Has the left shown that we should repeal the 1st Amendment?

Steven VanderMolen said:
MANY kinds of work. I did library work for about 3 years, I did market research work for about 9 years, I worked in group homes for mentally and physically handicapped adults for about 6 years, and I worked in an animal shelter for about 7 years. AND I was a karaoke Host/DJ for a few months. I retired to take care of my sister to help her defeat her opioid addiction. She's been opioid free for almost 5 years now. I retired at age 54, and I plan on STAYING retired.
Click to expand...

That's an awesome age to retire at. At the animal shelter, did you steal many cats and dogs?
 
StoneByStone said:
That's an awesome age to retire at. At the animal shelter, did you steal many cats and dogs?
Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't steal ANY animals. In the years I worked there, my dad and I owned a couple different kitties, and we didn't really want to have any more. I worked at the shelter from roughly 2003 to 2010. Our first kitty was with us from 2003-2005, the other kitty from 2005-2009. I was so heartbroken by the death of the second kitty, I just couldn't adopt another kitty for a bit. After moving here to Indiana in 2010, I decided to adopt again in October of that year. We STILL have the little guy almost 10 years later. And my sister adopted a female kitty in June of 2010, a few months before we adopted the male. Our female kitty is still with us, as well.
 
AssHatZombie said:
all of critical theory is just about gaining power through endless pissing and moaning about made up bullshit.

it's basically the elevation of female abuse tactics into an ideology by dangerous blue pill simps catering to female hybristophilia.
Click to expand...

"Abuse" of weakings is good and natural, very rarely, if ever would a woman "abuse" a man unless he is weak and deserves it, and nature insists that she attempt to "toughen" him up a bit.

Whether male or female, nature has many good and vital ways of purifying the weak and encouraging the strong to thrive.

A simp who can't even adapt to non-life threatening "abuse" from a woman has little of value to offer nation, people, tribe, or state.

Much as the black widow devours her lover, if he is too weak and unfit to survive their liason; not only does this encourage the vitality of their progeny, but prevents the weak and defective males from sowing their seed with further mates, and encourages the strong to dominate.

So no, when a weak and worthless male claims that any "woman" has ruined his life, driven him to "suicide", or other rot, I merely laugh in proud contempt, and praise mother nature for purifying use of weak and defective "males"; whom in ancient societies thankfully, never would have been fit enough to survive to begin with, and only even had access to a potential "mate" were it in the interest of the King, the Queen, the tribe, not out of simple "egalitarian" pity and egalitarian and socialistic institutions like monogamy.

---

"Blue pill" is just a synonym for "well-adjusted normal people" by sexual deviants and other evolutionarily-stunted vermin who have no right to live. What is called "red pill" by idiots deficit both in standard and emotional intelligence, is merely a poor-man's bastardization of Nietzsche existentialism. (Nietzche, not quite as "strong" as he fancied, died as a result of his own weakness and illness; whatever "good" ideas he may have had have been done much better by others of superior intellect and fitness).
 
Last edited:
MarcusA said:
"Abuse" of weakings is good and natural, very rarely, if ever would a woman "abuse" a man unless he is weak and deserves it, and nature insists that she attempt to "toughen" him up a bit.

Whether male or female, nature has many good and vital ways of purifying the weak and encouraging the strong to thrive.

A simp who can't even adapt to non-life threatening "abuse" from a woman has little of value to offer nation or state.

Much as the black widow devours her lover, if he is too weak and unfit to survive their liason; not only does this encourage the vitality of their progeny, but prevents the weak and defective males from sowing their seed with further mates, and encourages the strong to dominate.

---

"Blue pill" is just a synonym for "well-adjusted normal people" by sexual deviants and other evolutionarily-stunted vermin who have no right to live. What is called "red pill" by idiots deficit both in standard and emotional intelligence, is merely a poor-man's bastardization of Nietzsche existentialism. (Nietzche, not quite as "strong" as he fancied, died as a result of his own weakness and illness; whatever "good" ideas he may have had have been done much better by others of superior intellect and fitness).
Click to expand...

????????????????
 
Steven VanderMolen said:
????????????????
Click to expand...
Basically, "men" who claim exploitation by women are unfit; nature has ways of purifying weakness from the race and ensuring strength; nature endows women with various ways of 'testing the mettle' of men to ensure they're fit enough to satisfy her and any potential progeny of theirs. Much as a man might "check her out", she merely does so in kind, and in her own way, whether she realizes it or not... (So I say anyway...)


Example; when I was younger I slept with women who turned out to be married or dating; obviously their boyfriend or husband wasn't able to satisfy them, so they were merely 'shopping' for a better offer, and I can hardly blame them given the crop of bloody fools and man-babies they have to put up with, if this thread is any indicator; even times when I was under-employed or between jobs, I did not suffer from want of female attention like the fools and idiots in these threads, who have no self-respect, no sense of autonomy, and blame "women" as a kind, for their own weakness, inferiority, and failings. Evolution selects fitter men and women at the expense of inferiority; so said "idiots" are merely asking or "egalitarian" pity to subvert the order of nature.

(Granted I never married or stayed in a long-term relationship, and don't plan on it necessarily, but it is what it is nonetheless).
 
Last edited:
Steven VanderMolen said:
You betcha! :whoa:
Click to expand...

you-betcha.jpg
 
MarcusA said:
Basically, "men" who claim exploitation by women are unfit; nature has ways of purifying weakness from the race and ensuring strength; nature endows women with various ways of 'testing the mettle' of men to ensure they're fit enough to satisfy her and any potential progeny of theirs. Much as a man might "check her out", she merely does so in kind, and in her own way, whether she realizes it or not... (So I say anyway...)


Example; when I was younger I slept with women who turned out to be married or dating; obviously their boyfriend or husband wasn't able to satisfy them, so they were merely 'shopping' for a better offer, and I can hardly blame them given the crop of bloody fools and man-babies they have to put up with, if this thread is any indicator; even times when I was under-employed or between jobs, I did not suffer from want of female attention like the fools and idiots in these threads, who have no self-respect, no sense of autonomy, and blame "women" as a kind, for their own weakness, inferiority, and failings. Evolution selects fitter men and women at the expense of inferiority; so said "idiots" are merely asking or "egalitarian" pity to subvert the order of nature.

(Granted I never married or stayed in a long-term relationship, and don't plan on it necessarily, but it is what it is nonetheless).
Click to expand...

Thanks for your explanation, and thanks for the video, as well.:cool:
 
StoneByStone said:
Because those governments were founded by opportunistic tyrants, not Leftists.

During the Russian Provisional Government, they took a vote as to what kind of government they wanted Russia to have. The Liberals, who were in the majority, voted for a Liberal Democracy. The reason that didn't happen is because the Bolsheviks violently took over the government and enforced a dictatorship. So the Soviet Union was not born out of a left-wing movement, it was the result of tyrants who hijacked a left-wing movement. And it's not like there was even an effort by the Bolsheviks to have collective ownership.
And after this happened, Leftists were the main critics of the USSR government. Unlike the Right, Leftists don't support Authoritarianism when it gives them some of what they want.
Click to expand...

So when someone points out inconsistency in your assumption, you go No True Scotsman on them.

Forget it. I understand your position now. You choose to believe that the left is pure and that no amount of facts will change your position on that.
 
StoneByStone said:
That's nice, but we're not talking about companies choosing to censor themselves in order to make more money. We're talking about freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

The issue is muddled because of Section 230. Currently, tech companies get to have their cake and eat it too.

Either a site should be considered a public forum with minimal censorship, or it should be considered a publisher that can censor as it likes but is held responsible for things it doesn't censor. This is the only fair arrangement.
 
Woko Haram said:
So when someone points out inconsistency in your assumption, you go No True Scotsman on them.

Forget it. I understand your position now. You choose to believe that the left is pure and that no amount of facts will change your position on that.
Click to expand...

How is it inconsistency? You said that the Soviet Union grew out of the Left. I'm saying that the Left actually voted for a Liberal Democracy, but the Bolsheviks violently took over the government. The Bolsheviks went against the Left by using tyranny. So how is that growing out of the Left?
 
StoneByStone said:
How is it inconsistency? You said that the Soviet Union grew out of the Left. I'm saying that the Left actually voted for a Liberal Democracy, but the Bolsheviks violently took over the government. The Bolsheviks went against the Left by using tyranny. So how is that growing out of the Left?
Click to expand...

You seem to assume that being an opportunistic tyrant makes someone not of the left. I could make the same claim about any right wing leader that became an opportunistic tyrant.

The point is that tyrants can easily take hold of either side, because that is what fanaticism can lead to. Go too far to the left, and you get tyranny just like going too far to the right.

The Bolsheviks were left wing. They certainly weren't right wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top