Converting non commies

just tell the truth and let people arrive to their own conclusions.

the Jewish covenant is separate from the Gentile covenant. There are multiple concepts of the Law in the christian Bible, from what I understand. In part due to the fact that the law could refer to either just the mosaic law or the greek translation of the entire old testament which features a passage which Paul interprets as God making a separate covenant with the Gentiles.

For more on this, I'd recommend reading Bernard Brandon Scott's The Read Paul.

There are passages where paul condemns homosexuality or something like it, but one should understand this within historical context. The word commonly interpreted as "homosexual" that Paul uses is something like arsenokoites in Greek which translates to a compound of "male" and "bed." Paul's use of the word is the first known instance in greek. What we do know, as I understand it, is that homosexuality, pedophilia, and prostitution often went hand-in-hand at the time so paul may have been condemning this practice specific to its historical context.

The reason is because everyone on Holla Forums is autistic and their politics are just unpleasant to listen to. If you can remain civil and calm and don't bring it up out of the blue you'll be fine.

it is precisely once you think you've moved beyond ideology that you are eating from the trashcan. Sargon of Akkad tells the truth, for the most part. Just not the whole truth.

Holla Forums is the dominant ideology on 4chan. If anything it's evidence that we should be doing it.

we want to reach normies and workers for the most part. Should be a lot easier than it was for Holla Forums because generally "private property and capitalism is bad" is an easier sell than "gas the niggers" unless your the sort who is in favor of mass killings for fun or long-term tankie dictators.

because they're not humourless autists with ideology ocd.

also this. stop trying to force everyone to subscribe to every bit of your ideology. agree on something. find some common ground or you'll be going round in circles forever.

I think that some mutualist ideas are pretty easy to get across. Liberals and petite bourgeosis are down for cooperatives, credit unions, mutual aid, etc.

Also mutualism seems to go really well with the P2P sharing economy (not the bullshit pushed by Uber / AirBnB, but platforms for sharing that are not designed to make a profit).

Thats where I find myself at least

Porn

is it worth trying to convince Holla Forums?

It's everywhere, it's not so much because of cold war propaganda but because of the fact that it's really difficult to convince someone that they have been wrong for more than 45 years

Would you let Stalin fuck your son

confirmed anfem asian poster ass

I've had some success on 4pol with someone whose every second word wasn't "Jew". A firm understanding of theory and quality postings seems to help.

Psychedelics
/thread

Wittgenstein's theory of Language Games comes in handy here, I think.

Look at these so-called echo chambers of ideas. A group speaks amongst itself, cloistered off from other groups, Language Games, discourses, or points of view. This results in a gradual purification of the cloistered group's guiding ideological principles, and leads them to form a new logic internal to their group (that is, what seems like a "natural" or "reasonable" way to interpret things is different for different cloistered groups). This happens with MSM. This happens on various Reddit boards. This happens on Holla Forums. And regardless of how intrinsically true you might think leftism is ("no, user, we don't have an ideology! God forbid) it happens here.

The thing W points out about different Language Games is that though they are all superficially very similar (after all, they use the same English words for the most part, etc), this similarity is almost wholly superficial. Underneath the identical seeming speech acts is a whole different game. Think about how a chessboard and a checkers board are identical, and though the game pieces are different, they are the same in number. This would lead someone who didn't know any better to think they were essentially the same game. But, as we know, they aren't. You can't do a Knight's move in checkers, and you can't do a triple hop in chess. The similarities belie fundamental differences at the level at which the games actually function.

cntd

The lesson to learn from this, I think, is that you cannot go about convincing the other side by bringing arguments and principles that are self-evidently true in your echo-chamber, ideological world-view, Language Game. It's not that your arguments aren't compelling or right, or necessarily that your opponent is obstinate. Instead, its that your arguments and principles don't show up as meaningful in your opponents Language Game. You're bringing a whole different set of rules and logics and assumptions and existential points of view to their game. You're bringing the rules of chess to a checkers game, and expecting them to accept you moving your checker as if it were a Queen. They'll look at you like you're crazy, divorced from reality, and tell you to fuck off.

What you need to do is learn the rules of their game, and then change the assumptions and "self-evident" truths from the inside, on their game's own terms. You need to slyly learn how to speak their language, know their logic, and then find holes in it that they will also recognize as holes. You need to play their game, and play it better than them. Beat them according to their own rules. Make the absurdity of their position evident from the inside.

I recognize that this is both somewhat vague and perhaps too big a task for most. However, I do think that people have gravitated to their own narratives and closed-off bubbles with their own rules of what means what and what is allowed and what is significant, and it is only by working from the inside that you can change these peoples' minds.

woops on image lol

honestly not that far off

I was literally just thinking this, independently. I was wondering about arguing with people in general, and how you have to argue from their perspective by taking on their viewpoints and criticizing them. I had no idea this was a theory.

The big problem I found was the danger of alienating yourself from your own group. As in, the moment you start using the language and logic of the opposing group, your group with react negatively towards you, see you as a traitor, even if in reality you are working for the same cause.

Honestly? Just have a better vision of the future, quit being mean to one another for who they are, and no that no one is no better than another. Just more or less capable at different applications.

We're all one community.

It's going to end soon, we won't have this in any big way, which is unfortunate.

But if we were to just act like a community, maybe we can remake what it felt like to be in one.

That isn't a good tactic. First most of the language game is designed to make opposite views stupid and evil. Follow the polack game will make you a anuddah shoahr and the idpol game will make woman/minority hater.
bur you are right, you can`t use sectarianism, buzzwords and you have to choose wisely what are your symbols and Apply the following quote "the worst socialist thing is better than the best capitalist one"

Your group needs to get in on it with you then. And if you're talking about your internet group, then you simply need to be able to switch back and forth when you switch between boards.

And I'm not talking about going into the opposing camp and agreeing with everything they say necessarily, in order to sneakily sow the seeds of their destruction. But if you can figure out what leads people to the conclusions they hold, and how that same energy can be re-channelled and reinterpreted towards different ends, then you are golden and will shake people's heads up a bit.

I also think putting on the "genuinely wondering what you believe" attitude works the best. People will break out of their ideological circle-jerk babble and tell you why they feel the way they do. Blah blah the jewish conspiracy is the ideological re-interpretation of fundamentally human feelings to which most people can relate. You need to get to the bedrock of why these people believe these things. The thing is, this takes psychological tact and most significantly it takes them trusting you. but they won't trust you to "explain" why they feel the way they do if they don't think you're at least to some extent sympathetic with them and on their side. In order to get to that place, you need to speak their language, play their game.

The only way you are going to convert anyone, is with an actual, viable alternative to capitalism.

Accelerationists won't agree with me here but I think moving central and far-righters to more moderate socialist positions is a worthwhile start. Get a majority of people comfortable thinking outside the capitalist ideology first, and then bigger changes can follow.

Proofs pls

memes will convert them
start making them

Can you describe some of your positions please? I'm curious.

1. Talk about commie ideas WITHOUT using any words associated with communism.
2. Go as far in-depth as you can without tipping someone off that you're a commie.
3. WAIT. This is the most important step. Give them time for the ideas to sink in.
4. Repeat 1-3 for as long as possible without telling them this is communism.

My "conversion" was mostly due to the realization that the socialism wasn't about government. I think this point should be pushed very strongly everywhere.

I think we have it harder than Holla Forums actually. the strain of Holla Forums thats become mainstream is the "send them back" strain, not the "kill them" strain. many people were already subconsciously racist, so it was just a case of making people unafraid to admit it.
I our case, capitalism is the dominant ideology, and selling people on "private property is bad" will be hard even if they understand the difference between private and personal. people like the idea of themselves one day owning a load of property.

People are selfish. You would have to convince them that they would have a higher standard of living under communism, which they wouldn't.

...

FUUUUUUUUCK post pics

This tbh. When I was trying to convert my lolbert gf to the left she was on board up until I said that what I was describing was socialism. Now she won't even listen. Ideology is a powerful drug.

This.

I keep posting this, but it is very simple to translate Marxist concepts into everyday speech.

Bourgeoisie = Capitalist Class, Ruling Class, "The 1%", "The Elite"
Proletariat = Working Class, Workers, "The People"
Petite-Bourgeoisie = self-employed, small proprietors (avoid the words "middle class" or "small business owners", as most people incorrectly identify as "middle class" and "small business" conjures up romantic mom and pop imagery)
Socialism = socialism, there's no point in concealing this, even in the US the taboo is quickly disappearing, but talk of cooperatives is often appealing to the average person, so do it
Capitalism = capitalism, though for some people you may find it helpful to initially use the words "corporatism" or "corporatocracy", especially with libertarians
Communism = there's no single phrase that can conjure up an accurate image and break through Cold War propaganda, but talking about "post-scarcity" and automation should get people thinking in the right way

I was a lolbert and libsoc&anarchism pretty much converted me. You gotta appeal to their freedumbs while explaining how shit capitalism is.

convert me

really forces me to consider

yeaaaaaaaaaaaaa no it isn't

We live in a society where Cold War propaganda has led most people to believe that socialism is anything a government does and that communism means resurrecting Stalin. You have to subvert bullshit.

similar things can be said of fascism, and yet Holla Forums has burgeoned solely on shitposting.

You assume most people act out of their own self interest and not their own assumed self interest. You assume people aren't in comfortable individualism. Sometimes the truth isn't comfortable, but the results are worth it.

You have to help them get past their "wideologee"

Nothing more than totalitarians in sheepskin

Lotsa good that did to them, huh?
Now they're the most hated group on all of 4chan (and out of 4chan).

hello Holla Forums

Except we do, and there's really no reason to hate that. Your own problem with being so easy to anger, is yours. Not the collective ours.

Was any of your teachers totalitarians? You would probably say yes, wouldn't you? What about your parents?

Would you engage us on an equal intellectual level, study our arguments, and make an honest effort to counter them? A lot of leftists are frustrated that no one on the right would want to do this, but I also understand neoliberals have done it to you too. So, either engage us equally, or you can keep acting like the smug, neoliberals you hate so much and you saw how far that got them.

Communism is totalitarian because it is based around perfect servitude, of class, of revolution, of history.

What does this even mean, and who are we being servant to besides ourselves and our communities?

A leader? That sounds more like what we have now. I don't want what we have now, neither do you is your logic.

Something has to be forced unchallenged and unable to be critiqued to be totalitarian, this is not us.

Look around you, what do you see that is

It means that the communist, and as is often stressed by communists, the capitalist too are only servants of their class, avatars of their collective form. People are defined by their place, rather than by their individuality, to be good is to fulfill this place.

Fucking how? By telling them they're wrong by shoving aside a class of people who for all purposes only exist to themselves to serve and die?

Individualism in the face of everything science tells us is so, is in fact, not true.

People are defined by their experiences by outside matter.

In Kapital Marx noted that bourgeoise economists, that is to say, non-marxists economists, only rationalise their class interests, so they too are marxist servants. Their theories can therefor be dismissed as enemy action, another hallmark of totalitarianism.

As if this ideology simply follows from fact, that the objects themselves are speaking to us and that our only task is translation.

It doesn't really matter if it's a 20th century word applied to a 19th century idea, the point is that people, the working class, have always been told they can be whoever they want to be and more individualist protestant miasma

But they can't. And they die remembered by no one.

And communities are ripped apart for profit. And told that they were worth nothing.

You can't question this either, if you do, you're a bastard.

I wonder which is the "totalitarian" agenda here? The one people on the message board talk of, or the one you can't question in real life without material consequence to yourself? Hm?

Are you stupid? I'm saying material conditions shape experience, shape "life", there is no argument otherwise that can be made, it simply is fact.

So like how literally every political movement works?
pol please leave your extra chromosomes on your garbage board

...

I don't see how this is "the point", or in anyway relevant to the marxist view of individuals as no more than avatars. No, they can't all be astronauts and pop stars, no this fact doesn't render people faceless avatars whose only escape from the enemy is perfect servitude to their class given cause.

To question if 6 million really died?

No, you're saying that there are facts and that your ideology follows from a translation of facts, that it is knowledge, commanded by the facts. That's pure ideology.

Individuals are not avatars but they are not as you describe them individuals at all. Most people are the same. Not for ideological purpose, but for repeated observable test and the reason demographics exist.

Nobody is saying everyone has to be either of them, actually. Your idea of success being an astronaut or a pop star is telling.

Questioning a genocide will get you a lot of looks, yes. Armenian, German, Russian, Chinese, genocide denial is pretty up there in social taboo.

But it's another matter entirely to believe in another ideology and not be free to do so.

It does. I don't truly understand why you disagree. It's simple.

The difference being that those demographics are given a life of their own, individuals become representations of demographics instead of demographics becoming data collected about them.

Are you not free to be a marxist/anarchist?

Because ideology does not follow from facts, it is not reality's gospel, facts by themselves are completely inanimate, they don't speak, and they certainly don't speak for themselves.

In what sense, how, or why do I disagree in your mind

Individuals are no more their demographics than they are any other person. Nobody can have unwarranted self importance if what they quantify as important is not a unique trait in themselves, but of many other people.

If they saw that and got rid of their own bitter protestant individualist moronic bullshit, they would realize if they all worked together on that singular talent they love so much, they could work wonders.

The problem is your inherent opposition to the idea individuality is something worth fighting for and true, when it is no more a political device for leaders than dualism was and is.

Not really, no.

"If your idea follows material conditions I can just say it's gospel, because"

Gotcha

Nah, in order to sell it you can't even use these terms. I find if most effective to talk like it's something you figured out on your own and you don't have words for it yet. Don't use either of these words AT ALL unless you're talking to young 'uns who don't really have an opinion either way. Talking to someone 30+ or even 25+, you definitely want to say shit like "bring democracy to the workplace" for socialism or "corporate feudalism" for capitalism.

As opposed to an ideology that says "I AM ALWAYS WRONG I BELIEVE NOTHING" every step of the way?

How many vapid girls who "love to travel" do you think are working class?

Isn't it funny how you are attempting to defend some vague form of collectivism with this word salad, yet you are easily the least comfortable being an undifferentiated neuron on this hive.

Eh, to each their own. I don't think it's funny.

Not really? A trip isn't a form of identification. It is a way that people can filter my posts if they so choose because they asked.

The only person wanting the attention is you by making a deal of it.

You're describing 90% of her posts.

If you can't handle word salad, you can't handle Zizek, you can't handle this place, you should leave

Lmao love the appeal to authority but Zizek isn't a god that the left needs to genuflect before. And while Zizek's language may be dense in typical continental fashion he at least has a point that one can discern from his writings. You literally speak in gibberish.

every third post is errata about your personal life, or your unique feelings about something, like Sam Hyde when he was being all vulnerable. Your very existence undermines your disturbing vision of human beings as interchangeable cogs within demographic unities.

yeah but she might post lewdz at some point so she's alright

I'm tired this morning, only had toast with black coffee. Could have made eggs, didn't really like it. 12:30am haven't started my work I gotta stop proctrastinating. There's this person I like, she'll be on soon, but that means another distraction fuck. I'm looking at the booze in the fridge to try to calm down but it's only making me want to do less shit

I could stream my mind for ten more posts and you can filter them so do it already you dumb fucking attention whore

How can "I" be the one looking for attention, when "I" am nothing? Why are you psychologizing me as if I were a specific instance of a pathology, and not just a product of the material substrate? Where does the "Protestant" "miasma" inhere if not in concrete individuals?

If you want to convert people, it might be wise to adopt a position you can grasp, let alone argue from. Not a Marxism so dilute it would preclude the very existence of Marx himself.

Your idea is pretty simple, it's just that you talk like a boy-molesting fruit. Different political currents have different meanings for the same words, so what people from outside currents say often looks like nonsense.
Like these:

A problem is that the different vocabulary meaning isn't just all coincidence, these meanings are engineered to make socialism unappealing (just like calling inheritance tax the death tax). So, if left media outlets manage to come up with and stick to new standard terms to get rid of this double-meaning, the far bigger establishment media apparatus will do their best to redefine these terms again:

You really don't get this concept of none of us being original do you

Holla Forumsyppe and Alt-cucks are the easyest to convert, surprisingly.

just show them the link between mass immigration an capitalism.
its undeniable that immigration is the result of capitalism
and if they want capitalism to still work and their countries not to go broke they need immigrants.

Well judging from the tank I'm guessing he wants effectively the Soviet Union but with more social conservatism and I imagine democracy.

How so?

Oh so you shit on the working class too

I think all the CIA coups have sort of ruined the chance of immigrants being class conscious, best to work on the home population.

Anyway, it redirects the local anger away from them, so what's the problem?

If that was true how are the fucking natives of the country doing that any better to convince when they've been fed the whole time these people are evil and want your labor.

Hispanic people have done more labor than anyone here, and they deserve their right to it. I don't give a fuck about what race they are, and anyone who isn't actively sabotaging us does either

Well they don't speak much English and the other guy does.

...

You don't even have refugees!

Toast. Black coffee. Head ringing like a cathedral full of banshees. I slump against the window frame and gaze out at the city full of lights and motion like a little electric hive crawling all over itself. Eggs and liquor are all I have left in the little refrigerator in my office, but the thought of greasy eggs makes my stomach rolls and combines with the motion down below and I nearly vomit up what little is left inside me. I pull the shade down and lurch away only to choke down some burnt crust.

It's already past midnight. I know she'll be out there. I know I'm just putting off facing her. My thoughts go back to the booze in the fridge. It'd calm me down, steady my hand at least, or so I tell myself, but I've already procrastinated enough. Part of me thinks I'm afraid to face her because she's my last lead–this betty goes bust and I'm all out of threads to pull. Deep down in the junk drawer of my soul where I put all the uncomfortable things I don't like to admit, I know it's because I can already see what'll happen if I do see her. It'll be nothing but hot bullets and short goodbyes from here on out. I think about the bright red on her parted lips. I think about the hint of wispy scent I caught when I held her close. I think about reaching for the half-empty bottle again.

Bloodshot eyes stare back at me from the stained mirror on the wall. "It's your own fault for hookin' on to some dizzy dame." 'Course I got no answer. I look like shit. Three days and nights without a wink will do that to you. All I can do is keep moving. Keep all the plates spinning, because if you stop for just a second they all come crashing down. I think of how she looked when she laughed strobed in the muzzle flash of twin thompsons. A cold sweat rolls down my spine and I grip the edge of my desk.

My attention catches onto my beat up wrist watch. Twenty to one. Can't help but laugh. Sounds about like my odds. I press my palms to my eye sockets til I see spots and stretch my back. It don't help me feel better, but I know what will. I take my roscoe from its desk drawer and stuff it into my pocket before pulling on my coat. Right as I grip the door know I think about the hooch in the fridge again. I think about red lipstick and the tinkle of shells. Nah, better leave it. I'm going to need something to wash tonight down when I get back.

kek

10/10

Many are actually easier to talk to than radfem narcissists who were burned by SJW's but otherwise would be all in, and now affect anti-capitalism as an accessory on their little exoskeletal shrines to themselves, and feel entitled to mouth off on whatever due to being ingratiated into the liberal bureaucracy and being told by their handlers they're super clever for regurgitating surface aspects of a body of thought they have been told they are morally superior for supporting, however superficially. You just have to get over the neoliberal rationalization that racism is the worst thing in the world, which implicitly holds whites to a higher standard, which is of course supremacist at its core, and start actually countersignalling these pieces of shit, rather than flattering them as if they were "near" to you. They're not, and can't be. It's not in their personality.

Sounds like a personal problem

It's the opposite really. I'm just highlighting people like you for what you are. Poison, dead weight, not "allies".

Spotted the social democrat.

post alunyas on popular boards

NO NO NO NO NO

DELETE YOURSELF

There is nothing 'fiscal' about communism. You're just a plain old reactionary

Are you for real?

HHHNNNGGG

are you for real?

youtu.be/78WvMFKc4hM

The left might want to get its own house in order before worrying about converting others. Counterintuitively, liberals are among the most difficult to convert to socialism. Liberals are predominantly members of the petit bourgeois professional caste who have no real principles or beliefs and support positions based not on whether those positions are actually correct, but on how others will perceive them. Anyone who thinks along these lines is not a suitable prospect. Even Holla Forumsacks are easier to convert, because at least some of them have beliefs, dumb as they might be.

It's the season of consumerism and it's getting to me. Especially where I live. It's almost like a cancerous thought that's been installed into everyone's psyche.
Would communism destroy this capitalist notion?

I assume it would. People may value spending time with family and enjoying their work rather than chasing material objects.

I'm also interested in learning how a communist views the united nations, and whether they find the group valuable.

Did you hear that the KKK bought the movie rights to Roots?
They're going to play it backwards so it has a happy ending.

This.

Liberals are THE enemy. Their carefully constructed appearance of similarity, even when they say anticap things from time to time, is wholly illusory.

It explains how they are functionally CIA assets at this stage, how easy it was for the deep state to meld them into a panoptic cult capable of supporting anything, no matter how insanely contradictory. They are literally fascism in its truest sense, the current "far right" is, bizarrely, overall LESS genuinely fascist than your average idpol drone these days.

Bruh you wish you could apply higher-order philosophical theories from outside the cloistered tradition of critical theory to shed light on marxist thought and ideological analyses.

Really interesting point about using a toothbrush to itch your bumhole though.

...

post butthole

What I've found most shocking recently is that I've found the people that are the most hostile to us on the left and our ideas, are actually the "Clintonite" and the "New Labour" type Liberals.

It's these liberals who I honestly believe are the true "Conservatives", all they want is to tinker with the status-quo, that and some liberal identity politics is as far as willing they are able to go, beyond that there is this vicious hostility to us on the left.

The thing with right wingers I've actually found recently, is that they are not conservatives at all, they are actually radicals who want to change the world and status-quo into their own "utopian" vision for the world, one that is set out by people like Ayn Rand and Hayek and such and it is right wingers I've actually found more common ground with and been able to convert.

These Clinton/New Labour types though, holy fuck, literally delusional neolibs who think that basically 95% of things are fine and all we need is to be nicer to eachother and have some investment in renewables or something, anything beyond that is "Crazy radical unpragmatic conspiracy theory shit".

Also the level of smug that comes from these liberals holy shit. If I was in the US, I would have voted Trump just to shut these fuckers down.

I think very few right wingers hold "libertarian" and beyond viewpoints. In fact I think they might be a fad that is already on the decline. Most conservatives are just people who want to be told what to do. In a Stalinist society they would be the ones sending letters to "uncle Joe" and in American society they just want to hear Archie Bunkerisms yelled in a loud enough way.

I think they are easier to convert than a neoliberal precisely because they really don't have much vision or depth of knowledge beyond being told whats wrong and what to like. They think they're doing the right thing because the currents of society general swing towards their own base ideological viewpoints.

Libertarians and overt fascists are different because they have a real vision of society and goals they want to achieve I think they're also easy to convert because extremes attract extremes and if you can convince them that certain things are absolutely impossible about their ideology they will fold. The potential tyranny of contractualism got me to leave being an ancap among other things.

I think the neoliberal attitude and in general the cynical moderates are hard to turn because they have no vision and they don't want things to change in this I agree with you. They see nothing wrong and the fear the potential third world circumstances that can result if too much change goes sour. At least the people on the street. Rich people just wanna rich no matter what their stated ideology.

I think we need to focus on workers' self-management and simple explanations about how it would function. People are so spooked by the socialism = government meme that they won't be convinced by theory or analysis of capitalism alone.
When I was younger, I genuinely didn't understand that "social ownership over the means of production" fundamentally implies worker councils and democratically run corporations - it doesn't help that many "socialists" ignore this. Worker councils are a plainly reasonable idea, and if that leads people to market socialism, it's already a huge step. Also, there are working examples of this concept in historical or current economies, so we need to cite shit with confidence.

You don't get it. The point made in and is that the words for concepts that are basic building blocks in arguing for socialism are parsed in a completely different way by the mainstream and pretty much anybody else who isn't already in the socialist camp.

It's equivocation, but not just equivocation of this or that word, it's an equivocation bundle so that a set of words is parsed differently. Addressing this means either addressing the whole bundle (good luck with that on Twitter or TV or any other place where you don't have somebody's attention for an hour). Or coming up with new terms for the concepts of the socialist world-view that are less ambiguous.

The poster connects that insight in an awkward way with Wittgenstein's word games. This is bad if you want to communicate with somebody who isn't familiar with Wittgenstein, in that it makes the insight sound more complicated than it is and harder to understand. Bringing up "word games" is also bad for understanding if one is familiar with Wittgenstein, because the poster uses the term "word game" in a way pomos like Lyotard do. The point of Wittgenstein's word games is about how the meaning of language arises from activities in real life. The different meanings of the socialist terms however do no arise like that, the shift in meaning is consciously engineered to sound unappealing (I don't believe most people using the mainstream meaning are consciously doing their part in that engineering, of course). Which is why bringing up Wittgenstein here isn't helpful. Pretty sure that the poster only "knows" about Wittgenstein indirectly, through name-dropping pomos who can't tell their arse from their elbow.

I try to argue on Holla Forums but it's just exhausting refuting the same crap over and over

this, i converted from aut-right autism to full gommunism once i discovered this board and started reading
AMA

POLEMIC'D
THE
FUCK
OUT

This.
We're feeding python code into a C interpreter

Here's the cap for portability

Anyone down to take one for the team and study ~10 hours each of cenk uyghur and john oliver, so we can all get current on liberals' "buttons"?

I already do that. I just cant give up TYT.

I think the hump most well meaning liberals need to get over is the idea that reforms can or will save them. If you can somehow find an easy way to be a Chris Hedges ring worm and convince them otherwise that is the key. They also will want to keep positioning themselves towards the middle to seem more reasonable you need to make it clear this isn't a reasonable stance in a decentered world where capital has essentially already won.

Hmm, clearly your father used to make you dress in girls' clothing and sit on your uncle's lap.

Only on Wednesdays.

Tell me more, user. Was your father a drinking man?

Yeah I've been shitposting on the MLG for weeks and it feels bad to not make any progress. You shoot the same argument down over and over and over then the next thread starts:

Then the cycle repeats itself.

Meant to be a reply to:

You forgot