NOTintoxicated

@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.

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. ????

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. ??

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.

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.

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.

Wow a true genius speaks. Is an actual response to this even warranted?

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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. ___________________________________________________________

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. 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.) 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? ?

Oooof.

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.

Did this man actually not catch the sarcasm? Oooof. r/wooosh I hope I'm being april fooled on by this thread.

You're making the "bigotry of low expectations" argument.... Of course I see you are addressing @Forestluv, this is hilarious. Forest points out ways black people can be empowered, you claim it's actually doing them a disservice, I call you out... Are you following? Wow, this is epic. Imagine my luck, to my surprise you've actually confirmed that you're making the "bigotry of low expectations argument", which was my entire grievance from the beginning, yet when I call out this foolish perspective, you deny it because you aren't properly recognizing the critique. Imagine committing to this sequence of discourse and having the gall to call me blind and closed-minded. ?

Wow, short memory.

Look who's calling who triggered. Notice that I never said you were opposed to progressivism, it is obvious from your comments that's not necessarily the case. That doesn't change the fact that you're espousing a right-wing argument that black people are being done a disservice by pointing out how POC are disadvantaged. The reason why you didn't clarify exactly where I misinterpreted you and instead sheepishly deferred to the easier approach of merely stating that I can't understand your argument is because you're fully aware that I haven't misinterpreted you in the slightest, and there are no words you could use to demonstrate where I was misguided. Go ahead and embarrass me by pointing out what I missed from your comment. I'd better not hold my breath, I'll certainly be waiting a while...

It's double trouble with today's internet intellectuals. Apparently acknowledging the ways that POC are disadvantaged is to enact racial injustice because people will understand how POC are disadvantaged. The victim mindset this evokes will inevitably counteract all the benefits of societal awareness of these issues. I can't even.. Where does Actualized find these people? The short bus must be one student short today. A discussion that took place a year ago disqualifies any further discussion on an ever-evolving social matter. It's as if Actualized hired a court jester for comic relief but got more than it bargained for.

This just in: Derek Chauvin lover declares the science is settled; black people are lower IQ because their genetics are inferior to whites. Genius.

Okay mister race realist. Got any more debunked pseudo science claiming that blacks are inherently lower IQ due to genetics?

You heard it here first folks. The attempt to liberate a marginalized group of people is the same type of contemptible racism that white supremacists are accused of. We're dealing with a true genius over here. Seriously though, how has this guy not been banned?

This is how a fascist operates. He makes an assertion of my inability to provide evidence while overlooking the mountain of evidence I posted, then when I proceed to cite more evidence, he just ignores it entirely and defers to the far less challenging task of assisting his fellow nazi with advice on how to avoid being spotted as a contemptible cretin.