Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

You say what Eminem's politics are not, but you cannot say what they are. 

Mhm.

It's arguably the easier question. 

I'm sure I could ramble a million things about what your politics aren't, while saying what they are might stand to be corrected. 

For example you are not a Clownish Post Modernist, nor are you a Jewish Philanthropist. 

I don't think that's quite what I was arguing. I wasn't saying “you can't tell me exactly what Eminem's politics are, therefore Spatial's claim is false.” I was pointing out that Spatial made a positive claim about Eminem's political motivation, specifically that his politics are “hate driven,” and then treated “he hates Trump” as though that established it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to then discuss what his politics actually are, with the aid of referenceable sources? 

I'm not required to provide a complete description of Eminem's entire political ideology just because I reject an unsupported claim about what supposedly drives it. Those are two different things. You could list a hundred things someone's politics aren't without establishing what they are, but that isn't what I'm doing here.

If you aim to actually shut him up or prove something, then a source in spite of the burden of proof being on him is liable to make him overreach that much more than he already has. 

If he won't agree with you, at least he might reveal why not. 

The relevant question is whether the evidence Spatial gave actually supports the specific claim that hatred is the driving force behind Eminem's politics. So far, it establishes that Eminem strongly dislikes Trump and has expressed hostility toward some political opponents. That's not the same proposition.

Eminem hates the upper class. 

It's that simple. 

Golden_Eagle said: 

 

We don't see right wingers violating statues of founding fathers.

Trump's doing it right now. 

And it was the left who were offended by Aunt Jemima and wanted the graphic removed from the bottles. Same with Uncle Ben. These ideologies also go with calling for a ban on certain subjects taught in school.

Some black people do call for the removal of black history too, as it create a victim mindset, where the left wing negro thinks white people should pay reparations for what happened in the past.

Yes lets just write history out of education, so the future can be ignorant of it and work from a clean slate. 

That's not how it works. 

Eminem's views on Trump are typical of the brainwashing. He mentions Trump is a racist, and supports the KKK, all of which are false.

We've literally seen Trump do these things across his lifetime, even pre-presidency. He learned it from his racist father. 

Eminem's biggest gripes with Trump is... Racism, KKK support and wanting immigrants to go. But there is a difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants. 

If it were a leftist, he'd fight back too, but the right makes it about race while the left says it's simply unfortunate via equality. 

Illegal immigrants should be allow to stay in the country longer than welcome.

Agreed, they should totally be allowed to stay longer. 

They are not tax payers and do not support you Nathan. If the world could just walk into the US and live for free off the backs of the working Americans, that would divide us as a species where the world can just more to the US and the working class will pay for those who do nothing but collect free food and money without citizenship. 

They typically contribute more money towards the US government than those who are actual Americans quote-unquote. 

You're turning away free money for the government to support a few racists having better income. 

Hard to imagine a guy preaching The Struggle being a fan of The Epstein Class though. I could imagine a similar sentiment made by him over leftist oligarchs. Not even a big Eminem fan but come on, look at his focus. It's not pure hate, it's struggle, a matter of economic context lending to strife in life. For those who don't want struggle to be fixated on and would prefer to sweep it under the rug as if ignorance was the solution to equality, they will see Eminem and many others like him as a hater, especially if they're all rich and posh and shit insofar as to have never truly struggled a day in their lives. 

His estimated net worth is 260-300 million.

And yet he still has the integrity to hate the upper class. 

Good for him. 

When people are that rich, it really doesn't matter whos in office. For everyday people change matters. Just about anyone will walk Eminem's path intentionally to achieve that kind of financial freedom. 

The guy hates the upper class, and finds happiness in raising a family. 

You trying to say him being rich means he can't hate on the upper class? I'm sorry to say, but you need to really give a closer eye on the rap industry then, as Eminem is mostly an oddity for being white. 

That's not to say a billionaire doesn't work hard, just not as hard as someone hauling ass every day.

They don't, they have the funds to have others do it for them. 

What drugs are you on as to assume the upper class struggles even remotely like the lower class? Does Blanc seem like a hard worker to you? 

Woke ideology is demanding of others. Crossing boundaries. I personally don't think you should use the ladies Room Nate. That may offend you, but it's women who don't want you in there you can take it up with them, I just agree. 

Literally nothing we've been talking about has been about where to take a shit. 

Weird tangent honestly, do you have a toilet fixation? 

People are free to crossdress and be artistic with their sexuality all they want, but don't start marching around insisting the world addresses you based on your preference while saying you're coming for "other people's" children cause you'd like more queer people. The majority finds that perverted, and historically, we do not expose children to sexuality until they're of age.

Then they are not as free as they want to be. 

There will be those who are polite enough to address someone by their preferred title, and then those who refuse. It's a question of freedom more than politics when even the right wing will do that over stuff like saying 'this black guy is actually white'. 

Gender dysphoria is a disorder.

So we should diss it because of that? 

I don't see that as how we're handling ADD, which is arguably doing a lot more damage. 

What comes with a disorder is disorderly, sure there's the argument of acceptance and inclusion but that's a fancy way for men to rob women.

Uh? 

So being nice to people with disorders is against feminism? 

Wtf? 

We're not concerned about manginas making the cut or entering public washroom for men, other way around raises safety and decency concerns.

If the man has chopped his dick off, he's not going to rape women as people might otherwise expect. For fucks sake the loss of hormones reduce muscle mass. 

At the very least they'd be an exception to the trans norm, and hormones stop erections in their tracks for the majority of MtF. How do you fuck a woman without an erection? 

The fear makes no sense, and is on par with men fearing FtM using their bathrooms. Do you seriously think men expect this vaginal pseudo-man to fuck them in the stalls? 

Another thing, it's not going to normalize.

It already is, just slower than the woke movement wanted. 

Deal with it. 

Transgenders can only hook up with queer people, which in all honesty is fine.

You have defined people who'd be with a trans person as queer, so this is a nonstatement. A formerly non-queer choosing to be with a trans person, to you, would suddenly be queer. 

Straight people are straight and the majority is that

They want to commit to the breeding act often without actually wanting a child, so fucking a tranny is similar to fucking a woman on birth control. 

What's the difference if there's no risk of a baby either way? 

hence the survival of our species.

We're an invasive species overpopulating the planet, we don't need help. 

A transgender will live a life of unacceptance and complaints of homophobia in terms of hookups and dating. Though I don't know why they call it a phobia, it's not fear, it's selection and everyone should be free to have preferences on what gender they sleep with. 

It's a fear, they feel physically uncomfortable around them. 

The planet is finite and won't last forever, so it makes no sense to say humans are "overpopulated." Scarcity doesn't establish that there are objectively too many humans. It makes more sense to criticize specific forms of wealth hoarding when they cause undue harm than to treat population itself as a problem. The concept of "overpopulation" is an irrational vehicle for discrimination because it can be filled with whatever justification someone wants, whether that's socialization and selective population management or bigotry and hatred toward particular groups. There is no objective population number at which humans suddenly become "too many."

Dragoonback said: 

The planet is finite and won't last forever, so it makes no sense to say humans are "overpopulated." Scarcity doesn't establish that there are objectively too many humans. It makes more sense to criticize specific forms of wealth hoarding when they cause undue harm than to treat population itself as a problem. The concept of "overpopulation" is an irrational vehicle for discrimination because it can be filled with whatever justification someone wants, whether that's socialization and selective population management or bigotry and hatred toward particular groups. There is no objective population number at which humans suddenly become "too many."

Every human alive adds that much more gas to the fire. 

Turncoat said: 

Dragoonback said: 

The planet is finite and won't last forever, so it makes no sense to say humans are "overpopulated." Scarcity doesn't establish that there are objectively too many humans. It makes more sense to criticize specific forms of wealth hoarding when they cause undue harm than to treat population itself as a problem. The concept of "overpopulation" is an irrational vehicle for discrimination because it can be filled with whatever justification someone wants, whether that's socialization and selective population management or bigotry and hatred toward particular groups. There is no objective population number at which humans suddenly become "too many."

Every human alive adds that much more gas to the fire. 

 The Earth isn't overpopulated. I often argued this over the years.

Gemini, is the Earth Overpopulated...

Gemini said:

Whether Earth is overpopulated depends on how you define the term. If it means running out of physical space or food, the answer is no. If it means exceeding the sustainable limits of Earth's ecosystems and biodiversity, many scientists and organizations argue that the planet is overpopulated.

 Science is at odds with itself. 

The greater the population, the harder it is for the ruling class to remain at the top. Organizations can form, stars are born. What's popular becomes less popular thus making it more difficult to stay in power. 

Popular science is the stuff the ruling class is in the business of. This is one reason why Scientists argue the cause of global warming. 

Science sees that the Earth had 4 or 5 ice ages, and after each ice age, the Earth warmed, and it's gotten hotter than its ever been compared to our civilization's history. Every time. 

We won't be able to destroy the planet even if the whole surface got nuked. This is the case at every site in the world that has been nuked. The trees are green, and some of those places like Hiroshima and Nagasaki still have life with no concerns.  

Turncoat said: 

Every human alive adds that much more gas to the fire. 

The planet was never supposed to last forever in the first place. Its eventual destruction isn't some moral failure caused by humans that needs to be prevented. Earth is a finite physical object, and eventually it will become uninhabitable regardless of what humans do. So “every human alive adds more gas to the fire” doesn't establish why human existence is inherently a problem. It takes the inevitable finitude of the planet and turns it into a reason to regard additional human beings as a burden. That's a value judgment, not a consequence of entropy or nihilism. And reducing billions of individual people to “gas for the fire” isn't particularly egalitarian either. It treats humanity as an aggregate that should be minimized rather than treating people as equally existing individuals. If anything, the idea that humanity should be reduced because the planet isn't eternal is much closer to population-control thinking than to any neutral nihilist observation.

Spatial Mind said: 

The Earth isn't overpopulated. I often argued this over the years. Gemini, is the Earth Overpopulated...

Gemini said:

Whether Earth is overpopulated depends on how you define the term. If it means running out of physical space or food, the answer is no. If it means exceeding the sustainable limits of Earth's ecosystems and biodiversity, many scientists and organizations argue that the planet is overpopulated.

Science is at odds with itself. The greater the population, the harder it is for the ruling class to remain at the top. Organizations can form, stars are born. What's popular becomes less popular thus making it more difficult to stay in power. 

Popular science is the stuff the ruling class is in the business of. This is one reason why Scientists argue the cause of global warming. 

Science sees that the Earth had 4 or 5 ice ages, and after each ice age, the Earth warmed, and it's gotten hotter than its ever been compared to our civilization's history. Every time. We won't be able to destroy the planet even if the whole surface got nuked. This is the case at every site in the world that has been nuked. The trees are green, and some of those places like Hiroshima and Nagasaki still have life with no concerns.  

Gemini isn't showing that “science is at odds with itself.” It's distinguishing between different meanings of overpopulation. Saying Earth isn't literally running out of physical space or food doesn't contradict the possibility that population and consumption can exceed particular ecological limits.

The ruling-class argument doesn't follow either. A larger population doesn't inherently threaten people at the top. If anything, it gives institutions a larger pool of workers, consumers, specialists, applicants, and people they can select from and replace. Changes in popularity and instability also tend to impose far greater costs on people with fewer resources than on people who already have wealth, institutional power, and alternatives. So I don't see why more people would inherently make it harder for a ruling class to remain on top.

And there is no meaningful distinction between “science” and some politically controlled category of “popular science” that lets you dismiss conclusions you dislike. Science is a methodology, not a set of opinions produced by whichever class happens to be in power. You haven't demonstrated that climate science is being fabricated for the benefit of a ruling class. That's an assumption you're adding to the argument.

The ice-age point doesn't establish what you think it does either. Yes, Earth has experienced multiple natural climate shifts, including warming after ice ages. That doesn't mean the present warming has the same cause. The IPCC concludes that human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, while NASA says current warming cannot be explained by solar activity or natural orbital cycles. The fact that Earth has been warmer before is irrelevant to identifying the cause of the current change.

And nobody needs to claim humans can literally obliterate the entire planet to argue that human activity can cause serious environmental damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki still supporting life decades later only demonstrates that nuclear attacks didn't sterilize those locations permanently. It doesn't establish that environmental harm is impossible.

So you're jumping between “Earth has finite space,” “ecological limits exist,” “the ruling class benefits from population,” “scientists are politically controlled,” “Earth had ice ages,” and “nuclear weapons can't destroy the planet” as though they collectively establish one conclusion. They don't. Each claim requires its own evidence.

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said: 

Every human alive adds that much more gas to the fire. 

The planet was never supposed to last forever in the first place. Its eventual destruction isn't some moral failure caused by humans that needs to be prevented. Earth is a finite physical object, and eventually it will become uninhabitable regardless of what humans do. So “every human alive adds more gas to the fire” doesn't establish why human existence is inherently a problem. It takes the inevitable finitude of the planet and turns it into a reason to regard additional human beings as a burden. That's a value judgment, not a consequence of entropy or nihilism. And reducing billions of individual people to “gas for the fire” isn't particularly egalitarian either. It treats humanity as an aggregate that should be minimized rather than treating people as equally existing individuals. If anything, the idea that humanity should be reduced because the planet isn't eternal is much closer to population-control thinking than to any neutral nihilist observation.

Spatial Mind said: 

The Earth isn't overpopulated. I often argued this over the years. Gemini, is the Earth Overpopulated...

Gemini said:

Whether Earth is overpopulated depends on how you define the term. If it means running out of physical space or food, the answer is no. If it means exceeding the sustainable limits of Earth's ecosystems and biodiversity, many scientists and organizations argue that the planet is overpopulated.

Science is at odds with itself. The greater the population, the harder it is for the ruling class to remain at the top. Organizations can form, stars are born. What's popular becomes less popular thus making it more difficult to stay in power. 

Popular science is the stuff the ruling class is in the business of. This is one reason why Scientists argue the cause of global warming. 

Science sees that the Earth had 4 or 5 ice ages, and after each ice age, the Earth warmed, and it's gotten hotter than its ever been compared to our civilization's history. Every time. We won't be able to destroy the planet even if the whole surface got nuked. This is the case at every site in the world that has been nuked. The trees are green, and some of those places like Hiroshima and Nagasaki still have life with no concerns.  

Gemini isn't showing that “science is at odds with itself.” It's distinguishing between different meanings of overpopulation. Saying Earth isn't literally running out of physical space or food doesn't contradict the possibility that population and consumption can exceed particular ecological limits.

"Scientists argue". They argue with other scientists. Popular science gets the stage while opposing arguments aren't popular. 

The cause of WTC7 collapsing is also popular science by NIST, but really how they explained it, simply does not happen. 

The ruling-class argument doesn't follow either.

Mhm.

 

The ice-age point doesn't establish what you think it does either.

Uh huh

Yes, Earth has experienced multiple natural climate shifts, including warming after ice ages. That doesn't mean the present warming has the same cause.

yaw yaw

The IPCC concludes that human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, while NASA says current warming cannot be explained by solar activity or natural orbital cycles. The fact that Earth has been warmer before is irrelevant to identifying the cause of the current change.

NASA sometimes fakes footage too. Bold claim but it seems like they do. 

And nobody needs to claim humans can literally obliterate the entire planet to argue that human activity can cause serious environmental damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki still supporting life decades later only demonstrates that nuclear attacks didn't sterilize those locations permanently. It doesn't establish that environmental harm is impossible.

There's too much soil. We cannot stop nature. If a volcano is gonna boom it will, and it will happen eventually. We maybe gone but there will still be creatures. The Earth itself was once molten and it'll happen again eventually.  That's a cleansing, and when we're done on the playground, it'll happen again with or without us. 

So you're jumping between “Earth has finite space,” “ecological limits exist,” “the ruling class benefits from population,” “scientists are politically controlled,” “Earth had ice ages,” and “nuclear weapons can't destroy the planet” as though they collectively establish one conclusion. They don't. Each claim requires its own evidence.

 They benefit from smaller population. As a matter of face they openly want to decrease the population. Makes us easier to control. 

You're mostly responding with “mhm,” “uh huh,” and “yaw yaw” instead of actually addressing the arguments, so there's not much substance in that part of your reply.

“Popular science” also doesn't explain anything. Scientists disagree with each other constantly, and particular scientific claims can certainly be wrong, revised, or challenged. That isn't evidence that the underlying methodology is controlled by a ruling class. If you think NIST's WTC7 explanation is wrong, then explain the specific structural or physical error rather than simply labeling it “popular science.” NIST's explanation is a concrete mechanism involving thermal expansion, failure of a girder connection, floor failures, and subsequent buckling of Column 79.

The same applies to climate science. Saying that NASA has allegedly “faked footage” doesn't address the physical evidence for anthropogenic warming. NASA's case isn't based on trusting a video. The IPCC's assessment is based on multiple lines of evidence and concludes that human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land. NASA likewise points to greenhouse-gas concentrations, their isotopic signature, the observed atmospheric response, and the lack of a corresponding increase in solar energy as evidence for the current warming trend.

And your volcano and “cleansing” argument actually reinforces my point. Earth is finite and its geological history will continue with or without humans. Eventually the planet will change radically again regardless of whether humans exist. That doesn't make human existence an objective problem that needs to be solved. You're taking an inevitable physical process and attaching a normative meaning to it.

As for “they benefit from smaller population,” who exactly is “they”? Which organizations? What specific policies demonstrate a common goal of reducing population in order to make people easier to control? You've asserted a collective intention without identifying the actors or establishing the mechanism.

More importantly, a smaller population doesn't automatically make elites more secure. A larger population can give powerful institutions more workers, consumers, specialists, recruits, and people to select from. Changes in popularity or social organization don't magically deprive wealthy people of their existing resources and institutional advantages.

So none of this establishes that science is “at odds with itself,” that current warming is simply another natural cycle, or that population growth inherently threatens a ruling class. Those are separate claims that still require evidence.