Leftist Discussion Thread
- Thread starter elstongunn39
- Start date
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
As I have said, I enjoy experiencing other cultures. But yea, it's just as simple as that. I want them all here. I want 8.1 births per Muslim couple vs 1.8 1.5 1.3 births per white (dontcha hate that word when it comes to people?) couple. I prefer my in-group. I'm idealizing harmony.
Last edited:
consumer
Bluelighter
I think he has sunk to a new low if thats even possible. Advocating slavery. I am Iost for words. Its disgusting.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
It's interesting to see how far people are going to fall. You have this haughty idea- that you have the moral high ground. I doubt you really understand what I'm saying, but, that may not be your fault, as I am often troubled in my communications.
I want to be a "slave" to good- to God. Admittedly, my words are probably designed to provoke you- but I have hoped that it might spark some thought as well. Also admittedly, in certain time, I certainly understand why slavery existed. What do you do- when you go to war, or that the threat of war is always there, and you have been raided- and you raid. What do you do to the people you defeat? When you have to work for everything? When there isn't the high technology and insurances of survival that we have today? Do you let this differently loyal- differently believing (it does have consequences) than your family and your group group, just run away free? Because if you do that, they might re-band together, and attack you. NO, you either kill all the men, and maybe boys, and you enslave or take the women as your wives, if they are able to be coerced, however, even if forced, but if they're too much trouble, kill them, or leave them to die or fend for themselves-- and this is why women "play it safe", and don't have as strong of in-group preferences, and why feminism is a threat (possibly, there is that potential... but it is not one-sided either, and we need to try to balance our strengths/weaknesses, and currently, masculinity and male instinct has been thrown to the wind as something to discard); If women didn't play it safe and obey, they in more "fundamental", down-to-the-dirt-of-reality times, they'd be killed, and their children would also be killed, or just treated much more badly. Their genes would be less likely to get passed on (where as men were rewarded for plunder/resource acquisition). This is just the way the world CAN be. I'm not advocating force, or violence. I'm saying it can happen, and it's happened a lot, repeatedly, so why not plan for it/around it? "Nature". It can happen again. I'd rather not be in a half-assed attempt at a multiculture utopia when and if it does (scarcity...).
We can't all be right. In some ways I am being metaphorical when I say I would enslave you. Ideally it would just be that I would present you with (if I had it available to present) the truth, and you would all fall in line around it. Obviously, you didn't really care that I said that ultimately it would be a slavery to the good, to God- to righteousness. You just hinged on "slavery" (omgerd). But, true, I do understand how slavery comes about, and do see situations where it would be preferable. I'd rather enslave my enemies, and mold them, to where eventually, we could be free, and living in peace. -To where I don't have to worry about them raiding us. If I had a mandate by God to do so, right now, and a message that could be "worked-in", and was capable, I still would do this. We can't all be right, and the way the conversation/argument is happening is really whacky.
I want to be a "slave" to good- to God. Admittedly, my words are probably designed to provoke you- but I have hoped that it might spark some thought as well. Also admittedly, in certain time, I certainly understand why slavery existed. What do you do- when you go to war, or that the threat of war is always there, and you have been raided- and you raid. What do you do to the people you defeat? When you have to work for everything? When there isn't the high technology and insurances of survival that we have today? Do you let this differently loyal- differently believing (it does have consequences) than your family and your group group, just run away free? Because if you do that, they might re-band together, and attack you. NO, you either kill all the men, and maybe boys, and you enslave or take the women as your wives, if they are able to be coerced, however, even if forced, but if they're too much trouble, kill them, or leave them to die or fend for themselves-- and this is why women "play it safe", and don't have as strong of in-group preferences, and why feminism is a threat (possibly, there is that potential... but it is not one-sided either, and we need to try to balance our strengths/weaknesses, and currently, masculinity and male instinct has been thrown to the wind as something to discard); If women didn't play it safe and obey, they in more "fundamental", down-to-the-dirt-of-reality times, they'd be killed, and their children would also be killed, or just treated much more badly. Their genes would be less likely to get passed on (where as men were rewarded for plunder/resource acquisition). This is just the way the world CAN be. I'm not advocating force, or violence. I'm saying it can happen, and it's happened a lot, repeatedly, so why not plan for it/around it? "Nature". It can happen again. I'd rather not be in a half-assed attempt at a multiculture utopia when and if it does (scarcity...).
We can't all be right. In some ways I am being metaphorical when I say I would enslave you. Ideally it would just be that I would present you with (if I had it available to present) the truth, and you would all fall in line around it. Obviously, you didn't really care that I said that ultimately it would be a slavery to the good, to God- to righteousness. You just hinged on "slavery" (omgerd). But, true, I do understand how slavery comes about, and do see situations where it would be preferable. I'd rather enslave my enemies, and mold them, to where eventually, we could be free, and living in peace. -To where I don't have to worry about them raiding us. If I had a mandate by God to do so, right now, and a message that could be "worked-in", and was capable, I still would do this. We can't all be right, and the way the conversation/argument is happening is really whacky.
Last edited:
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,736
Wtf lol... He'd enslave people if he could? What a nutjob. Apparently WTF 23 is living in some sort of dark age psychosis. lol
swilow
Bluelight Crew
You're imagining this in-group. Believe me, we are not part of the same group. Me and you are not the same, we would not live in harmony. There is no utopia.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
some of it is imagination. if aliens came and attacked us the human group would likely come more together, and identify less as we do (different groups), in respect to the aliens. a common enemy creates a group.
we are, and we're not.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
No more guys, this is ridiculous. Lets just drop this dispute, it is tiresome as fuck.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,736
Bah... It was just getting funny. Oh well I'm off.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Thanks for the advice dude, as you know I really value your opinion.
If you think the board sucks, you are welcome to stop posting here. But, if you keep making mindlessly provocative posts you won't be the one making the choice.
Now back to the fucking disgraceful leftists and their impure ways.
If you think the board sucks, you are welcome to stop posting here. But, if you keep making mindlessly provocative posts you won't be the one making the choice.
Now back to the fucking disgraceful leftists and their impure ways.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Mindless? No.
Like you, it's hard for me to not respond.
In the posts that were deleted, consumer claimed that there was never any rationalization for slavery, and the last post that I was working on, that I spent at least 5 minutes of my time on when it all got deleted, I said in response to consumer (not in these exact words):
If you were raided by a group, got away, and raided them back, what would be done? (or if you raided them preemptively, which happened a lot)
If you were raided by a group, and they might raid again...
1. kill them all, because if you don't, they'll raid you, and might kill your family.
2. try to make a deal, if possible, and if not possible enslave them.
Wouldn't enslaving be preferable to killing? Should you just let them go, knowing that they may come back and kill you?
Just fighting the abandonment of reality/reason. Though I do understand how "the left" that I would test here also has come about in attempts to right what the right has gotten wrong, I think sometimes they leap off cliffs over a ravine, expect to fly and get pissed when they can't (or pretend they are anyways). All through this, I try to explain myself, yet, my attackers hinge on things without context, and never, ever, provide any reasoned arguments, for their argument. They don't even see it as an argument. They're just right. No question.
Like you, it's hard for me to not respond.
In the posts that were deleted, consumer claimed that there was never any rationalization for slavery, and the last post that I was working on, that I spent at least 5 minutes of my time on when it all got deleted, I said in response to consumer (not in these exact words):
If you were raided by a group, got away, and raided them back, what would be done? (or if you raided them preemptively, which happened a lot)
If you were raided by a group, and they might raid again...
1. kill them all, because if you don't, they'll raid you, and might kill your family.
2. try to make a deal, if possible, and if not possible enslave them.
Wouldn't enslaving be preferable to killing? Should you just let them go, knowing that they may come back and kill you?
Just fighting the abandonment of reality/reason. Though I do understand how "the left" that I would test here also has come about in attempts to right what the right has gotten wrong, I think sometimes they leap off cliffs over a ravine, expect to fly and get pissed when they can't (or pretend they are anyways). All through this, I try to explain myself, yet, my attackers hinge on things without context, and never, ever, provide any reasoned arguments, for their argument. They don't even see it as an argument. They're just right. No question.
Last edited:
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
If you did want to ban me though, for whatever reason, for good, that could be positive. It would make it easier. If I had to make a new account-- if it wasn't just available, no problem. I've said goodbye to much more than bluelight.
Someone had an issue over this, and attacked it. I understand. What I mean by this is that where things conflict, we can't all be right. Trying to find how to say it precisely. We can't both get 2000 calories a day if there are only 2000 calories, and we all owe our existence to a man- a real man, fucking a woman- a real woman, and the most natural, practical state of regulation to the human organism exists enshrined in marriage, between a dude- a guy, and a girl- a "woman". Not Bruce Jenner. And yes, Islam does say we will all perish unless we are Muslim, or subservient, and the left tends to currently invite it in, and defends them, and aligns with them, yet scorns a Christian unless they open the door to it, and degradation of the "tribe" (however shotty, or what-better-way the tribe may come to be defined as), unless they follow the perfect example of Christ- Himself a "racist", according to today's many people - if we're honest.
But my wording can get tricky sometimes. I apologize.
... Lets hold Christians accountable, but when Muslims emulate their prophet, or follow his instruction, even though it is a great sin in Islam to shirk the responsibilities of Islam and of Jihad (inner and outer), and their system of belief tells them they are bad, and are going to hell if they shirk- THOSE are the ones who have hijacked Islam, and who are the bad Muslims, and who do not represent Islam.
Many seem to operate with this double standard, which is stupid. I know they are people. I have a couple of Muslims on my list, on Facebook, and do not hate them. Quite the opposite. There is a personal connection, because they reached out to me. It isn't as if I don't wrestle with this. Honestly, if a single person were added in, as an individual, such as a Syrian, or whatever, I would not judge them as anything but an individual in the group, but perhaps different (in fact as I have grown older I have learned of multiple mixed people in our group that I never really consciously perceived as "different"- absolutely- I mean I could tell they were, but there was not so much, and it wasn't so frequent, as to be identified as, and for them to identify as a group/identity/belonging-to-each-other-but-not-you/"us"-generally). If we were all they had to relate to (one)- if the "established" group (it's dynamic, but not invulnerable) was, then they would more likely to assimilate. Much less issue. But opposing groups reinforce themselves. Number has an effect. The Muslim that may have wanted to be more free in an Islamic country, may adhere to more traditional image and group together with their likeness where-ever they go, and their identity/culture may be reinforced this way (and others as well). In many ways, although we can get along personally, our cultures do run into friction- our belief systems, cultures, behaviors, just are not in harmony, like for instance Sweden, or the Netherlands has been perceived to have been before mass-migration from Africa and the Middle East (not to say it's a hell-hole, although there are areas, I am sure, that are challenged, and it is challenging).
Actually, one seems to be a very secular Christian, and one is Muslim, but seems much more interested in the stars, and movies. Both are from Iraq. Both seem to like a lot of western stuff. I am not advocating being a monster. Or as if I completely disown them, but perhaps like Jesus, I do have a "tribe"- an identity, that I have to be loyal to. I'm aware of my nature, and I fight it every day, but I don't want to have to, too much. There is some reward in it, but there was obviously some reward in the unity that has been disrupted- the vacuum in part created by a loss of religion and the internet, and media. I mean, it-what came before, and our culture, created the conditions (was a part of conditions)- the ecosystem was had within for the people to have the ideas, and to bring them to fruition. I mean, Germany led the world in Science until the World Wars. Within them. Europe led, until then (Some of them were Jewish, like Einstein). I'm regurgitating part of a talk radio show- Startalk Radio with N. D. Tyson. He had it with an Indian American (CNN and Washington Post-- I forget his name), and they were talking about science, and diversity and openness in the world- and immigration issues, how everything effects scientific discovery. They resonated with my thoughts/I with theirs. There were areas of tension, of course, but ultimately, there was agreement. I think. They resonated with some of my arguing points- Immigration doesn't really help the countries it's coming from. Brain drain. People who would be the best, sometimes. And with them, their families, and sometimes extended families. It creates a lot of difficulty. Ultimately, I agree that relations should be smooth, and peaceful, and with working relationships around the world, but I wish we could do it more intelligently. I don't think the people who have been driving this have been "intelligent" about it, or careful, with regard to social effects, recently. Businesses looking for cheap labor, in many cases, in Europe, and in the States, where "civil rights" advocacy began in some forms in modern history, with Blacks, who began as "cheap labor". Irish too, but they have more or less absorbed as others have from similar background. Chinese as well. Most of the diverse-us existing in the same spot probably began in some similar state, that is not much different than slavery.
I just err to the conservative. I do like to attack things though, because very often, there is no real defense, or, I come here, and am attacked, but only with moral judgments, and the like- that can't really stand up to scrutiny, as altruism, the instinct known as, developed to further your genes, which doesn't fit with spreading wealth to other groups, or inviting them into your homeland in such numbers, especially certain ones. So many here take a nihilistic approach, but I like to operate as if up is up and down is down. I agree that mutualism is best. I want to have a flourishing, good relationship with the Islamic world, but I do not like the outpouring of these different pockets into each other, as has happened recently. Who does? Yes I enjoy it. It's stimulating, some things. But there are many reasons for it to make us uneasy.
Also with this, our hypocrisy- What about the rules in Christianity where God says to not marry foreign people, because that makes you "worship their Gods"??
Now what does this mean? What does religion, even if unstated, mean for societies? What is God? I'm glad we can agree...
Likewise, in Islam, a Muslim man may marry any woman of the Book (Jew, Christian, a convert to either of them or to Islam), and by their law their children are Muslim, to propagate Islam. Muslim women are only permitted, by their faith, I want to live faithfully, to marry Muslim men, and fraternization with non-Muslims is difficult, even non-familial Muslim men (I don't mean that there aren't "liberated" Muslims). But, the good Muslim is the one you dated. So goes "the left"?
Someone had an issue over this, and attacked it. I understand. What I mean by this is that where things conflict, we can't all be right. Trying to find how to say it precisely. We can't both get 2000 calories a day if there are only 2000 calories, and we all owe our existence to a man- a real man, fucking a woman- a real woman, and the most natural, practical state of regulation to the human organism exists enshrined in marriage, between a dude- a guy, and a girl- a "woman". Not Bruce Jenner. And yes, Islam does say we will all perish unless we are Muslim, or subservient, and the left tends to currently invite it in, and defends them, and aligns with them, yet scorns a Christian unless they open the door to it, and degradation of the "tribe" (however shotty, or what-better-way the tribe may come to be defined as), unless they follow the perfect example of Christ- Himself a "racist", according to today's many people - if we're honest.
But my wording can get tricky sometimes. I apologize.
... Lets hold Christians accountable, but when Muslims emulate their prophet, or follow his instruction, even though it is a great sin in Islam to shirk the responsibilities of Islam and of Jihad (inner and outer), and their system of belief tells them they are bad, and are going to hell if they shirk- THOSE are the ones who have hijacked Islam, and who are the bad Muslims, and who do not represent Islam.
Many seem to operate with this double standard, which is stupid. I know they are people. I have a couple of Muslims on my list, on Facebook, and do not hate them. Quite the opposite. There is a personal connection, because they reached out to me. It isn't as if I don't wrestle with this. Honestly, if a single person were added in, as an individual, such as a Syrian, or whatever, I would not judge them as anything but an individual in the group, but perhaps different (in fact as I have grown older I have learned of multiple mixed people in our group that I never really consciously perceived as "different"- absolutely- I mean I could tell they were, but there was not so much, and it wasn't so frequent, as to be identified as, and for them to identify as a group/identity/belonging-to-each-other-but-not-you/"us"-generally). If we were all they had to relate to (one)- if the "established" group (it's dynamic, but not invulnerable) was, then they would more likely to assimilate. Much less issue. But opposing groups reinforce themselves. Number has an effect. The Muslim that may have wanted to be more free in an Islamic country, may adhere to more traditional image and group together with their likeness where-ever they go, and their identity/culture may be reinforced this way (and others as well). In many ways, although we can get along personally, our cultures do run into friction- our belief systems, cultures, behaviors, just are not in harmony, like for instance Sweden, or the Netherlands has been perceived to have been before mass-migration from Africa and the Middle East (not to say it's a hell-hole, although there are areas, I am sure, that are challenged, and it is challenging).
Actually, one seems to be a very secular Christian, and one is Muslim, but seems much more interested in the stars, and movies. Both are from Iraq. Both seem to like a lot of western stuff. I am not advocating being a monster. Or as if I completely disown them, but perhaps like Jesus, I do have a "tribe"- an identity, that I have to be loyal to. I'm aware of my nature, and I fight it every day, but I don't want to have to, too much. There is some reward in it, but there was obviously some reward in the unity that has been disrupted- the vacuum in part created by a loss of religion and the internet, and media. I mean, it-what came before, and our culture, created the conditions (was a part of conditions)- the ecosystem was had within for the people to have the ideas, and to bring them to fruition. I mean, Germany led the world in Science until the World Wars. Within them. Europe led, until then (Some of them were Jewish, like Einstein). I'm regurgitating part of a talk radio show- Startalk Radio with N. D. Tyson. He had it with an Indian American (CNN and Washington Post-- I forget his name), and they were talking about science, and diversity and openness in the world- and immigration issues, how everything effects scientific discovery. They resonated with my thoughts/I with theirs. There were areas of tension, of course, but ultimately, there was agreement. I think. They resonated with some of my arguing points- Immigration doesn't really help the countries it's coming from. Brain drain. People who would be the best, sometimes. And with them, their families, and sometimes extended families. It creates a lot of difficulty. Ultimately, I agree that relations should be smooth, and peaceful, and with working relationships around the world, but I wish we could do it more intelligently. I don't think the people who have been driving this have been "intelligent" about it, or careful, with regard to social effects, recently. Businesses looking for cheap labor, in many cases, in Europe, and in the States, where "civil rights" advocacy began in some forms in modern history, with Blacks, who began as "cheap labor". Irish too, but they have more or less absorbed as others have from similar background. Chinese as well. Most of the diverse-us existing in the same spot probably began in some similar state, that is not much different than slavery.
I just err to the conservative. I do like to attack things though, because very often, there is no real defense, or, I come here, and am attacked, but only with moral judgments, and the like- that can't really stand up to scrutiny, as altruism, the instinct known as, developed to further your genes, which doesn't fit with spreading wealth to other groups, or inviting them into your homeland in such numbers, especially certain ones. So many here take a nihilistic approach, but I like to operate as if up is up and down is down. I agree that mutualism is best. I want to have a flourishing, good relationship with the Islamic world, but I do not like the outpouring of these different pockets into each other, as has happened recently. Who does? Yes I enjoy it. It's stimulating, some things. But there are many reasons for it to make us uneasy.
Also with this, our hypocrisy- What about the rules in Christianity where God says to not marry foreign people, because that makes you "worship their Gods"??
Now what does this mean? What does religion, even if unstated, mean for societies? What is God? I'm glad we can agree...
Likewise, in Islam, a Muslim man may marry any woman of the Book (Jew, Christian, a convert to either of them or to Islam), and by their law their children are Muslim, to propagate Islam. Muslim women are only permitted, by their faith, I want to live faithfully, to marry Muslim men, and fraternization with non-Muslims is difficult, even non-familial Muslim men (I don't mean that there aren't "liberated" Muslims). But, the good Muslim is the one you dated. So goes "the left"?
Last edited:
tathra
bluelighter
i look forward to the day when a native american gets elected as president and starts deporting everyone of european descent back to europe.
LucidSDreamr
Bluelighter
^ the native american would argue that it fell apart when fields full of meat and clean streams were replaced with walmarts and pollution. and heroin ..its a matter of perspective I guess
tathra
bluelighter
The whole country would fall apart if that happened. Then again, that is what you want
it would merely be them taking back the country that was stolen from them. thats the real way to "make america great again", by getting rid of the invaders who violently refused to assimilate.
socko
Bluelighter
Out of sensitivity to aboriginal American issues, I self-deported. I'm joking.
The idea might not be so far-fetched. My generation has been priced out of home and land ownership. Young people lucky enough to own a house probably owe more in mortgage than what it is worth. Many of us had Baby Boomers for parents - that generatioin prides itself in "spending the kids' inheritance," and will leave us nothing. There is nothing keeping us tied to American soil. If an Indian is elected president and starts deporting white people, many will go willingly, especially if the plane ride is free.