These removals from /r/TIL seem to be getting more and more brazen. Good catch on the removal this submission is about, I wonder how they're going to justify this one ?

Well, they don't want people using their subreddit to start political arguments, I can respect that. I see something on r/conspiracy about a TIL post getting deleted for politics every day. I feel like at this point you'd be better off pointing to inconsistencies in that reasoning going the other way, ie blatantly political posts they allow to remain up.

Hey man, today I learned is today I learned. Some days you learn some fucked up shit. Some days you learn things with some historical or indeed political "importance". Some days you just learn that water is wet.

Point is, if it's an honest post about something someone learned that day then it should stand.

The only exceptions I can see are non genuine posts where it's just someone trying to have YOU learn something today that they already knew, essentially trying to instigate a discussion, debate, or ideas; or if it's something truly innappropriate like "TIL, how to enter my nearest child porn ring, here's your link!"

A good number of legitimate posts with information some may deem subversive, contrary to their beliefs, or that they feel give power or ground to those they disagree with do seem to disappear around here.

Of course, it IS politics. It's about making sure some ideas are kept within a "safe" little bubble. But I find your acceptance and non-chalant brushing aside to be a little... Sheepish.

No, their subreddit is whatever they want regardless of what it's called.

Kind of like how the USA says its by for and of the people? =]

Like when Taco's stand only served chicken wings? It's bullshit. If that's what they wanted, then they should've called it /r/todayilearnedsomethingthatintereststhemoderators

have a look at /r/trees, then have a look at /r/marijuanaenthusiasts.

I dont think reddit works how you think it works.

Keep the political posts in /r/politics. I don't want you to turn all of reddit into a soapbox for advertising your political beliefs.

At this moment in time I'd like to request that you conscientiously refer to Paragrah 3 sentence 1 in my original reply. See:

The only exceptions I can see are non genuine posts where it's just someone trying to have YOU learn something today that they already knew, essentially trying to instigate a discussion, debate, or ideas

So, it would appear we actually agree, although you lump me in to the group you feel aggrieved by, as my original statement still stands and the topic of your reply seems to have been already pretty clearly addressed therein.

I don't want reddit turned into a soapbox for whatever hum drum cause some hopped up douche who just read 1984 for the first time decides is vital to get out to the public.

But none the less, a valid TIL that just happens to have a political lean that bothers you, is still a valid TIL. At least it should be.

But again...

The only exceptions I can see are non genuine posts where it's just someone trying to have YOU learn something today that they already knew, essentially trying to instigate a discussion, debate, or ideas

Beyond that, reddit is a pretty good barometer of what people want to read or learn about.

Let the people sort it out. If they don't like a specific TIL full of cocklery and manifesto's, it won't get upvoted. Pretty simple really.

But alas. Sigh. I'm on THE.FUCKING.INTERNET.

What am I thinking imagining there is such a possibility.

Statements don't magically turn into belief advertisements simply by containing something you personally perceive as political.

By relegating facts as "opinions" people permit themselves to ignore them. They do this because they lack the intellectual integrity and honesty needed to critically analyze divergent information.

Then they think their more comfortable baseless fictional narrative is just as valid an "opinion" as the one independently supported by the facts.

The power of bullshitting oneself isn't to be overstated.

That is one ugly thesaurus happy paragraph.

My issues with your grammar:

You mean delegating not relegating.

Intellectual integrity and honesty is super redundant.

Divergent information gets a pass just barely. Opposing viewpoints makes more sense here.

And you mean understated instead of overstated.

And you mean shouldn't be instead of isn't to be.

Do you often belittle others? It's pretty devolving.

"consign or dismiss to an inferior rank or position." is relegate. Delegate is "reassign a task". I said "dismiss facts to an inferior rank or position as opinions". Delegate used here would be a meaningless word salad of "reassigning a task of facts".

Integrity is about action and honesty is about interpretation. You can engage with things you disagree with (integrity) and maintain an untruthful stance (honesty). You can also maintain a stance you believe to be true (honesty) and refuse to explore other perspectives (integrity).

Divergent is about systemic assumptions due to preconceived models. Opposing implicates a perspective on an equivalent model. When you oppose someone you implicitly agree on the subject, framing, and context of the argument while divergent is more heretical. See Hallin's Spheres for more information.

I meant isn't because I'm speaking of something I feel is tautologically true, not subjectively to be considered. And I mean overstated because I mean that something is not to be expressed too strongly.

Everything is political.

Everything is financial

Everything is cultural.

SocJus

If you apply the same rationale to other topics it sounds unacceptable. Why is that?

"they deleted a popular thread because they don't want people using their subreddit to argue about cats"

"they deleted a popular thread because they don't want people to argue about web browsers"

Reddit is a place for discussion and the traditional function of moderators is to moderate discussion. That does not necessarily mean to arbitrarily delete the entire discussion.

Reddit is a place for discussion and the traditional function of moderators is to moderate discussion. That does not necessarily mean to arbitrarily delete the entire discussion.

There are better places for political debate than /r/todayilearned. Entire subreddits, even.

Definitely. But does that mean it is justified to delete the thread?

If hundreds of people were having a conversation in public would it be justified if somebody in a position of power permanently ended the discussion on the basis that he thinks there are better locations for it?

Imagine a busy club, filled with people. The fire marshal pulls an alarm and completely evacuates it because he thinks some of the conversational topics are better suited to the bar across the street.

Is that okay? If not, why should the online equivalent be any different?

Definitely. But does that mean it is justified to delete the thread?

Yup. Curating content that has nothing to do with the theme is an obvious thing to do, otherwise there's nothing to prevent 24/7 My Little Pony or whatever.

So what if that did happen? Content is no less valid just because it is not in line with a theme. Some people just feel that a subreddit's theme should be treated like a rule rather than guidelines. Which is more important, the votes of thousands of people or what a few people decided to write in the sidebar?

It's not like we're talking about a traditional forum where the thread is just moved to another section, the entire discussion is deleted. It ends up having a much more extreme impact on the conversation than traditional forms of online moderation.

Content is no less valid just because it is not in line with a theme.

Then why have mods? Why have subreddits? Why not just throw tonnes of shit at a single board?

Managing spam, personalizing the subreddit, checking against various forms of manipulation of content, comment and voting. And moderating discussion too, hopefully in an intelligent and fair way.

There was a time when we did not have subreddits and although the theme at the time was science and technology any popular post was still tolerated, because the mods respected the will of the people. That approach worked very well, it allowed for diversity that would otherwise not be there, while still having a central theme

Managing spam,

You mean, getting rid of crap that's contrary to the purpose of the subreddit?

Well, whaddya know?

I would hope you can appreciate the subtle difference between a post that does not fit a theme and a post that someone is being paid to submit.

Yes, the one that was deleted from TIL was clearly the first.

That is a bold claim. If you have evidence to support it, I would like to see it.

It's deleted, it's off-topic, and it's clearly bait.

Reddit is far from what it was in 2007.

If they don't allow politics, and posts about the FBI director are political, then why do they allow so many pro-military and pro-law enforcement posts? Just go look at the front page of that subreddit right now and tell me there isn't a double standard in place.

Because one is a fact, and one's clearly baiting.

This one was clearly baiting.

Keep the political posts in /r/politics. I don't want you to turn all of reddit into a soapbox for advertising your political beliefs.

Perfectly sums up my thoughts around here lately. Every post that gets removed is now an act of conspiracy. OoOoOo.

But baiting the mods with blatantly political TILs and then complaining about it in /r/conspiracy is the name of the game. Think of the karma! proof of an ongoing conspiracy by reddit to censor stuff that's readily available on Wikipedia!

No karma for self posts

Edit: this post in /r/conspiracy is a self post

Except OP can then pump themselves in the comments. Shrug.

It was bait, and it was treated like bait.

Well, a black gay man posted it, we can't have that now can we.

That actually caused a burst of laughter IRL. It's bad enough just even while scrolling my eye to stop on the word 'black' but do you normally just do a search for key words whilst having black as one of them?

No politics. It's a great catchall for any undesirable topics in TIL.

Keep the political posts in /r/politics. I don't want you to turn all of reddit into a soapbox for advertising your political beliefs.

Keep the political posts in /r/politics. I don't want you to turn all of reddit into a soapbox for advertising your political beliefs.

Yep. That's what I've been told, on multiple occasions. Only trouble is, /r/politics is a completely owned subsidiary of the DNC. Not much room for discussion. In this way, undesirable messages can be effectively filtered out of Reddit....save for this sub and various undelete permutations.

People prefer opinions that are similar to their own. Managing reddit in thus fashion increases use, and ad revenue. There is no conspiracy other than humans wanting to hear what they want to hear. Subreddits control this.

Some People prefer opinions that are similar to their own.

FTFY.

Managing reddit in thus fashion increases use, and ad revenue.

Powered by democracy, community and you.

There is no conspiracy other than humans wanting to hear what they want to hear. Subreddits control this.

I'm going to have go ahead and disagree with this. There are several non grata topics that you would have difficulty gaining exposure for in any of the default subreddits, regardless of that subject's applicability to the sub and what that sub purposrts to cover. I've been on this site long enough to see it evovle. You say there is no conspiracy as though that assertion can be stated as fact. I find that a bit odd.

There is most certainly conspiracy. It's fueled by human nature, however. There are those that will capitalize on human nature. Unfortunately, thus is how you succeed in life, by capitalizing on opportunities.

I don't think that mods are entirely the ones removing content. I've had content removed from my Facebook and that is far more private than Reddit.

Why wouldn't the Republicans that rule here bury that? It makes their kind look bad. They hate us and want us to die.

Keep the political posts in /r/politics. I don't want you to turn all of reddit into a soapbox for advertising your political beliefs.

I wonder how they're going to justify this one ?

It says right on the submission what rule it broke...

Describing an article from over a year ago, discussing things tht happened in the 70's and 80's as "recent politics" strains credulity.

Have you contacted the mods of the sub for an explanation?

No. I couldn't give a shit about TIL. I am not the user that you originally responded to either.

I can see the interesting stuff when they delete it and it washes up here.

You can see it but people who don't look at /r/conspiracy won't. As many people as possible should see this post.

So instead of asking the mods of /r/TIL why they removed a submission, you'd rather jump to conclusion?

He didn't jump to a conclusion, and considering you seem to be asking several people to ask the mods in TIL I'm going to assume your interested in an answer. So, have YOU asked the mods In TIL for an explanation?

God damn. The kind of people in this sub are an embarrassment to the site.

I know I'll get downvoted and I don't give a shit. Take off your tinfoil hat. Here are the steps to take in /r/conspiracy

1. See something removed.

2. Don't ask a mod why and ignore that a rule was broken.

3. Put on tinfoil hat.

4. Freak the fuck out.

5. Embarrass yourself.

Seriously. Get some sun.

I made the post before going to bed.

I've since replied.

Because i'm not the one submitting posts wondering why something got removed.

you seem to be asking several people to ask the mods

I'm not asking people to ask the mods, i'm asking if people did before coming to a conclusion.

What conclusion did I jump to?

The article is over a year old, is discussing political movements from 30 to 40 years ago and is tagged as removed for recent politics.

I meant how are they going to justify it to the user when they inquire how it falls under the category of politics, as in right vs. left, blue team vs. red team. In other words, its not explicitly political, only vaguely political.

Why havn't you asked the mods of the sub for an explanation?

For the record.

TIL found this post TIL It took seven days to open an inquiry into the death of JFK and 441 days for 9/11. (R.5. Misleading).

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/TopMindsOfReddit] TIL mods are hard at work preventing the sheeple from rising up

• [/r/SubredditDrama] /r/conspiracy decides what /r/TIL should allow.

• [/r/rConspiracyTranslate] TIL is the reason the U.S. people haven't risen up to take out their Jew overlords. Wake up steeple!

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

Holy shit, /r/TopMindsOfReddit is hilarious.

Shitcunts.

Virgin.

I want proof you are the number one weed guy.

Check my username.

Oh no, my feelings are hurt.

Truth hurts

For someone out of the loop on Reddit politics, are the defaults moderated differently than other subreddits? Why are moderators allowed to pull posts that are upvoted by a lot of people and that spur large amounts of discussion?

Mods do whatever they want in their subs as long as no reddit rules are broken.

what? Your kidding? I bet it was because of...

wait... I saw that [re?]posted on politics and it made it to the front page with 4000 upvotes

Well, it is politics.

TIL TIL bans things that TIL says it bans.

the rule is 'anything relating to recent politics' not 'politics' in general..

current Director of the FBI

Maybe you guys wanna make screencaps and document this on a few mirrored blogs not on reddit as well as on reddit simultaneously?

Keep the political posts in /r/politics. I don't want you to turn all of reddit into a soapbox for advertising your political beliefs.

Reddit admins totally aiming for totalitarian government. Put on your tinfoil hats the Chem trails are big today! LOL!

SUSTAINED. That's the only issue. People need money to live. And they've built us a prison in which we must WORK in order to get money to live.

"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living." - Buckminster Fuller

People need money to live.

Yes, this is true.

The concept becomes troubling when one comes to an understanding of what "money" is.

Is say the problem is prices have stayed artificially high.

I say the problem is the value of a dollar being fractionally divided by the institutions that provide that dollar, and entities that move your job overseas so they can pay someone else less than you for the same work.

I would, as a business owner, also look for the lowest costs to provide goods and services. We can't fault them for that.

Also, I think what you are referring to in the beginning there is something called fractional reserve banking, which creates lendable money (to be made interest profits on) out of thin air, thus devaluing all the dollars already in the system.

Money is debt. You need debt to live. Meaning you deserve death and money staves it off.

Let's all paint "preppers" and self-sustained individuals as looneys! People are so funny.

I think the creation of money is what led us down the road to the blatant idiocy in that Fuller quote. What if we just traded goods and services directly? Oh, yeah, that's the barter system, which was made a lot easier by creating portable objects of standardized value to facilitate trading so you didn't have to figure out how many chicken eggs equate to a gallon of goat's milk. Doing so created a layer of abstraction giving this idiotic impression that money has no inherent value so it should be given away to provide for people's needs. Bullshit.

What Fuller, and you are apparently after is a society where a large number of people survive entirely on the efforts of a small, productive, minority working their asses off and getting nothing in return for it. I mean, if you want to work your ass off and give away what you produce, who am I to stop you? But what happens when those people say, "You know what? Fuck those freeloaders!" Wait. Someone should write a book about this, perhaps involving trains...

Anyway, the point is that having to do something productive to survive is in the very nature of a society. Hell, even if there wasn't a society, if you simply want to do jack shit, guess what? You fucking die. It's not some conspiracy of The Man trying to make you a slave. You're a slave to biology, chemistry, physics, the universe. Society is a way we come together to cooperatively deal with this inherent slavery to the universe. If you depend on someone to make your food and build your house, you owe him something in return. Something that you are capable of doing that holds value. Money makes it so you don't have to do it directly for them (unless you know how to hammer nails and milk cows) you just have to do it for someone who thinks whatever it is you do isn't worthless.

Tilting at windmills won't fill your belly or put a roof over your head unless you're Al Sharpton.

I think that you missed the point of that quote. He isn't saying "Do jack shit and let John Galt take care of you." He is saying that if the other 9,999 people not making major technological breakthroughs were able to apply themselves to go back to school and work on projects that interest them, instead of flipping burgers to live hand-to-mouth, perhaps even greater breakthroughs could be made.

You are absolutely correct that if you do nothing, you will have no place in society and will probably die, and I'm not arguing that. The point is that people should be free to advance themselves and society in their own ways, rather than toiling away in drudgery in the name of 'earning a living'. The cost of providing survival in today's world is far lower than ever before. Why should society not attempt to benefit from this, freeing people from cycles of poverty and allowing them to advance in their own ways, if not for some old style Rand-ian argument about 'I got mine, get your own!'

I guess the real question is if you want society to be a group of individuals who fight amongst themselves to claw their way to the top, or a collective whole that works towards the betterment of humanity. I would choose the latter, but if you don't want me to ride your railroads, then have fun with your coming trainwreck.

Someone's gotta flip the burgers (or design, build, service, or operate the machine that does it).

Society already benefits from the advances in the form of reduced cost of survival allowing such pursuits. Hell, it is possible to survive on almost nothing in the form of monetary income already. It ain't pretty, but it is possible. Interestingly enough, if one's personal advances also work to advance society, then there's money to be made in that because of the value the rest of society places on those advancements. The specific pursuits may not be what you or I would call an advancement (like making hand-carved novelty dildos or whatever), but that's not up to us as individuals.

I don't want a society of people fighting to claw their way to the top. I certainly want people to pursue their own interests and be rewarded when those interests advance society. In fact, if that is how an individual claws their way to the top, then I do fully support it. But at the same time, those interests that do not advance society should not be rewarded either and there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Until we reach the Star Trek-esque "post scarcity" society, there will always be something that individuals (who make up this thing called "society") will want in more abundance than is available. As long as that state exists, people will have to cooperate and trade for what they want out of life. Or through legal or illegal means, steal it. And even after post-scarcity, there will always be limits on space and time until we become immortal and shed our physical bodies. Not holding my breath for that one.

Not refuting your post, just throwing this out there, but a lot of the scarcity we see today is manufactured. In addition, most of the things we want in abundance are things that we don't need in abundance, if at all, yet we've been convinced that we do.

How so? Im not arguing, just curious. But africa and poor countries would say there are scarcities

Yes manufactured scarcities in Africa. Europe and the west steal most of their resources.

Most of the scarcity in Africa and poor countries can be attributed to literally hundreds of years of exploitation by European colonialists. Africa is actually one of the least resource-scarce places in the world outside of the deserts, hence why the continent was carved up and enslaved as soon as western powers had the ability to do so.

I don't believe manufactured scarcity is a very stable model. It either fails when alternatives are developed, has to be propped up with law, or is maintained through other artificial means. If Coca Cola wants to hold back production to drive up prices they can. Nobody else can make "Coca Cola" because of trademark law. Their marketing department exists to create and maintain value of the brand. But I can just drink Pepsi if I want to. I can also buy cheap store-brand cola if I don't buy into the hype.

In the overall scheme of things, with enough alternatives, needs and wants are pretty much the same thing. Needs are just higher priority versions of wants. A shack with some clean water, a wood stove, dog food and salad will keep me alive, but I want a house with a grilled steak on the table. Not to mention, I don't feel it's my place, or anyone else's, to determine what other people "need" and don't need. My arrogance only goes so far.

People are already deciding your needs and wants. Watch The Century of the Self. I'd link to it but I'm on mobile!

Actually people don't need to flip burgers any more which is rather the point. You need a designer to design a machine that cooks a perfect burger and that is well within our grasp already. We could easily turn the entire fast food industry into a robotic service if we wanted to. We already do that with pre-packaged food.

The human element becomes engineers who make sure the machines don't break but that is a team of maybe 4 people as opposed to a team of 10.

I believe I covered that in my first sentence. You also need people trained to operate and maintain the machine (we can't all be engineers, although I am). And flip burgers manually when it fails because customers don't care either way. They just want the flippin' burger. Now.

[deleted]

Yeah, having everyone depend on the Government for a large portion of their income is a great way to break the control they have over the population. /s

Capitalism is the problem; the ownership class and wealth usurpation of the commons is the problem. Government, in its current form, is simply the left hand they use to protect private property and sustain control. But government, is not the real culprit here. Don't be fooled.

It is capitalism itself that is the problem.

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.” - Eugene Debs, Statement to the Court, Upon Being Convicted of Violating the Sedition Act, 1918.

As Marx and Engels state, “In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e. capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity like every other article of commerce…”

Work today isn’t tied to satisfying OUR needs, it is tied only to satisfying the profit needs of business.

Your argument needs revision, comrade.

That is almost as good of an idea as embracing the socialist model of creating monopolies over essential services and giving them powers of State.

Actually, that's called STATE CAPITALISM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

And I would agree, that it is a terrible idea.

Again, your argument needs revision.

You need to unlearn what you have learned.

[deleted]

Socialism is much worse than State Capitalism because the corporated entity of the state also has the ability to make laws and also a monopoly on violence.

Are you going to really say that our Capitalist state doesn't have exactly this already?

Socialism is much worse than State Capitalism because the corporated entity of the state also has the ability to make laws and also a monopoly on violence. As bad as Cronyism is, I would take it over a monopoly that makes the rules and is able to use violence over one which at least has levels of abstraction from that power.

you obviously don't know what socialism ACTUALLY is. Do some reading and get back to me.

Start with the question, "what does it mean to have WORKERS ownership and control of the means of production."

Instead of supporting a state monopoly over a corporate monopoly propped up by the state,

This isn't at all accurate. Again, do some reading.

deregulation should be the goal to allow for as many choices as possible to compete against each other.

Sure, to an extent. But again this does not address the deeper problems of capitalism itself.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

[deleted]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3eOb6Yl1s

That is almost as good of an idea as embracing the socialist model of creating monopolies over essential services and giving them powers of State

And yet IRL we have elected officials, Republicans, turning public water over to the for-profit Private Sector...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/water_privatization_bill_removing_public_vote_requirement_moves_to_christies_desk.html

[deleted]

I think you misunderstood that. Nobody is selling the public's water, they are hiring a company to repair and maintain the infrastructure, which is a good thing.

You actually misunderstood that. If you look a bit deeper, the companies who are being PAID to repair and maintain the infrastructure (on a sale-of-infrastructure basis) are also given right over the movement of the water within that infrastructure which they will 'own'.

Its not quite as simple as you'd like to portray.

It Literally removes control of public water infrastructure from the public's hands.

quote: “This bill removes important consumer protections by accelerating the sales of publicly owned systems, limiting voters involvement in the process, and forcing the Board to go along with negotiated contracts that could potentially be harmful for ratepayers,” said Stefanie Brand, the director of the state’s Division of Rate Counsel. “We urge that this bill not be voted out of committee.”

So, I should take your word over this person who has decades of job experience in this specific field?

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/public_would_no_longer_get_vote_on_selling_water_sewer_systems_under_advancing_nj_bill.html

Communism is the way from a world of want to a world of freedom. Stop shilling for the rich.

Ideal communism, sure. Snowball's chance in hell that's ever going to happen - every time there's been an attempt to implement it in large scale IRL, you've ended up with totalitarianism with a thin socialist sheen.

Still waiting for ideal capitalism when business owners do what is right and not just what is profitable.

I think what a lot of people don't realize about capitalism is that it's necessary for it to be tightly regulated to succeed. This is actually foundational - if you read Smith, he argues for regulation. Otherwise, since it's more profitable to not compete, companies work to usurp the system. A lot of people preach an anarchist "free market" without realizing what capitalism really supposed to be. Then again, this is probably another one of those "ideal" things, at least with the American system of governance - two parties makes it far to easier for those with money to buy interest, it would be much more possible to maintain closer to an ideal capitalist system if there was more competition for political office.

In the end, my personal opinion is that non-ideal capitalism is likely to work better than non-ideal communism - communism requires suppression of self interest, whereas capitalism tries to mitigate self interest by putting different people's self-interests into opposition. As nice as a system of governance like Star Trek would be, I don't see it happening until we are completely post-scarcity. I could see a compromise system working though - something like Universal Basic Income, where everyone has enough to survive, but you're motivated to work because enough to survive will be a pretty subsistence level and you'd need to work for any kind of luxury. With the rise in robotics and computers, we're approaching an age of diminished scarcity that this might become necessary to keep the system from collapsing.

Agree with everything you said. Without capitalism we wouldn't attain the means of a post-scarcity society.

I feel we are getting very close to it though. So many jobs could be made obsolete overnight, but not all, yet.

It is also unrealistic to assume that as corporations become more and more efficient and mechanized, that unemployment coupled with exponential population growth, that there be a job for every able bodied person to survive in a capitalist society. Welfare will have to expand. Hopefully soon we will start getting some politicians to suggest some pilot cities that are self sustaining and don't need capitalism but to opt into it would be giving up some materialism we are conditioned to expect.

For example, it is unrealistic and wasteful to expect everyone to own a car that gets used 5% of the day.

But according to the Republicans, starving children is a moral duty so in their minds they are doing what is right. That is why morals is no the solution. Taking all power and money from their kind is the only solution.

Democracy didn't take off in France immediately either. We'll get there one day, no matter how many people side with the oppressors.

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm

My ability to pursue my want is my freedom.

k I don't give a single fuck about you though, I care about the billions of people in poverty.

Enough to want to add to the number apparently.

naw I'm going to eliminate poverty and need, everyone will be able to live a comfortable life pursuing their dreams instead of working a dead end job or being a wage slave just to keep their house and food on the table while some rich motherfucker profits from it all

the only people who should be afraid of socialism are the wealthy

I am by no means wealthy, but that is the goal, those are my dreams I am pursuing, and it drives me to be productive. Take away that goal and I might as well not do anything. I won't even flip burgers. If I can't get out, I will dedicate my life to being as lazy as possible because why not. But it'll be okay because if there's no rich motherfuckers we won't know how poor we are!

My dream is to put the wealthy in gulags.

Your life must be so satisfying.

When I work the 1% to death in the cold it will be

Welp, we know what you really are. Comrade.

I think I have a final solution for you and yours.

yawn not a Jew but good try. How many poor Jews do you know of? If I was a member of the tribe I'd hope they could slide me some media or bank money and then I probably wouldn't be a communist.

The Nazis gassed more than just Jews.

True that true that. Communists got the last laugh though :)

I'm with you.

My ability to pursue my want is my freedom.

No matter who you oppress or kill in the process?

[deleted]

http://vimeo.com/91200667

Everyone supports oppression at some level by their consumption. I'm happy to try to make up for it a bit with productivity, providing means for a few others. And I'm happy to contribute that productivity to whatever economy appreciates it.

Everyone supports oppression at some level by their consumption.

Not necessarily. But in this current cultural and economic climate in which we partake, absolutely yes.

But would this statement remain true for say, an Amish community, where they are completely self sustaining? Probably not. (Excluding aspects of repressive religious doctrine) but were talking about production and consumption here.

But sure. We can consume without supporting oppression, just takes a lot of work.

Even with the Amish being disconnected from the rest of the world and very community minded, there are still internal power structures that lend themselves to oppression quite readily. You just don't hear about it unless someone leaves.

That being said I grew up around the Amish and saw them bring their horse & buggies into town to shop on a regular basis. For what I have no idea, but if they had to go to the mall for it, it's probably not disconnected from the globalism I originally referred to.

there are still internal power structures that lend themselves to oppression quite readily. You just don't hear about it unless someone leaves.

As I already addressed this above in italics.

That being said I grew up around the Amish and saw them bring their horse & buggies into town to shop on a regular basis. For what I have no idea, but if they had to go to the mall for it, it's probably not disconnected from the globalism I originally referred to.

Again, I addressed this above. Self sustaining Production is the issue.

Well then it doesn't really refute my assertion then?

Communism is responsible for about a hundred million deaths so...

Communism is responsible for about a hundred million deaths so...

The world has never seen real communism, comrade.

And by the way, capitalism is responsible for probably 10x that.

The world has never seen real communism, comrade.

http://imgur.com/i9wNCt9

Tell Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

And by the way, capitalism is responsible for probably 10x that.

LOL so capitalism killed a billion people, when only 250M people have been killed by state action in the past century? Okay.

Capitalism is responsible for all of the material wealth you enjoy.

Tell Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

They knew. Lenin, if you have EVER read an interview with him, which you clearly haven't, all but admits it.

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm

LOL so capitalism killed a billion people, when only 250M people have been killed by state action in the past century? Okay.

Its systematic you fool. Poverty, crime, etc. Its all part of the same system. Therefore, yes. Absolutely. In fact, probably MORE than 10x that.

You need to reframe your argument.

Capitalism is responsible for all of the material wealth you enjoy.

Actually, its human labour that is responsible. Under ANY economic system this remains true.

They knew. Lenin, if you have EVER read an interview with him, which you clearly haven't, all but admits it.

LOL. "No True Communist" is fucking hilarious every time.

Its systematic you fool. Poverty, crime, etc. Its all part of the same system. Therefore, yes. Absolutely. In fact, probably MORE than 10x that.

Because those Communist regimes had NO poverty and NO crime, LOLOLOL man you're too funny.

Actually, its human labour that is responsible. Under ANY economic system this remains true.

Unfortunately for your argument capitalism is about voluntary labor, Communism is about forced labor, so...

LOL. "No True Communist" is fucking hilarious every time.

I feel bad for you.

Because those Communist regimes had NO poverty and NO crime, LOLOLOL man you're too funny.

They weren't communist . They were state capitalist. Read a book. You're still just regurgitating cold war propaganda.

Unfortunately for your argument capitalism is about voluntary labor, Communism is about forced labor, so...

Nope. Actually its CAPITALISM that creates forced labor.

It is the acquisition of private property and wealth that reveal to be the defining attributes of power and control in the World today. The working class is dependent on those at the top who control the means of production, to provide jobs just in order to survive. As Albert Einstein explains in his work 'Why Socialism?, “The profit motive […] is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions […] This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism” (Einstein, 1949:2). It is no longer coercion by way of the club, but by inherent structural violence (Galtung, 1969: 171) through this implementation of classism, where the individual is threatened with the loss of autonomy, risk of homelessness, starving to death, or worse.

I feel bad for you.

I'm not the one who's endorsing a theology that has killed dozens of millions if not hundreds of millions.

They weren't communist . They were state capitalist. Read a book. You're still just regurgitating cold war propaganda.

Hey I guess the fact that they called themselves Communist and endorsed Communism and believed in Communism is just bullshit because it wasn't your magical variety of Communism, LOLOL.

Nope. Actually its CAPITALISM that creates forced labor.

I've never been forced to labor a day in my life, unlike the slaves in the Gulags.

It is the acquisition of private property and wealth...

"Nature is oppressing me!" says the Communist. "Oh, I know what to do!" the Communist declares. "I'll force other people to work for me!"

You're so full of shit. Just shutup and go comment in /r/conspiratard if you love ignorance so much.

The ignorant, full-of-shit comments are the ones supporting Communism.

Sure it has buddy. That wasn't cold war era propaganda at all. There's absolutely no reason why those who control the west to want to demonize communism, which would offer people a fair deal. 29k children starve to death every single day because of capitalism.

Sure it has buddy. That wasn't cold war era propaganda at all.

So you think all the people who died under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, to name a few, were just made-up for propaganda?

29k children starve to death every single day because of capitalism

Which you say straight-faced, with no support whatsoever, while denying the 100M people communism killed.

So you think all the people who died under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, to name a few, were just made-up for propaganda?

Many, yep. The holodomor and Stalin's purges were vastly exaggerated. Pol Pot was a murderous fuck I'm not defending him, but you know who stopped the Khmer Rouge? Vietnamese communists.

Which you say straight-faced, with no support whatsoever, while denying the 100M people communism killed.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-21000-children-died-around-the-world

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

Many, yep. The holodomor and Stalin's purges were vastly exaggerated.

Bullshit.

[Links]

I like how you assume that 100% of people who die from hunger died because of "capitalism". While just blithely ignoring how many people died of starvation under Communist dictatorships, or how the average person in a capitalist nation is fat!

Bullshit.

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=54133

http://espressostalinist.com/2012/02/12/on-the-ukrainian-famine-genocide-myth-the-years-of-hunger/

the pictures of the holodomor all came from the 1921 famine

there was a famine but it was primarily caused by a poor harvest and kulak bandits

Western capitalist nations are "prosperous" enough to bribe their population with the scraps kicked down by capitalits. But the average person in a third world country is not fat, no idea where you're getting this from. If 50% of those deaths can be attributed to capitalism, in just 25 years the death toll would exceed even the most outlandish death tolls attributed to Stalin.

But the average person in a third world country is not fat

Yet the average person in the third world has benefited massively from capitalism.

If 50% of those deaths can be attributed to capitalism,

Which they never could be, so...

in just 25 years the death toll would exceed even the most outlandish death tolls attributed to Stalin

So if we make wild assumptions over an entire generation we start to get close to how many people Communism has actually, provably killed.

Great thesis champ.

Yet the average person in the third world has benefited massively from capitalism.

Being exploited as slave labour is a great benefit. Fuck off

Sorry what slave labor? You mean the slave labor communists love?

Ok, this really really interest me. I've ALWAYS believed in "what one person receives without working for, one works for without receiving"...but when there are huge societies things get muddied up. Can anyone explain this?

Marx called this 'alienation.' Here's a quick simple crash course which I think is very good. Hope this helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3eOb6Yl1s

That is the dumbest fucking thing Ive read today. Congrats.

That's because you're the dumbest person in this thread.

Clearly.

[deleted]

Yeah because we still hunt and gather for survival. Dude, get a clue.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&sns=em

Where do you think food comes from? Grocery stores?

Agriculture used to account for +90% or more of jobs. Now 1% of our population works in agriculture and we have more food than ever.

The video answers your question. You should watch it instead of plugging your ears and reinforcing your ignorance. It answers your question in the first 30 seconds.

http://youtube.com/watch?sns=em&v=7Pq-S557XQU

Wow, a Youtube link, how entirely unconvincing.

Watch it moron. It answers your question. I didn't want to waste time explaining things over and over to a bunch of elementary humans that clearly lack the deeper knowledge to understand what were talking about here.

How exactly is he a moron for not watching a Youtube link? Why not instead explain your position with a well thought out argument instead of contributing nothing but insults. If it is so elementary then you could easily type out a convincing reply using some of the information discovered in the Youtube video plus some other information. Then you can share the link with him if he would like a more in depth understanding of your point and source. In the future that will keep you from looking like what you have claimed him to be.

How exactly is he a moron for not watching a Youtube link? Why not instead explain your position with a well thought out argument instead of contributing nothing but insults. If it is so elementary then you could easily type out a convincing reply using some of the information discovered in the Youtube video plus some other information. Then you can share the link with him if he would like a more in depth understanding of your point and source. In the future that will keep you from looking like what you have claimed him to be.

I did explain it all. Read all of my above posts.

Next.

You assume that I would find it convincing were I to waste my time.

to a bunch of elementary humans.

Because you're so enlightened, LOL.

Because you're so enlightened, LOL.

Far from it.

But you fail to grasp the rudimentary foundation of the discussion here. Hence, like an elementary student learning how to write for the first time.

Far from it.

Clearly.

But you fail to grasp the rudimentary foundation of the discussion here. Hence, like an elementary student learning how to write for the first time.

Right, it's because I don't "grasp" it, not because I do understand what you're saying and recognize that you're utterly full of shit and wildly deluded.

Right, it's because I don't "grasp" it, not because I do understand what you're saying and recognize that you're utterly full of shit and wildly deluded.

If you understood it, you wouldn't be saying that.

So your religion demands that anyone who understands it, adheres to it, and anyone who doesn't adhere to it just doesn't understand it.

Dude you're just embarrassing yourself, stop while you have some shred of dignity left.

I feel bad for you.

You ought to feel bad for yourself and your delusions.

You're looking more and more like a troll in this thread. You should look into some of these topics a bit more I think. And try to be less combative, you come off like a complete douche.

Learning more about communism doesn't make communism better, and being nice to idiots who relish in the murder of hundreds of millions doesn't help anyone.

Nobody is relishing in the murder of hundreds of millions, you're too busy trying to argue to bother looking at what these people are actually saying which is that "communism" as practiced by Stalin, Mao, et al. was as close to actual communism as "democracy" as practiced by Bush, Clinton, Obama, et al. is to actual democracy.

It doesn't matter what name you give it, it's always just been about rulers and their flock, the enslavers and the enslaved. True communism has never been given a chance.

Also, if you think that what the US currently has is capitalism as originally defined, I have a bridge in Africa to sell you.

Nobody is relishing in the murder of hundreds of millions, you're too busy trying to argue to bother looking at what these people are actually saying which is that "communism" as practiced by Stalin, Mao, et al. was as close to actual communism as "democracy" as practiced by Bush, Clinton, Obama, et al. is to actual democracy.

And yet this "Communism" DID result in hundreds of millions dead, while this "democracy" resulted in billions of people becoming wealthy.

True communism has never been given a chance.

No True Scotsman day in and day out. "true" Communism will never "be given a chance" because what defines "true" Communism changes with the winds as each version of "true" Communism results in millions of deaths.

Also, if you think that what the US currently has is capitalism as originally defined, I have a bridge in Africa to sell you.

Why would you assume I think that?

And yet this "Communism" DID result in hundreds of millions dead, while this "democracy" resulted in billions of people becoming wealthy.

I'm sorry but the ignorance of this statement is astounding. How many hundreds of millions of people are starving today either directly or indirectly as a result of the "democratic" western oligarchs and their globalist policies? How many hundreds of millions have died under this system? How can you hate one control system but not the other?

You're still missing the point which is that both systems are just slightly different ways of accomplishing the same thing which is increasing and consolidating the wealth and power of the rulers at the expense of everyone else. Hating communism because of what despotic rulers did in its name is incredibly narrow-minded because very little of what they did resembled any of the tenets of communism.

"true" Communism will never "be given a chance" because what defines "true" Communism changes with the winds

This is false, completely, and tells me that you've never done any research into the history of communism or how it's defined.

each version of "true" Communism results in millions of deaths.

Again, false. There has never been a system that even remotely resembles communism. Just because Stalin kills people and says he's doing it "because communism" doesn't make it so. This is why it's in my opinion a waste of time to get hung up on these semantics and ideologies as they lead to people such as yourself blaming the movements and ideas rather than the evil, powerful people using them as tools.

Why would you assume I think that?

Because you keep talking about "democracy" and "capitalism" as if either actually exists in reality - neither does. Just different systems of control and window dressing to hide the underlying motives which, again, are about the few controlling the many.

I'm sorry but the ignorance of this statement is astounding. How many hundreds of millions of people are starving today either directly or indirectly as a result of the "democratic" western oligarchs and their globalist policies? How many hundreds of millions have died under this system?

People are way better off now than ever before.

How can you hate one control system but not the other?

What leap of logic makes you think I'm okay with how things are?

You're still missing the point which is that both systems are just slightly different ways of accomplishing the same thing which is increasing and consolidating the wealth and power of the rulers at the expense of everyone else. Hating communism because of what despotic rulers did in its name is incredibly narrow-minded because very little of what they did resembled any of the tenets of communism.

I'm not missing the point, I get the point, I'm just suggesting that even "real" Communism would be awful.

This is false, completely, and tells me that you've never done any research into the history of communism or how it's defined.

1. It's not false.
2. Yes, I am familiar, thank you, I just don't buy into the horseshit communists sell.

Just because Stalin kills people and says he's doing it "because communism" doesn't make it so.

If you ask every Communist leader in history they'll tell you that it's real Communism. Yet apologists like you always say that it's not. Funny how that is.

Because you keep talking about "democracy" and "capitalism" as if either actually exists in reality - neither does. Just different systems of control and window dressing to hide the underlying motives which, again, are about the few controlling the many.

That nothing is what it's "supposed" to be doesn't mean that one system isn't better than another, even understanding that no system is what it was purported to be!

People are way better off now than ever before.

First off this is pretty vague - which people are you referring to? Surely the Palestinians living in the open air prison that is the Gaza strip would disagree with you. Made possible, of course, by our "democratic" western societies. That's one of literally hundreds of examples of people certainly not better off.

Even in the US, we have food - but I would argue that the citizenry has never been dumber, more complacent, more distracted, more propagandized, more controlled, etc. than they/we are today. Are we really better off, or have we just been tricked into thinking we are?

What leap of logic makes you think I'm okay with how things are?

You've spent this entire comment chain arguing that "capitalism" and "democracy" are somehow better than "communism". Have you not?

I'm just suggesting that even "real" Communism would be awful.

No, you're stating that communism by default leads to hundreds of millions of people dead. This is just a patently false statement, period - I don't know how many other ways to say it.

If you ask every Communist leader in history they'll tell you that it's real Communism.

If you ask Obama if he's practicing democracy, he'll tell you he is. News flash man: leaders lie to people about their agendas and motives.

Is this really something new for you? Do you think Stalin is instead going to say, "No, I'm not a Communist - I'm actually a barbaric dictator who cares only about controlling all of you and therefore I'll tell you whatever you want to hear and pretend to be doing things I'm not in order to distract you long enough to kill you and preserve my power."

I'm also not an "apologist", although I'm not surprised that you've accused me as such.

That nothing is what it's "supposed" to be doesn't mean that one system isn't better than another, even understanding that no system is what it was purported to be!

You just... aren't getting it man. The same globalists are behind communism and democracy, always have been. The elite is the elite, countries and ideologies and religions and politics are mostly for show. There are two groups of people - rulers and those they rule. Neither system is "better", they're both part of the same global power structure and control mechanism. Communism or capitalism or socialism or democracy or (name your favorite political ideology here) would look a hell of a lot different if implemented properly.

Bottom line: If Stalin was born in the US, he could just have easily killed millions of people in the name of democracy or socialism. The people in power are to blame, not the words they hide behind.

No, you're stating that communism by default leads to hundreds of millions of people dead. This is just a patently false statement, period - I don't know how many other ways to say it.

Well I mean, it's "patently false" except of course for historical precedent, but hey Communists love playing fast and loose with facts and history.

You just... aren't getting it man.

I'm getting it, maaaan, I just think you're backing a horse ridden by idiots that runs off a cliff to a pile of the dead.

Well I mean, it's "patently false" except of course for historical precedent, but hey Communists love playing fast and loose with facts and history.

I'm not a Communist. And you've proven yourselves pretty ignorant of the "facts and history".

The historical precedent, again, is not representative of Communism but rather a diabolic perversion of it that was implemented by Stalin, Bolshevists, and others and whose main goal was increasing their power and control through violent and subversive methods.

I just think you're backing a horse ridden by idiots that runs off a cliff to a pile of the dead.

I'm not "backing a horse" of any kind, what the hell are you even talking about? I'm simply explaining to you that "communism" and "capitalism" and "democracy" are just made up words used by the rich and powerful to enslave the rest of us. In practice, not a single one of them resembles the actual ideologies they claim to represent. It isn't really a very complicated point, I don't know why you're having such trouble grasping it.

At this point I'm suspecting that you're only here to argue for whatever reason and nothing I say will convince you to look into the origins of these ideologies and who supported them. Your mind is already made up.

Edit: I'll leave you to your own beliefs but let me just re-iterate one last time: it's the people in power who are the problem, not the bullshit words they use as tools to justify themselves.

And you've proven yourselves pretty ignorant of the "facts and history".

Not agreeing with you does not equate to ignorance.

At this point I'm suspecting that you're only here to argue for whatever reason and nothing I say will convince you to look into the origins of these ideologies and who supported them. Your mind is already made up.

My mind is made up through knowledge of the ideologies and their origins, not ignorance thereof, but thanks.

Removed because the US is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Zing!

Not a republic.

Ftfy

But it is actually a republic. Which is a great vehicle by which to form an oligarchy over time.

Right. It's not a democracy being turned into oligarchy, it's a republic being turned into an oligarchy. Is there somewhere that we disagree?

The fact that Ben Franklin said it's a republic doesn't mean it's not a democracy.

Democratic republic = Representative democracy

so, as the jezza would say... near as makes no difference.

You're reply plugged into the GP reads "Removed because the US is an oligarchy, not a republic." Which I see now is not what you meant.

Wow! I was always curious to see numbers like this. 4mil~ really isn't all that much. Too bad we're not organized though.

Yet.

Well, yeah, but we're kinda running out of time. What is it gonna take?

You.

Are you the guy who does the voice-overs for action film trailers?

Ha! I wish. I haven't been discovered yet, I guess.

This summer...

If you wish to read my posts from now on in that way, I welcome it. Maybe when I want to play along, I will start with "This summer" just for you, fallingshoes. Does that work?

As long as this is halfway through the comment!

Noted. I have saved your comment so I will have access to the clip. I'll try it out in the next day or so if possible.

Can you reply to my comment with just one word?

Sure!

See, this is my problem with most conspiracy theorists and would-be revolutionaries. All you guys do is basically just shout "YOU NEED TO RISE UP TO THE MAN!" and then proceed to do nothing yourself.

You first.

You are completely unaware of my efforts for the cause. Everyone has their journey, and this one is mine, and my actions are not dictated by some pseudo-anonymous comment on reddit.

11 mil...

Oops!

ITT: people learning who Three Percenters are.

Just wish most of them weren't bleeding heart Christians.

If there is a revolution and the rebels win, I fear for what we become. What we have is bad, what we get could be much worse.

Bleeding heart doesn't have to be a bad thing. Christians who believe in actual Christian ideals will come to see eye to eye with their fellow humans once the control of their trendy money-worshipping demigods dies down a bit. Then their fervor to donate to church and ACT pious might actually translate to BEING Christian, and that would in no way, shape, or form be bad for any future society.

I live in the bible belt and I only know one of these "actual Christians" you talk about. I think you vastly overestimate their numbers. The Christians I know are deeply brainwashed and would install a theocracy in a heartbeat.

The fact that Reddit mods are shit mods is no conspiracy.

John Taylor Gatto, once said that it's important to realize that a government needs 1.5% of the population as military and police. He never elaborated why, he just said it as kind of a homework assignment for listeners. I now understand why he said that just a little better than before.

Pulled my kid out of school on account of JTG.

The world, she is different than she look.

Doesn't matter anyhow. TV has control of everyone. No one is willing to get off their ass and miss Game of Thrones to do anything about it.

We only need 3.

Many people are cancelling their cable

Yeah to watch the shows online, I still don't have to get up.

I don't speak for the TIL mods, but TIL is not a political sub. In my view, you are trying to hi-jack the sub (TIL) with these types of posts. I think the mods are just trying to keep the atmosphere of the sub on a lighter and more general tone.

So let the people decide what should and should not be. If people font like the past, then nobody cares. But time and time again you see topics that people want to talk about and they are fucking take them down.

But the whole point of reddit is that each sub has it's own rules. Some subs have heavy moderation, some have little to no moderation. Saying you should leave all content up to the up/downvote system would ruin many great subs like askscience where the mods are always battling to delete non serious joke replies that get incessantly upvoted.

I agree, TIL is a shitty sub that shouldn't be a default. I would even agree that it is mis-moderated. But I don't agree that everything should be left entirely to up/downvotes.

Your retort sounds reasonable.

I thought the point of reddit was the community determines what's relevant.

Sure, but the moderated subreddit system has been an important part of reddit for most of it's history. It is how people form, maintain, and protect their communities. Otherwise subs with minority opinions or users would get trolled off of reddit.

Apparently it takes just 3.5% of people to ruin it for everyone else I learnt that somewhere not quite sure where though.

TIL is aiming to be a more whimsical place with interesting tidbits of non controversial information, if people really want to take these politically loaded articles somewhere there are plenty of political subreddits waiting for them.

TIL is simply ill conceived in the first place. It should just be renamed "non-political banal trivia" and that way there won't be any confusion. The rules of the sub are written to give the mods quite a bit of leeway as well. "Political" is hugely broad, and usually just means "controversial." Luckily, opinions exist in spite of facts so anything can be controversial.

[deleted]

Wouldn't the "certain" information just be irrelevant information and do nothing for the sub? It seems you're implying that trying to rid the sub of irrelevancy is a moral crime.

[deleted]

Dude subreddits have rules for the content they desire to be posted to that subreddit in particular. So no, Relevancy is not "individually subjective" in the context of subreddits. If something violates those rules the moderators have all the right to discard of that content.

Otherwise what's the point of a moderator?

TIL nothing that challenges our worldview.

I agree

Maybe the mods are fat nazi neckbeards?

Maybe

is this subreddit just a "this was deleted from TIL today" subreddit now??

It is starting to read that way isn't it. I'm waiting for the great conspiracy of all conspiracy subscribers getting banned from TIL.

Apparently the mods for TIL are "the man" or heavily involved with a wider plan to suppress free flow of ideas. Perhaps the illuminati are TIL mods.

Lol downvote away. The idea that TIL mods are part of a conspiracy is absurd.

Yeah, called it 10 hours ago, but it was not welcomed:

http://i.imgur.com/2z3Z83o.png

I heard we are made to want to riot, to bring in the world control as an answer, which will give ultimate peace...., wonder if this is something to trick us into thinking its easy to do.... sort of like triggering the trap hmmm.. While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 1 Thessalonians 5:3

Thinking about that one a lot lately.

Seriously if only a fraction of the people who want change just sat down or went home basically just saying Fuck You to the system it would collapse. Just refuse nothing more and watch them scramble because all that needs to happen is them realizing you dont buy the bullshit anymore.

"Rebellions can be made by 2 percent active in a striking force, and 98 percent passively sympathetic." ~Lawrence of Arabia

so the rumors of reddit being the new digg are true then

3.5% for nonviolent, I wonder how much less for violent.

I recall reading it was about 4% for the American Revolution; in the beginning. The British did a great job of creating a massive block of nonviolent resistance that caused them to win almost all the battles, yet lose the war. Sound familiar? The French navy did have more than a little to do with it though.

Because the French hate the British and want them to die. That is the French way. That is the only way to stop the British thugs that hate us and want us to die.

Even if, the problem is how to prevent someone else from taking advantage of the situation and installing a new totalitarian government. Look at the "Arab Spring", it doesn't look like things have changed too much.

Look up Rojava.

Actually, I've done it for you. It's worth the read, I promise you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/HAPPIDROME-Part-One

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/08/why-world-ignoring-revolutionary-kurds-syria-isis

Good to know but I would be very surprised if that thing lasted more than 24 months (I'm being optimistic). Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, including the interference of UK and USA, that area of the world is a royal mess where every rival group is struggling for predominance but Kurds are just the "new kid on the block". I hope they actualize their libertarian utopia but it's not realistic considering the kind of forces (i.e. money) that are moving there.

And even if, it would still demonstrate that with "nonviolent civil disobedience" you get nowhere because you actually need to fight and die in order to accomplish something, so I rest my case.

You're not being optimistic, you're being pessimistic. This is called pessimism.

"pessimistic" is the word optimistic people use to describe realists.

"Realism" is the word pessimistic people use to excuse their own passivism.

Dude, listen: my reason and experience tells me things like that in a area like that and in this era don't last long, maybe 1 year, I don't know for lack of real examples; by saying 2 years, I'm hoping things will be better than I think they can be, and that's the actual definition of "optimism". I might be pessimistic in comparison to people that think it can go on for a longer time, but they have no reason to say that, just hope, so they're optimistic too, just more optimistic than me.

Wanna hear the pessimistic me? The Islamic State will crush them before 2015 ends.

my reason and experience tells me things like that in a area like that and in this era don't last long

What experience?

I mean, 30 years of reading newspapers and some history books. Not personal experience on the field.

Ok, so what precedents are you referring to? When has something like this happened before?

AFAIK, never. That's why I'm skeptical, especially considering the overwhelming forces that are interested in that area.

Like Israel?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/29/israel-prime-minister-kurdish-independence

Look, these Kurds are fighting for freedom and democracy, and they're doing so against a fascist ideology.

The odds may be against them, but your remarks seem utterly fatalistic and - yes - pessimistic to me.

If hope dies last, I guess you're already dead.

Israel has a whole different story: they invested lot of money (Kurds are poor), they had lots of educated people on their side (Kurds never could afford an education), they had and still have the support of great powers such as the UK and the USA (Kurds only recently got some kind of help that is not necessarily going to last), and they were fleeing far away from the people wanting to kill them (not standing in front of them, like the Kurds).

Even Israel faced huge threats to its existence and still isn't safe, I wouldn't bet a dime on Kurds doing that with such a different starting condition.

Dude have you even clicked the link?

Actually no. I was assuming you meant "like Israel" as an example of a nation facing the same odds of Kurds, sorry. it doesn't change my mind, though, Israel can't do much to help them since it's risking its own existence now that the new Nazis are getting closer and closer to their most hated enemy.

They're not getting "closer and closer", they are already there. IS and these Kurds have been fighting for months, and the Kurds are successfully holding them off.

Look, random guy on the internet, it's pretty clear you don't know what's going on in Rojava, yet you seem very sure of the "fact" they'll fail. If that doesn't make you a pessimist, I really don't know what does.

I'm not 100% sure and it's not a fact yet, I just find it unlikely for Kurds to resist long enough to win, even if I hope so because I'd enjoy watching a libertarian utopia grow in the middle of hell.

And in Canada, 1.2 Million Canadians skated to Parliament, shooting hockey pucks at government officials.

When was this? Got a video?

He doesn't have a video, because there's no way there are that many hockey sticks in the entire world. It just isn't a broadly popular "sport."

in canada roughly half a million people are enrolled in some kind of hockey program.

add to that the 2-3 hockey sticks per garage and probably the 40 or so hockey sticks per public school, i'd say that easily breaks the million mark in canada alone.

I have about 10 sticks in my house.

Funny how TIL always leaves up anti-conservative and pro-liberal posts though.

Reddit is owned by a bunch of wealthy liberal Democrats - look it up.

Reddit is essentially an advertisement for the Democratic party.

I don't Facebook often but when I do I plaster shit like this all over it.

If there is interest, I'll make the t-shirt: We Only Need 3

Any suggestions for the graphic?

This

You have to understand that hidden within the term "violent" is the idea of radical extreme measures, aka by any means. "By any means" does not have to be violent, but if violence, or extreme measures, are out of the question, then the status quo will not budge.

So, that means that a "Million Man March" is a waste of time and effort as it needs to be "Ten Million Man March".

Let's do this.

No, I mean for real.

Make it happen, /u/Soylent_Gringo

Ok! So, I can depend on you as my first recruit? Got any friends that might want to get on board? Only those willing to commit 100% are useful.

I'm short a few million friends to fill out the roster, but you have my axe, or keyboard, or protest signs. Whatever it is we'll need for this.

Whatever it is we'll need for this.

• Commitment will be paramount.

All players on board, en masse, a concerted, choreographed effort. I imagine The Internet Kill Switch^® will get tripped long before any real chance of it actually getting off the ground.

This, of course, making it mandatory to have a working knowledge of tech like

• Meshnet/Darknet

• HAM radio

• Carrier Pigeons outfitted for P2P via micro sd cards with plans and strategies.

The importance of having food/water/medical/fuel stores for the eventual likelihood of having to dig-in somewhere should not be disregarded.

Those traveling long distances will need dependable transportation to wherever we choose to embark from (logistics tbd). That particular demographic might benefit from compiling their resources and using forms of mass transit for their journey.

These being merely the basics, the list will need updating on a frequent basis, but, gotta start somewhere.

All reasonable input and suggestion is welcomed and considered.

So how's the protest going?

This research and the knowledge of what works is important to understand and dessimenate to all trying to effect societal change. Martin Luther King led the greatest revolution in this country based on Ghandi's principles of non-violent protests. The US Government understands the power of non-violent protest and works very hard through undercover agents to turn protests violent. Once a protest is viewed as violent then those not engaged with the cause see it as a uncalled for disruption of the status quo and turn off from the message. The Civil Rights movement was greatly aided when Bull Connors unleashed the dogs on peaceful protestors. Once that occured, MLK was going to be victorious. It is important for those protesting to elimnate and have nothing to do with individuals encouraging violence.

We tried nonviolent protest once. The British opened fire and killed 8.

Non-violent protest only works up to a certain point, and only if your opponent is unwilling or unable to exercise oppressive means. If your power elite are insulated, a million people can be marching in the streets and they'll be like "eh, let's see how long you can march around before you have to go back to work so you can pay your rent, your mortgage, and buy food."

At the end, you must have a very dedicated, very focused, and well funded organizational column at the center of your movement holding it together, or else it all collapses as soon as the resources run out.

He was shot, wasn't he?

This is why I do not pay tribute [Federal Income Tax].

As long as we fund them they have jobs.

Stop funding them and they're just assholes.

Soooo... You don't have a job?

I have job and I earn a paycheck.

For how long have you not been paying taxes? Two months? Taxes aren't drawn from your paycheck before you get them? We need to know moar!

I've been with-holding participation since spring of 2014.

Ten deductions and zero communication with the IRS.

Other taxes are still taken out, but at least I don't pay tribute [Federal Income Tax].

Ideally I'd be self-employed. I should work on that.

There's a guy who talks about the court system weekly - marcstevens.net

I don't begrudge your actions. But that is too short a time to see the trouble you may be headed for. Good luck.

It's entirely possible that the IRS will level its evil gaze on me in the future. I expect the time-table to be slightly less than a decade. I have no illusions that I'm immune from their attacks. Less than one year is nothing.

Only time will tell.

That said, A.) I do this because it's the right thing to do and B.) thank you.

This.

Well hopefully you don't make use of any federal programs or resources, as you don't contribute to them.

Why would I voluntarily cooperate with the U.S. Federal government?

They're a band of known murderers.

The whole point of no-compliance is to distance myself from them as much as is possible.

Oh god I just realized what sub this was.. nevermind. Enjoy yourself lol

Also:

to distance myself from them as much as is possible.

Moving to a different country is probably your best bet! Can't get too far from "their rules" if you keep living in "their house" as it were.

I don't see why I should move.

I'm not the one killing people.

You, my friend, are a walking, talking self-contradiction!

How so?

I'm assuming you don't drive since you dont pay your share of travel infrastructure as well.

I didn't ask the government to repair roads and I'd rather fund a non-violent group to do so.

Ah so it's the "I didn't ask them to do that" justification. Well at least you tried.

It's not a justification.

They do things whether I like it or not.

I don't like that they kill people and so I don't participate in their games.

It's not complex.

Then stop stealing from the people who pay for your roads then if you don't want to participate.

The transfer is not from them to me.

The transfer is from me to them.

I don't see how not giving them money is stealing.

I'm sure you don't. I'm very sure you don't. That's how justification works.

How am I stealing by refusing to give them money?

Whatever I say you will justify to yourself, so why bother.

Let's put it in the simplest terms. You want, and do use things that you do not pay for.

You don't want to pay for roads, then don't use them. If you use things you don't pay for, you are stealing.

It's pretty simple honestly.

You don't get to not pay for a bunch of stuff, and then still use stuff you don't pay for because oh... I wanna.

It's hypocritical.

"You want, and do use things that you do not pay for."

• /u/singlebro

I did not ask government to make the roads. They did that of their own accord and I was not involved in any transaction or agreement with them. There is zero documentation to show that I have any obligation to give them money.

My question, restated:

How is refusing to give them money stealing?

And we're back to the childhood type of "I never asked him to do it! Nyah Nyah!"

If you are happy with that argument that most people have seen fighting children in the backseat of the car use. Then good on ya.

You didn't answer my question.

My question was:

How is refusing to give money stealing?

I did already. You figured out how to justify it to yourself. Good job lol. I'm sure it actually worked too

You did not answer my question.

How is refusing to give money stealing?

Explain it.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't already explain it very clearly.

I'm not going to act like I'm doing such mental retard gymnastics as you are just to make you feel better about how ignorant you seem to be.

Are you unwilling or unable to explain why refusing to give money is theft?

Are you really that stupid you can't go back like 3 posts and read what I wrote?

Cause at this point, I'm honestly thinking you must be that stupid.

You did not answer my question.

Explain how refusing to give money is theft.

So you actually are that stupid.

Here's how it goes from here. I've explained it. You are too dumb to understand it, or you want to live in your little bubble and pretend.

Now you will probably pretend I didnt explain it, while everyone who actually bothered to pay attention can go up and see it. You'll probably say something along the lines of "Hah I knew you couldnt explain it" or some such idiotic thing. That's how you seem to be handling the topic.

So lemme just skip all that for ya and say I'm not having this idiot conversation with someone like yourself.

Please explain how refusing to give money to someone is theft.

Ah now we've moved to the 'repeat self endlessly' phase of it.

Retard, I've explained it. Go away if you aren't bright enough to understand simple terms.

You did not explain yourself.

Cogent arguments consist of two true premises and a necessarily following true conclusion.

You gave a single premise and conclusion.

Please explain how refusing to give money to someone is theft.

rofl what an autist

So, you cannot explain why refusing to give money is theft?

You called me stupid. I assume you're smarter than me.

Tell me why refusing to give money is theft.

It would be like explaining to a doorknob how to dance. You simply have not shown you could possibly begin to understand. Since for the sixteenth time. I've already done so and you went all autisty

Answer the question.

How is refusing to give money theft?

hurrdurr deedurr

Go away, I did, you simply didnt understand it.

If you cant understand it once, you won't understand it again.

No. You did not explain yourself at all.

Explain how refusing to give money is theft.

I did, you even read it and admitted as much you dont understand it. Now move along, you have nothing valid to say here. You are totally inept at understanding simple concepts.

The fact that you use arguments like children "I didnt ask him to do that" and repeating the same already answered question like 10 times at this point makes me feel bad that I'm arguing with a probably 30 something autist.

I'm not explaining it more than I have, so you can stop asking like a retard.

Ahh... why bother, you'll just ask again and I'll just quit talking to you since you are that dull.

"I didn't ask him to do that."

So, if I went to your house, mowed your lawn and demanded five hundred dollars would you give it to me whether you asked for it or not? Wouldn't you be guilty of theft?

Well look at that, he tried to make a point that isn't based in adolescent logic!

No. I wouldn't be guilty of theft. Such a simplistic analogy you've setup, that's likely the only way you could justify anything.

However, guess what. If you live in a homeowner association, in which the dues you pay take care of everyones lawn, and the pool down the road, and the roads in your community. "OHH BUT I DONT USE THE POOL SO I WONT PAY''

Then they come mow your lawn, well then you are a thief.

Move out of the community, don't use the services provided that you do not pay for, or you are a thief.

Apply that to me.

How is my refusal to give money to government theft?

Explain it to me.

good god... forget it. You are clearly an idiot. I could care less, I don't actually believe you aren't paying and won't pay anyway. It's the internet and you are likely full of shit.

Are you telling me that you don't know how to apply this concept to me?

I'm saying if you don't understand at this point, you are purposefully or actually a retarded person.

The concept is so simple, I'm learning toward purposeful, since I'm a nice guy and all, I don't like thinking people are actually as retarded as you seem to be.

How is my refusal to give money to government theft?

You've spent more time dancing around it than explaining it.

Put me in my place.

And back to repeating questions I've answered.

Just because you refuse to accept it, doesn't mean it's not an answer.

Good luck. I'm all done, after 2 exceedingly simple explanations, I am bored of you being so insanely stupid.

I don't actually believe you aren't paying, but I kind of hope you aren't. As hilarious as that will be.

You did not explain how my refusal to give government money is theft.

My situation is unlike the community organization you described.

I'm not a part of a community organization as such.

How is my refusal to give government money theft?

[deleted]

I didn't think those people actually existed, what a whackadoo hah

How is refusing to give money to someone theft?

Explain it.

I do not believe in the soveriegn citizen thing.

That you would make such an assumption says more about you than it does me.

It would take far less for a violent revolution to succeed. Too bad we have been fooled into mistaking passivity for courage.

Apparently not. Further, a violent revolution is no revolution at all. It doesn't create anything new, it only reshuffles what's already in place.

Only a non-violent revolution that takes place in the minds of human beings world wide will bring down the obsolete paradigms now leading mankind toward extinction and herald an entirely new way of life. Violence is one of the things that needs to be overcome, not enhanced.

False. Violence works, is why those with power use it, why the narrative dissuades people from accpting that, and violence is the only thing that can overcome violence.

Here is a simple thought experiment; someone is punching you in the head for no reason, how can you stop them without violence?

violence is the only thing that can overcome violence

This statement is insane. Can you see why?

Thought experiment: someone without provocation or reason starts punching you in the head. How do you stop them?

I flee. Easy.

That isn't stopping them. Nor will it save you.

What a shame.

Tell that to the United States, which wouldn't exist at all where it not for violent revolution.

The United States already knows all about violence. There is nothing I could possibly add on the subject.

So ~110,000 Americans?

Edit: I'm bad at math

That's like half of Canada !

My math was off by a ton btw

More like many thousands of tons.

Didn't this happen in the Bosnia/Sarajevo conflict?

That's 11 million people. That's alot of fucking people.

Yeah, 3% doesn't sound that small when you imagine 11 million people blocking the interstates everyday until they get what they want

Fun fact:We outnumber them

This is only going to work in many cases where the government respects rule of law and human rights. Try this in ISIS territory, and they'll just chop off your head.

Hm wonder why this was removed

Yeah, the reddit admins don't want you to find out how many people it takes to topple the government! They're gonna getcha!

For the US that'd be 12.3 million people, if I did my math right.

If so, that's almost the entire state of Pennsylvania.

That's a lot of people.

Only 3.5%? That means we only need 11,335,000 people to sustain nonviolent civil disobedience in the US.

So, like 10, 11 million committed people and we are free!!!!!!!!

Sorry, dude but 1) there is no conspiracy here to keep you from posting a 2) half-assed theory from "one researcher".

Have you contacted the mods for a more indepth explanation?

Research? In /r/conspiracy? Please. You know he didn't.

[deleted]

How is that related to recent politics, besides most of the people in this country supporting a complete cache-clearing refresh on our nation's government?

[deleted]

Plenty of Jews denounce Zionism. They just happen to have no power in Israel's government, the media, Hollywood, or international banking.

All Jews?

Do they all have Jew membership cards?

What do those membership cards look like?

What about Jews in Ethiopia?

Are they also in control of the world?

Who's in more control - the Jews in Ethiopia or the Jews in Spain?

If Jews are so bad and they control everything why do you pay their taxes?

If Jews control the money why do you use their money?

If Jews make the laws why do you obey their laws?

Love how you take one little bit from his post and blow it out of proportion and miss the whole point.

You should, because it helps clarify the message. It's not like many will see this post anyways, but going forward OP's message can be refined to avoid easy criticisms such as this. If there is any intent on being taken seriously, then first you must take your argument seriously and not half-ass it. As it stands now it come across as your average anti-semitism, and where I'm from that is immediately associated with neonazi/nationalism, which in turn time and again is associated with ignorance, mob mentality, and stupidity wrapped up in either punks or hillbillys.

How does it help clarify it? I agree with you. But many people who choose to ignore certain parts of this and only focus on one bit is a pretty big problem with almost anything.

Because I think labeling it jews is inaccurate. Not that I even agree with the conspiracy, but I don't think they believe it is all the jews, unless they are just brainwashed racist. Currently what has been posited is completely dismissible, ie. a failure of an idea/conspiracy.

Don't blame "Jews", just call them the elite, brotherhood etc. otherwise you will just get called an anti-semite which obviously is associated with a load of stigma

You are in a conspiracy sub you know.

If you want to shut down a thread, just post some anti-semitic comments to make people cringe away from the conversation.

Hell, /u/hood3 might even be Jewish. Kind of like this guy

also the ZIONISTS not the JEWS would work as well. Comes off less racist.

Yet it's supposed to be a religion, not a race. How did it get to be a race?

Zionism isn't exactly a race, it's an ideology. Hell 90% of the Christians in Congress say they are zionists.

...what the fuck?

Apparently not. Further, a violent revolution is no revolution at all. It doesn't create anything new, it only reshuffles what's already in place.

Only a non-violent revolution that takes place in the minds of human beings world wide will bring down the obsolete paradigms now leading mankind toward extinction and herald an entirely new way of life. Violence is one of the things that needs to be overcome, not enhanced.

If you wish to read my posts from now on in that way, I welcome it. Maybe when I want to play along, I will start with "This summer" just for you, fallingshoes. Does that work?

You, my friend, are a walking, talking self-contradiction!

Right, it's because I don't "grasp" it, not because I do understand what you're saying and recognize that you're utterly full of shit and wildly deluded.

If you understood it, you wouldn't be saying that.

so, as the jezza would say... near as makes no difference.

I think what a lot of people don't realize about capitalism is that it's necessary for it to be tightly regulated to succeed. This is actually foundational - if you read Smith, he argues for regulation. Otherwise, since it's more profitable to not compete, companies work to usurp the system. A lot of people preach an anarchist "free market" without realizing what capitalism really supposed to be. Then again, this is probably another one of those "ideal" things, at least with the American system of governance - two parties makes it far to easier for those with money to buy interest, it would be much more possible to maintain closer to an ideal capitalist system if there was more competition for political office.

In the end, my personal opinion is that non-ideal capitalism is likely to work better than non-ideal communism - communism requires suppression of self interest, whereas capitalism tries to mitigate self interest by putting different people's self-interests into opposition. As nice as a system of governance like Star Trek would be, I don't see it happening until we are completely post-scarcity. I could see a compromise system working though - something like Universal Basic Income, where everyone has enough to survive, but you're motivated to work because enough to survive will be a pretty subsistence level and you'd need to work for any kind of luxury. With the rise in robotics and computers, we're approaching an age of diminished scarcity that this might become necessary to keep the system from collapsing.

But according to the Republicans, starving children is a moral duty so in their minds they are doing what is right. That is why morals is no the solution. Taking all power and money from their kind is the only solution.

This.

It's entirely possible that the IRS will level its evil gaze on me in the future. I expect the time-table to be slightly less than a decade. I have no illusions that I'm immune from their attacks. Less than one year is nothing.

Only time will tell.

That said, A.) I do this because it's the right thing to do and B.) thank you.

Definitely. But does that mean it is justified to delete the thread?

Yup. Curating content that has nothing to do with the theme is an obvious thing to do, otherwise there's nothing to prevent 24/7 My Little Pony or whatever.

No, their subreddit is whatever they want regardless of what it's called.

Keep the political posts in /r/politics. I don't want you to turn all of reddit into a soapbox for advertising your political beliefs.

They're not getting "closer and closer", they are already there. IS and these Kurds have been fighting for months, and the Kurds are successfully holding them off.

Look, random guy on the internet, it's pretty clear you don't know what's going on in Rojava, yet you seem very sure of the "fact" they'll fail. If that doesn't make you a pessimist, I really don't know what does.

The United States already knows all about violence. There is nothing I could possibly add on the subject.

That isn't stopping them. Nor will it save you.

have a look at /r/trees, then have a look at /r/marijuanaenthusiasts.

I dont think reddit works how you think it works.

I say the problem is the value of a dollar being fractionally divided by the institutions that provide that dollar, and entities that move your job overseas so they can pay someone else less than you for the same work.

Nobody is relishing in the murder of hundreds of millions, you're too busy trying to argue to bother looking at what these people are actually saying which is that "communism" as practiced by Stalin, Mao, et al. was as close to actual communism as "democracy" as practiced by Bush, Clinton, Obama, et al. is to actual democracy.

It doesn't matter what name you give it, it's always just been about rulers and their flock, the enslavers and the enslaved. True communism has never been given a chance.

Also, if you think that what the US currently has is capitalism as originally defined, I have a bridge in Africa to sell you.

Whatever I say you will justify to yourself, so why bother.

Let's put it in the simplest terms. You want, and do use things that you do not pay for.

You don't want to pay for roads, then don't use them. If you use things you don't pay for, you are stealing.

It's pretty simple honestly.

You don't get to not pay for a bunch of stuff, and then still use stuff you don't pay for because oh... I wanna.

It's hypocritical.

Well I mean, it's "patently false" except of course for historical precedent, but hey Communists love playing fast and loose with facts and history.

I'm not a Communist. And you've proven yourselves pretty ignorant of the "facts and history".

The historical precedent, again, is not representative of Communism but rather a diabolic perversion of it that was implemented by Stalin, Bolshevists, and others and whose main goal was increasing their power and control through violent and subversive methods.

I just think you're backing a horse ridden by idiots that runs off a cliff to a pile of the dead.

I'm not "backing a horse" of any kind, what the hell are you even talking about? I'm simply explaining to you that "communism" and "capitalism" and "democracy" are just made up words used by the rich and powerful to enslave the rest of us. In practice, not a single one of them resembles the actual ideologies they claim to represent. It isn't really a very complicated point, I don't know why you're having such trouble grasping it.

At this point I'm suspecting that you're only here to argue for whatever reason and nothing I say will convince you to look into the origins of these ideologies and who supported them. Your mind is already made up.

Edit: I'll leave you to your own beliefs but let me just re-iterate one last time: it's the people in power who are the problem, not the bullshit words they use as tools to justify themselves.