/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>822776
they do seem stupid though. they also seem like the type to say they're broke while having multiple sugar daddies. good for them.

>>822778
terminally unfunny troll logic

>>822783
I don't think drafted black soldiers during US segregation who fought against fascists alongside the soviet red army are "imperialist soldiers" and you strike me as a troll shitjacketing actual anti-imperialism which is a systemic understanding of imperialism as a phenomenon driven by the mode of production, and completely independent of which particular metropole is the current hegemon.

>>822783
>posting pro rape and pro nazi MP4 files
<teehee i'm so sincere
then you are a reactionary

>>822793
>blacks were beneficiaries of imperialist superprofits
that wasn't your original argument. your original argument is that it was good and based when nazis killed them. you retreated to something a lot more reasonable after being a shitlord. you types always do this.

>>822795
meant for >>822794 since you edited it

>posts literal nazi propaganda gloating over black us soldiers being tortured and bayoneted by nazis, depicts nazis with epic memelord lazer eyes
<actually i was just saying black americans benefited from imperialist superprofits even under segregation, i was not trying to imply that it was based when nazis comitted racially motivated war crimes

motte bailey shit

>>822797
but your meme wasn't anti imperialist in the slightest. there wasn't a single hint of any of this nuance. it was just pro-nazi gloating. and no matter how much nuance you pretend to add we know you're just a fascist shitlord using anti-imperialism as a guise.

and no, gloating about black US soldiers getting tortured to death in racially motivated hate crimes by nazis and dying at higher rates than their white american comrades who were taken as prisoners instead is not anti-imperialist rhetoric in the slightest. it is at best trolling. you are a very dishonest person. none of that put a dent in imperialism anyway as you acknowledged in another post so it wasn't even "good" it's just an outlet for your barely disguised racism masquerading as anti imperialism.

>>822802
my moralfagging is not selective. i just see through your fake anti imperialism. you are just a racist. you are calling black drafted american proles living under an apartheid regimes "monkeys" and gloating that nazis killed them, posting memes that depict nazis as chads. i can see through it. you will never convince me that this is just trve communism. you are a nasty little chud

>>822802
>if it even happened
/pol/yp doesn't even pretend to try

>>822812
>other people post other stuff so your moralfagging is selective
i am not those other people so it is not
>you're just a nobody on the internet
likewise


again. you are fooling nobody. you start off depicting nazis as chads, and gloating that nazis tortured and murdered black americans at higher rates than white americans, and that these black soldiers were not treated the same as white POWs when captured, getting tortured and bayoneted. this was explicit gloating and depicting nazis as chads. it was not soviet style "Lol both the american and german imperialists are killing each other" it was gloating from a nazi perspective. you only backpedaled after getting called out

>>822812
>now posting memes implying america got punished with 9/11 when 9/11 was an inside job by the bush administration, saudi wahhabist pedophiles, and israeli zionists to justify destroying iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria, somalia yemen, only 3000 americans died while millions people from other countries died and had their entire governments and economies destroyed and reactionaries placed into positions of power

only a fool can look at 9/11 and think the US government was hurt by it in any way.

>>822816
you have such terminal imageboard brain you are only capable of responding with mp4s

>>822819
what zero class consciousness and infinite nationalism does to a mf

>>822823
you don't care about anything. you are an O9A nihilist thielbug who talks in sharty language. you probably aren't even from the global south. global south just wants imperialist terrorism against them to end. normal proles from the global south don't go on english speaking imageboards, post nazi memes, and talk about their "boyclitty"

>>822802
terminally online shock content addict. go outside and have sex lil uygha

>>822832
>terminally online shock content addict
Nta but that’s basically this entire thread lol

>>822819
> The same is true for October 7.
another event that people pretend was epic JDPON revenge even though it was really just a nothingburger sadly that was immediately followed by a hugely disproportionate response in the form of an accelerating genocide that was already happening

>>822814
>and gloating that nazis tortured and murdered black americans at higher rates than white americans, and that these black soldiers were not treated the same as white POWs when captured, getting tortured and bayoneted.
Nazis didn't torture US troops

>>822878 (me)
they tortured Soviet troops and partisans, but not US troops, even black US troops were treated pretty well by the Nazis

>>822264
>center my voice
kys

>>822589
it's not moralfagging to identify that schizophrenics are delusional and it's not moralfagging to identify that conservatives are unpleasant anti-civilization freaks.

it is not really a question of ideology at all, but of marketing. conservative political marketing selects for the worst people, even when their actual product (in terms of governance etc) is the same as that of their opponents. (e.g. as in the UK case.) this is quite in accord with a marxist analysis of bourgeois politics. it is not un-marxist to recognise that Irn Bru's marketing makes a cornerstone of its scottishness and in turn is rewarded with a majority of the Scottish soft-drink market, and it's not un-marxist to do the same with bourgeois politicians and their support groups. we can read off, ex-post-facto, that most Irn Bru drinkers are Scottish and we can read off, ex-post-facto, that most conservative voters are awful, even before we redouble that analysis by realising that they're disproportionately petit-bourgeois.

>>822593
some proles work actively against class consciousness and drag the rest down with them. it is utterly naive to imagine you should embrace some of their wrecker talking points in the hopes of winning them over.

>>822945
please quote all the sentences you believe to be moralising for the benefit of the class

>>823082
Sure, since you're apparently illiterate:
>unpleasant anti-civilization freaks
>the worst people
>most conservative voters are awful
These are all appeals to morality. Hope that helps!

>>823089
Distaste = morality judgment

>>823090
Distaste is an affective reaction. Saying "I don't like conservatives" is expressing distaste.
Moral judgment is a normative evaluation. Saying "conservatives are unpleasant anti-civilization freaks" is making a moral judgment.
The poopy write-up was the latter.
I guess your pic related was a portrait of you or something because it doesn't apply to me ^_^

this guy has been calling everyone moralfags for laughing at kirk's death for 150 posts lol. very not mad energy

>>823115
The fact you're still replying makes you madder btw

>>822878
bruh are you even the same anon. anon literally posted a video praising nazi troops for torturing and executing black US troops. scroll up and read the conversation before jumping in.

>>823130
that was my first post at you. this is my last

>>823172
>normie kirk thread
>derails into a debate on SS troops executing US Army soldiers
it's based and kirkpilled

>>823179
thielbug

>>823179
I warned you about debate addicts.

>>823089
none of that language is moralising. in short >>823090
but piece by pieace
>unpleasant
is it moralising to describe the taste of food as unpleasant?
>anti-civilization
statement of policy, not morality.
>freaks
"an unusual person", judges usualness rather than value.
>worst
judgement of quality, partial synonym of unpleasant
>awful
as above but softer.

>>823095
>>823096
>>823097
was it necessary to be wrong in triplicate?
even if we were to grant for argument's sake that morality was raised, it still wouldn't be moralising: it is not moralising anti-marxism to say that a marketer might discover that immoral people prefer to buy israeli goods and moral people do not. you do not, personally, have to embrace this moral judgement as a moral judgement, it is simply data. "morality" here is an arbitrary personal trait like scottishness or mental retardation. (such as yours) such traits can be found, empirically, to correlate with other things. what you do, normatively, with that information is your own business.

>>823188
Linguistic meaning is lexical, compositional, and contextual. It’s about what the words do in context, not simply how each word is defined. For example: compare “How do I kill a process?” vs “How do I kill a person?.” Both contain the same verb (kill), but carry radically different meanings. Thus, taking each word in isolation, choosing a neutral dictionary sense, and ignoring how the words function together in a phrase is misguided.
>>unpleasant
>is it moralising to describe the taste of food as unpleasant?
No, because it describes an affective reaction in that specific context. The context changes the word’s purpose. The phrase “unpleasant anti-civilization freaks” as a whole is a moral judgement; “unpleasant” only reinforces the overall framing. Of course, you can backpedal and claim you weren’t doing this, that “unpleasant” was simply expressing your own affective distaste, but then your argument ceases to be material analysis and collapses into subjectivity.
>>anti-civilization
>statement of policy, not morality
“Civilization” in polemics is often an evaluative concept in and of itself.
The marks of civilization—the writing, the cities, the state, etc.—reflect a particular ideal of human organization. This ideal often presupposes a moral vision along with it. Typically, to call a society civilized is to morally praise it; to call it uncivilized is to morally condemn it. Calling a group “anti-civilization” is often synonymous with calling them barbaric, destructive, enemies of social order, i.e., they are outside the bounds of civilization’s moral values.
>>freaks
>"an unusual person", judges usualness rather than value
Using the dictionary’s strict definition of a word as evidence that a word cannot have another meaning is fallacious. Nevertheless, what is considered “unusual” if it’s not relative to what’s considered “usual?” In the phrase’s context, it doesn’t merely say “unusual”; it marks someone as backwards and grotesque (anti-civilization) compared to the usual (civilization).
>>worst and awful
>judgement of quality, partial synonym of unpleasant
Again, what is considered “quality” if it’s not compared to some type of standard? By what judgement?
>it is not moralising anti-marxism to say that a marketer might discover that immoral people prefer to buy israeli goods and moral people do not.
That would absolutely be moralizing.
>you do not, personally, have to embrace this moral judgement as a moral judgement, it is simply data.
This is self-defeating. If you don’t embrace the moral judgement, you can’t call it “immoral” and “moral” in the first place, as it simply becomes a descriptive correlation.
>"morality" here is an arbitrary personal trait like scottishness
One is descriptive of a national/cultural/ethnic identity, the other is a normative evaluation. They are completely different things.
>such traits can be found, empirically, to correlate with other things. what you do, normatively, with that information is your own business.
To find correlations with morality, you first have to decide what counts as moral and immoral. That decision is already normative.

>>823179
Objectively speaking, Hitler decimated the West's ability to maintain colonialism.

>>823287
>hitler killed hitler, and hitler was a fascist, therefore hitler was the greatest anti fascist
mm yes, dialectics, mm yes unity of opposites, very hegelian

>>823273
that's a lot of words to not find a moral argument. you're on much stronger grounds identifying a subjective judgement, but one can mix subjective judgement and material analysis quite cleanly - if i say coca cola is disgusting slop, that wouldn't undermine an analysis of why it sells one iota, nor would "disgusting" or "slop" constitute moral judgements on their product simply because emotive language is used.

the only other point of any interest to me is that you cannot draw a clean line here between a national/cultural/ethnic identity and a normative evaluation. if i say that JK Rowling isn't Scottish (she lives in Scotland but is of English heritage, after all.) while simultaneously saying that anyone else can become Scottish simply by living in Scotland, is it not apparent - from inference before I say it plainly - that I regard scottishness as a desirable trait and take this into account when deciding who does and doesn't count?
(this isn't an idle question borne of me making up silly hypotheticals either, "anyone can be Scottish by living in Scotland, except reactionary English people" is basically the unofficial official line of modern progressive Scottish nationalists. Scotland is a touch odd in applying this to nationalism, but you'll find the same trends in most questions of identity, one way or another…)

>>823339
>that's a lot of words to not find a moral argument.
This was your thesis:
<it's not moralfagging to identify that schizophrenics are delusional and it's not moralfagging to identify that conservatives are unpleasant anti-civilization freaks.
If "anti-civilization" is a neutral description, then it doesn't support calling them unpleasant freaks. If it does support calling them unpleasant freaks, then you're treating anti-civilization as bad, which assumes civilization as good. That's either a moral argument or, at the very least, a normative statement that relies on an ideal of what's considered desirable. Either way, it's not a neutral method of analysis, as you are selecting and framing traits in a way that presupposes a norm.
>you're on much stronger grounds identifying a subjective judgement
Morality itself is subjective.
>if i say coca cola is disgusting slop, that wouldn't undermine an analysis of why it sells one iota, nor would "disgusting" or "slop" constitute moral judgements on their product simply because emotive language is used.
No one said that would be a moral judgement. It only shows emotive language can coexist with analysis; however, it doesn't show that your framing is non-normative.
>the only other point of any interest to me is that you cannot draw a clean line here between a national/cultural/ethnic identity and a normative evaluation. if i say that JK Rowling isn't Scottish (she lives in Scotland but is of English heritage, after all.) while simultaneously saying that anyone else can become Scottish simply by living in Scotland, is it not apparent - from inference before I say it plainly - that I regard scottishness as a desirable trait and take this into account when deciding who does and doesn't count?
Delineating who should and should not count as Scottish is itself normative. All you've shown is that identity descriptors can be normatively loaded. If deciding who counts as Scottish can be normatively loaded, then deciding who counts as "anti-civilization" can be too.

>>823339
>>823273
>>823188
get a room

>>823425
there is no need for "anti-civilization" to support "unpleasant freaks" or vice-versa. is it moralfagging to say that coca cola is both disgusting and unhealthy?

if identity descriptors can be normatively loaded, and who is or is not anti-civilization can be normatively loaded, then it follows that far from being "completely different things" as you said previously, my earlier point that morality is just an arbitrary personal trait which we can draw correlations from - like scottishness - holds.

otherwise and elsewhere: you are attempting a sleight of hand where the analyst being non-neutral means their analysis must be non-neutral, and thus normative, and thus moralising. you will have to get out of bed much earlier in the morning to fool anyone with a trick like that.

>>823427
i sleep in a racing car, do you?

>>823448
your framing does not have to remain neutral for your analysis to remain neutral. "Coca cola sells well due to skillful marketing achieving the miracle of making a product which is considered genial to all identity groups rather than exclusive to some" does not become a moral judgement just because you append "despite being revolting piss made with the blood of latin american sugar growers"

my analysis is not circular because, if you actually remembered it, you'd see that there are various other factors. it would be nonsense to say that being conservative is simply correlated with being conservative, but we can draw together various other traits (most obviously age and education, and the framing device of voting/policy preferences) to get the full picture.

but you've no real argument against the core of my analysis, so you throw out the slur of "moralising" and expect anons to clap like seals.
well, nobody clapped.

>>823437
>there is no need for "anti-civilization" to support "unpleasant freaks" or vice-versa.
Nobody said is there was a “need.” I said IF it supports the “anti-civilization” label, then the label is being used normatively
>is it moralfagging to say that coca cola is both disgusting and unhealthy?
This has been answered to you twice now. You are being tautological.
>if identity descriptors can be normatively loaded, and who is or is not anti-civilization can be normatively loaded, then it follows that far from being "completely different things" as you said previously, my earlier point that morality is just an arbitrary personal trait which we can draw correlations from - like scottishness - holds.
That only shows they share one property, not that they’re the same kind of thing. You can operationalize “anti-civilization” descriptively and then correlate it. But that only shows moral commitments can be treated as traits for statistical purposes; it doesn’t show they are arbitrary. If instead you treat “anti-civilization” as a normative verdict, which is what you did, then using it as a variable risks circularity: you’re correlating your evaluation with itself.
>otherwise and elsewhere: you are attempting a sleight of hand where the analyst being non-neutral means their analysis must be non-neutral, and thus normative, and thus moralising.
I never said an analyst’s non-neutrality makes the analysis normative. You can be a non-neutral analyst and still produce a neutral analysis, so long as your framing remains neutral. You didn’t do that.

>>823450
You’re still dodging. Your Coke example proves my point: an appended insult doesn’t make a neutral analysis normative. But if “anti-civilization” or “unpleasant freaks” is doing analytical work then it’s not an appendage. So which is it? If it’s just an appendage then you can get rid of it without it affecting your analysis. If you can’t do that, it’s normative.
Your own “analysis” refutes you. “Unpleasant,” “anti-civilization,” “awful,” and “worst people” are not neutral descriptors. You can’t read “awful” off voting data the way you can read “Scottish.” Your analysis is contingent on measuring normative traits.

why is there so much pedantic arguing in a celebratory meme thread

if you ain't merc4kirk wyd