aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]

I want a burger now 😳

Going to pretend to be Sigmund Freud for a minute and try make sense of this:

in the annual poll conducted by IllicitEncounters, that brands itself “the best online dating site for married people”.

Okay that makes sense, Clarkson’s considered the sexiest man among middle aged adulterers that still use these niche sites. He’s rich, powerful (or gives off that impression) and older.

Meanwhile, Spider-Man actor Tom Holland secured the second spot in the UK’s sexiest man list, which coincides with his return to the West End.

Also makes sense, middle aged adulterers looking to relive their “glory days” and get with someone that looks much younger. The opposite of Clarkson.

The lion part is how a lot of ignorant people from Europe and the USA view South Africa lol.

So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.

This was you two hours ago. I thought you wanted an “adult conversation” with “evidence”? I provided that.

Okay then, why is the solution of making sleeping outdoors illegal bring debated by the highest court in the land? Why is the supreme court of the US even entertaining such an unethical proposition? Doing so is just the US abdicating responsibility for it’s people, and intensifying and welcoming inequality. Why not debate starting housing programmes for people instead, so that people do not have to sleep outside in the first place?

Okay then. What solution do even the most egalitarian or radical progressives/liberals, who you call the “adults”, have to solve capitalism’s contradictions and crises, with capitalism’s inherent unequal division of private property, leading to rising inequality and homelessness, being one of them? Because everything I’ve heard from just sounds like they are talking around the problem and avoiding the elephant in the room, the capitalistic system. In fact, many progressives when talking about issues such as homelessness, do not challenge the notion of private property and accept the inequality inherent to such a system, and then explain it away through bogus reasoning. I do not think that this way of avoiding about talking about how the modern capitalistic system works is adult behaviour. In fact, I’d say that it is childish behaviour, and does not deserve to be called progressive. The right wing being more brazen with it’s lack of ethics does not excuse the failure of liberals to address current issues.

The contemporary version of bourgeois emancipating reason, egalitarian liberalism, made fashionable by an insistent media popularization, provides nothing new because it remains prisoner of the liberty, equality, and property triplet. Challenged by the conflict between liberty and equality, which the unequal division of property necessarily implies, so-called egalitarian liberalism is only very moderately egalitarian. Inequality is accepted and legitimized by a feat of acrobatics, which borrows its pseudo concept of “endowments” from popular economics. Egalitarian liberalism offers a highly platitudinous observation: individuals (society being the sum of individuals) are endowed with diverse standings in life (some are powerful heads of enterprise, others have nothing). These unequal endowments, nevertheless, remain legitimate as long as they are the product, inherited obviously, of the work and the savings of ancestors. So one is asked to go back in history to the mythical day of the original social contract made between equals, who later became unequal because they really desired it, as evidenced by the inequality of the sacrifices to which they consented. I do not think that this way of avoiding the questions of the specificity of capitalism even deserves to be considered elegant.

• Samir Amin, Eurocentrism

Going to be honest back when I was in high school we drew penises on the fields in the dew/frost. It was an all boys school so yeah.

This should be a popular opinion honestly, because it’s correct.

Why are you seriously posting something from ziq, a person that hates you?

Anyways, why are you taking anything he says seriously?

I just read the first few paragraphs, which include an ahistorical description of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, ignores the CIA’s operations in Afghanistan before 1979 (which they have admitted to themselves) and cites an American professor living in South Korea whose entire job is to write propaganda about North Korea, propaganda which his own peers in the USA and South Korea have criticized and called absurd.

There is little of value here, this is the ramblings of someone that throwing stuff out there hoping it sticks. This is not anarchist theory. The first few paragraphs are less factual than the average descriptions of history that you’d see on liberal/capitalist media or get in a high school history class.