Leo Gura

Administrator
  • Content count

    49,115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leo Gura

  1. This is just historically wrong. Left and right are terms which we got from the French Revolution. In the French Revolution the conservatives who supported the monarchy sat on the right side of the chamber. The liberals who wanted to end the monarchy and establish a democracy sat on the left. That's literally what those terms mean. In the past, conservatives used to defend monarchy and denounce democracy. And even today, conservatives are not as democratic as liberals. Why? Because the conservative mind favors hierarchy over egalitarianism. Conservatives think that egalitarianism is wrong because people are not equal by nature. The simple reason that conservatives lean toward Nazism is because they love hierarchy. They want a strongman to follow. That's why they love Trump! And why they hate weepy gay liberals and feminists. A conservative believes that if you have a soft, gay, feminine leader that your civilization will collapse.
  2. @OBEler Here you go: Question: "There are scientific studies which measure differences between the liberal and conservative mind and/or brain. Can you summarize some of those differences and tell me which type of mind/brain would find Nazism most appealing?" Claude 3: Looks like Claude 3 is superior to ChatGPT.
  3. I already explained this earlier in this thread. Soviet Russia was deeply under-developed and oppressed by the conservative Tsarist regime. Then their heads were filled with liberal, progressive ideas from Western Europe, including Marxism. Some of those early Soviet revolutionaries were truly leftist, liberal, and progressive. However, as the revolution raged on all the bleeding heart liberals were killed or kicked out from power, until Lenin and Stalin, both shameless and immoral egotists, grabbed power for themselves at the cost of everyone else. They created a twisted self-serving ideology which was progressive in its ideals, but actually right-wing authoritarian in its execution. Fidel Castro did the same thing. He spoke highly of democratic populist ideas, but in practice he ruled like a right-wing authoritarian. Fidel Castro personally oversaw drug smuggling operations to fuel his bank account, even though he denied all this publicly. Stalin was a bank-robber. Because Communist nations were so under-developed, even if the leaders professed liberal or progressive ideals, in practice they had to resort to criminal domination in order to hold power. This rendered their progressivism moot. Just window-dressing. Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro.... these people were incapable of being liberal or progressive regardless of what they said publicly. They said a bunch of liberal things publicly in order to gain and hold power because the mood of the people was to overthrow oppressive capitalist or monarchist regimes. Here's another claim for you: Monarchists were conservative. Before Fascism, there were monarchies. And the people who overthrew monarchs were liberals. The terms "left" and "right" come to us from the French Revolution. The right were the conservative monarchists while the left were the democratic liberals who cut off the heads of kings.
  4. Frankly I don't know if it's more truthful. Remember, AI's are still not as intelligent as me And you have to know how to ask it the right questions.
  5. @OBEler Ironically, ChatGPT is so woke it's too careful to give you a meaningful answer. There ARE clear correlations there which ChatGPT is too shy to connect the dots for you. I connected those dots for you in my 2 videos.
  6. Does OnlyFans have actual fucking, or just softcore nudity?
  7. @OBEler Ask ChatGPT for scientific studies on the difference between liberal and conservative brains, and then ask it to correlate which brain type would find Nazism/Fascism more appealing.
  8. I could say the same to you: Easy to say from your couch outside of Gaza.
  9. Conservative is a much broader notion than Fascism. Brains are wired to be more conservative or more liberal. This wiring then guides one's political inclinations. For example, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, and Quakers are very conservative, even though they don't fit into your narrow definitions of what a Western conservative is. Conservative minds have existed since the dawn of mankind, in every part of the world, in every era. This conservative attitude then manifests itself in a thousand ways depending on the specific circumstance of the era and part of the world. Nazis have conservative minds and brains. That's the fundamental insight that is being missed and that I am pointing to. You should watch my videos: Understanding The Conservative Mind Understanding The Liberal Mind I explained it all there.
  10. Fascism is fairly specific thing and has a pretty specific academic definition. Here's how Wikipedia defines Fascism: "Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum." Really, the two clear examples of Fascism are Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Beyond those two the notion starts to get stretched.
  11. Let's get a thread going that showcases the deep intelligence of survival in nature. This helps people see the intelligence and sneakiness of survival in the human realm. Try to post examples not merely of survival, but the intelligent, deceptive, and sneaky nature of survival.
  12. Fascism and nationalism are right-wing and conservative. So this statement contradicts itself and your own prior admission that Nazism is right-wing. Right-wing means conservative. Stop playing games. Nazism is also illiberal. Don't overlook that basic point.
  13. Ah, I see.... So maybe the title really means that Jews are committing genocide.
  14. I asked the Claude 3 Sonnet AI about this issue. Here's what it said: My Question: Claude 3 Response: But I guess Clause 3 is too woke.
  15. You don't need to waste money to talk to girls in London. Just go approach girls on the street corner.
  16. The issue is that Musk lets his whims dictate the moderation of Twitter when it would be far better to have a consistent set of guidelines which is applied impartially by an independent panel of experts or judges. Musk should take himself out of the loop, but he's too egotistical to do that. He likes being the king of Twitter. But that's not good for the platform.
  17. Yes, that can be allergies. Go see an eye doctor. They know this kind of stuff.
  18. Every community requires rules beyond what is strictly illegal. You cannot dine at a restuarant barefoot. For example: Kanye West was kicked off Twitter by Musk for posting a swastika. But swastikas are not illegal. Hence Musk is full of shit. What Musk should be saying is: "We will do the bare minimum of moderation that we can get away with. That will be Twitter's philosophy." That would be an acceptable and reasonable position for him to take. Musk is not framing his position properly, which leads to needless drama and outrage.
  19. Except no online platform can exist without moderation, including his own platform, so that is BS logic. It's like saying you want to run a government without laws because laws are repression. Okay, but that just means you don't understand what government is and you should not be running it. The problem is that Musk does moderation to suit his own agenda. YT has moderation and never in 10 years have I felt censored. Every community needs rules for people to follow as a precondition for being part of that community. Even criminal gangs have rules.