rely on state and/or global funded fact checkers and propaganda to make our own conclusions.

You continue to claim, without any basis that all fact-checkers are state funded.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

>No, you ask for an external confirmation for any opinion that conflicts with whatever you post.

Sorry, what am I supposed to do when I see someone claim that Obama is gay, or that Lady Gaga is a Jew, or that hundreds of millions have died from the COVID jab (or whatever nonsense figure tvfan spouts)?

>My opinions don't come from links and I'm not going to spend 30mins Googling to satisfy your juvenile need to support every single fucking thing I say with some bullshit link.

I don't tend to ask *you* to provide evidence. I am unaware of any utterly nonsensical claims made by you. I ask other people to provide evidence for their outlandish claims. If you claim, for instance, that Obama is gay you have 100% got that opinion from something you've read online. I merely ask for source.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 23 days ago

You ask for links all the fucking time.

I don't need an online source to think or even know someone is gay.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 23 days ago

>You ask for links all the fucking time.

Yes, because people make outrageous claims.

>I don't need an online source to think or even know someone is gay.

You don't need an online source to *think* someone is gay. TVfan is claiming that he knows, that it is factual, that Obama is gay. On what basis can this be considered a fact?

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 23 days ago

Who gives a shit either way???

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 23 days ago

You care enough to get angry that I ask for sources. I ask for sources for these outrageous claims and many users, as other users here like to say "chimp out" at someone having the temerity to ask them to back up their claims.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 21 days ago

Who the fuck is angry? You really think a worm like you can make me angry? Thanks for proving the narcissism we already knew was rampant among woke idiots.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

Frustrated, petulant, narky. What word should I use? You keep replying with frustration.

And how is saying you get angry indicative of narcissism?

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 20 days ago

Okay, now 'that' was funny! The fact that you really think you could get under my skin is a prime example of your narcissism. You think I just found the internet last week? I've been doing 'this' for almost 30yrs and had heated exchanges with folks far better than the likes of you. The only thing about you that's frustrating is that you're too dumb to argue with. There's no sport in it. I get bored with it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 20 days ago

Yet you keep replying and complaining about me, and never address any of my replies to whatever claims you're making.

reply

[–] Corbell (9741) 20 days ago

Just swinging by, but, wanted to say, I've in the past "addressed" your points, such as they were, and it's all just bullshit.

Mostly you playing the stupid "Fledgling" tactic.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 20 days ago

No you haven't. You're one of the worst examples of someone making excuses for doing anything /but/ addressing other people's points.

reply

[–] Corbell (9741) 20 days ago

Yes, i have. I pushed though to the "meat" and repeatedly once you dig past the nonsense, there is nothing there.

You, like many leftard troll-bois, are here with the intention of PREVENTING serious or honest discussion of any real issues.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 20 days ago

>Yes, i have. I pushed though to the "meat" and repeatedly once you dig past the nonsense, there is nothing there.

No, you have not. I continue to await a single example where you have done this. What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>You, like many leftard troll-bois, are here with the intention of PREVENTING serious or honest discussion of any real issues.

Are you back to being a crybaby little bitch where you think that a comment chain somehow oppresses you? You really are the whiniest snowflake on here. Perpetually offended over the most pathetic shit. It's truly laughable.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 20 days ago

I get tired of needlessly addressing your points.

No, I'm not gonna spend all day trying to find you a fucking link. Been down this road before too.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 20 days ago

You almost never address my points. You'd have to start first before you could make that whine.

And not all of my queries and responses to you regarding the points you make have always required you to find a link either.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 20 days ago

Whatever you say. I hope one day you figure it all out.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4074) 21 days ago

No one thinks that's a threat dummy.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

What is it then?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Were you the one who reported my post on The Boys thread?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

No.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

I don't believe you.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

I don't know what you want me to do about that. You made no threats or incited violence in your OP, so far as I remember. So it being removed was odd to me in the first place. I actually assumed you deleted it.

At the same time, perhaps you should start shouting at the moderators for doing it to you.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

I thought it was odd as well. I usually use hyperbolic language in my posts, but there was nothing particularly incendiary in that one, yet it was removed. Strange.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4074) 21 days ago

It doesn't matter what it is because we both know you know it's not a threat.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

Truly no threats on here could be said to be threats because of the posters inability to act on them, but all the same they're still against the rules.

reply

[–] maixiu (1175) 25 days ago

The Belgian PM actually started crying in the wake of his party getting trounced. What a pussy.

Next up for the left is to declare that in order to protect Our Sacred Democracy we'll have to ban political parties that don't conform to the morality of the ruling class. And if that doesn't work we'll have to ban elections - to protect democracy, you see.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

Like you give a flying fuck about democracy and civil liberties, shitheel.

You would revoke women's right to vote entirely. You have no right to complain about the left being authoritarian.

Fascist prick

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

[deleted]

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

That's getting pretty close to a chimp out.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

It's based completely on his own words on here. Are they wrong? Am I wrong in making the observation I made?

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

Do you think I go around reading other people's responses to you? Get a hold of yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

Maixu hasn't really hidden his position on here, or only expressed it to me. But anyway, yeah, he wants to remove women's rights to vote.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

He's smart. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Their only concern should be what to make for dinner. They belong in the kitchen.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

Women are way too emotional..their right to vote should be removed. Max seems highly intelligent so you should listen to him.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

See now you may well be trolling just to get a reaction. Since you have behaved like a little manchild since you came on here (despite claiming christian morals), that wouldn't surprise me.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

I have never once trolled on this board you insignificant little hydrocephalic.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

That is obvious and total bullshit.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

Your head feeling a bit swollen?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Women were not meant to concern themselves with politics. It's all too much for their tiny woman brains.
Their role is making sure that their husband's balls are empty and their stomachs full.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

All it takes is a little push.

reply

[–] maixiu (1175) 25 days ago

You can try to dodge it all you want but it's the left, despite talking up its sexually-charged love for "muh sacred Democracy", that continually engages in acts that restrict the democratic process.

Do the words "watch list" ring a bell, you fascist scum?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>You can try to dodge it all you want but it's the left, despite talking up its sexually-charged love for "muh sacred Democracy", that continually engages in acts that restrict the democratic process.

What actions, specifically, are these?

I also notice you have no comment in the AFD's involvement in the attempted aborted coup in Germany in 2022.

>Do the words "watch list" ring a bell, you fascist scum?

The fact that you never addressed my response to that also "rings a bell". Every single country on earth has secret service groups that will monitor potential security risks. By your logic, is every single state on earth fascist?

Are you going to suggest that in your ideal world, state security would be abolished?

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 25 days ago

I think it's wrong for people to compare fascists of the old to fascists of today. I don't think fascists of today will be waging wars on other nations like Nazi Germany did. Limiting rights to certain groups, cutting social services, and favoring small to big businesses via tax cuts but that's about it. Same goes for how we hold Israel more accountable today than we would for nations under war back in WW2 with carpet bombing etc.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Exactly, and we wouldn't even cut social services, except to immigrants. We want to take care of our own people. There is a reason we are called National socialists.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Skavau badgering you too?

You have to boop her on her nose like this.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_dwpAW0gl1k

Maybe eventually she'll stop.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

You could always put me on ignore, you know.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

What would be the fun in that?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

You find it that fun to respond to me?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I like trolling you.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

You express the same values in general on here. You don't just turn on the fascist persona when talking to me. I'm the only person who outright calls it what it is.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

And?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

So your claim that you somehow turn it on when I call you out for making threats isn't especially convincing. Maybe you're hamming it up, but they're still threats, they're still the consequence of what you believe.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

If you say so.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 25 days ago

See a pattern here, cupcake? People like fucking with you, because you're a woke idiot.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

CuriousMind openly expressed pro-fascist values to other users. Whether or not he plays it up when talking to me doesn't make him any less a fascist.

Also, I'm not really perturbed. I'm also trying to bait them.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

See, she openly admits that she is just trying to bait me. So what is her goal? She wants you to say something that she can report to the mods with the goal of getting you banned. So she's just a censorious cunt. As bad as a fascist. Worse, a rainbow fascist. Eeeewww.

reply

[–] CraigC (7398) 25 days ago

What's comical is that you are obviously trolling "it" but they're too arrogant to admit to doing the same thing.

Rainbow people are the biggest fascists on planet Earth.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

He is not obviously trolling. He has openly described himself as a fascist to other users. He did so before I even started engaging him.

>Rainbow people are the biggest fascists on planet Earth.

Is it your opinion that private forums having rules is exactly the same as the police arresting people for what they say?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Exactly.
Also, her tiny woman brain hasn't considered the possibility that I am both far right and I am a troll.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

No, I believe that to be true. But that you troll doesn't negate the fascism that you hold to. The only "trolling" when you talk about putting 'degenerates' into camps, for instance, is that you're waving it in my face. You still do genuinely want to do that.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

No, what I really believe is that degenerates should be marginalized. Same with Wokes. The thing about the camps and train cars is hyperbole for the purposes of humor.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

That's a cultural and social issue if you don't want the state to get involved.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I think the state has a role to play. I don't really know to what degree the state should play a role, but I do think it has a role.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I don't make you make threats towards groups (or users).

And is it your opinion that private forums having rules is exactly the same as the police arresting people for what they say?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

What threat?
The board has rules against threats of violence. What I said is not an example of violence.
Rounding people up and expelling them from the country or arresting them is not violence. It also happens to be hyperbole. So there is that.

And is it your opinion that private forums having rules is exactly the same as the police arresting people for what they say?

It is worse.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>What threat?

"Sounds to me like you're a deviant. Just another reason why you're on the list.
The far right is rising and they are coming for people like you."

Implication.

>Rounding people up and expelling them from the country or arresting them is not violence. It also happens to be hyperbole. So there is that.

Tell that to the mods who removed multiples of your posts for doing that.

>It is worse.

How do you work that out?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

What posts did the mods remove?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

https://moviechat.org/tt31433814/Doctor-Who/66464c69267af721f3095705/Blacklisting

Multiples in here.

And here, where you made threats: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/66622aa2bb3a4b480d67348e/Hate-crime?reply=6666bbb4e9b5a81bea6300a0

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

they removed like 2 posts (out of a 100) on each of those forums. I don't even remember what I said. I just know that it was funny.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

It was threats of violence. I didn't say they removed lots of your posts. Are the MC mods now fascist then?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Nah, I talked to Mod5. He/she is pretty cool.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

There's another mod.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

These are the symptoms, you have at least 8-10 of these.

Brief, shrill, high-pitched cry
Changes in personality, memory, or the ability to reason or think
Changes in facial appearance and eye spacing (craniofacial disproportion)
Crossed eyes or uncontrolled eye movements
Difficulty feeding
Excessive sleepiness
Headaches
Irritability, poor temper control
Loss of bladder control (urinary incontinence)
Loss of coordination and trouble walking
Muscle spasticity (spasm)
Slow growth (child 0–5 years)
Delayed milestones
Failure to thrive
Slow or restricted movement
Vomiting

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Yes I know. I'm saying I've talked to Mod5 and they are a standup person with integrity. They are fair and I respect their decision.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

Mod5 last I read (when they're active) was in hospital shouting at users for bothering them. I have no idea what they think.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

they? How many transgenders are on this board?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Honestly the woke trans activists here (who aren't even trans) are worse than the trannies themselves.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I don't recall ever being a trans-activist. It might surprise you to know that I oppose transwomen in female sports, think transwomen in prisons can be a safeguarding issue, find non-binary gender concepts to be ridiculous, do think a lot of LGBT-related educational content is overzealous and cringe, think a lot of diversity initiatives in workplaces are trashy, a waste of money and do more harm than good, and oppose affirmative action either in entertainment or in any other area.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Well shit, color me surprised. Why didn't you say so. Now I can take you off the blacklist and the fascists won't round you up.
See, how hard was that?
It's all good.
Although you still can be cunt sometimes. Just sayin'.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

The point is you don't go *from that* to supporting Russian-style LGBT "propaganda" and "extremism" laws (as many people here do).

I am deeply supportive of civil liberties.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Well I'm slowly moving away from liberalism. I still have sympathies but I can see now that liberalism is a failure.
Unfortunately liberalism does not stay in some steady state, it evolves over time and eventually it evolves into something absurd. Those things that you say you are against, trans, non-binary, woke, etc. All those things come out of liberalism. Not the liberalism we both grew up with back in the day, but something new that it evolves into. Something toxic and absurd.
And yes, that has attracted me closer to the Russian-style of doing things.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I'm against *elements of* that attack civil liberties (ie Affirmative action). I don't support any restrictions against NB identities, I just find them nonsensical. Stuff can be woke, but stuff can also be reactionary. It's a free world. My objection to hate speech in terms of arresting people for it is also rooted in my support for civil liberties.

Civil liberties are not negotiable here. And you do realise that it is "not inevitable". If you follow British politics at any level, you'll know that the Labour party is not in favour a lot of what LGBT activists want enshrined and protected by law.

>And yes, that has attracted me closer to the Russian-style of doing things.

I thought you were against state intrusion here?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

No, I've said that the state has a role to play. I don't know exactly what that role should be, but it has a role.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

Yeah and groomvau is the absolute worst wokey on this board.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

You said it.
You know what they are? They are a Woke pest.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

they? so they are a trans, I fucking knew it. that little woke tranny

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

No, sorry. This is my bad. This is an old habit of mine.
When I was in grade school we learned to use "they" when you're talking about someone whose gender is irrelevant to the point or it's just a generic reference.
That is the way I meant it.

Skavau, as far as I know, is not a tranny.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I've talked to mod5 just 2 days ago. They were nothing but nice.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Sounds to me like you're a deviant. Just another reason why you're on the list.
The far right is rising and they are coming for people like you.

That's called hyperbole. Because you're constantly talking about a fascist threat.
I'm saying they're coming for you. You better run. You better hide. Boo!

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I'm not talking about any such threat. I'm just replying to a user who espouses pro-fascist ideas.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

You know, you could be both far right and espouse far right ideas while at the same time make hyperbolic statements for the purposes of humor.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I understand that.

But fascism is what it is. By definition fascists seek a one-party nationalist totalitarian state where all opposition is persecuted, where minority groups and subcultures are censored and driven out of society.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Yes. What's wrong with that if the opposition is woke?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I'm making the point that your trolling behaviour on here doesn't somehow vindicate or absolve you also being a fascist. You still really hold those opinions. So I'm not sure what the relevance of you pointing out you're a troll has.

And you haven't given a reason why the opposition being "woke" (which isn't all that fascism targets) somehow justifies their persecution.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I am a fascist. But I'm a good fascist. I only want to marginalize the opposition not actually exterminate them. And when I do advocate for extermination, it's hyperbole for the purposes of humor and taking the piss out of you.
There I explained it. Clearly and without equivocation. Are you finally getting it?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

By what means do you wish to "marginalise" them?

You also made such threats to other users, not to me. Some of your posts were deleted weren't even responses to me.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Yeah, I make them to other users as well. It's what I do here.
A mix of genuine thoughtful conversations and trolling. I often like to blur the line to keep it interesting.

And as for marginalization, I would just point to history as an example. 50 years ago, society didn't accept LGBTQs. They didn't accept interracial marriage. People wanted homogeneous societies. And in diverse societies, they wanted segregation. I believe that things were better back then and prefer them to be that way again. Because the alternative is what we have today, an absurd society that is disintegrating before our very eyes, and where most people are in a state of anomie.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>And as for marginalization, I would just point to history as an example. 50 years ago, society didn't accept LGBTQs. They didn't accept interracial marriage. People wanted homogeneous societies. And in diverse societies, they wanted segregation. I believe that things were better back then and prefer them to be that way again.

They were not better for lots of people who happened to be LGBT, non-white or just counter-cultural in some sense. The world is globalised now, and I don't mean that in the defence of open borders (I'm also opposed to that) but in the sense that there's so much more cultural cross-pollination now. The internet and travel has fundamentally shifted social and cultural relationships. There is no monoculture anymore. People don't all sit down to watch a TV show at 9pm every Friday. US society and culture (and western culture) is a vast collection of subcultures and movements. You can't put humpty dumpty back together.

People were simply unable to access international content in the 1950s to 1970s, for the most part. The breadth of experience was much smaller for most people.

There's a big reason why Russian cultural and media power is pathetic, and US/UK culture is so prominent globally.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Yes, you're right. But what if the only way to have a coherent and healthy society is to marginalize those minorities (LGBTQs/racial minorities). My point is that I am ready to do that, but people who still cling on to old school liberalism are incapable of doing that. It goes against their values.
I understand this. I once thought the same. But my views have evolved and I've let go of some of my most cherished beliefs.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>Yes, you're right. But what if the only way to have a coherent and healthy society is to marginalize those minorities (LGBTQs/racial minorities).

It isn't. And it causes cultural malaise and decline, as Russia is illustrating with its censorship as the USSR and even into when they were Russia.

>My point is that I am ready to do that, but people who still cling on to old school liberalism are incapable of doing that. It goes against their values.

This isn't "old school liberalism". This is just liberalism in itself.

>I understand this. I once thought the same. But my views have evolved and I've let go of some of my most cherished beliefs.

And no argument for why anyone should follow.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I'm not asking you to follow. I'm just explaining my position.
I wanted to take a moment and have a genuine conversation with you. Without the trolling or hostility. But if you prefer the other way, so be it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I didn't troll you there. I was only mildly hostile, if anything. Do you concede the fact that Russian culture is laughable in terms of reach and notability compared to US or UK culture?

I'm not gay or black - but supposing I was, or supposing someone on here is gay or black - would you expect them to treat you without hostility? Knowing full well you want to harm them and throw them out of the USA (assuming they live there)? Think about it from that perspective. That's what I personally just can't disconnect from when it comes to interacting with fascists, or stalinists, or theocrats, or whoever it might be who wants a massive state apparatus of control and fear.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

No I don't expect decorum. I know that for me to get what I want they have to lose. I'm sorry that it is this way. But it is this way.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

So you're getting precisely what you expect. Why shouldn't they view you as anything less than a nazi, or as bad as one? This is seriously asked, I'm not just throwing it out as a pejorative. Do you truly blame me for speaking to you as I do?

Also: Do you concede the fact that Russian (modern) culture and media is laughable in terms of reach and notability compared to US or UK culture and media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Yes i know, and I act accordingly. I play into it. It's why I just straight up say that I'm a nazi and I drop all the decorum as well.

Also: Do you concede the fact that Russian (modern) culture and media is laughable in terms of reach and notability compared to US or UK culture and media?

Yes, I concede.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>Yes i know, and I act accordingly. I play into it. It's why I just straight up say that I'm a nazi and I drop all the decorum as well.

I mean it's not really playing into it if you are literally it. In actuality nazism is not accurate on a technicality unless you also support massive Jewish expulsion/massacres.

>Yes, I concede.

And you thus want to reproduce that cultural malaise and decline in the USA?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Well, that's why I'm not an actual Nazi. I am not anti-Jewish. I don't support the expulsion of the Jews and certainly would oppose massacring them or harming them in any way.

And you thus want to reproduce that cultural malaise and decline in the USA?

I don't think we have to reproduce it. Like I said, we don't have to look to the Russians of today, we could just look at our own history from 50 or even 20 years ago. I think society was in a better place. It was healthier. Were some people worse off, yes. Sexual and racial minorities were worse off. But if that is the price that we must pay to return to something resembling normal then so be it. I'm willing to sacrifice them. And I no longer feel guilty about that.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>I don't think we have to reproduce it. Like I said, we don't have to look to the Russians of today, we could just look at our own history from 50 or even 20 years ago.

Dude, US media from the 50s and 60s has simply not aged well at all. Generic police shows, endless westerns and family sitcoms. It would be utterly demolished by the diverse (stylistically) content on offer now.

Music was still in development. You think shit like hardcore punk, black metal or death metal would've been culturally acceptable in any sense then? Most movements in music have been from progressives/leftists/liberals, and not from social conservatives. Russia by contrast just copies western trends for their modern music scenes.

Also there's no real reason to think it was healthier.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Well I did also say 20 years ago.
Are you telling me that things were not great 20 years ago?
We had the best TV shows in history during that time.
During the 70'-90's we had the best films. And between the 60's and 00's, we had the best music.
There is nothing since 2010 that has surpassed anything during that era. Not TV, not film, not music. We have regressed. You say the Russians are in a malaise... We are in a cultural malaise.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>Well I did also say 20 years ago.
Are you telling me that things were not great 20 years ago?

20 years ago there was no LGBT repression in culture. Gay people appeared on TV. Non-white people appeared on TV.

>We had the best TV shows in history during that time.

Disagree strongly. The 90s and 00s had decent shows, but nothing compared to the 10s onwards.

>And between the 60's and 00's, we had the best music.

Highly debateable. Most music is and has always been underground anyway and some of the most revered acts by music fans are totally unknown to the wider public.

>There is nothing since 2010 that has surpassed anything during that era. Not TV, not film, not music. We have regressed. You say the Russians are in a malaise... We are in a cultural malaise.

Nonsense.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Agree to disagree.
My favorite shows, Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, Sopranos, Deadwood, etc.
All premiered between 99-2010.
All my favorite music, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, etc.
All in the 60's/70's
All my favorite movies, Shawshank Redemption, Terminator 1/2, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Heat, Goodfellas, Casino, etc.
All happened in the 80's-00's.

And I'm glad there was no LGBTQ representation (there actually was just not much). I preferred it that way. There was also diversity, but it wasn't as obnoxious as it is today.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>Agree to disagree.
My favorite shows, Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, Sopranos, Deadwood, etc.
All premiered between 99-2010.

2010 onwards:

Game of Thrones, Chernobyl, True Detective, The Boys, Better Call Saul, Black Mirror, The Queen's Gambit, Westworld (S01), House of Cards, Mr. Robot, Narcos, House of the Dragon, Fargo, Ozark, Mindhunter, Orange is the New Black, Shameless, The Blacklist, Hannibal, Succession, The Bear, Fleabag, Severance, Boardwalk Empire, Mare of Easttown, The Good Place, Person of Interest, The Expanse, Outlander, The Night Of, Andor, Luther, One Piece (live-action), When They See Us, Beef, Penny Dreadful, The Pacific, Shogun, Barry, Silo, The Newsroom, Unbelievable, Orphan Black, Black Sails, The Leftovers, The Americans, Black Bird, What We Do in the Shadows, Maid, Normal People, Atlanta, Dopesick, Slow Horses, Travellers, Manhunt, The Great, The Terror (S01), Devs, The Chosen, The Righteous Gemstones, Mayor of Kingstown, Jury Duty, Warrior, Gangs of London..

All of these are critically acclaimed (by audiences, not critics) - and I deliberately avoided some 'woke' ones (that are also critically acclaimed like Euphoria, Sex Education, Heartstopper). There's really no contest when you look at the diversity of content coming out post-2010 and prior.

And this isn't even including non-English content like Dark, Money Heist, Borgen, Ethos, Babylon Berlin and the entire Korean TV industry. I could just keep adding in more and more shows: Hacks, Bad Sisters, Counterpart, Mr. Inbetween, Snowfall, Ghosts

>All my favorite music, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, etc.
All in the 60's/70's

This is preference. Music from the 60s and 70s is worthless to someone into metal, punk, hip hop, alternative (alt/indie rock, post-punk derivatives) and electronic music for the most part.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Out of that list I consider these to be the best:
Game of Thrones
The Boys
Better Call Saul
Mr. Robot
Hannibal
Boardwalk Empire
Person of Interest
The Expanse
Black Sails
The Night Of
The Americans
Travellers
Mayor of Kingstown
Gangs of London
Fargo
Ozark

Mr. Robot, Black Sails, GoT, Hannibal, BCS are the only once that I would consider on par with something like Breaking Bad and The Wire.
Most of the good ones still premiered before 2015.

Earlier I said, that the cut off date was 2010, but I was just talking about the 00's as a decade. For me the golden age of television was between 1999-2015. Are there exceptions, sure. There's OZ in '97 which came even before the Sopranos and you have shows like The Boys and Ozark which came after 2015. But aside from that most of the good stuff happened in that time frame. There hasn't been a show since 2015 that is better than the shows before 2015. At least in my opinion.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I'll note that this is opinion, and I can only go from objective evaluation of content. There's just such an abundance of praised TV shows now. The handful you pointed out in the 00s indeed were highly praised, and up there, but the 90s and 00s also saw countless forgettable medical/police/legal procedurals and generic family sitcoms.

Music as well has come a long way since the 60s and 70s.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

The only music that I like post 90's is trance music. I hate rap/hip-hop/modern pop, etc.

Having said that, I have come across a few new artists recently who give me hope for the state of music in the future. One is a Polish genius guitarist Marcin
https://www.youtube.com/@MarcinGuitar
And the other is Polyphia. Here is a song that I'm currently listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHcAi2FPrTM

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>The only music that I like post 90's is trance music. I hate rap/hip-hop/modern pop, etc.

There's tons of highly acclaimed rock, alternative, punk and metal music that emerged since the 90s began. Electronic music also mostly developed and advanced beyond the 90s and into the 00s and 10s.

>And the other is Polyphia. Here is a song that I'm currently listening to.

Polyphia plays technical progressive metal/math rock music. There are TONS of bands and projects like Polyphia. Math Rock as a genre largely emerged after the 80s.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

It's difficult for me to get into music. I mostly hate everything I hear. Once in while something comes along that is interesting enough that I want to listen to it more than once, and then it kind of grows on me to the point that I actually start to like it. But listening to most music is a chore for me.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

This is a "you" thing, to be frank. Modern music is as strong as its ever been. Your premise about it being the best in the 60s and 70s is more that it was the most influential era that set roots for later artists to build on. And they have built on it.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Yes, it's most definitely a me thing.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

So really it can't be said that we had "objectively" the best music in the past, or the best TV (certainly not in the 60s and 70s, dear me)

And there's no reason to think we're in any cultural media decline.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Well TV, yes, I believe the best TV was between 1999-2015, and that nothing in the last 9 years is as good as anything during that era. Certainly when it comes to movies there is nothing I can think of that comes close to anything in the 90's and 00's.
Music on the other hand, while I do think that an argument can be made for music being better, I'm not the best person to make it because of my quirky relationship to music.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>Well TV, yes, I believe the best TV was between 1999-2015, and that nothing in the last 9 years is as good as anything during that era.

That's an opinion. It's not really rooted in anything concrete and when assessing audience feedback, it doesn't seem right at all. And your idealised time is actually the 50s-70s, not the 90s-00s where TV was genuinely fucking garbage (in the 50s-70s) compared to now.

>Music on the other hand, while I do think that an argument can be made for music being better, I'm not the best person to make it because of my quirky relationship to music.

I don't think any such argument can be made, especially if you're retreating to the 50s-70s (remember, your supposed ideal era).

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

No, there is no one ideal era. When it comes to social and cultural issues, yes, I like the 50's. The 1850's even more.
But when it comes to music I like the 60's/70's. When it comes to movies, I like the 80's/90's. When it comes to TV, I like the 00's.

And yes, I believe that an argument can be made for 1999-2015 being the best era for television. There is a reason why people keep going back and rewatching those shows over and over. There is something special there. It's not just my opinion.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>No, there is no one ideal era. When it comes to social and cultural issues, yes, I like the 50's. The 1850's even more.
But when it comes to music I like the 60's/70's. When it comes to movies, I like the 80's/90's. When it comes to TV, I like the 00's.

Preferences =/= objective quality

I think Doomgaze is one of the best styles of modern metal music (when done well), but that's an opinion.

>And yes, I believe that an argument can be made for 1999-2015 being the best era for television. There is a reason why people keep going back and rewatching those shows over and over. There is something special there. It's not just my opinion.

They're longer, episodic (and often sitcoms) and are used for comfort viewing.

New shows are shorter. One person watching the entirety of Gilmore Girls or Suits or Friends will rack up much more minutes for that show than someone watching a new 8 episode season. So the formula here is broken. In reality that should be a +1 for each show, but it's not because the measurement is "minutes watched".

Suits has 134 episodes. The Last of Us has 9. Someone watching all of Suits contributes over 10 times to their "minutes watched" than someone watching The Last of Us. About 13 TLOU watchers (I think the episodes are a bit longer) = 1 Suits Watcher in terms of the data.

Another thing compounding this is that these shows sometimes go dark on all streaming services for a while, until they suddenly hit them and a fully complete 100+ episode season suddenly exists on Netflix. Lots of people either haven't watched it in years, or have never watched it. It surges. It surges easily because they're very long shows.

People are also only watching a small slither of the old 90s and 00s content present on streaming now. All orbiting the same dozen or so TV shows, many of which play in the background or even whilst people asleep. Whereas there are over a dozen new TV shows released per month these days, and all of them are designed to be actively watched rather than as background noise. There's a lot more competition. The shows in the 90s and 00s emerged in an era of relative content scarcity. They were on timeslots, and people weren't choosing to watch Squid Game or Dark over them - because international content simply didn't really exist to the scale and quality that it does now. And it wasn't accessible.

Having less viewers per show because of a smaller length and more competition for an audience doesn't mean you're bad.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 25 days ago

Why do you think Skavau is female? THERE ARE NO FEMALES ON THE INTERNETS!

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I thought they were male for the longest time, but someone else on this board that I trust and consider a friend said that she is a she, so I'm going based off of that. And when I talked to her directly and implied that she is a female, she didn't deny it or object. So I'm just going with it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

I'm male. But I don't really bother to correct people who think I'll get angry if they call me female.

Your friend lied to you.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I wouldn't say he lied. He was just referring to you as a "she" and he said he is friendly with you on this board so I had assumed he would know.

Thanks for clarifying.

Also, wasn't it nice to have a genuine conversation without all the trolling and hostility for once?
Where I didn't have to boop you on the nose like a bad dog?
Doesn't it feel good to not be a cunt for a little while?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

>Doesn't it feel good to not be a cunt for a little while?

How would you feel with interacting with someone who wants you imprisoned, or exiled or dead? Would you treat them nicely? You already conceded that it is perfectly normal for people you want to target to speak to you with contempt.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

I can interact cordially with my enemies.
And I'm not saying you don't have good reason to be a cunt. I'm asking you if it doesn't feel better to not be a cunt? At least for a little while?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 25 days ago

No. And I reject your framing.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 25 days ago

Ok. Well I enjoyed this last conversation. It's the first time that it didn't feel tedious talking to you.
At no time in the last 2 hours did I want to boop you on the nose.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 24 days ago

LOL

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

define "far right"

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 25 days ago

What isn't right of center or right.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 25 days ago

thanks that clears it up.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 24 days ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

This also offers a glimpse of the varying spectrum of what is considered far-right, just like there is a spectrum for the far-left. Think of it as a more extreme case of what the right would partially want.

reply

[–] Blade13 (1184) 24 days ago

So that would make christians far right. LOL

reply

[–] Nanook (1609) 25 days ago

My standard response to hearing that label being slung so commonly is, "Well that doesn't leave much room for ethnic cleansing..."

I think everyone should take the https://www.politicalcompass.org/test and try to get a more objective idea of where they stand. And read the analysis. You might be surprised.

Seemingly, to some, anyone to the right of Mao is "far right." Nuance has been lost.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 24 days ago

I took that test years ago. Last I recall I was center left. -2 to -3.

Took it again now:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass_js?ec=-5.63&soc=-0.1

Rofl, wtf? I think it shifted me hella left because I strongly agreed on porn, KEK! But seriously though, I am not that left as the thing suggests. some of the questions are like statements and there is no somewhat agree/disagree. There should be more nuance to the options. Where's your graph?

reply

[–] Nanook (1609) 24 days ago

Yeah, agree the graph isn't perfect, but it's the only one of its kind I've found. Similar experience, just a smaller move. Ten+ years ago, when I was a long time registered Libertarian, not that I agree with most of their platform, just closer to them than any other party. Plus I'll be the first to say most of their candidates are disappointing, outside of Ron "Dr. No" Paul. :D

Anyway ten+ years ago I was three down, 0.5 right, and a year or so ago, I became one more square libertarian (4 down) and 1.5 more right (2 right), funnily enough, apparently closest to Jill Stein, even though we likely differ on particular issues.

The move was probably in reaction to the 1984-ish tactics most of the legacy/social media had regarding the info/mandates around the 'rona & lockdowns, that I saw a slow creep towards totalitarianism across the world, especially in Australia, and was outraged at our government giving out pennies to our vets./citizens while most of the states were shutting down mom & pop businesses and churches, but keeping big box stores and strip clubs open, while homeless camps were popping up around my pad (L.A.) while sending billions to other countries in those 3,000 page "you have to pass it to know what's in it" bills. Oh yeah, and congress all voted to give themselves a fat raise in the middle of the largest transfer of wealth in US (maybe world history) making the poor poorer, destroying the middle class, while millionaires and billionaires flourished and increased in numbers.

Dammit. This is why I avoid the politics board. My heart rate doesn't go up talking about movies.

reply

[–] tvfan (9999) 23 days ago

That dumbass compass is another deceptive fabrication by the radical leftoids.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

On here, anyone who isn't borderline fascist is considered far-left.

reply

[–] blue1981 (7004) 25 days ago

Any leader who is in favor of unchecked illegal immigration with the purpose of wiping its citizens off the map is treason. We have a right to demand our political leaders maintain policies rooted in Nationalism.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 25 days ago

Agreed. A reasonable person would have controlled or limited illegal migration within reason. Far-right would just outright ban it which I don't agree. Moderation is key in all things.

reply

[–] Nanook (1609) 24 days ago

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-4/#article-4-section-4

"The United States shall **guarantee** to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and **shall protect each of them against Invasion;** and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

ted_knight_Caddyshack.gif

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15561) 25 days ago

Get used to it.

reply

[–] retieredactor (712) 24 days ago

Germany
https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/1800317719902081493

reply

[–] Rorikon (16899) 24 days ago

“The Borders need to be closed. Illegals need to be rejected. Anyone who stays without authorization must be deported. Criminals, Terrorists and Social Fraudsters who’ve been naturalized MUST surrender their German Passport”

Right would be borders closed until backlog is halved. Illegals need to be vetted well when seeking asylum. Those who contribute (ie: DACA) can find a path to citizenship, not the rest. Terrorists and fraudsters need to be jailed and potentially deported with passport possibly nullified.

reply

[–] retieredactor (712) 24 days ago

This

reply

[–] maixiu (1175) 24 days ago

They all have to go back. Germany for Germans.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Germany for Germans. Ireland for the Irish. Poland for the Poles. Britain for the British. France for the French. etc. etc. etc.

Oh and for all the others here who still don't get it — that means White.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

There are Brits in Britain that are not white, and have been here for multiple generations are are completely culturally integrated. Many are popular entertainers and well known media personalities.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

Skavau without being too specific, and hopefully not too assuming, are you a southerner?

Half of my family is English and I've spent a good amount of time in the UK.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

Yes. If by that you mean "live in southern england". And what does that have to do with anything?

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

That's what I meant. I figured. I was just curious.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

If they are not White then they are not British. If I move to China and have kids there (White kids). And those kids have more White kids. Those grand-kids will not be Chinese. Even though they, and their family, would have been there for multiple generations.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

That's not for you to decide. You do not live here. The UK population widely accepts integrated 2nd, 3rd generation non-white people as British.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

It's not about what you or I decide, it's about blood. 50 years ago you could tell someone was an Englishman just by looking at them. Same thing goes for a Frenchman, a Pole, an Italian, a German, etc.
When I say you are British or not British, that is what I am referring to. I don't care if you were granted citizenship, or were born there, or your parents were born there. You are not blood. You will never be British. The best you can hope for is having kids with a real British person, and then those kids having kids with another real British person, and on, and on, and on, until the non-British part is bred out of them. Then they could be considered British.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>It's not about what you or I decide, it's about blood.

No, it's about what the general consensus of the people who live in Britain is (and the legal requirements for becoming a citizen).

>50 years ago you could tell someone was an Englishman just by looking at them. Same thing goes for a Frenchman, a Pole, an Italian, a German, etc.

You really couldn't. You could tell that someone might be from western-europe, but you would not necessarily pinpoint their country at all in many cases.

>I don't care if you were granted citizenship, or were born there, or your parents were born there. You are not blood. You will never be British.

Not your decision to make. It's the British people's how they define Britishness.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

You are not getting what I'm saying. I am not talking about Britain as a country I'm talking about British ethnicity. If I take all the ethnic Englishmen and put them in Germany they will still be English. And if you replace all the English people in the U.K. with Indians, the Indians won't be British they will be Indians. They might be legal citizens. But they are a different people, with different blood, and a different culture.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>You are not getting what I'm saying. I am not talking about Britain as a country I'm talking about British ethnicity. If I take all the ethnic Englishmen and put them in Germany they will still be English.

Okay, so?

>And if you replace all the English people in the U.K. with Indians, the Indians won't be British they will be Indians. They might be legal citizens. But they are a different people, with different blood, and a different culture.

And many black people, mixed people, asian people etc HAVE integrated into British culture and are seen as culturally british. That's my point. We are not talking about Indians or Norwegians or Malaysians turning up on day 1 and suddenly becoming British, but people many generations later.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

I'm not talking about culture or citizenship or where you are born. I'm talking about your ethnicity. Your blood.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If you are Indian, it doesn't matter if you are a third generation living in Britain. You are still not ethnically English. You are still Indian. You may be culturally British. You might be a citizen. But you are not English and will never be English no matter what anyone says or does. No matter what laws are passed or what the general consensus says.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>I'm not talking about culture or citizenship or where you are born. I'm talking about your ethnicity. Your blood.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Sure. But no-one cares about this in the UK when you're integrated. It's the lack of integration that's a problem.

>If you are Indian, it doesn't matter if you are a third generation living in Britain. You are still not ethnically English. You are still Indian.

No-one cares.

>You may be culturally British. You might be a citizen. But you are not English and will never be English no matter what anyone says or does. No matter what laws are passed or what the general consensus says.

You won't be ethnically White British. No-one cares.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Ok then. And what I'm saying is that they should care. And that a country, any country, should be reserved for a specific ethnicity, hence, Britain for the British. If no one cares about that in Britain, then Britain is only Britain in name only. A bit like a tranny putting on a dress and calling himself a woman. If a woman is anyone who identifies as one, then yes, he is a woman. Is that what it means to be British these days? Is that how far you have fallen?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>Ok then. And what I'm saying is that they should care.

We don't.

>And that a country, any country, should be reserved for a specific ethnicity, hence, Britain for the British. If no one cares about that in Britain, then Britain is only Britain in name only. A bit like a tranny putting on a dress and calling himself a woman. If a woman is anyone who identifies as one, then yes, he is a woman. Is that what it means to be British these days? Is that how far you have fallen?

Do you think someone is incapable of being culturally British if they're not of Anglo-Saxon origins?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ioB7XNml0 Is this guy not culturally British?

Here's another country. Are these girls here not Korean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEfjdRAKV-M

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

I can't agree with you there, Skavau.

For my own part, I have an Irish uncle that embodies the traits of a full blooded Irishman. I fucking love to drink with that guy.

Can you at least acknowledge that something will inevitably be lost due to a dilution of say, what makes the Irish, Irish?

I concede that this dilution is nonetheless likely evitable due to the likes of technological innovations in travel and cultural trends of multiculturalism and immigration, but can you nonetheless acknowledge what will be lost along the way?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>Can you at least acknowledge that something will inevitably be lost due to a dilution of say, what makes the Irish, Irish?

Cultures change anyway, as you expand on and note yourself down the line. The problem as far as the British are concerned is large amounts of people coming here and not integrating in any way and instead living in their own cultural ethno-religious neighbourhoods, walling themselves off and then operating as a kind of sectarian bloc politically importing their religious and social tensions to the UK.

People like Idris Elba, for instance, are no problem.

Things will be lost, things will change, but some things will be good.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

I like Idris Elba as well.

If some things will be good, are you then implying that some things will be bad? I think you are and that you understand the concerns inherent in what others in this thread are referring and alluding to.

Can you elaborate on what some of those things that will be good are?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

The problem is purely with retrograde cultures and religions coming in and not integrating and trying to force their social views on other people - where we import their social ills and grudges (this is mostly a problem with Islam).

The "good" speaking generally is the influence and accessibility of cuisine, music, film that comes with integration of other subcultures into Britain. You can't really predict how culture will shift over time over many decades.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

I'm with you on the food actually, though the others you mentioned can be accessed electronically.

But is the bad that you implied, but haven't defined or clarified, worth the access to authentic cuisine?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>I'm with you on the food actually, though the others you mentioned can be accessed electronically.

Yes, but they also impact local scenes too.

>But is the bad that you implied, but haven't defined or clarified, worth the access to authentic cuisine?

A lot of intelligent people from other countries also come to the UK to study and work, and enhance our economy and industry. It's not just purely a poor person from Syria making the long journey here.

Are you trying to argue me into being an ethnonationalist, or something?

I've told you what the problem is for us Brits generally speaking. Immigration does need to be controlled, but there's no problem or reason to think that someone of another race cannot integrate. They're also already here now. Plenty of black people born in Britain. Plenty of mixed people born in Britain. Plenty of people who come here to marry someone they met online.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

It seems irrational to assume that everyone that migrates to the UK will be "intelligent." What about the people that aren't, are they less welcome?

Why does immigration need to be controlled? What are the negatives if it isn't?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>It seems irrational to assume that everyone that migrates to the UK will be intelligent. What about the people that aren't, are they less welcome?

Sure, not everyone will be intelligent (ie: highly skilled) in this context, but not being intelligent also doesn't mean antagonistic or incapable of integrating.

>Why does immigration need to be controlled? What are the negatives if it isn't?

Already answered this with the issues in the UK (cultural ghettoes, economic strain, housing strain, rise in criminality).

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

It seems then that even if you don't agree with those here expressing their views against immigration, that you concede the significance in their values that lead to their assessments and beliefs. The only difference then is the degree that you embrace those values.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

They're doing so for reasons of ethnic purity. Also I disagree with said users in particular on a variety of other issues much more important.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

So I think we're talking passed each other. When I say someone is Korean, I'm referring to their ethnicity. When you say someone is Korean, you are referring to the culture.

So to answer your questions, yes, Richard Ayoade is culturally British, but the girls are not Korean, because when I think Korean, I'm thinking of the ethnicity and/or race (Asian), and they don't look like ethnic Koreans or Asians. Well one them doesn't. The other one might be a half-breed.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>So to answer your questions, yes, Richard Ayoade is culturally British, but the girls are not Korean, because when I think Korean, I'm thinking of the ethnicity and/or race (Asian), and they don't look like ethnic Koreans or Asians. Well one them doesn't. The other one might be a half-breed.

Neither of them are. But they're clearly culturally integrated.

And in the UK, yes, Richard Ayoede is culturally British. He was born here. There's nowhere for him else to go.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

What ethnicity is he?

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

Norwegian-Nigerian mix.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Gross.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

Right, and he's a very popular comedian in the UK. There are also comedians like Lenny Henry, actors like Idris Elba, Lennie James, Thandiwe Newton.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Yeah...
I use to like Idris Elba and Thandiwe Newton. Then I watched a couple of interviews with them, and now, not so much.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

Still popular. No-one wants to send them anywhere. They're culturally British. Elba was supported to be the next James Bond until he aged past it.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

No-one?
I do. So there is at least one.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

You aren't British. There are going to be a small group of people anywhere, but the vast majority don't care.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Too bad for Britain.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

Why? Why should we care about Richard Ayoede or Idris Elba in that way?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

I meant too bad for Britain that I'm not British.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

We're getting there. The problem is a language that does not inherently differentiate between nationalistic and ethnic conceptions of identity with a term like "English."

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Correct. But what makes it confusing is that people use to mean it in one way and now we are encouraged to use it another way.
I think if you asked British people in the 1950's what it means to be British. they would have talked about it from an ethnic point of view. Today, in our multi-culti world, most people are probably thinking in terms of nationality. I think this is on purpose. We are being encouraged (oftentimes coerced) into accepting diversity and multiculturalism.
And it's only happening in Western countries (White). It's almost like someone wants to replace White people. But that's just a conspiracy theory so it's not worth mentioning.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (1302) 21 days ago

There are other forces at work, but I think it primarily amounts to a language problem in Western societies where English is the universal language. Our language constructs our reality.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Thoughtful people are surely lacking, and I don't doubt that the average person one encountered on the street couldn't differentiate between a nationalistic and ethnic reference without being prompted.

If people are being duped, for the benefits to the producers of increasing demand relative to supply and the state interests, such as overall GDP and militaristic potential, that come with an increase in population, then the inherent conflation of the meanings in the English language is surely helping.

...don't mind me btw. I'm way more drunk as shit than I should be for this time of day, even though it's a Friday.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

It's all good. Despite your inebriated state you've still managed to make a lot of sense. And I agree, it is in the interest of the producers and large segments of the ruling class to flood our countries with immigrants. And that is easier to do if the citizens of these countries are not ethnonationalists.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

And yes you could tell a person's ethnicity just by looking at them. Maybe you weren't able to, but I was.
You could take a genetic test and it will tell you what part of Europe you are from. When I took a test, it correctly identified me as 99.999% Polish and showed what part of Poland my ancestors came from (East). Those genes determine your appearance. I can spot another Polack from a mile away. I can do the same with Germans, Brits, French, Italians, etc.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

>And yes you could tell a person's ethnicity just by looking at them. Maybe you weren't able to, but I was. You could take a genetic test and it will tell you what part of Europe you are from.

I doubt I could find a random picture from someone in Europe and you'd know always, without fail, what country they were from. Someone could be from Sweden but they could also be Norwegian or Danish. Someone from Germany could be Dutch, Danish, Swiss, Belgian, Austrian even Polish. Someone from France could look like someone from Spain or Belgium or Italy or Switzerland or Luxembourg. Someone from Serbia could be someone from Slovakia, Czechia, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuanian, Belarus etc etc.

And again: And many black people, mixed people, asian people etc HAVE integrated into British culture and are seen as culturally british. That's my point. We are not talking about Indians or Norwegians or Malaysians turning up on day 1 and suddenly becoming British, but people many generations later.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 21 days ago

Of course you can't do it always and without fail for the reasons you mentioned. The point I was making was that there is a "look" that each ethnicity has. That look is determined by genes. And those genes were tied to a geographical location.

reply

[–] maixiu (1175) 21 days ago

What you're describing is something more akin to a club than a nation. Shared ideas are well and good but when push comes to shove, Ravi, Mahmoud, Yi-ting, and Kwame will side with their people at your expense.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 21 days ago

What "push" would come to a shove? How would Idris Elba "side with their people" at my expense? Or Richard Ayoede?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (1142) 20 days ago

That is such a good point. Throughout the conversation with Skavau I had this idea in my mind that what they are talking about is not what makes a nation a nation, but I couldn't find a way to articulate it. You articulated it perfectly. What they are describing is more like a club. Yes, we have shared interests, maybe even the same values, but we are not the same people. We belong to different tribes. We are different blood. And when it comes to a nation, a proper nation, with a cohesive society, it's about your people. Your blood.

reply

[–] Skavau (11423) 24 days ago

>Germany (Christian Democratic Union + Christian Social Union; part of the EPP group) [far-right Alternative for Germany surge]

A few details but the CDU aren't far-right.

>Italy (Brothers of Italy)

Right-wing, but atlantic-leaning. They're pro-NATO.

The more right-wing Lega Nord who is more pro-Russia actually lost most of their seats..

>Hungary (Fidesz) [coalition Respect and Freedom Party surge]

Hungary is now a one-party dominant system, and Fidesz actually lost a couple of seats.

reply

[–] MexicanStandup (40) 24 days ago

So you want us to uh.... do what?

Panic? Run round the room screaming so it'll make you feel important?

reply