New xexizy video:

New xexizy video: youtube.com/watch?v=KjWTeqNrNsI

He rips pretty hard into cumputing forever here, agree?

It was pretty ok. My one problem with Muke is that when he is criticising others he is not as harsh as I would like. However, he is pretty decent at communicating his points, so his best type of videos are those where he is just explaining something.

Hello, muke. How are you?

Why bother responding to someone so intellectually dishonest/lazy/stupid?

Because, as Schoppenhauer told us in "The Art of always being right", there is nothing better than a bad opponent.

I always message muke asking if he will let me tongue his asshole. He never replies so I hate him and think he has bad theory and is dumb.

Because people listen to him and take him seriously.

You'd fugg someone with an hair style so bad ?

Don't insult Muke's hair! I'll fight you, faggot!

Back when I was a sartonite-faggot I introduced a friend to Compensating-forever and now he fucking loves him and I want to die…

Damn dude, even when I used to watch Sargon I was never crazy enough to watch Computing Forever. The guy is clearly a conspiracy theorist.

I know. It didn't take me long to figure that out either, even before I radicalized but he still hasn't.

True. I like DemSoc01 more in that regard.

Harsh how? You mean like just throwing out insults?

really cool youtuber, glad you posted yourself!

wow, didn't think i'd ever see anyone use this screencap of mine again, haven't even saved it myself anymore

good, how are you user :)

I thought he stopped going on leftypol

His hair is thicc, like that's the 1 thing u can't deny u know

Watching it now and not to take anything away from the guy, but isn't ripping into Shitspewing Whatever a pretty low bar?

Why is your sound so awful?
Why didn't you post this in /leftytrash/

Bump

I take issue with this video. At 6:53, Computing Forever makes some assertions about the "gender movement". Muke moves in to pooh-pooh the whole idea, because the irishman doesn't bother to spell out who is responsible.

My problem? The fact that the irishman doesn't bother to spell out who is responsible doesn't mean such things are not happening. It's not a secret that the "Queer" section of the identity politics brigade are screaming bigot at anyone who refuses certain forms of sexual propostion in an attempt to force what amounts to reparative therapy on the mass of hetrosexuals. Such arguments are so widespread that even the Roo has produced a short video on the matter (see: "Zinnia Jones and the logic of a rapist").

I also note that Muke has become quite friendly on twitter with members of the identity politics brigade who will defend this sexual coercion.

Kys

Rapists GTFO.

It would have been much more interesting IMO to discuss how our fellow Computer frames his speech in the rigorous, the scientific, with multiples references to "facts", "reality", without providing examples of that.

This speech pattern is very common in rightist discourse, even in their so-called theory.

There is a fetishisation of science as something always on their side, something they possess instinctively, without needing to looking into things. Worse, when the Science contradicts them, then it's been infiltrated by [[[them]]], it's been corrupted. Their treatment of Bill Nye and his show (which is, by the way, all kinds of stupid, but that's a whole different topic) is a prime example of that.

Bill educational video for children : "chromosomes determines your gender" : BRAVO BILL, SCIENCE, RIGOUR, BRAVA

Bill new show (aimed for adults) : well it's not exactly that (in substance, the way he said it was absolutely cancerous) : SJWS, BILL NYE THE GOY GUY, BILL WANTS US TO STERILISE OUR CHILDREN

Didn't muke literally do exactly that?

I didn't get the impression. To me, it was more about the Great Conspiracy than this détournement of science-sounding jargon.

I thought he had a bit at the end where he mentioned how computing forever constantly referred to science and facts without actually using any scientific sources, or is that not what you meant

I'd have liked him to go further into that. It's one thing to say "he doesn't have sources", it's another to note that how he gets away with it (by hiding it in a background - his speech presupposes that his audience have accepted the ONLY 2 (two) GENDERS), and how this speech pattern is common to our beloved "radical sceptics".