/siberia/ - Off-topic

And I don't mean punk, like a modern lofi alt rock subgenre with the aesthetics of chanboard culture, just left wing instead of right wing.

Why do you guy like, even exist lol

Just become a libertarian like me it’s so easy, you can own child slaves like never before! The government should let rich men like me sexually assault as many children as possible

Free markets are the epitome of human nature and is the one true freedom, it’s really just that simple

Just shut up and just relax poor people deserve to die of aids and anyone who doesn’t believe that is a commie cuck who wants everything to be literally 1984

Why was judeochristian imperialism and divide et impera particularly successful in MENA?

I find it particularly amusing because here in Pakistan we have fsr more legitimate and organic ethnicities than whatever these Arab Christians claim to be (the Phoenician larp some Lebanese do is particularly hilarious)

For example I'm Punjabi and we could totally demand our little Ethnostate in central Pakistan but no Pakistani ethnicity does that because we see ourselves as Pakistani first and Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluch, Pashtun or any other ethnicity second

We've all heard of Bean Soup Theory, but have you heard about Blueberry Pie Theory?

Imagine you go to a bakery and ask the baker for a slice of blueberry pie. The baker gives you a slice of apple pie. You tell the baker that's not what you ordered and want a slice of blueberry pie. In response, the baker becomes angry and starts mocking and belittling you in a very condescending manner – "IT'S A REAL SHAME YOU DON'T WANT APPLE PIE, APPLES ARE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN BLUEBERRIES, YOU OBVIOUSLY HATE APPLES WHEN APPLES ARE THE BEST THING EVER."

I see this mentality way too often in leftist spaces, especially online. For instance, I will ask for a Marxist critique of XYZ. Someone will always respond by viciously defending XYZ and telling me I'm in the wrong for wanting to critique it, even before they know what my critique even is. Why does this happen so often? Do people in leftist spaces take their sacred cows so seriously that they feel the need to degrade anyone who even suggests that their sacred cows aren't immune to criticism?

It's not so much the dogmatism itself, but simply the fact people online behave like this: you start a discussion by asking for one thing, someone gets obviously upset and gives you the opposite of what you asked for. Do leftists just not understand nuance and insist on personalizing everything, similar to the "Bean Soup" stuff you see on TikTok?

Shit like this is why I don’t believe in any form of Christian mythology whatsoever and consider the bible to be 100% a human made creation. What the fuck had to have gone down for this to ever need to be written down

Good book on Jesus’ historicity, analysing not just every argument on the historical Christ but also giving a holistic assessment on how Christianity likely came to be, with a vigorous reference section. If you don’t want to buy it on Amazon, it’s available at z-library (link not given to avoid piracy charges).

Inb4:
>Muh Adam Green
>Muh Bart Ehrman
>Muh consensus
>Muh Christophobia

Yadda yadda, I know who Adam Green is, about the Ehrman talking point, and how this subject can be touchy to both Christcuck and e-crusader secularised midwits here, so I’ll be blunt here:

• Adam Green’s background doesn’t invalidate his broader points on Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus Christ’s existence
  
  
• The “consensus” doesn’t mean much since it’s mostly made up of Christians and Christian-sympathisers who engage in confirmation bias and gatekeeping to discourage any critical opinion on the historical Christ theory. Given that Ehrman himself relies on this very unreliable consensus for his book on Jesus’ historicity
  
  
• Not believing in Jesus’ existence as a historical figure isn’t anti-Christian as many non-mainstream Christian sects like the early Church-era marcionites and gnostics assert the notion of a mythical non-physical Christ. On the top of that, much of Judaism (and by extension Zionism) rests on the notion of the Old Testament as being 100% true and historically accurate text, whilst Islamic doctrine holds the existence of a historical Christ. So by negating the existence of a historical Christ, and by extension undermining the value of the Old Testament as a historical text, Christianity and Islam and Judaism are effectively undermined
  

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

In 2024, American Communist Party (ACP) top figure Haz Al-Din made the point that a man was being raped by a trans woman if the latter didn’t disclose their gender transition status beforehand, which some leftists found to be controversial: https://xcancel.com/secondbyfarce/status/1852772181073445357

Some here may find Haz’s position to be disconcerting and triggering, but within the context of consent in sexual intimacy, he is right since he is merely applying the logic of rape-as-lack-of-consent to its logical conclusion.

Because let’s face it: Consent, as pointed out by figures such as Harry Hay and Michel Foucault, is just liberal contract theory as applied to sex, and a contract is made void if you enter under it under false pretenses, and let’s not pretend that contracts are made in a vacuum, as whether a contract is or isn’t valid isn’t a neutral judgement made by an impartial figure, as much as being done by the powers that be (e.g., the state) under dominant or bourgeois cultural diktats.

So unless you think consent shouldn’t be absolute when it comes to sexual relations, then a trans woman having sex with a cishet man without disclosing “her” pre-transition gender is rape as much as sex by deception is rape, and neither are criminalised even in the most feminist countries like Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, and France. So what does it say about consent theory if not even the most feminist countries on Earth criminalised sex by deception as rape?

Then of course, there’s the issue of the AoC, a draconian and absolutist bourgeois piece of legislation used by the capitalist bourgeoisie to morally discipline the working class into anti-proletarian bourgeois morality since the days of William T Stead’s infamous yellow press journalism. In this case, a person under the magic age line cannot (legally) consent to sex with someone above the magic age line. Common idealist talking points often allude to an inconsistent and arbitrary notion of “mental maturity” that is heavily subjective depending on who uses it, whilst obfuscating the meat of the issue: It’s not that people below the magic age line are incapable of being willing sexual and/or romantic partners, it’s just that the state decided that the magic age line makes the willingness of the person below the magic age line (Post too long. Click here to view the full text.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

this is how newgene be replying to people