MAGA Perverts & Corruption Mega-Thread

[Thought Art]

US government now owns 50% of TikTok which is back online…?

[aurum]

More Pam Bondi devilry. She made millions off the Truth Social merger, I'd call that a strong conflict of interest for attorney general.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-ag-pick-pam-bondi-made-3-million/story?id=117784776

[gengar]

 

[gengar]

On 15-1-2025 at 1:30 PM, lostingenosmaze said:

Why he has to use a homophobic slur is immature to me, for a person who cries a waterfall about Trump and the like.

[Viking]

On 1/8/2025 at 0:42 AM, Leo Gura said:

Rename Greenland to Orangeland.

Anyone who cries free speech really just means: freedom for me to say retarded, delusional, criminal, and selfish things without consequence.

Saying "retarded" without consequence is the same free speech

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Viking said:

Saying "retarded" without consequence is the same free speech

The difference is I don't cry loudly when someone says I shouldn't use some offensive word. I understand why offensive words and ideas should be limited in public discourse, rather than acting like I am some noble freedom warrior who is being oppressed. 

Any mature person understands why slurs should be discouraged on social media. But perverts cannot comprehend such a thing.

Edited Tuesday at 09:58 PM by Leo Gura

[gengar]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The difference is I don't cry loudly when someone says I shouldn't use some offensive word. I understand why offensive words and ideas should be limited in public discourse, rather than acting like I am some noble freedom warrior who is being oppressed. 

Any mature person understands why slurs should be discouraged on social media. But perverts cannot comprehend such a thing.

You dont cry loudly but still do it apparently, and feed into toxic masculinity, calling your friends fa***** when they dont approach promiscuous women in Las Vegas. And share it as a 40 year old on your own forum as a good tip for young men when approaching. It's the mentality that fuels young men to vote for Trump. Why shouldn't I vote for Trump when doing so lessens feminist power and I can get laid more? Yet you cry a waterfall about Trump. Maybe you should delete that pickup rant video, you don't seem to live by it.

"If you want to destroy any nation without war, make adultery/fornication or nudity common in the young generation."

-Saladin

This level of truth perversion in the west is only possible in the lands of debauchery the West currently is, when people only care about getting laid and getting money and use the rape of truth as a means to those ends. But most of you Americans are too libcucked to ever see it. Any defense of a marital system is seen as uptight ridiculousness. In 30 years you will all realize I was right. You'll scream "muhh freedom" until freedom shows its true face, and still dont see it. I hate to say it, but Donald Trump is exactly what you deserve; a true reflection of the face of the American Spirit.

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, gengar said:

You dont cry loudly but still do it apparently, and feed into toxic masculinity, calling your friends fa***** when they dont approach promiscuous women in Las Vegas. And share it as a 40 year old on your own forum as a good tip for young men when approaching.

Don't even start.

It will take you a decade of work to comprehend the intelligence in things I say.

[gengar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't even start.

It will take you a decade of work to comprehend the intelligence in things I say.

In some spiritual and political things I believe you. When it comes to Murican debauchery, where your survival bias is heavily invested in, definately no. Imagine being a 40 year old and preaching slut chasing in Vegas. Deep inside you there's a Trump wanting to grab em by the pussy and you know it. The only difference between me and you is that I advocate for morals and politics against such debauchery, recognizing its destructive nature. You turn a blind eye to it, somehow imagining that your debauchery is different than Trumps behaviour. Its only in manner of magnitude. Its the eros drive unchecked.

And if we all misunderstand it anyway, thats even more of an argument to not share the fa***** calling tip.

You're not some wizard where it takes decades to understand you. Crazy for you to say to me with such arrogance. 

If we dont check the debauchery, every mans ego will fuel a Trump ruled land because our egos all want to be Trump deep inside, grabbing them by the pussy whenever we want. I recognize that such a force runs in my devilish ego, yet I guess it will take you another 3 decades to understand that.

"Decades to understand" is Leo's shadow, seeing himself as some kind of wizard decades ahead of the rest. Any deep criticism he waves away with it. Everyone is retarded except him; MAGA, The Left, you name it. Yet he doesn't even see that his juvenile pickup artistry is absolutely incompatible with all the wise words he likes to spout against the Devil. 

[Leo Gura]

@gengar Your moral grandstanding is cringe. Old's trick in the book of the mind's bullshit manuevers.

Edited Tuesday at 11:14 PM by Leo Gura

[gengar]

It's cringe, but the only way I can make my point, which is a moral point to explain the rise of MAGA immorality. The only way to speak up against you is in such a way, since you wave everything else away. And you're not really the one to call other people cringe, believe me.

[gengar]

Plus, you're doing a trick even older than moral grandstanding, namely distraction.

Notice that.

You're not even engaging with my argument whether debauchery has anything to do with MAGA morality or whether an ethics teacher like you (which you most def are) should engage and promote such explicit venturing. 

Stage blue had a marital system because of it's collective nature. Orange doesn't because of its individualist nature. Green will move back in to it. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:43 PM by gengar

[Letho]

@Leo Gura @gengar

Leo, I don’t think you fully understand how morality forms in the lived experience. If you did, it would show up as something effortless and natural, like when I instinctively slid my bag under the seat at the cafe so someone else could sit down. It wasn’t a calculation or a performance, it was just empathy in action.

But if I were to shout “MORAL GRANDSTANDING!” at myself every time I acted in alignment with my values, the question would become: what’s the alternative? Dismissing morality entirely, as though it’s just a trick of the mind, doesn’t make the deeper reality of it go away. Moral alignment comes from the heart as much as the mind, it’s not something to be swept under the rug with a clever phrase.

Leo, if morality is just a performance, as you seem to suggest, then where’s your better framework? If you’re advocating to ditch it, what’s your replacement? Your dismissal of it feels less like wisdom and more like avoidance, maybe even frustration at morality’s complexity. But it’s not something you can sidestep if your aim is to teach people how to live deeply and truthfully. Morality isn’t some abstract sky concept to dissect; it’s grounded in the very human experience of being in relationship, with ourselves, each other, and life itself.

Gengar, you’re onto something with the connection between morality and collective versus individual mindsets, but your approach could use refinement. Stage Blue’s marital systems worked because they served the collective structure of that time, just as Orange’s individualism reflects its values. Green will indeed reintegrate moral systems, but it will do so with a greater emphasis on inclusivity and shared empathy. That’s the direction we’re heading toward, but calling Leo out in a way that feels reactive only reinforces the very dynamic you’re criticizing.

The real challenge isn’t about proving who’s right here, it’s about seeing how morality works in practice. It’s not an abstraction or a debate, it’s lived. The question isn’t just, “What do I think is moral?” It’s, “How does my sense of morality feel in action? Does it create harmony, or does it cause division?”

Both of you would benefit from stepping back and asking yourselves: are you using these arguments to build bridges or just to protect your positions? Because at the end of the day, morality isn’t about posturing or intellectualizing, it’s about participating in life with a clear, open heart and a grounded mind. If either of you want to move forward in your understanding, start there.

But right now, you're both just wasting your time entrenching yourselves in views that should always be in revision for a deeper human experience in the self, and between one another; that's how progress happens. Through true connection. 

 

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Letho said:

@Leo Gura 

But if I were to shout “MORAL GRANDSTANDING!” at myself every time I acted in alignment with my values

That's not what I did.

Quote

Leo, if morality is just a performance, as you seem to suggest, then where’s your better framework? If you’re advocating to ditch it, what’s your replacement? Your dismissal of it...

That's not what happened here.

There was no serious moral matter here. Just ignorant bluster.

Morality does not have to be a performance. It can be substantive. But it is easily turned into a performance by people who don't know any better.

Edited Tuesday at 11:55 PM by Leo Gura

[Lyubov]

The J6 pardons is perhaps the most diabolical form of collective denial I’ve ever seen in my life. In any other scenario with politics and bias removed every single person would have seen than as a riot and Trump responsible. It takes a next level form of dishonesty and denial of truth to warp your mind to defend that. Since conservatives know it’s wrong to be dishonest openly they have to go through extreme forms of mental mutilation to hand wave that away. I think Trump denying the 2020 election and that riot were perhaps the two biggest issues I had with him but they were to be expected from such a deeply warped and dishonest person. I think that right there has perhaps done irreparable damage to the USA as a democracy, it won’t be for another generation until that is rewritten in history.  There will be millennial and gen z trumpers in denial till the day they die. Nothing will change these people’s minds except physical death. 

[Letho]

 

@Leo Gura Cheers for clarifying mate but I think part of the confusion here is that your stance on morality often comes across as dismissive, even when that’s not your intent; so there's a lot of room for growth, even if its simply in the gap between your own position and a persons appraisal of yours. When you respond to moral critiques by labeling them “ignorant bluster” or “grandstanding,” it gives the impression that you’re brushing off the deeper substance rather than engaging with it.

That’s why people are questioning your position, and I'm sure by now you see the temporal pattern to it? It's periodic man.

You say morality can be substantive and not performative, and I fully agree with that. But if that’s your view, it might help to engage with these moral questions at the level of their substance in your creative work. Not in passing, but dedicate deep videos to it, then in future you can just be like, "Well here's my video...", and then any claim of your dismissal won't even emerge in the future and your own habits therein, will just evaporate overtime naturally. Showing how they align or fail to align with deeper truths and how different levels align or misalign with the deeper truth of morality itself, well... its a pretty smart idea, just a thought.

People look to you for clarity, and when you respond like this, it leaves room for ambiguity. For example, if morality doesn’t have to be a performance, what makes one moral stance substantive and another performative? How does someone develop the discernment to tell the difference? These are the kinds of questions your audience wants answered, because I can imagine sometimes it feels for some that your responses are their own brand of granstanding, even though they may not be.

Morality is tricky because it forces us to confront our egos. It’s easy to accuse someone of “performing” morality, but even that accusation can itself be performative if it’s not grounded in a genuine effort to build understanding. The real challenge isn’t calling out others, it’s showing, by example, what it means to embody morality in a way that’s authentic, grounded, and not ego-driven. People aren't going to believe you if you just granstand the idea that this is what you do.

If your point is that morality gets distorted when people don’t understand themselves, then maybe the conversation should focus more on self-awareness, on teaching people how to recognize their ego’s tricks and the ways they unconsciously perform for validation, as opposed to unintentionally or not, trying to trigger the ego of another via the absolutism of the reactive statements you sometimes make. That’s where the real transformation happens.

So my question to you is this to take away from this... little instance... for deeper integrative contemplation later....  how do you propose we cultivate morality that’s truly substantive? How do we stay grounded in our values without falling into ego-driven performance? That’s the nuance people are looking for from you.

Peace brother.

[lostingenosmaze]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There was no serious moral matter here.

What isn't? Your use of a homophobic slur? You literally bent the knee to a user here who complained about you dropping the hard-R in a past video, you even considered removing that video because of it.

And IIRC in your Maturity episode when you refer one of the ways to being mature to woman, you say to "not verbally abuse", you didn't specify which slurs or verbally abusive words to respect women

But apparently verbally abusing gay people is okay

Edited yesterday at 12:17 AM by lostingenosmaze

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, lostingenosmaze said:

What isn't? Your use of a homophobic slur? You literally bent the knee to a user here who complained about you dropping the hard-R in a past video, you even considered removing that video because of it.

And IIRC in your Maturity episode when you refer one of the ways to being mature to woman, you say to "not verbally abuse", you didn't specify which slurs or verbally abusive words to respect women

But apparently verbally abusing gay people is okay

You misunderstand what I said, why I said it, and the very special context in which it was said.

I do not go around calling gay people slurs.

I shared an example of how masculine men behave in order to develop masculinity.

The entire point of two straight men jokingly calling each other faggot, in the context of approaching women, is to underscore the inapproriateness of being weak and feminine in that context.

I used this example precisely because today's men have lost the skill it takes to become a man. To even understand the importance of such a thing. The process of becoming a man is offensive.

There is nothing wrong with being gay if that is your thing, but there is a problem with straight men acting gay out of weakness. Such men do not deserve to reproduce. Which is why women will not sleep with them.

Whether any of this is offensive or not, this is the reality of how men are made. This reality is not understood in today's politically correctified liberal world, which hurts young men who are trying to figure out masculinity, and so end up turning to toxic rolemodels like Andrew Tate. Because at least he tells them the cold reality of what it takes to become powerful man, which a woke Marxist will never teach them.

I say the things I say for didactic purposes.

And yes, wokeness does go too far sometimes. This is a great example of such a time. People are so morally outraged at offensive words that they forget that for most people the stakes of life are much more serious than a slur used as a joke in private. If you are disturbed by a word, how are you going to handle a woman, or a bullet to the leg? You won't. You will cry at the sight of pussy juice.

Consider this a litmus test for woke snobbery.

Edited yesterday at 01:31 AM by Leo Gura

[The Crocodile]

My gay best friend is not offended by the word fa*****, he's into it.

[Viking]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The difference is I don't cry loudly when someone says I shouldn't use some offensive word. I understand why offensive words and ideas should be limited in public discourse, rather than acting like I am some noble freedom warrior who is being oppressed. 

Any mature person understands why slurs should be discouraged on social media. But perverts cannot comprehend such a thing.

The issue is that "offensive" is subjective.

A principal in an elementary school could say that teachers shouldn't tell children that there are more than 2 genders in order to not confuse them and then that principal could get cancelled and replaced. 

He didn't intend to say anything wrong, he just cared about the children, yet some teachers could find that "offensive".

I think people who fight for free speech want to avoid edge cases like this. I agree that some just want to say offensive things, but not all.