If being against war is a bannable offense and makes me a Nazi, so be it.

Thanks. Enjoy your wars in Israel and the Ukraine.

You know what’s actually funny is that one side has spent the past several years posting cute, adorable frogs while getting arrested and prosecuted for trespassing at the Capitol in a mostly peaceful demonstration, while the other has caused billions in property damage with violent riots across the country that claimed far more human lives before trying to lock everyone in their homes and threatening them with losing their livelihoods unless they agree to an experimental medical treatment, and is now involved in funding not one, but two new wars overseas to the tune of a hundred billion dollars while explaining that cute, adorable frogs are inherently racist, and somehow people still have trouble figuring out who the good guys are.

Warmongerers or cute frogs? Cute frogs or warmongerers? IDK, why is this so hard?

Did you forget to send in the mail-in rebate?

Oh nononono that’s totally unacceptable. First of all, John McClane is the epitome of toxic masculinity — he smokes, he swears, he shoots guns, and he clearly cannot stop himself from stalking his ex-wife against her clear wishes to be left alone.

Second, he’s also a racist, who, in a several acts of clear and utter police brutality murders a calm and well-mannered German gentleman (played by a British actor) and his merry band of European immigrants who are merely trying to settle a dispute between themselves and a Japanese megacorporation in order to improve their local economy and feed starving children at home.

If you’re watching this movie in 2023, you’re definitely an alt-right terrorist and you belong on a watchlist.

See, Microsoft cares so much about you they’ll even make a backup of all of your emails, completely for free, without you even having to ask. And here you are complaining…

Both are entertainers playing to an audience.

The former.

“They’re turning the frogs racist!”

Sounds like something leftist Alex Jones (John Oliver?) would say.

Good. It appears we’ve reached an understanding, then.

Why would you try to troll me unless you were upset?

Only to say that I find it hilarious that SatansMaggotyCumFart would get upset when our glorious leader is criticized. Really speaks for itself, doesn’t it.

Like I GAF what SatansMaggotyCumFart has to say.

Oh no, someone criticized our glorious leader!

Well, if an undercover cops manages to instigate you to do something illegal, the underlying desire to do it must have already been there, otherwise you’d just tell him to fuck off. But entrapment is still illegal because if he hadn’t provided you with a chance to do it, you may not have followed through after all.

What you seem to be saying is “entrapment is fine as long as it’s done to people I hate”.

You’re missing the point. He deliberately encouraged people to express antisemitism and now he’s complaining that people are expressing more antisemitism.

“In my country there is problem and that problem is the Jew”

https://youtu.be/Vb3IMTJjzfo

Yeah, you could argue that he was only making a joke or a political statement about latent antisemitism that was already present in society, but if he were the police (and he kinda IS policing antisemitism now), this would be called entrapment.

More recently though, he has spent his time complaining about the rise of antisemitism when he himself has done a fair amount of work contributing to it while in the character of Borat.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/sacha-baron-cohen-tells-tiktok-its-creating-biggest-antisemitic-movement-since-nazis/

You realize that getting upset over this isn’t helping to prove your point, right? If anything, it proves you’re out of arguments and you think you can bully me into into accepting your point of view.

Sorry, not going to happen.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Marx passionately and repeatedly made the case that violence and inequality in a capitalist system are intrinsically connected, i.e. that a capitalist system requires violence in order to enforce and maintain the inequality that is present. But you (and Marx) also say that communists can (and should) violence to bring about equality.

My question, therefore, is simply this: if inequality is the result of violence, how can communism ever hope to achieve equality in the future by using the same means that it claims causes inequality in the present? That’s simply fighting fire with fire. If their violence justifies our violence, our violence will justify theirs. And on and on it goes. No amount of violence will ever stop violence. It just won’t.

I don’t now man, 2020 isn’t that long ago, I remember the protests fairly vividly, along with the demands for dismantling any and all police.

Unless you’re going to tell me those weren’t real communists. In which case, believe me, I’ve heard that one before.

So no, I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that communists hate the police, if only, as you admit, because they don’t work for them, not based on any principle.

Also, I didn’t say that that from 1-4 follows that communism is bad, just that it is no better than the capitalism it seeks to replace, because it does nothing to address the violence it claims is fundamental to capitalist oppression. It’s more accurate to say that communism is dumb because it engages in magical thinking, i.e. the belief that violence can be good if only it was being done by the right people.

Yes, perhaps things would get better for some people for some time. But in the end, it will always suffer from the same type of corruption as any other violence-based system, so there is no reason to believe it would be preferable to what we have now. It will just end up perpetuating the same cycle of violence that it claims is at the root of all of our problems.