Or just in general.
im very learne.d
give me your netflix login and ill watch it
negative but I have a distinctly negative view of all parasocial relationships which has gotten me into arguments here many times
essentially people who sit in twitch chat channels (especially the ones giving money to get attention) have a mental illness that needs to be treated, not farmed for cash. The people feeding off them (particularly the women feeding the parasocial relationships in order to make money and calling themselves "empowered women" - but it has been pointed out there are parallels with male streamers and their "good buds") are unethical and shouldn't be supported/encouraged
What are your thoughts on people who sit in twitch channels where they cannot read chat?
I am banned from all the streams that I watch. Here is what I am currently watching. How do you describe my parasocial relationship?
I dont know, what's your relationship like with this person
They ban me on sight for the last 7(?) years
They are. And when they aren't, they're put into the mass incarceration system.
Lmao and excluding it erases the history of their necessity to any productive change
It's the only thing that works.
Yes, and the violence is because what America is about is oppression
And Wilderson clearly explains that antagonism precludes this from working to affect real change
Yes, that's the problem. The institutions failed (actually, they succeeded in their goals of oppression) so violence is the only mechanism for change
You can't build something truly new without destroying the old. In this way, violence is a productive force.
No, the issue is because the State has a monopoly on violence and can do what they want with impunity while the masses criticize those they're killing for using violence
I cited multiple points where he contextualized the nonviolent message with it not being an absolute principle. I cited arguments on why the legitimacy of the nonviolent movements are necessarily dependent on the existence of violent movement. Care to make an actual response?
And exploiting protests to loot is very different from directed political violence.
Care to explain how they aren't? Hint: you have to actually be responsive to the arguments made and cited for this claim to have any legitimacy.
You're privileging property over life when you talk about courthouses and looting. You're obscuring the fact that violence against cops in all of these protests has been a defensive response. You're a bad faith shithead
Lol destroying property and defending yourself is in no way similar to genocide
With no response as to why nonviolent methods of change don't work without violence and how institutional methods don't fucking work. Tons of citations on policing policies and reform preventing nothing and the courts okaying what police have done
Yeah, nice of you to admit that you'd be a fascist when it helps you. Guess what: that makes you a fascist
yes, the point is we would like to construct a good State that we expect will not do such things. if the State does do such things, there will be riots (because people are starving and its profitable to riot)
you advocate that there should not be a State. i mean ok sure but then the guy with the most guns and charisma will found a new State which is worse than the old State. which is what tends to happen. and also all those people who the State does work for are worse off.
you can declare as much but i dont believe you if you claim to be different (although i do believe you believe you are different)
do you think humans are inherently evil and that you are a special non-evil human? or do you think that it just so happened that particular generation of germans was born particularly evil? or do you think that in fact everyone was just pretending to be a nazi all along and nobody actually hated the jews out of convenience? id like to know what is your alternative.
I have no idea why I get banned from streams after saying things like "I have no idea why anybody would ever watch this stream, you are absolutely awful.'
this sounds like a jp quote
people are very good at doublethink. nobody wants to think they are evil. people believe something, usually something profitable to them, then retroactively declare that it is good for all kinds of reasons. thats how most people operate, so you have to play around that when effecting social change.
which is why the formula is to provide a clear vision of utopia and then assert that it is also morally justified.
also, remember that you are in a very uniquely privleged position where you can advocate for violent revolution and merely be placed on a FBI watchlist rather than being arrested or disappeared immediately.
This contradicts yourself. You claim that the State having a monopoly on violence is good and that rioting is bad, yet now say that the rioting is necessary to have your "good State"
You need to justify why this is true.
Also need to justify this. Historical examples, please.
How about answering this: was the State that came out of the American revolution better than the old one? Was the State that came out of French revolution better than the monarchy?
No
No, most did what they did for the reasons you gave for doing that. Doesn't make it less wrong
No, plenty actually hated them because of societal structures of anti-Semitism
Resistance against the State
Looks like I'm just watching Hot Girls Wanted alone for the 5th time. Nobody on this website cares about feminism
the societal structures of anti-semitism punish you for not hating jews and reward you for hating jews.
it seems that in an effective violent revolution which is unprofitable for white people, you have to punish white people for being anti-revolution and reward them for being pro-revolution. for example, by burning down their house if they are anti-revolution. this sounds like a very legitimate strategy. its also one that i hope the FBI stops.
You can't make this claim without citing anything or providing an argument. And your mention of profitability necessarily shows this is true only under the framework of capitalism.
Plus, it contradicts the fact that majority white, wealthy cities have people fighting back against the cops for justice, despite having no personal stake because they're white and upper-middle class not affected by the injustices in their day to day
Not true. Please respond to why critique that shows how the State enacts and will always enact injustices so it must be destroyed and a new system put in place doesn't convince people to research new systems or invent their own?