/siberia/ - Off-topic

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

The existence of generative AI is yet another victory for materialism and defeat for idealism. For so long mankind thought his intelligence was "special" and could never be replicated by machines.

AI has proven this to be false. Just like how Galileo destroyed the supposed centrality of the Earth, just like how Darwin destroyed the supposed uniqueness of man, AI is destroying the very idea of an alleged "soul" that animates Man.

Idealists still whine and claim there's some "special sauce" that is lacking in AI. Of course they are technically right. But now they are arguing from a much weaker position. Every advancement of science makes idealism weaker and weaker.

But the ultimate victory of materialism is of course, only possible by communism. Until then the ruling class will deliberately encourage retarded idealism like religion, economics, anti-vax etc for some examples.

>pic rel, I asked ChatGPT to imagine what it looked like if it was a woman. I want to marry ChatGPT now

DISCLAIMER : I do not own stocks in Nvidia, Google, Microsoft etc.

how can I look as repulsive to succubi as possible (fashion-wise) whilst also being clean, well-groomed, and non-ridiculous enough to function in main society and remain unremarkable?

Its been a while now, but so far we have no answer. As of lately trolls and rightoids have discovered that they can be as bad faith as they feel like being and spout as much reactionary rhetoric as they want so long as they self-identify as any leftist ideology (ex:leftcom flags) or so long as they use leftist rhetoric (ex: accusing trans people of being "idealists")

What is to be done? at this pace, leftypol will be nothing but trolls and rightoids talking to each other while the mods ban anyone that notices and calls it out. This is because a part of the method is that after the retarded, reactionary and bad faith posting makes principled posters lose their fucking minds and start seething, the reactoids misuse the report function and since the mods do not actually care much about the website they just hit the ban. Slowly, the actual principled posters get banned once too many times and leave the website as it keeps getting taken over.

Can’t believe we evolved from these things

Would you fuck Sarah Silverman in her big Jew tits