Virtue signaling liberals B.T.F.O. FULLSTOP

i don't go around censoring liberals, or physically assaulting them or throwing milkshakes at them like a petulant child, like current liberals do.
sorry not sorry that Ouspensky hurt your feefees. Too bad he's dead already, otherwise you could have had him arrested for wrong-think.

modern american liberalism is descended from the same vein of liberal protestantism

This. They're probably genetic direct descendants as well.

They are - guess who settled OR/WA/CA (New Englanders, especially MA and VT)

>Ouspensky hurt your feefees. Too bad he's dead already, otherwise you could have had him arrested for wrong-think.
strange thing to say because i agree with him entirely. it seems like you are mentally censoring me by translating my opinions into straw men so you don't have to actually contend with their implications.

now, tell me more about your code of morality. i wonder how starting anonymous arguments and belittling anybody who questions you fits into it? and it seems to entirely involve asserting your moral superiority to an out-group, are you perhaps treating morality as a sport, as ouspensky cautioned against?

Modern American politics is basically the Puritan Party vs. the Borderer/Cavalier Party (to use the terms from American Nations)

>I mentioned SJWs, and liberals and SJWs are one and the same thing. And from my reading of the work of this one person I can also conclude that communists behave like liberals do. Hence all of these are the same.
Outside of /r/chapotraphouse/ nobody is both a communist and a liberal user. Read political theory. And don't pretend like this ISN'T a vaguely disguised /pol/ thread because this isn't about political theory, it's about anti-sjw bs, which you showed by not even understanding the difference between liberals and communists.

SJWs are counter-revolutionaries, the soviets were literally the opposite of SJWs

When will this meme end. Bolsheviks were the outgrowth of Russian bobo groups like the Narodniks who are suspiciously close to their American bobo counterparts. Liberals evolve into Communists. SJWism is a legitimate development of doctrine out of American-Rite Marxism.

>everything is politics
I would say that's a clear sign of a college freshman, but you're drooling so hard over /pol/ talking points that it's more likely you're a NEET that failed to grow up.

Attached: 1546795684798.jpg (350x466, 48K)

Fpbp

That's the joke retard

*Beep Boop* Based *Beep Boop*
*Beep Boop*Low T Beta NPC Cuck Soiboi Libtards BTFO! *Beep Boop* We are the good guys! *Beep Boop*

So, natural equality, equal opportunity, or equal outcomes? Which is it?

You sound desperate

I'll take all three, thanks.

>you're mentally censoring me
no, i'm not. You don't get to twist the definitions of words to fit your own agenda.
The fact that you are typing what you're typing, is proof that NO ONE IS CENSORING YOU.

you leftwingers can try and weasel out of it all you like, but the fact remains that the only people censoring anyone are leftwingers.
Like that Steven Crowder guy, for example, (even though I don't watch his content) he's getting censored by Youtube right now for making jokes against the leftwing, and leftwing authoritarians can't handle any criticisms, so they're doing their best to get him deplatformed. (there are many other examples to be used like this, this just happens to be most recent example).

Liberals/Communists/Socialists/Leftwing are SITH.

This is what I mean. You're seething so hard over these talking points that it just sounds desperate

Please stop with this persecution complex. Some minor sophists who spend all day bitching about trannies got tossed off youtube. There's no fucking squad team busting down your apartment door for wrongthink. God, you want to be beat down so bad, I don't understand it, you literally run the most powerful government in the world

I mean, look at your original post ().
What kind of response do you want? Expect? Nothing in the op should trigger a response like the one you posted.

what kills me is that this guy probably gets mad that the sjws are ruining his favorite TV series or some shit

I wasn't that user but his "low effort post" was just a meme on the fact that you are failing to differentiate yourself from the average NPC fox news viewer (and you still are lol)

I see. Well, you got me I guess. I took the memepill and died

>thinking liberals = leftists
facepalm

So let me get this straight
Liberals in a proper sense refers to an older ideology that was more about personal freedom and probably closer to modern libertarianism? And left refers to authoritarian anti-capitalists?

well, Southpark did go downhill after they started with all the sjw crap (but it's still watchable, just not as good as the earlier seasons)

>antifa and Hillary voter
Dumb meme. Never post your pol shit here, please

No, not quite. The easiest rule of thumb; liberals like capitalism, leftists don't. Remember that "leftist" covers a pretty broad spectrum of political beliefs, ranging from "abolish all governments, religious institutions, and markets" to "full space communism" to, sadly, "aggressive tax schemes with removing most "morality" laws."
There's little in common between liberals and modern-day libertarians. They agree on social issues, for the most part, but libertarians advocate for little to no market control, and even the most right-leaning liberal would agree that yeah, we should probably have some taxes to fund building roads and shit. Leftists and libertarians share many viewpoints on social issues (vast generalization) but we can apply our rule of thumb -- libertarians think capitalism is the best fucking thing since the Resurrection, leftists want to burn wall street to the ground.

Liberals can be Democrat. Communists can be Democrat. Socialists can be Democrat.

>oh, you're white and a Trump supporter? You're clearly a Nazi.

it's funny how the left demands nuance when categorizing themselves, but paints broadly when labeling anyone they disagree with.

I see. Well, if I cared more I'd probably look into it myself but this will suffice. Thanks

>be white
>vote for Israel
I can't believe people honestly thought Trump would further their interest. I mean, sure, I voted for him but I can honestly say it was fully for the laughs and because Hillary is more evil than he. But still. I don't think I can vote anymore

and which group is the one going around getting people fired from their jobs, or physically assaulting people, or censoring them from online forums? (communists? socialists?)
and which political party does this group currently vote for (if and when they do vote)? Democrat.

so why quibble over "Democrats are censoring people they disagree with" just because "not all Democrats are censoring people"? just seems like silly word games

>vote for Israel
i love how democrats get so upset over those poor palestinians, but give fuck-all to the 100+ other countries that are currently being oppressed by X group.

No should receive aid. Especially Jews

>Liberals evolve into Communists.
There's an age-old saying that "scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds". Time and time again liberals have taken sides to defend private property rights over human rights. Over and over again have they vilified justified violent resistance, while praising "the gospel of the high road" of peaceful protest, non-violent action, and voting for "the lesser evil", while ignoring the systemic and repressive violence that people take up arms against.
Search for a trash-can turned over in anger, a window shattered, a limousine torched, and there you'll find a liberal on their knees shedding oceans of tears for those lifeless items. Tears quickly dried and followed by demands for escalation of police violence. And in what follows, those that get hurt "got what was coming".

youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU

*no-one
My bad

youtube.com/watch?v=sbD1XDhKr8U
t. Lenin

Democrats=Nazis

personally, i'm okay with the aid since we give aid to PLENTY of places that don't deserve it, like Mexico for example, or to deadbeat welfare Democrats.

>getting people fired is censorship!
If someone catches you acting like an asshole, and brings that proof to their employer, they can let that employee go. That's not censorship. That's your precious free market working as beautifully as Mia Khalifa's ass in a wet dream.
>physically assaulting people
lmao milkshakes are physically assaulting now? nice, call me back when a leftist walks into a baptist church and kills nine people for being white
>censoring them from online forums
At worst -- at absolute worst -- YouTube/Reddit told a bunch of larpers that they can't call gay people faggots and claim the Jews faked the holocaust. This isn't muh censorship. Online communities (typically) have pretty clear terms of service. They violated those terms.
You run the most powerful government in the world. Stop acting like you're oppressed because you can't say faggot and have to treat black people kindly

extremely high IQ take. the bottom line; leftists want to totally change how society functions. liberals want to maintain the existing order. liberals will ally with fascists to stop leftists from coming to power, every single time

Well, I'm certainly not a Democrat. But I like how
>we have to give money
I tend to disagree. No one, and I mean no single country expect maybe, MAYBE war time allies, should receive any kind of monetary, material, intellectual, etc aid. Welfare should also be cut

>yea, okay, we censor people, but it's really not that big a deal.
>yea, we get people fired, but it's not that big a deal.
>yea, we throw milkshakes at people, but we would never escalate it beyond that. And when we have (which, we most definitely have) it's not a big deal.
fuuuug, you leftwing scum are JUST as Ouspensky described. Moral busy-bodies that get off on virtue signaling, accusing everyone but yourselves of immorality, and then justifying your violence and censorship with paltry excuses.

>I am being oppressed! I am!
No. You're experiencing consequences to your actions. Grow up, have sex, be an adult, the Jews aren't out to get you and Tyrone doesn't want to fuck your pure white wife

>we liberals are pro-free speech, except when we aren't.
read a dictionary you low iq sack of liberal

You are both larping

>muh freeze peach
You can't call black people niggers anymore. I'm sorry user. That must be rough. I can't imagine how the loss of "faggot" affected you. Shit, there was once a time when you could discuss gassing the kikes like a civilized man among civilized men, and now no one wants to hear you. I hear the libs are coming for "tranny" next. truly dark times user, truly dark

Immigration status is a protected group on youtube now. No more making hatred of illegal mexicans or "migrants"

hopefully someday hatred in general is criminalized. I'm sure we can put chips in babies that tell us when people feel such evil emotions.

#NotAllSiths

it's hilarious how i posted a paragraph from Ouspensky, describing the sjw-morality exactly, and then sjw come in and start acting JUST AS OUSPENSKY described.

>Then appears delight in morality for morality's sake, a sort of moral sport. A man under these circumstances begins to be afraid of everything. Everywhere, in all manifestations of life, something "immoral" begins to appear to him, threatening to dethrone him or others from that height to which they have risen or may rise. This develops a preternaturally suspicious attitude towards the morality of others. In an ardor of proselytism, desiring to popularize his moral views, he begins quite definitely to regard everything which is not in accord with his morality as hostile to it. All this becomes "black" in his eyes. Starting with the idea of freedom, by arguments, by compromises, he very easily convinces himself that it is necessary to fight freedom. He already begins to admit a censure of thought. The free expression of opinions contrary to his own seems to him inadmissible. All this may be done with the best intentions, but the results of it are very well known.
>There is no tyranny more ferocious than the tyranny of morality. Everything is sacrificed to it. And of course there is nothing so blind as such tyranny, as "morality".

Incidentally, I don't use the n-word, but apparently you do. Which makes YOU the racist. But guess what? I still support your freedom of speech, so if being an ignorant racist and anti-semite Nazi floats your boat, so be it.
careful not to hurt yourself on that edge

Are you implying that each of us doesn't have a set of norms to guide our behavior because we asume they benefit us in the long run?

freedom of speech is a moral issue, he wants people to be reprobates so long as they go with flow of his modernist status quo.

Some people genuinely don't beyond material pleasure/pain. It's sad, really.

I don't think CNN is morally obligated to give airtime to someone who'd just scream NIGGER into the mic for five minutes straight. I'm also not obligated to give time or space to people who argue for the extermination of entire ethnic groups. If you want to be a nasty racist in your head, go for it. I do not care. And sure, yes, it's within your right to grab a stool and a megaphone and reeeeeee about crime rates until your voice gives out. It's also my right to call you a faggot and kick the stool out from under you. This is not Muh Oppression, this is you being a gigantic ass and then receiving a consequence.
>You're -- you're the REAL racist
Which one of us is siding with fascists, user? It's not me.

I see there's a containment thread going on for the mentally handicapped. Here, have something substantially more intelligent and nuanced than OP's entire unfortunate contribution to the human genome - piss in the gene pool, as they say.

Attached: 7E917BE0-3405-4EED-8273-005575ED2DF8.jpg (1280x1810, 260K)

midwit pseud posting 101

no one is saying CNN has to give airtime to people they don't agree with.
but democrats are taking it a HUGE LEAP beyond that, and actively getting people they disagree with fired, doxxing them, physically harming them, and other abuse that is either illegal or borders on illegal. (Incidentally, throwing milkshakes on people is ILLEGAL, it's a very minor law you're breaking, but it's still not legal).
you're also accusing people of being racist who AREN'T racist. Which is also something Ouspensky brought up, which i quoted originally:
>A man under these circumstances begins to be afraid of everything. Everywhere, in all manifestations of life, something "immoral" begins to appear to him, threatening to dethrone him or others from that height to which they have risen or may rise. This develops a preternaturally suspicious attitude towards the morality of others. In an ardor of proselytism, desiring to popularize his moral views, he begins quite definitely to regard everything which is not in accord with his morality as hostile to it. All this becomes "black" in his eyes.
and from there it leads into the censoring part.

SJWs are literally following the playbook that Ouspensky pointed out in 1912, and current sjws in this thread are AT THE SAME TIME arguing that they don't do that, and then saying that it's okay they do that because "it's moral to censor people for X reason"!

But I mean, I think even most hedonists, except the ones too far gone, have some conducts they aren't willing do, regardless of the pleasure. That in inself speaks about morals

True in one regard. However, the things they won't do generally relate to negative social feedback or long term known consequences

That is what you're saying. But alright.
I've already covered why each of those things is bullshit, user. You failed to make a substantial attack beyond "nuh-huh!"
Quit the pearl-clutching bullshit. Rich men can afford another suit. Poor people can't buy another life.
Again, I've already covered why muh freeze peach censorship isn't what you're saying. There's no coordinated campaign to drive you from the country. No one will slip into your home in the dead of night and cut out your tongue for saying kike. You haven't made any weighty attack on anything I'm saying, aside from greentexting some obscure writer who claims that I'm (hold on let me read this again) so afraid of Life that I run around with a sharpie blacking out everything I don't like, and when will the madness end, and you can't say anything anymore, and reeeeeeeeee.
Please actually address what I'm saying. All you've done is autistically screech about some strawmen and quote that Ouspensky faggot's rainbow statements.

Doesn't that apply to any kind of ethical code?

Not really. Look at the actual backgrounds of the actual government officials - most government officials in the USG nowadays come from the 60s liberal anti-anti-communist (at best) tradition. You're simply expressing a preference for Russian Rite Communism as opposed to American Rite. Generally the American Rite of anything is bad so this is a legitimate preference.

How does Yea Forums do it?

I don't think so. Some people are inherently good and act good regardless of societal expectations I.e. socrates

If China is Communist with Chinese Characteristics why can't we identify American Progressivism as Communism with American Values? The State functions in a more or less analogous way...

>throwing milkshakes at people isn't illegal
yes it is.
>you're just saying "nuh uh!" like it's some kinda argument.
not sure how to continue a discussion when you don't even recognize the rule of law.

I'll just leave with this: Ouspensky was right about SJWs

But that "good" they are doing didn't come from within. It was taught to them by outside forces and maybe they assimilated it really well and happily live by it. But it's not a inate impulse

Rule of Law isn't real. It should be expected for a Progressive theocracy to engage in suppression of heretics.

>communism is where the gubment does stuff
wow, is this the power of American education?

In China the Party owns the State and governs in an essentially top-down way. In the US it is not called the Party, but we can find out who is on the Central Committee, and the Central Committee de facto owns the State. It governs in a top-down way while pretending not to, rule is carried out by intelligence agency, not so dissimilarly to the USSR.

>communism is where the gubment does stuff
This is not what I'm talking about at all, I don't accept the public/private distinction and view it as a British error.

I disagree. I think *some* people are innately good. Not everyone obviously

>In the US it is not called the Party, but we can find out who is on the Central Committee, and the Central Committee de facto owns the State. It governs in a top-down way while pretending not to, rule is carried out by intelligence agency, not so dissimilarly to the USSR.
okay, whether this is true or not, how does it relate to "American Progressivism"?

me quoting Ouspensky
>sjws suppress those they consider heretics.

sjws
>no we don't.
>it should be expected for progressive theocracy to engage in suppression of heretics

well, i suppose i should at least be glad to get sjws to admit they're theocratic tyrants, despite not even being a normal religion (unless being satanic and irrational can be considered religion)

>well, i suppose i should at least be glad to get sjws to admit they're theocratic tyrants, despite not even being a normal religion (unless being satanic and irrational can be considered religion)
hahahaha

>Even as early as 1912 liberals/communist/SJWs were a busybody plague on society.
communists were a busybody plague even as early as the ancient greeks

Attached: greek assemblywomen.jpg (867x1000, 375K)

A Hillary sticker with an Antifa badge? Do you know literally nothing, chief?

>rule of law isn't real
neither are progressive morals, but that doesn't seem to stop them from acting like they are.

So you admit that you were properly pegged. Lmao faggot.

The USG and the US equivalent of the Central Committee, (the social clubs) at this moment are mostly staffed by boomers defined by 60s social revolutionism, most of whom were members of Communist or anti-anti-Communsit red liberal organizations. Almost all key developments of Americanism in the 20th century were made by Communist or Communist-sympathetic activists. The State rules in a manner analogous to existing Communist states in its governance structure. How is anyone protesting calling this Communism with American Values?

>but muh priv-
China also has private property

>all leftists must agree on something in order for it to be called leftist.
you do realize that Antifa and Hillary voters are both part of the current Democrat left?

besides, since when did cognitive dissonance or holding contradictory beliefs EVER stop a leftist?

Mainstream liberals of ~2015 were the red liberals of ~1965, who were the red liberals of ~1915, who were the red liberals of ~1865.

>leftists want to totally change how society functions
they burn shit because they like to burn shit, not because they have some vision of paradise they're willing or capable of bringing about on earth. they're intellectual and moral children and they deserve to eat boot.