Topic: Indians never owned American land
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #111,448
The same types of people saying we stole Indian land are the same ones that say land can't be owned. So which one is it, you fucking commies? It's preposterous to say that we ever stole from anyone, and honestly you could argue that the Indians stole the land from the animals that were previously there. That's what happens in the animal kingdom.
Just more woke nonsense bs.
Just more woke nonsense bs.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,238,078
oh ok
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,083
They indeed did have land they controlled, very similar concept to owning. We also committed genocide on them, so yeah, there's that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,085
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,087
@previous (A)
> But I thought liberals didn't believe in land ownership?
Then congratulations on identifying where you went wrong.
> But I thought liberals didn't believe in land ownership?
Then congratulations on identifying where you went wrong.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,088
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,091
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,092
@1,238,088 (A)
It was probably when you hung out with all those fags and nerds at the special needs Academy.in your preteen years.
It was probably when you hung out with all those fags and nerds at the special needs Academy.in your preteen years.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,097
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,123
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,183
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,206
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 44 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,211
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,213
@1,238,088 (A)
> Can you explain, perchance, quite where I went wrong?
Sure. Here:
@1,238,085 (A)
> I thought liberals didn't believe in land ownership?
> Can you explain, perchance, quite where I went wrong?
Sure. Here:
@1,238,085 (A)
> I thought liberals didn't believe in land ownership?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 51 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,217
@previous (D)
Leftists are always saying that land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought or sold. They don't believe in ownership of anything; that's why San Francisco liberals created apps like Uber and DoorDash and why the majority of millennials are renters. They want you to own nothing.
Leftists are always saying that land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought or sold. They don't believe in ownership of anything; that's why San Francisco liberals created apps like Uber and DoorDash and why the majority of millennials are renters. They want you to own nothing.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,218
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,219
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 13 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,220
@1,238,217 (A)
Maybe some extreme-left Communists feel that way, but the average leftist believes in the ownership or property.
Maybe some extreme-left Communists feel that way, but the average leftist believes in the ownership or property.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,223
@1,238,219 (A)
I think there's an important distinction to make between personal and private property.
I think there's an important distinction to make between personal and private property.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,225
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 27 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,226
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 51 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,227
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,236
@previous (G)
No no it was a odd comment, and this is an odd comment as well
No no it was a odd comment, and this is an odd comment as well
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,238
@1,238,218 (D)
> > They don't believe in ownership of anything
>
> Citation needed.
The communist manifesto?
Lefties believe in collective ownership, not personal / private ownership.
> > They don't believe in ownership of anything
>
> Citation needed.
The communist manifesto?
Lefties believe in collective ownership, not personal / private ownership.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,239
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,240
@1,238,238 (I)
and that's where the violence and slavery comes in, because not everyone wants to be in the same collective or in a collective at all, but "the collective" has decided it owns everything and everyone
and that's where the violence and slavery comes in, because not everyone wants to be in the same collective or in a collective at all, but "the collective" has decided it owns everything and everyone
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,241
unless you and i are both subscribed to a sophisticated social construct on top of reality, if i pick up a rock and don't set it down... it's my rock. everything else is in your head, nerds
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,245
@1,238,239 (C)
> You think everyone who is politically left is a Communist?
No, of course not. But communism is the great granddaddy of left wing ideology.
(in b4 some sort of no true Scotsman argument)
> You think everyone who is politically left is a Communist?
No, of course not. But communism is the great granddaddy of left wing ideology.
(in b4 some sort of no true Scotsman argument)
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 14 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,246
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,255
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,261
@1,238,238 (I)
They want to abolish private, but not personal, property. Marxist theory makes the distinction, and it's an important one.
They want to abolish private, but not personal, property. Marxist theory makes the distinction, and it's an important one.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,263
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 5 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,264
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,265
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,267
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,270
@1,238,263 (C)
Private property refers to productive, capital assets: farmland, mines, factories, etc. - producing value by the exploitation of others' labour.
Personal property is your non-capital goods and items (your umbrella, your car, your hat, even your home).
Private property refers to productive, capital assets: farmland, mines, factories, etc. - producing value by the exploitation of others' labour.
Personal property is your non-capital goods and items (your umbrella, your car, your hat, even your home).
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 2 years ago, 18 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,271
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 30 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,272
@1,238,264 (G)
Were you legitimately under the impression Marx was calling for the abolition of personal belongings? That's funny.
I'm no Marxist but, no, he didn't want to take your toothbrush. The explicit distinction came after the writings of Marx and Engels, sure, but there is no way to read Marx and think he opposed the very idea of "people owning things".
Were you legitimately under the impression Marx was calling for the abolition of personal belongings? That's funny.
I'm no Marxist but, no, he didn't want to take your toothbrush. The explicit distinction came after the writings of Marx and Engels, sure, but there is no way to read Marx and think he opposed the very idea of "people owning things".
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,282
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Yeah, except he literally said just that in Kommunistisches Manifest. No idea what type of fuckin shit blog, youtube video, or whatever the hell it is you're getting your info from, but you can read him saying exactly what you're saying he didn't in what he actually wrote.
Yeah, except he literally said just that in Kommunistisches Manifest. No idea what type of fuckin shit blog, youtube video, or whatever the hell it is you're getting your info from, but you can read him saying exactly what you're saying he didn't in what he actually wrote.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 53 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,283
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,284
@1,238,272 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
As long as those things don't produce other things out of input materials
As long as those things don't produce other things out of input materials
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 30 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,285
@1,238,282 (G)
> Yeah, except he literally said just that in Kommunistisches Manifest.
No, he did not.
"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths."
Do you think, here, that Marx thought 9/10ths of people were without personal belongings? lmfao
> Yeah, except he literally said just that in Kommunistisches Manifest.
No, he did not.
"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths."
Do you think, here, that Marx thought 9/10ths of people were without personal belongings? lmfao
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,286
@1,238,283 (C)
If you're asking if his arguments can be reduced to absurdity, then, yes, yes they can. How he managed to reconcile this all is a mystery and you would've had to have asked him. But he says loud in clear in the manifesto that he believes all property should be abolished. Don't shoot the messenger.
If you're asking if his arguments can be reduced to absurdity, then, yes, yes they can. How he managed to reconcile this all is a mystery and you would've had to have asked him. But he says loud in clear in the manifesto that he believes all property should be abolished. Don't shoot the messenger.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 31 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,287
@1,238,285 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
In any case, what use is a free toothbrush if you're dead because you didn't want to give the state your last cow 🐄
In any case, what use is a free toothbrush if you're dead because you didn't want to give the state your last cow 🐄
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,288
@1,238,286 (G)
I am pretty sure he did not say that personal affects like toothbrushes should be abolished.
I am pretty sure he did not say that personal affects like toothbrushes should be abolished.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 29 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,289
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 14 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,290
@1,238,288 (C)
"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."
Apparently Marx thought toothbrushes had class character. :o
"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."
Apparently Marx thought toothbrushes had class character. :o
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 13 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,291
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,293
@previous (G)
At no point did Marx or Engels suggest people ought not have personal belongings. If you got that from their writings, even suggesting you reread them would probably be a waste of time.
At no point did Marx or Engels suggest people ought not have personal belongings. If you got that from their writings, even suggesting you reread them would probably be a waste of time.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,295
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
But when you take your personal property and transform it (using your labor) into something that produces a useful product, that specific case should give the state license to seize the property? Are you saying Marx was right... or just that we should understand what he wrote?
But when you take your personal property and transform it (using your labor) into something that produces a useful product, that specific case should give the state license to seize the property? Are you saying Marx was right... or just that we should understand what he wrote?
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,296
@1,238,293 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
If I melt down my toothbrushes and razor blades for materials to build a 3D printer, would Marx suggest that property should go back to the state once it is capable of producing something?
If I melt down my toothbrushes and razor blades for materials to build a 3D printer, would Marx suggest that property should go back to the state once it is capable of producing something?
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,298
@previous (J)
If you equip your toothbrush with advanced, strong AI, such that it's capable of productive work, does it become a labourer? How can we hence define its relationship to capital? These are all important questions that I think only a reanimated Marx could answer.
If you equip your toothbrush with advanced, strong AI, such that it's capable of productive work, does it become a labourer? How can we hence define its relationship to capital? These are all important questions that I think only a reanimated Marx could answer.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,302
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
You can just answer the question, based upon your knowledge of Marxist writing. It's an afternoon project to build a 3D printer. Let's start there instead of speculating about toothbrush chimera/golems
You can just answer the question, based upon your knowledge of Marxist writing. It's an afternoon project to build a 3D printer. Let's start there instead of speculating about toothbrush chimera/golems
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,306
@previous (J)
No, it wouldn't be seized. It's for your personal use and isn't being used to exploit the labour of others. If you were at the helm of a company with your 3D printer, decided to hire workers, and kept the lion's share of the profit, then yes, Marx would be arg.
Happy to answer any other Marx-related questions you may have regarding toothbrushes, 3D printers, etc.
No, it wouldn't be seized. It's for your personal use and isn't being used to exploit the labour of others. If you were at the helm of a company with your 3D printer, decided to hire workers, and kept the lion's share of the profit, then yes, Marx would be arg.
Happy to answer any other Marx-related questions you may have regarding toothbrushes, 3D printers, etc.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,308
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Thank you for answering. So, if I scrape together all my toothbrush rations and build, say, 48 3D Printers and form my own profit sharing co-op to operate my excess printers... you think Marx would be cool with that?
Thank you for answering. So, if I scrape together all my toothbrush rations and build, say, 48 3D Printers and form my own profit sharing co-op to operate my excess printers... you think Marx would be cool with that?
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,312
@previous (J)
I think Marx would be down with a profit-sharing cooperative, yes. Workers reaping the benefits of their labour was Marx's jam. Although his vision was the management of the entire economy by workers, not individual operations. But I'm sure he would approve, once you explained what a 3D printer was.
I think Marx would be down with a profit-sharing cooperative, yes. Workers reaping the benefits of their labour was Marx's jam. Although his vision was the management of the entire economy by workers, not individual operations. But I'm sure he would approve, once you explained what a 3D printer was.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,316
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
If he had known about 3D printers maybe he'd have figured out a way to make his vision into reality without a violent revolution and 100 year transitionary period
If he had known about 3D printers maybe he'd have figured out a way to make his vision into reality without a violent revolution and 100 year transitionary period
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,320
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 46 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,321
Anonymous G triple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,322
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,331
@1,238,320 (G)
No. I'm happy to have taught you about Marxism today, and remember I'm always here for your future questions! :)
@1,238,321 (G)
ein bißchen!
No. I'm happy to have taught you about Marxism today, and remember I'm always here for your future questions! :)
@1,238,321 (G)
ein bißchen!
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,333
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,334
@1,238,083 (C)
Multiple nomadic tribes would travel through the same area, neither one had exclusive ownership and the paths either took could change suddenly.
Multiple nomadic tribes would travel through the same area, neither one had exclusive ownership and the paths either took could change suddenly.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,336
@1,238,331 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> No. I'm happy to have taught you about Marxism today, and remember I'm always here for your future questions! :)
You've done no such thing.
> ein bißchen!
Gut. Was bedeutet das Folgende für Sie?
> Mit einem Wort, die Kommunisten unterstützen überall jede revolutionäre Bewegung gegen die bestehenden gesellschaftlichen und politischen Zustände.
> In allen diesen Bewegungen heben sie die Eigenthumsfrage, welche mehr oder minder entwickelte Form sie auch angenommen haben möge, als die Grundfrage der Bewegung hervor.
> No. I'm happy to have taught you about Marxism today, and remember I'm always here for your future questions! :)
You've done no such thing.
> ein bißchen!
Gut. Was bedeutet das Folgende für Sie?
> Mit einem Wort, die Kommunisten unterstützen überall jede revolutionäre Bewegung gegen die bestehenden gesellschaftlichen und politischen Zustände.
> In allen diesen Bewegungen heben sie die Eigenthumsfrage, welche mehr oder minder entwickelte Form sie auch angenommen haben möge, als die Grundfrage der Bewegung hervor.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,341
@previous (G)
> Mit einem Wort, die Kommunisten unterstützen überall jede revolutionäre Bewegung gegen die bestehenden gesellschaftlichen und politischen Zustände.
Dieser Satz besagt, dass Kommunisten nach der marxistischen Ideologie jede revolutionäre Bewegung unterstützen, die sich gegen die aktuellen sozialen und politischen Bedingungen richtet. Revolutionäre Bewegungen könnten beinhalten, aber nicht beschränkt auf, Arbeiteraufstände, Proteste gegen ungleiche Vermögensverteilung oder politische Aufstände gegen autoritäre Regime, usw. etc. &c. whatever.
> In allen diesen Bewegungen heben sie die Eigenthumsfrage, welche mehr oder minder entwickelte Form sie auch angenommen haben möge, als die Grundfrage der Bewegung hervor.
Dieser Satz erklärt, dass Kommunisten in all diesen revolutionären Bewegungen die Frage des Eigentums hervorheben. Nach der marxistischen Theorie ist das Eigentum - insbesondere das Privateigentum an Produktionsmitteln - der zentrale Konfliktpunkt, der zu Klassenunterschieden und sozialer Ungleichheit führt. Unabhängig davon, wie diese Bewegungen genau aussehen, betrachten Kommunisten das Eigentum und seine Umverteilung als Kernproblem, das gelöst werden muss.
Privateigentum bezieht sich auf die Produktionsmittel, nicht auf persönliche Besitztümer. Your toothbrush is safe!
> Eigentumsfrage
I don't know where you copied this from, but it's Eigentumsfrage* (Eigentum, there is no "Eigenthum"). It's funny you didn't notice the misspelling of "property question", given the discussion.
Happy to help! Again, any further misunderstandings you have, hit me up, friendo. :)
> Mit einem Wort, die Kommunisten unterstützen überall jede revolutionäre Bewegung gegen die bestehenden gesellschaftlichen und politischen Zustände.
Dieser Satz besagt, dass Kommunisten nach der marxistischen Ideologie jede revolutionäre Bewegung unterstützen, die sich gegen die aktuellen sozialen und politischen Bedingungen richtet. Revolutionäre Bewegungen könnten beinhalten, aber nicht beschränkt auf, Arbeiteraufstände, Proteste gegen ungleiche Vermögensverteilung oder politische Aufstände gegen autoritäre Regime, usw. etc. &c. whatever.
> In allen diesen Bewegungen heben sie die Eigenthumsfrage, welche mehr oder minder entwickelte Form sie auch angenommen haben möge, als die Grundfrage der Bewegung hervor.
Dieser Satz erklärt, dass Kommunisten in all diesen revolutionären Bewegungen die Frage des Eigentums hervorheben. Nach der marxistischen Theorie ist das Eigentum - insbesondere das Privateigentum an Produktionsmitteln - der zentrale Konfliktpunkt, der zu Klassenunterschieden und sozialer Ungleichheit führt. Unabhängig davon, wie diese Bewegungen genau aussehen, betrachten Kommunisten das Eigentum und seine Umverteilung als Kernproblem, das gelöst werden muss.
Privateigentum bezieht sich auf die Produktionsmittel, nicht auf persönliche Besitztümer. Your toothbrush is safe!
> Eigentumsfrage
I don't know where you copied this from, but it's Eigentumsfrage* (Eigentum, there is no "Eigenthum"). It's funny you didn't notice the misspelling of "property question", given the discussion.
Happy to help! Again, any further misunderstandings you have, hit me up, friendo. :)
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,344
@1,238,334 (K)
> Multiple nomadic tribes would travel through the same area, neither one had exclusive ownership and the paths either took could change suddenly.
There were hunting areas that were exclusive to one tribe or confederacy.
> Multiple nomadic tribes would travel through the same area, neither one had exclusive ownership and the paths either took could change suddenly.
There were hunting areas that were exclusive to one tribe or confederacy.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,346
@1,238,261 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> They want to abolish private, but not personal, property. Marxist theory makes the distinction, and it's an important one.
In theory, yeah. In practice, in every single country it has been implemented (or at least attempted) not so much.
> They want to abolish private, but not personal, property. Marxist theory makes the distinction, and it's an important one.
In theory, yeah. In practice, in every single country it has been implemented (or at least attempted) not so much.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 28 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,347
Pretty good German!
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,348
@previous (C)
Thanks lol I re-read and fixed it a billion times. I can't have Anonymous G questioning me.
Thanks lol I re-read and fixed it a billion times. I can't have Anonymous G questioning me.
tteh !MemesToDNA double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,350
@1,238,346 (I)
That's fair, although you'd be hard pressed (I think?) to find any state that didn't honour the distinction to enough of a degree.
That's fair, although you'd be hard pressed (I think?) to find any state that didn't honour the distinction to enough of a degree.
tteh !faggot replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,351
@1,238,341 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Absolut falsch. Der Satz besagt, dass nach der marxistischen Ideologie, oder sollte ich sagen, nach der marxistischen Theologie, ALLE revolutionären Bewegungen gegen die gegenwärtigen EIGENTUMSBEDINGUNGEN sind. Mit Betonung auf Eigentum. Alles. Die anderen Punkte, die Sie aufgelistet haben, sind ein Mittel zum Zweck und nicht mehr. Verwechseln Sie ein Beispiel nicht mit einer Regel. Das ist der Grund, warum ich ernsthaft glaube, dass Sie Autismus haben. Sie haben wenig Fähigkeit, abstrakt zu denken oder soziale Hinweise zu lesen. Ich habe das nicht nur in diesem Thread beobachtet, sondern in vielen.
> Privateigentum bezieht sich auf die Produktionsmittel, nicht auf persönliche Besitztümer. Your toothbrush is safe!
Privateigentum bezieht sich auf... Privateigentum. Nicht irgendetwas, von dem du denkst, dass es bedeutet. Nicht alles, was Sie brauchen, um Ihr wahnsinniges Argument zu stützen.
> I don't know where you copied this from, but it's Eigentumsfrage* (Eigentum, there is no "Eigenthum"). It's funny you didn't notice the misspelling of "property question", given the discussion.
Your limited grasp of German is showing. It's a verbatim quote from the original text. Go back to German 101 and don't try to correct native speakers like Marx and I.
Absolut falsch. Der Satz besagt, dass nach der marxistischen Ideologie, oder sollte ich sagen, nach der marxistischen Theologie, ALLE revolutionären Bewegungen gegen die gegenwärtigen EIGENTUMSBEDINGUNGEN sind. Mit Betonung auf Eigentum. Alles. Die anderen Punkte, die Sie aufgelistet haben, sind ein Mittel zum Zweck und nicht mehr. Verwechseln Sie ein Beispiel nicht mit einer Regel. Das ist der Grund, warum ich ernsthaft glaube, dass Sie Autismus haben. Sie haben wenig Fähigkeit, abstrakt zu denken oder soziale Hinweise zu lesen. Ich habe das nicht nur in diesem Thread beobachtet, sondern in vielen.
> Privateigentum bezieht sich auf die Produktionsmittel, nicht auf persönliche Besitztümer. Your toothbrush is safe!
Privateigentum bezieht sich auf... Privateigentum. Nicht irgendetwas, von dem du denkst, dass es bedeutet. Nicht alles, was Sie brauchen, um Ihr wahnsinniges Argument zu stützen.
> I don't know where you copied this from, but it's Eigentumsfrage* (Eigentum, there is no "Eigenthum"). It's funny you didn't notice the misspelling of "property question", given the discussion.
Your limited grasp of German is showing. It's a verbatim quote from the original text. Go back to German 101 and don't try to correct native speakers like Marx and I.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,353
@1,238,350 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Also I see (viz the above prattle about toothbrushes) some confusion has crept into this argument - when I'm talking about property, I mean specifically property assets, i.e. things that have value to a certain degree of significance, like land, buildings, farms, and other types of development.
Of course toothbrushes, dildos and other personal belongings do not fall into this category.
Oh, I see now you said that already.
Also I see (viz the above prattle about toothbrushes) some confusion has crept into this argument - when I'm talking about property, I mean specifically property assets, i.e. things that have value to a certain degree of significance, like land, buildings, farms, and other types of development.
Of course toothbrushes, dildos and other personal belongings do not fall into this category.
Oh, I see now you said that already.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,354
@previous (I)
You're talking to someone who doesn't know his head from his ass. So, no, don't expect him to know the difference in value of his dildo to a gold bullion.
You're talking to someone who doesn't know his head from his ass. So, no, don't expect him to know the difference in value of his dildo to a gold bullion.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,356
@previous (G)
You think Marx wanted to abolish personal belongings. You are a moræ.
@1,238,351 (tteh !faggot)
> Your limited grasp of German is showi
Probably! If it's an archaic rendering of the word I'm unfamiliar. Thanks.
You think Marx wanted to abolish personal belongings. You are a moræ.
@1,238,351 (tteh !faggot)
> Your limited grasp of German is showi
Probably! If it's an archaic rendering of the word I'm unfamiliar. Thanks.
(Edited 16 minutes later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,389
@1,238,085 (A)
Liberals believe in private property, they think deeds justify the violent theft of the working class through rents and other forms of exploitation.
Liberals believe in private property, they think deeds justify the violent theft of the working class through rents and other forms of exploitation.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,401
@1,238,356 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Sie haben also kein Gegenargument und müssen zu persönlichen Angriffen greifen. Vielen Dank, dass Sie Ihr Argument eingeräumt haben. Es war verdammt mental.
Sie haben also kein Gegenargument und müssen zu persönlichen Angriffen greifen. Vielen Dank, dass Sie Ihr Argument eingeräumt haben. Es war verdammt mental.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,403
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,408
@1,238,389 (L)
You will never live in a Marxist utopia. You will never get the chance to suffer for untold years during the transition period. You will never rid the world of capitalism
You will never live in a Marxist utopia. You will never get the chance to suffer for untold years during the transition period. You will never rid the world of capitalism
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,438
@previous (J)
And you will never get to experience a truly free market, nor live in an authentic feudal society.
And you will never get to experience a truly free market, nor live in an authentic feudal society.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,451
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,452
@previous (J)
And clarifying the definition of what a liberal is does not mean I've based my whole identity around being a Marxist.
And clarifying the definition of what a liberal is does not mean I've based my whole identity around being a Marxist.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,454
@previous (L)
> And clarifying the definition of what a liberal is does not mean I've based my whole identity around being a Marxist.
Go read your own post.
> And clarifying the definition of what a liberal is does not mean I've based my whole identity around being a Marxist.
Go read your own post.
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,456
@previous (J)
Cool, I clarified that liberals do believe in private property, even using violence to enforce it.
Doesn't mean I joined the local communist party, sis.
Cool, I clarified that liberals do believe in private property, even using violence to enforce it.
Doesn't mean I joined the local communist party, sis.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,458
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,465
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,468
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,470
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,472
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,475
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,482
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,487
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,488
@1,238,482 (L)
> Do❌ing people is against the rules.
nobody posted any dox, but you're going around telling people to commit suicide
> Do❌ing people is against the rules.
nobody posted any dox, but you're going around telling people to commit suicide
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,490
@1,238,487 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Talking about the comings and goings of a poster's family member is doing. Don't be dense.
Talking about the comings and goings of a poster's family member is doing. Don't be dense.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,491
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,492
Wrong cite
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,493
@1,238,488 (J)
Where in the rules does it allow you to track someone's family, and share what town they are in?
Where in the rules does it allow you to track someone's family, and share what town they are in?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,494
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,495
@1,238,493 (L)
> Where in the rules does it allow you to track someone's family, and share what town they are in?
Go read the rules again until you understand
> Where in the rules does it allow you to track someone's family, and share what town they are in?
Go read the rules again until you understand
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 44 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,496
Wrong cite
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,498
@1,238,495 (J)
You need to read the rules. Doxing a family member, and sharing their location, is not OK.
You need to read the rules. Doxing a family member, and sharing their location, is not OK.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,500
100 get
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,502
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,503
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,505
Anonymous L double-posted this 2 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,506
Anonymous L triple-posted this 2 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,507
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,509
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,512
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,514
@1,238,509 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Sharing someone's location isn't acceptable, even if you leave off their name.
You made it clear who you were talking about, and if this guy is involved in gang life, it could be dangerous to broadcast when he visits specific areas.
Sharing someone's location isn't acceptable, even if you leave off their name.
You made it clear who you were talking about, and if this guy is involved in gang life, it could be dangerous to broadcast when he visits specific areas.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,518
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,520
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,521
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,522
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,525
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 6 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,526
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,527
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,529
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,532
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,534
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It is when you say it's the town his brother lives in.
Some us know which town that is, so you are implicitly doxing.
It is when you say it's the town his brother lives in.
Some us know which town that is, so you are implicitly doxing.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,540
@previous (L)
Its not doxing if I say town and some people know which town it might be
Also if he's a gang member its the kkk
Its not doxing if I say town and some people know which town it might be
Also if he's a gang member its the kkk
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,567
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,569
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,570
@previous (L)
If he's not even there how could it possibly be dox? It wouldn't be anyway, but then it's doubly not dox
If he's not even there how could it possibly be dox? It wouldn't be anyway, but then it's doubly not dox
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,572
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,573
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,575
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,576
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,601
The Informer replied with this 2 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,619
@previous (L)
Luckily we've gotten clarification from the mods that this behaviour is not acceptable: http://minichan.net/topic/111479
Luckily we've gotten clarification from the mods that this behaviour is not acceptable: http://minichan.net/topic/111479
Anonymous L replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,627
@previous (The Informer)
Thanks for getting clarifying information.
Kook will keep this up, and put people at risk, if we passively let it happen.
Thanks for getting clarifying information.
Kook will keep this up, and put people at risk, if we passively let it happen.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,238,649
@previous (L)
Kook has always presumed she was Above the Law. The Mods actions have this far reinforced that delusion.
So much for fairness. Her and Syntax should yld get a room.
Kook has always presumed she was Above the Law. The Mods actions have this far reinforced that delusion.
So much for fairness. Her and Syntax should yld get a room.