• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NOTintoxicated

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Las Vegas
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

403 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Wow a true genius speaks. Is an actual response to this even warranted?
  4. 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. 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.
  5. @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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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. ???
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. @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. ___________________________________________________________
  12. I'm 14 and this is deep. My dude's so happy that somebody conjured this palpably insubstantial rebuttal in my direction. Take your wins where you can get 'em I suppose. ??? Sir, hold this: From hilarious to sad and back to hilarious again. ? I'd prefer that this thread stay on topic, and the most relevant subject matter at this point is our young friend @Gesundheit's irresponsible claim that black people cannot possibly perpetuate systemic racism towards other black people. He seems to think that systemic racism begins and ends at interpersonal discrimination and blatant usage of slurs. One of the examples I cited to rebut this idea is the existence of black police officers patrolling in over-policed black neighborhoods and thus participating in institutionalized racism. Black on black systemic racism can also persist when a black judge fails to sentence a black criminal to a proportionate punishment relative to their white counterparts. There are many studies that incontestably demonstrate that white criminals consistently receive lesser sentencing for committing similar crimes as people of color. 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.) When people are in positions of power, white or black, they tend to perceive people of color with a class-oriented negative bias. This classism will always disproportionately effect black people due to their perpetual state of socioeconomic hardship. Now apparently, our friend @Gesundheit thinks I'm merely an "ideologue" for being receptive to these nuanced truths. I'm curious what he believes his refusal to acknowledge these facts deems him to be. A non-ideologue? ?
  13. You can accuse everyone who sees through your flimsy arguments of strawmanning you, but it is blatantly obvious to any 3rd party observer that you should just accept the L here. Yet again you refuse to specify where I am misinterpreting you and just assert blindly that I am closed-minded and irrational. You are fully aware that any attempt on your end to specify my ignorance will be easily refutable, as I have already demonstrated, so all you can do is resort to juvenile name-calling while hypocritically insisting that I am immature for posing a rebuttal to your foolish perspective without regard for your overly sensitive feelings. The lack of self-awareness here might deserve some kind or trophy. The only person who has resorted to outright name-calling here is yourself, friend. The first post of yours I criticized was on the basis of you making the classic "bigotry of low expectations" argument, which countless academics have exposed as reactionary drivel. You comically went on to confirm that you were indeed making that argument when you thanked literal race-realist @Epikur for citing the "racism of low expectations" Wikipedia entry, so I can not have misinterpreted you since you accidentally validated my entire grievance from the beginning. I understand you are very defensive because it is never fun having your own ignorance exposed, but hopefully you'll come to realize this approach is not doing you any favors. That is not at all what I said. As I explained above, I'm talking about acknowledging barriers and disadvantages. Oooof. Do I even need to say anything? And now our eager, young protagonist has painted himself into a corner. The idea that black people can't possibly be racist to other black people is a hilarious over-simplification of systemic racism. I know you are not open to an honest examination of your views here, because you are being challenged by somebody who you've already written off as a "5 year old keyboard warrior", but I'll still take the time to expose this commitment to ignorance for the rest of the community who cares to give credence to a cogent, thorough assessment of crucial social issues, or more specifically, for those of us who aren't painfully consumed by confirmation bias. When people criticize systemic racism, we are not condemning society on the basis of "white people being racist to black people". That phenomenon, or its vice-versa scenario, is aptly described as "interpersonal racism". When we condemn "systemic racism" we are referring to systems of societal functionality that innately pose disadvantageous circumstances towards people of a certain race. For instance, a black man can participate in systemic racism against black people by serving as a police officer in an over-policed black community. Modern-day racism does not simply begin and end at the usage of slurs and interpersonal discrimination. Your example of citing Barack Obama as an inherently non-racist societal entity fails to take into account the systemic forces that are necessarily bound to disadvantage certain races. For instance, for Obama to avoid participating in systemic racism, the issue of disproportionately low funding for certain inner-city black schools would need to be specifically addressed under his direct leadership, rather than allowing perpetual social forces to inevitably beget the same outcomes. ??? Do I really need to explain the problem with this statement? ? Perhaps with this acknowledgement we can agree to leave the discourse on heavily academic subject matters to those of us with sufficient education to effectively tackle them. I'd advise you to settle down and just gracefully take the L. At this point, it is predictable that if you do muster a response it will not be a complete assessment of the entirety of my refutation, but you will instead select an insignificant portion of my rebuttal that you feel will allow for the easiest attempt at a counter-response, as you've most recently demonstrated. You and @Forestluv absolutely do not have the same position. Forest and I both believe it is necessary and beneficial to bolster the narrative of systemic racism by emphasizing the facets of American society that perpetuate racism. Your position is that black people are being done a disservice by focusing on these issues because the "victim complex" this evokes will counteract all of the benefits gained from society being aware of these problems and being equipped with effective rhetoric in combating these issues. Are you still going to deny that I have your position accurately pegged when your repitoire of arguments contains epic quotes like ??? this? There's nothing I can do to argue against someone who's this thoroughly committed to a feelings-based position. This is probably the most reasonable approach you could adopt at this point. Just gleefully dismiss any instance of Forest or myself taking the time to reveal your blindspots and go on about your day. 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.
  14. Did this man actually not catch the sarcasm? Oooof. r/wooosh I hope I'm being april fooled on by this thread.