424 pts ยท March 20, 2026
It's to show who is talking about it the most best on Ground News' estimation; L, C or R.
That depends what you mean by "great men". When Trump thinks of Iran's "great men", it's a list of people who have personally impressed Trump either directly or indirectly. All of those people are dead, hence Trump's seemingly nonsensical claim that all the Iranian leaders are dead. If they haven't personally impressed him, they are "not great" and thereby "not leaders". "Great Man" ideology has a mystical reverence toward greatness and leadership, similar to noble "blue blood" ideas.
If we don't confront fascists on what they mean, rather than what we'd mean if we said the same words, they will forever be able to manipulate us. Fascist sympathizers can say "freedom" and mean oppression, say "protect" and mean kill, etc. We must not be forever trapped in the stupid "B-but you said freedom!" part of the conversation.
Everyone hears Trump say things that obviously oppose reality, and steam starts shooting out of their heads and their head spins around like a cartoon robot trying to divide by zero. Remember that two people can say the same words and mean completely different things. He has a distinctly warped perspective on the world that can make words like "freedom", "censorship", "leader" and whatever else mean something different to what we mean.
I'm going to need everybody to stop assuming Trump means the same thing they mean when they say words. He and his people believe in Great Man Theory. When they say "Iran's leaders" they mean Iran's "great men". It's the reason he bought in to the decapitation strike despite decapitation strikes being a massive waste of lives, time and resources even according to internal military research. They thought killing all of Iran's "great men" would make them collapse.
I would use the noun "fascists". The fascism is more important than the criminality. Some people who've commit crimes are solid, dependable, good-hearted people. Fascists are never.
Everyone who blames Yoko is welcome to catch Lennon in heaven's parking lot for fisticuffs about it, and if you have any respect for Lennon at all you know she wasn't controlling his mind or whatever. He was his own man, and disavowed Yoko's responsibility in the band's fracturing to his last breath.
That matches my understanding, too. She was definitely an established artist and her wheelhouse was more in the area of dadaist anti-art, which made Lennon (member of the world's first mass media pop band) just about the least likely pairing between two artists I can imagine. A testiment to "opposites attract", I guess. It seems to me like Lennon was straining for meaning in his art and she helped him find it. It's crazy to me that people blame Yoko to this day even though Lennon would disagree.
No. If their relationship had any negative impact on The Beatles, that is 100% on Lennon. It's not like she forced her way in. And Lennon seemed to think her contributions were very positive. Lennon breaking the rules to bring Yoko around was a sign of the friction people have come to pretend was her doing, but she'd never have been there if the band wasn't already fracturing.
I hate conspiracy theories, but doesn't Epstein trouble this argument now? That was a lot of people, keeping a secret for a long time.
Yeah I've noticed that people who are defending a point they know is BS seem incapable of even playing devil's advocate about their point. It's as if them expressing any doubt in the idea at all would instantly break the illusion. Hence how even "Eric" in our example has to extol the values of abstinence, because the pro-sex perspective is too powerful for even the "bad guy" in a story to say it.
Oh dear.
People die of starvation in this world, yes. People fail to find employment and then die of starvation. You are out of touch, imagining that the mine factory worker can just decide to work somewhere better. Attend reality, for your own sake.
Starvation has several stages of increasing intensity, but I should be quiet; the starvation understander has logged on.
If there's one job left in the world and two people to take it, what do you think happens to the one who doesn't get it?
Oh, I'm sure. I did ask if you knew what it's like to starve TO DEATH, and unless you're Jesus H himself, I don't think you'd be typing. It's cool, though. You don't need to write any more fanfic. Consider me "convinced" of your superior morality. You're just built different.
If the mine factory is the least desirable job position, and it fills last leaving zero other positions, yeah everyone after that point begs, steals or dies. That's how our economies work, too. You can stop imagining some alternate job offer at the smile factory, now.
Hang on... have you looked for work before? You're talking about privilege, but you're also talking like people can just choose where they work. Like they can just pick a different business. You're very obviously the out-of-touch privileged one here. Real people take the job they get. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you can't wait for a better option or shop around. If you need to make mines to eat, you make mines. You can't just invent some other job offer at some smile factory.
Do you know what it's like to starve to death? If not, is it not a bit hasty to be so certain?
Why didn't you answer my questions? Is it because you very much ARE looking down on them? You think they're doing it because they're bad people and then you dared to get indignant with me for pointing it out. Funny how your better world only asks OTHER people to starve; what a noble call you're making. I do actually think there's something wrong with you asking people to starve, and it's pretty sick that you think otherwise honestly.
I can fathom that some of them do, yeah. Most of them do not, as evidenced by reality, where mines are still getting made. What's your explanation? Poor moral fiber? Didn't you say "fuck [me] for thinking [you're] looking down on them?
Yeah, a small contigent kill themselves before, a small contingent kill themselves during, and most of them work. You think you'd be one of the first two groups, but you'd probably be in the third. Almost all of us would be. It's not reasonable to expect people to starve to death to prevent weapons from being made, and you'd change your tune if it was your turn to starve.
What you fail to realize is that not all people are free or privileged enough to turn down paying work because of moral obligations. The point I'm making is that privilege has given you a high horse from which you look down on people who aren't free.
Didn't you just say the point of the Gladius was to stab?
I did link you an article multiple times that told you what the French did and what the Algerians are doing about it, and I thought you'd have read it at some point. And I've told you why; foreign intervention. You just keep plugging your ears because the idea of your country continuing to ravage Africa makes you uncomfortable. You have to cling to your "60 years of freedom" lie, and ignore the ongoing international news about Western meddling in Africa.
Algeria say they are, France didn't deny it. Where do you think you're going with this?
You're just writing fanfic. No, the feudal elites weren't all allied, pouring resources into Germany to ensure Germany stays feudal. It doesn't compare to the difficulty of fighting your own elites with modern Western backers behind them, as an African nation. Not even close. But hey, I'm not going to stop you from being racist.
You really don't want to talk about those recent mass killings, eh. This is why Africa is the way it is, because the 60 years of freedom never began. You can't even bring yourself to have a frank conversation about France's crimes, here, and it's not even your country. God knows how deep in denial you'd be if we were talking about Germany.
Your own feudal elites who didn't have even richer people behind them. In order to domesticate the colonisers, Africa would need to invade Europe. We are evidently not done fucking with them, and are so not done fucking with them that you're here to deny we're even fucking with them at all.
Answer the questions I asked instead of asking your own. So you're telling me there was no foreign intervention in Liberia after July 26, 1847? That was when they became "independent", right? And you said independence means no foreign intervention? So one incident of foreign intervention in the last 178 years would defeat your claim?
It's to show who is talking about it the most best on Ground News' estimation; L, C or R.
That depends what you mean by "great men". When Trump thinks of Iran's "great men", it's a list of people who have personally impressed Trump either directly or indirectly. All of those people are dead, hence Trump's seemingly nonsensical claim that all the Iranian leaders are dead. If they haven't personally impressed him, they are "not great" and thereby "not leaders". "Great Man" ideology has a mystical reverence toward greatness and leadership, similar to noble "blue blood" ideas.
If we don't confront fascists on what they mean, rather than what we'd mean if we said the same words, they will forever be able to manipulate us. Fascist sympathizers can say "freedom" and mean oppression, say "protect" and mean kill, etc. We must not be forever trapped in the stupid "B-but you said freedom!" part of the conversation.
Everyone hears Trump say things that obviously oppose reality, and steam starts shooting out of their heads and their head spins around like a cartoon robot trying to divide by zero. Remember that two people can say the same words and mean completely different things. He has a distinctly warped perspective on the world that can make words like "freedom", "censorship", "leader" and whatever else mean something different to what we mean.
I'm going to need everybody to stop assuming Trump means the same thing they mean when they say words. He and his people believe in Great Man Theory. When they say "Iran's leaders" they mean Iran's "great men". It's the reason he bought in to the decapitation strike despite decapitation strikes being a massive waste of lives, time and resources even according to internal military research. They thought killing all of Iran's "great men" would make them collapse.
I would use the noun "fascists". The fascism is more important than the criminality. Some people who've commit crimes are solid, dependable, good-hearted people. Fascists are never.
Everyone who blames Yoko is welcome to catch Lennon in heaven's parking lot for fisticuffs about it, and if you have any respect for Lennon at all you know she wasn't controlling his mind or whatever. He was his own man, and disavowed Yoko's responsibility in the band's fracturing to his last breath.
That matches my understanding, too. She was definitely an established artist and her wheelhouse was more in the area of dadaist anti-art, which made Lennon (member of the world's first mass media pop band) just about the least likely pairing between two artists I can imagine. A testiment to "opposites attract", I guess. It seems to me like Lennon was straining for meaning in his art and she helped him find it. It's crazy to me that people blame Yoko to this day even though Lennon would disagree.
No. If their relationship had any negative impact on The Beatles, that is 100% on Lennon. It's not like she forced her way in. And Lennon seemed to think her contributions were very positive. Lennon breaking the rules to bring Yoko around was a sign of the friction people have come to pretend was her doing, but she'd never have been there if the band wasn't already fracturing.
I hate conspiracy theories, but doesn't Epstein trouble this argument now? That was a lot of people, keeping a secret for a long time.
Yeah I've noticed that people who are defending a point they know is BS seem incapable of even playing devil's advocate about their point. It's as if them expressing any doubt in the idea at all would instantly break the illusion. Hence how even "Eric" in our example has to extol the values of abstinence, because the pro-sex perspective is too powerful for even the "bad guy" in a story to say it.
Oh dear.
People die of starvation in this world, yes. People fail to find employment and then die of starvation. You are out of touch, imagining that the mine factory worker can just decide to work somewhere better. Attend reality, for your own sake.
Starvation has several stages of increasing intensity, but I should be quiet; the starvation understander has logged on.
If there's one job left in the world and two people to take it, what do you think happens to the one who doesn't get it?
Oh, I'm sure. I did ask if you knew what it's like to starve TO DEATH, and unless you're Jesus H himself, I don't think you'd be typing. It's cool, though. You don't need to write any more fanfic. Consider me "convinced" of your superior morality. You're just built different.
If the mine factory is the least desirable job position, and it fills last leaving zero other positions, yeah everyone after that point begs, steals or dies. That's how our economies work, too. You can stop imagining some alternate job offer at the smile factory, now.
Hang on... have you looked for work before? You're talking about privilege, but you're also talking like people can just choose where they work. Like they can just pick a different business. You're very obviously the out-of-touch privileged one here. Real people take the job they get. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you can't wait for a better option or shop around. If you need to make mines to eat, you make mines. You can't just invent some other job offer at some smile factory.
Do you know what it's like to starve to death? If not, is it not a bit hasty to be so certain?
Why didn't you answer my questions? Is it because you very much ARE looking down on them? You think they're doing it because they're bad people and then you dared to get indignant with me for pointing it out. Funny how your better world only asks OTHER people to starve; what a noble call you're making. I do actually think there's something wrong with you asking people to starve, and it's pretty sick that you think otherwise honestly.
I can fathom that some of them do, yeah. Most of them do not, as evidenced by reality, where mines are still getting made. What's your explanation? Poor moral fiber? Didn't you say "fuck [me] for thinking [you're] looking down on them?
Yeah, a small contigent kill themselves before, a small contingent kill themselves during, and most of them work. You think you'd be one of the first two groups, but you'd probably be in the third. Almost all of us would be. It's not reasonable to expect people to starve to death to prevent weapons from being made, and you'd change your tune if it was your turn to starve.
What you fail to realize is that not all people are free or privileged enough to turn down paying work because of moral obligations. The point I'm making is that privilege has given you a high horse from which you look down on people who aren't free.
Didn't you just say the point of the Gladius was to stab?
I did link you an article multiple times that told you what the French did and what the Algerians are doing about it, and I thought you'd have read it at some point. And I've told you why; foreign intervention. You just keep plugging your ears because the idea of your country continuing to ravage Africa makes you uncomfortable. You have to cling to your "60 years of freedom" lie, and ignore the ongoing international news about Western meddling in Africa.
Algeria say they are, France didn't deny it. Where do you think you're going with this?
You're just writing fanfic. No, the feudal elites weren't all allied, pouring resources into Germany to ensure Germany stays feudal. It doesn't compare to the difficulty of fighting your own elites with modern Western backers behind them, as an African nation. Not even close. But hey, I'm not going to stop you from being racist.
You really don't want to talk about those recent mass killings, eh. This is why Africa is the way it is, because the 60 years of freedom never began. You can't even bring yourself to have a frank conversation about France's crimes, here, and it's not even your country. God knows how deep in denial you'd be if we were talking about Germany.
Your own feudal elites who didn't have even richer people behind them. In order to domesticate the colonisers, Africa would need to invade Europe. We are evidently not done fucking with them, and are so not done fucking with them that you're here to deny we're even fucking with them at all.
Answer the questions I asked instead of asking your own. So you're telling me there was no foreign intervention in Liberia after July 26, 1847? That was when they became "independent", right? And you said independence means no foreign intervention? So one incident of foreign intervention in the last 178 years would defeat your claim?