The official support for Windows 10 ends on Oct 14, 2025. Give new life to your old computer. Save money and install Linux: https://endof10.org/

I see why they (Turning Point) picked him as speaker. He says egregious things as if they were normal. Basically, they get more influence in society the more controversial the things they say are. That’s why they made him speaker.

ok so your writing is very interesting, and i have to think about it for a bit.

i can tell you a different perspective, if you mind listening to it:

sexuality and desire are the juices that make the world go round. in other words, people are attracted to one another and that is why we have a coherent society instead of a bunch of isolated people.

people want to impress one another (because they’re attracted to one another) and that is why they develop arts and culture. in other words, all art is sublimate sexuality. and knowledge is distilled art, so sexuality is indirectly the driving force for humanity’s progress, i argue.

This can be clearly observed with AI image generation tools. Free AI tools (with open weights), which is arguably important to have (because otherwise all tools would be corporate-owned, and that’s not so good for the people) were largely developed by people who generated big-titty-girls with it. Sexuality drives human progress :)

One of your parts in an earlier comment was that people choose 4chan/hypersexualized video games instead of meeting real people, to which i say: let the gooners have their self-chosen prison. it is better for all of us. imagine if they went out into the real world and actually interacted with people, i think they would annoy a lot. it’s better this way :)

We literally get the fascist pig insult from the demon Legion, a commentary on the brainwashing the Legionnaires/Rome as a state pushed unto their citizens via fear and deprivation.

what do you mean by that?

it’s an interesting write-up, i gotta study it in more detail later on, but i gotta go now, have something to do today.

to summarize my response: it’s good that whatever you did helped you, but i suspect that your method of approaching life cannot simply be generalized to other people, i.e. it wouldn’t work that way if other people tried the same thing.

but i’ll probably write a more elaborate response later :D

what i meant that people don’t always care about the facts (of whether it actually does harm) as can be seen by your response.

now do a research on the effect of lolis (young sexualized girls) in japanese media and whether it has an effect. i wouldn’t be surprised if the outcomes were similar, yet lots of people still whine about it.

the original cybertruck

Wouldn’t it be awesome if people cared about research and facts.

Conservatives do care about research and facts, as long as these facts say exactly what they want to hear. (/s)

Specially vulnerable are the young who suffer from a lack of understading for the higher value in self control and moderation.

you could also easily turn this the other way around and say

specially vulnerable are the young who suffer because their sexual needs are kept away from them, through strict oversight from parents

who decides what is good and what is not? the people should decide it themselves.

So

Lust is one of those material prisons that is naturally inclined as it gives you good feelings.

This reads to me like a very heavily christian-biased thing. The christian bible says the original devil in the world took the shape of a snake (representing lust) that led eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and then they were kicked out of paradise.

What you’re forgetting is that lust is a part of the natural world that was already there before god existed. The christian bible says sth along the lines of “the world was created 6000 years ago” and what it really means is that humanity or the human spirit was created 6000 years ago with the rise of the first civilizations and empires.

But the natural world did already exist way before that (nature is billions of years old), and lust was a natural and essential part of that. It is not so much that lust is a “mistake of god’s creation” and kinda “sneaked in” or something, rather, god declared lust - which was already present - a sin, and by doing so, they tipped the natural balance of things. Maybe that is a thing to consider. It is not so much that lust is an invader and offender in the world, rather it is the human spirit that tipped the balance and therefore caused a millenia-old war against the serpent. And that has something to do with what you’re saying, even though you’re packing the arguments into very modern language.

Funny, but this just poses further questions. I.e. is it the absence of religion that causes wellbeing, or is it wellbeing that causes the absence of religion?

I was told the story by a stranger once: The reason why people cling to religion is because they are unable to live their own life, i.e. they struggle and can’t live in the moment, because it would be too depressing, so they cling to religion to seek an escape. Religion absolves them from thinking and therefore from recognizing the world around them, and so it’s an escape. So, in this view, bad times cause religion, but not the other way around. At least it’s one possible explanation. I don’t know whether it’s true.

I’m just saying, don’t confuse correlation with causality. Correlation does not imply causality in general. (though in this case it probably does)

I think the issue is not “religion” because that’s hard to define. What do you count as a religion and what not? It’s kinda not clearly defined. I.e., you can “believe” in science, yet does the belief make it a religion?

I think what’s more the issue is the fact that people cling to nonsensical statements and are unwilling to look at things the way they are. I.e. a recurring theme of religion is that it absolves people from thinking, i.e. from making their own thoughts and relating those to reality. That is the thing that must be dealt with.

In other words, people must be taught to think and analyze the world around (and inside of) them. That is what leads to wellbeing and happyness.

I read the following neat metaphor once: People are like sponges, and if you take away the juice from their lifes, they become thirsty and suck even more.

Isn’t this just the equivalent of the “shooter game discussion” that we had a few years ago?

I.e., some people argued that playing shooter games would make the people more inclined towards gun violence and we’d see more shootings IRL. but that didn’t happen, as we know a few years later.

it’s quite straightforward then to assume that sexualized video games don’t really lead to more sexualization IRL, i guess.

I mean, if childcare becomes free, that means people get to keep more money in their pockets so they can spend more, and that stimulates consumerism, which stimulates the economy. literally that’s in the interest of the ruling class. the only reason they don’t do that is because they’re mentally slow, it seems.

there, i cross-posted it :)

This might have been true in 1960s, when wages were actually high and if you saved up, you could become a millionaire, but it’s no longer true. The mindset is simply stuck in people because people are slow on updates and haven’t recognized yet that there’s practically no well-paying jobs on the labor market anymore, no matter what you do. The consequence is that you can’t get rich if you’re poor today, no matter what you do. No kind of saving is gonna do that.

The only way forward is a better social system, and i did some maths the last few weeks and figured out that it’s surprisingly doable economically on a macroeconomic level, i.e. if the US introduced a wealth tax and a universal basic income today, it would NOT really hurt the US’ long-term competitiveness on the global free market, and import tariffs aren’t even needed to sustain the US companies’ competitiveness.

This is fascinating because you would kinda expect that if you tax the rich, they would try to make up for it by bigger profits on their products and it would simply lead to inflation. This is partially true, but only partially, because the tax only applies if the company is owned by rich people, and not if it’s owned by a large number of normal people. So, companies owned by a large number of normal people have a competitive advantage because they don’t need to profit as much to make up for the wealth tax, so they have an easier time in the domestic market.

But even better than that, domestic companies don’t even suffer in international competition. Because at first, yes, prices would rise and there would be inflation, but that makes the dollar cheaper (in other words, a bit more worthless), and that makes manufacturing inside the US cheaper, because the wages are cheaper in international competition, because the dollar is cheaper. So it stimulates manufacturing and exports, keeping the import/export business in balance.

Not everyone’s on the spectrum in the same way that brown is not a color of the rainbow.

Historically, I’m quite certain that the “small” people (e.g. peasants, and such) had always had incredibly right-wing views, including tribalism (we’re better than anyone else, for no reason, we just are), “hard-work” ethics, who doesn’t work doesn’t deserve to eat, and such.

The landlords couldn’t care less about immigration. As long as the immigrants pay their taxes, the landlord is happy. Why would they bother?

It’s the peasants who see their land occupied (sothat their own land’s relative share decreases) who get furious at the foreigners who take their jobs and eat their food, while also possibly bringing infectious diseases and an inferior way of life.