NOTintoxicated

Member
  • Content count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NOTintoxicated

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Las Vegas
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

511 profile views
  1. @Milos Uzelac Holy shit. My dude, who hurt you? Do you always feel emasculated by confident, intelligent men to the point where you'll sheepishly buy in to the most flimsily conjured hit piece towards such a person? This book came out this year, and lists 27 year old Vaush as 25, as per the images you've posted. I see accusations of Vaush being a pedophile because he made the argument that there are forms of exploitation akin to the production of child pornography that aren't being discussed. (You'd have to be really desperate to actually believe he is defending child porn). And the narratives you posted show this book making the case that a communist should not support the democrat party over the republican party, as if there were any other viable alternatives. Just embarrassing stuff here. I imagine someone like yourself would be thoroughly devastated by the pending epiphany of how vastly inept you're demonstrating yourself to be if it ever somehow occurred to you. Vaush has been living in Caleb Maupin's head rent free for over a year since he got outright embarrassed in a debate so brutally that he's resorted to publishing obvious revenge pieces via this factually flawed pathetic excuse for a book, that will only be read by insecure woke-scolds, or posturing tankies who were bullied all throughout middle & high school and perceive confident, witty men as a mortal enemy. I'm actually struggling to comprehend how someone who cares about "self-actualization" or whatever could be so utterly devoid of any semblance of introspection to the point where they would post this thread. Any inbred, slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging, preadolescent, head injured, lobotomy recovering, mental patient should know better.
  2. Haha when did I argue? I was half joking, my dude. I'll be patient with your undiscerning interpretation here, since I'd imagine it's difficult to conjure an unbiased response with the taste of Leo's ejaculate engrained into memory as thoroughly as it must be for someone who would respond this way. 🤔🤔 Again, it was a facetious quip attempt rather than a sincere wish of mine. Haha if I ever become this blindly deferential to some internet guru I think it'd be about time to Mahasamadhi myself. 👍👍👍👍
  3. This forum is imaginary. Why are you wasting your time? Obviously this is a frustratingly unsubstantiated response, but I suppose that's what you're going for. I hope the next time you try picking some enlightened guru's brain or whatever that they just brush off your sincere inquiries with nauseatingly dismissive non-responses that serve no purpose other than gratifying their own egoic perception of superior understanding. 👌👌
  4. Why does the "x is imaginary" distinction have meaningful implications? If everything in life were made out of let's say, legos, but so tiny you can't really discern this truth and everything looks normal, why do we need to even focus on this fact? If my entire life is derived from a metaphysical form of imagination there needs to be further specifics in order for it to have meaningful implications. When you say imaginary, are you saying it's not real? Well even that statements needs further specifics in order for it to actually matter. When you say "x is not real", what exactly is it that x lacks? If you say other people are imaginary, or unreal, but you also say consciousness will eventually experience the life of all other people, what is the point of calling it unreal or imaginary? @WaveInTheOcean Deserves more attention. Fascinating.
  5. While I appreciate the input, I'm mainly just looking for ways that taking medicine will affect a water fast. I don't have OCD, seems a bit odd and condescending that you would so confidently ascribe these symptoms to a mental disorder.
  6. I have this weird disease where after eating I must brush me teeth, gums, tongue and cheeks for over an hour if I want to be pain free. It wasn't always this bad but recently I've been having to thoroughly cleanse out my entire mouth for more time than I can manage. When I go to the dentist they say they aren't familiar with my affliction and they say I should see a doctor. When I see a doctor, they also say they've never heard of my issue and suggest I see a dentist. Obviously there is no viable solution in the professional medical industry that will help me. So I've decided to try an extended water-fast. I recently just broke a 4 day water fast that didn't really help my issue too much, and surprisingly there is a specific part of my gums that is very sensitive at the moment. More than ever before despite the fast, that did improve every other part of my mouth. I feel like I should be on antibiotics or something but I'm wondering if it's okay to take medication while fasting. I want to commit to a 40 day water fast to help myself, and if that doesn't work I'll undoubtedly be fucked and likely dead within a few years. I have heard it's best to fast without taking medicine because the point is to rest the metabolism or whatever. Despite my research I can't really find too much to point me in the right direction regarding what my approach should be to adhere to a viable water-fast regimen specifically regarding if I should be taking medicine or supplements or whatever. I would appreciate any help. I guess it'd be nice to not die or whatever, idk, maybe I shouldn't care, but I am humanly programmed to pursue whatever aids my survival so I suppose that's what I'll do. ___________________________________ Should I fast with supplements and take antibiotics? How will the healing benefits of the fast be compromised if I take additional medications? Thanks.
  7. Wow a true genius speaks. Is an actual response to this even warranted?
  8. I'm definitely not going to deny the existence of that mentality. It's a real thing. The question is, where does that mentality arise from? If you're talking to a race-realist, they will say it comes from black people's genetics. On the other hand, if you're talking to someone who never rode the short bus to school, they will say it comes from the environment. Ultimately, this social mentality is derived from a socio-economic setting. Hence the prefix "socio". These social factors obviously play a role in the criminality rate among black people, but if we're being strict with our definitions, the idea that black crime is explained outside of socio-economics implicitly suggests a genetic component to the issue. I'm fairly certain you're not a race-realist, so I can only conclude that you aren't fully appreciating just how broad the term "socio-economics" is meant to be, and how wide of a terrain this term covers. Having watched all of the videos you provided, I will say there is a rather simple explanation for why "black-on-black crime" is not addressed with the urgency you may expect it should warrant. The truth is, broader aspects of BLM are already addressing this issue, just not in ways that overtly portray black people as directly culpable, like what you'll find on Fox News. It should surprise no one that most controversial clips you shared are the Fox News ones. During the following clip you provided, the police officer says that 75% of problems in the black community are self-inflicted (and the other 25% are because of democrats). With a straight face, my dude literally says that father-absent homes, school failure and unemployment are self-inflicted wounds in the black community, obviously ignoring the fact that absent black father statistics are greatly compounded by systemic factors such as over-policed black neighborhoods along with the tendency for black criminals to be subjected to larger sentences. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf Extensive multivariate regression analysis indicates black male offenders receive 19.1% longer federal sentences than similarly-situated white male offenders (white male offenders with similar past offenses, socioeconomic background, etc.) It should be obvious that unemployment and school failure are systemically influenced, do I even need to provide stats to demonstrate that? On Fox News, the narrative is that black people have nothing to complain about, because all problems for POC are they're own fault. They do not acknowledge environmental factors, and implicitly suggest it is because POC are genetically inferior. This is indirectly what the police officer is saying, make no mistake. Even though he is black, he is participating in institutionalized racism by reciting this propaganda. Do you really think your typical retirement-home dwelling, diaper wearing Fox News viewer is interpreting that message in a way that properly acknowledges the disadvantages of being born black? Of course not, they just see this, and think to themselves "black people need to pull up their pants and stop being thugs", as if was ever that simple. Even my own mom, despite being black, will say that socio-economics do not play a role in the negative attitudes black people are predisposed to. This is because she is not very intelligent, IS undeniably racist against our own people, and simply believes every word Fox News says because it appeals to an uninformed fear-based mentality. For this reason, it is hard to directly address "black-on-black violence" without the narrative being conflated with a right-wing racist agenda. Sure, but do you really think that constantly spouting off stereotypes on TV about black crime is actually going to solve anything other than rile up racist conservatives? This issue needs to be addressed by lessening the gap between the middle and lower class. Poverty universally begets crime along with these negative attitudes, and the more people who grow up impoverished, the more people will adopt these harmful lifestyles. This will always black people the worst.
  9. @Lyubov Is anyone here actually against the usage of these toys? I'm not. People are just knocking the idea that it would be helpful for spiritual growth or whatever. There are comedic facets to this that I don't think you can deny.
  10. The thread title made me laugh. Next thread: Fuck My Big Black Ass Mega Masturbator toy for spiritual enlightenment? You can buy one on Amazon, and Leo says you can't know something prior to personal experience, so lemme know if you find god after you defile one of these.
  11. I was trying to stay out of the politics section to avoid the inevitable headaches I succumb to after dealing with slack-jawed race realists, but then I saw this notification lol. It's not as if I have a particularly hot take on this matter. As I see it, the term "black-on-black violence" tends to be a depricatory cliche that right-wingers defer to in order to evoke derision towards broader leftist advocacy efforts, such as BLM. "Why do black people scrutinize police when black-on-black violence poses a greater threat to them?" and likewise drivel. This argument is of course missing the forest for the trees, because it is obvious that black people are systemically predisposed towards violence on the basis of class inequality, which universally begets criminality and violence regardless of race. When you ask whether socio-economics are the sole cause of black-on-black crime, the answer will always be yes, because the term 'socio-economic' is incredibly broad and covers almost all facets of societal causality, not just wealth. If a black dad is incarcerated and is unable to fulfill their role as a father figure for their child, it increases the likelihood of that child adopting a criminal lifestyle, and this potential outcome is implicitly addressed with the term 'socio-economics'. Now if we're talking to literal race-realist @Epikur (evident by this galaxy-brained take shown here) , ... ...he will tell you that socio-economics are not the sole cause, because black people are genetically predisposed to crime, rather than environmentally predisposed. When the term "black-on-black violence" is happlessly spewed by fear-driven conservatives, like our friendly fascist @Epikur, it is extremely unlikely that a reactionary audience will interpret this with a mentality that precludes a race-realist explanation, so as a progressive I would avoid the term altogether. ???
  12. Was waiting for someone to pompously refer to this. As if I was ever trying to convince @Gesundheit, rather than demonstrate why his political approach is delusional for the rest of the community who aren't recovering from a frontal lobotomy or who's parents are not brother and sister.
  13. I never said that, but you took my words out of context and added a bunch of your biased thoughts to them. Oooof. ??? It's as if someone argued "Taxation is theft!" and was rebutted with "Apparently taxation is theft because you did not consent to contributing to the society that supports you" and the OP says "Hey, I never said that! You're adding conclusions that tautologically follow. That's not fair!" ? And yet here are, copium levels off the charts.
  14. Oooof. Swing and a miss. Maybe some other time you can redeem those good-boy tattletale points, but it won't be today. ? An ideological battle is essentially the whole point of this thread (and this entire sub-forum), and I would have preferred an ideological discussion, but our friend @Gesundheit insists on focusing on insubstantial matters pertaining to my personal character, despite my persistent attempts to refocus the conversation. By this logic I could claim that I'm not insulting you by saying you come off as an inbred, knuckle-dragging, pre-adolescent, slack-jawed, head injured mental patient. They're merely observations regarding your genuine likeness. This is obviously biased reasoning. The point is to discredit you by ascribing unflattering characteristics to your temperament. It's amazing how you've managed to convince yourself that calling me "triggered", "blind", "childish", "silly" and "closed-minded" doesn't fall under the category of personal attacks, whereas my comment "Where does Actualized find these people?" crosses the line. ? The worldview @Gesundheit is defending is one where the black people should not become advocates of black-rights because this evokes a victim mentality that counteracts all the benefits society gains from having awareness of these issues. For some reason, our young friend has convinced himself that his stated positions do not constitute a worldview but everyone else's do. I hope people can see the utility in pointing to his obviously deluded perspective on insubstantial matters as a means to further discredit his overall political approach.
  15. @Gesundheit Prepare to be disappointed I suppose. I would've rather had you address the substance of the discussion instead of alluding to my presumed lack of character which you have regrettably deferred to in spite of my overt attempt to refocus the conversation. A moderator will almost certainly lock this thread if I continue on this insubstantial tangent, but here we are. As much as I would have preferred an uncompromised discussion on this matter you cannot claim that I'm culpable for making that impossible. Let's have a quick review of what's been said to one another. I will highlight sections of our interaction with red text to parse out wording that can be interpreted as inflammatory. And then you said... Your regrettable positions prompted a relatively tame expression of disdain on my end compared to your pointed snubs of my alleged "silly", "triggered", "blind" and "closed-minded" temperament. I am genuinely confused how you've managed to convince yourself that I am the sole culprit in inciting antagonism when my first response was a direct critique of your stated positions along with a snide but tame reaction ("Where does Actualized fine these people?"), whereas your response does not expand upon, or even address the relevant subject matter, and merely declares that I am trigged, blind and such while engaging in a stronger degree of antagonism. As far as I'm concerned, your haphazard response warranted a full-on "gloves off" approach going forward. And with this statement I can officially dismiss you as a hysterical fanatic. This is a recurring theme I've noticed in my discourse with people. We are both defending a worldview towards one another, but because my rhetorical quirks are more provocative on account of my loftier command of the English language, predictably, I will be tactlessly deemed as the more abrasive party in spite of a comparatively proportionate degree of antagonism wielded by both parties. In what world do you genuinely find anything I've said to constitute "forcing opinions on you" as opposed to what you're doing? We are both defending a worldview if you haven't noticed... This is just outright silly. You seem to have an erroneous definition of the term "strawman". A strawman argument would be one where the debater argues against a position which their opposite does not hold. You've already confirmed that I have you position accurately pegged when you agreed with literal race-realist @Epikur as he cited a "racism of low expecations" Wikipedia entry. Your position is that black people should not become black advocates because it will reinforce a victim mentality. Are you STILL going to insist that I've misinterpreted your position despite quotes like ??? this? The reason I do not feel obliged to regard your sensitivities regarding my tonal approach is because you are making blatantly dishonest assessments of my character left and right. I am certainly not strawmanning you, neither is @Forestluv. Yes, I undeniably took a jab at you with the following final addition to my page and a half of substantive discussion. Willful ignorance can be quite hilarious, and I share in your delight, albeit at the expense of my brain cells, as I'm pretty sure @Gesundheit has given me brain-cancer. Perhaps all part of his plan. I suppose you can call this a personal attack, although this is easily the most combative bit of my very long comment. The fact that you consider this to be excessively antagonistic despite the following comments on your end STRONGLY indicates an incorrigible lack of self awareness on your part. You'll be hard-pressed to find anything I've said that proportionately rivals this obvious level of animosity. I don't know whether I've made a mistake in even responding at this point, it genuinely appears you're not playing with a full deck... You've single-handedly shifted the conversation away from the merited substance of the discussion in favor of this flimsy attack on my personal character, while demanding that I not shift the conversation to personal attacks. There's no way to accurately describe how undeniably vacuous this is without coming off harsh. I'm will not simply allow you to frame the pending dialogue under this blatantly dishonest assessment. I am perfectly willing to discuss the actual relevant subject matter, as I've undeniably demonstrated with my previous message, but you've demonstrated no willingness to do so yourself. I have done so repeatedly and consistently, and will continue to do so. There doesn't seem to be much I can do to have a serious discussion with somebody who unironically defers to "your truth" and "my truth" appeals, as if it constitutes a legitimate argument. Anybody can dismiss any incontestable reality on this basis. Now finally, after addressing this disingenuous framing of the discussion I will yet again attempt to refocus this conversation on the actual subject matter so that a moderator won't rightfully lock the fucking thread. ___________________________________________________________