>>1385
absolutely this. what a supremely based post.

>>1385
absolutely this. what a supremely based post.

>>1385
Plugging your ears and calling something a spook doesn't make it not a reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald
There were demonstrations in Europe, it's not as fuck it nevermind someone who stills parrots old /lit/ memes isn't gonna understand anyway

>>1385
For a "european" that's a suspiciously American sentiment which was only formulated and disseminated by filthy yankee kike driven media during the past 5 years.

Since the moment I came to conclusion that the phrase "conspiracy theory" was created to discredit all discussions of potential hidden plots and agendas, and that most people start associating the word "conspiracy" with some nutjob rambling, I started giving everything with the label attached at least a deeper consideration.

Some people are pulling the strings and the world politics are coordinated in some way. You can see who influential people meet with, maybe see some money flows. The politicians seem to use the same language, last phrase I heard was "build back better".

>>1061
It's just modern form of slavery.

>>1123
Why should they have had to leave their homes and the lands they have lived in for god knows how long? I don't agree that those that stayed can't be serious about there faith either. This is quite a simplistic view of things that you seem to have that fails to give even a passing glance to the thoughts and realities of those that are actually there.

>>1386
>Why should they have had to leave their homes and the lands they have lived in for god knows how long?
Because they're a bunch of assholes who choose to follow a violent, militaristic ideology.

>>1387
I'm not denying that but it doesn't factor into why they should themselves feel the need to leave or even have the ability to practically leave.

>>1010
>Would they stop putting effort into stuff that makes them seem more "normal" like anime related stuff
They'd probably continue to do it to make themselves more friendly and palatable. It's also a cheap method of exerting and maintaining soft power.

>forced into being less religious
They seem to hate falun gong and uighurs but I think that's because within China, they don't want any organized opposing force (not sure why they hate falun gong in particular since it just seems like a blend of taoism/buddhism). I don't they would particularly care about exerting control over religions in other regions since it really doesn't pose much of an issue to them.

Overall the changes would be done very slowly. E.g. rather than mandating Chinese from the start, they would first gradually increase foreigners' exposure to hanzi, and then slowly introduce it in the school curriculum, and so by two or three generations it would come to be ingrained in the culture as the defacto medium for communication. Although when we're speaking about that long of a timescale it really depends on how the successor of Xi will take things; because as I understand it there are various factions still trying to gain control.

>>1010
>>1011
>Also religion, would people be forced into being less religious
The Chinese today seem to be embracing traditional Chinese religions more and co-opting it to work with the already-existing Communist system, so as to fill the spiritual void of the modern Chinese. I think they may make some attempt to spread things like Confucianism and Taoism, as people will feel more intrigued by the more exotic aspects of their society than by the boring, soulless Marxist aspects. Xi Jinping
The Chinese governments is also attempting to forcefully reform other religions like Christianity or Islam, to make it work with the political system, by creating their own edited/censored versions of the Bible for example.

In my opinion, China "taking over the whole world" would be its undoing. Over-expansion, and an angry United States, Russia, surrounding Asian countries who dislike China like Taiwan and Japan and their allies would also not just let them take over unopposed. Especially since these countries have pretty nasty technology developed that they wouldn't be afraid to use when they're not intentionally prolonging war for profit. The Chinese do as well but we all know how they fare in open war.

People who support China because they dislike the powers that be in the west don't know what they're asking for either.

>>1086
I kind of agree. It's my biggest criticism of their foreign policy right now. They keep pushing at other nations, bullying them and threatening them and claiming their lands. It's only making them enemies and even militarising the region against them. A good example of that would be the Quad alliance of Australia, Japan, India and the US. Australia actually dissolved that as they wanted to get on well with China and trade with them, now they have started it up again due to Chinese aggression.

If China had just waited, just bided their time, build up their navy in peace, build their defence industry up and set up their belt and road nobody would have bothered them about it indeed nobody was, as I mentioned Australia even dissolved an alliance against them but not only that some Australian politicians wanted to be part of the Belt and Road(they have changed their tune about that now). They could have waited until it was to late and then revealed themselves for that they are.

>>246
>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.

Citizens of foreign nations didn't consent to US rule. Maybe in some exceptions, don't nitpick me.

>>246
The Declaration of Independence is different from the Constitution. The Constitution is an agreement between the Federal Government and the people. Even state governments aren't held to the Constitution in the same way that the Feds are. The point of the document was to establish the Union out of the then independent colonies.

I agree with your point that the very notion of such a thing as the Four Policemen is very hypocritical, but it does need to be said regardless.

Post edited on 3rd Jun 2017, 10:29am

>>242
>>As a preventive measure against new wars, countries other than the Four Policemen were to be disarmed. Only the Four Policemen would be allowed to possess any weapons more powerful than a rifle.[2]
Isn't this exactly what the NPT does? I find it really fucking funny that the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon in combat, against civilians no less, makes the claim that they, yes THEY in particular need to keep those weapons out of the hands of everyone else, including their allies. I guess they're smart about one thing; being a U.S. citizen would suddenly become very unpleasant, if the U.S. military lost a war hard enough to lose its place as a superpower, after all the enemies we've made in the last century.

>>244
But US militia only get rifles as well.

Hittites are better.

>>986
Social sciences always had an undertone of politics. Sadly even biology/medicine is starting to fall under its sway.

historically Japan likes cute from the start which is why Bokko will always be better received than garbage like Minnie Mouse and the only reason westerners complained over Minnie looking sexy in that fashion commercial is because the west is a mentally ill culture, after all the west celebrates fat women.

>>983
>the west celebrates fat women.
I'd say it's something that a lot of people here are reluctantly forced to live with. Yes there are some people who claim to like it, but for every one who does I think there's another who's only saying as much to hopefully win some favor. I refuse to believe everyone here is okay with it. I see average sized men with women twice their size all the time, and I wonder to myself how these guys don't mind that. Call me vain but I think physical attraction is half of a relationship, and you can't have a healthy relationship if the sight of your partner naked makes you want to vomit.
I think it's something men here accept because there's not much choice. They want companionship, but they can't be picky. When most of the women are like this and complaining would get you ostracized, they must feel like there's no alternative.
Ironically, these same men would consider someone like me pathetic for not giving in and taking whatever I can get.

>>984
>Yes there are some people who claim to like it, but for every one who does I think there's another who's only saying as much to hopefully win some favor.
It seems like it's a commitment thing. Very few guys actually prefer fat girls and if you dig down into those who claim to it's because "they try harder" or "are more loyal". I've seen women use the same logic to justify dating someone far larger than them. I can understand the visual appeal of chubby but these people try to talk people who are downright obese into being sexy when fat fetishism is really rare. Just look at porn and then look at the amount of self proclaimed "chubby chasers". It's gross that people view a partner fatter than them as a plus because they "try harder" and "won't leave". The extreme of this is feederism but you see the same thing play out in a much lighter way all the time.

Polite sage for off topic.

>>983
Fat acceptance is widely mocked even by progressive types, the only celebration of that is by fat fetishists and that happens in the east too if you dare to brave certain tags on Pixiv.

>>941
Apparently you yourself did not understand what I meant in my post, so I'll spell it out for you: I'm under no delusion of my self worth, I am among or indeed even am the most worthless of humans to ever live in history. Wow, holy shit, what a big fucking ego, that's definitely what I said or suggested in any way in the slightest in any of my posts. Because I hate normal people that must mean I think I'm better than them, right? Even though that's the metric by which I hate them? Bottom line is either kill me so I don't have to live in the same world as them or kill all of them.

>>943
Yes, i didn't understand what you meant in your post, it had seemed as if you mockingly quoted my post when actually you were quoting yourself. We'll forget about those two posts and continue with the discussion. Still you did not understand my post about vanity which meant that all pursuits and interests are vanity. Throwing a ball around and thinking about philosophy are the same at the end of the day because both are vanity. What does it matter if someone is extraordinary or normal? Both of them will die in the end. Unless you have included yourself in the category of boring uninteresting people, which you have definitely implied you aren't in, then yes you do think you're better than other people. Your interests are no better than anyone elses because interest is subjective. If someone likes football trivia and talks to another person with the same interest, then that is an interesting conversation (relative to the participants), regardless of whether you are interested or not.

>>945
There's nothing wrong with vanity. There's also other metrics to compare one interest to another, like how mentally strenuous it is, or how disconnected it is from reality. It seems like you're trying to make some nihilistic point about equality. I don't really buy it.

>>945
>which meant that all pursuits and interests are vanity.
in the abstract yes, but it is the nature of groups that I in the group that hates football will also be seen as similarly dull and uninteresting by those who play football, the point ultimately is that from the point of view of those in the same group as me there is no purpose to interacting with a foreign and hostile group.
>What does it matter if someone is extraordinary or normal? Both of them will die in the end.
The purpose is self-determined, just as you determined to spend time making the post. All choices in this regard are objectively equal, I agree, but very little of human existence is governed by consideration of the objective.
>Both of them will die in the end. Unless you have included yourself in the category of boring uninteresting people, which you have definitely implied you aren't in
The point I meant to imply is that I am not in the category of people who are exciting and interesting to other people, which is to say that they are the opposite to me just as I am boring and uninteresting to them. Because they hate me I hate them, that's the crux of the matter, and I wouldn't have it any other way, I'd sooner die than be one of them.
>If someone likes football trivia and talks to another person with the same interest, then that is an interesting conversation (relative to the participants), regardless of whether you are interested or not.
Objectively, sure. Subjectively, I'd wish they'd die so they'd leave me alone.

>>721
You're acting like an animal right now, whether you like it or not. In any social situation you may find yourself in, everyone acts like an animal. We are animals. There is no distancing yourself from it. You don't even know what acting like an animal means.

Post edited on 3rd Dec 2019, 12:25pm

>>722
>In any social situation you may find yourself in, everyone acts like an animal
I tend to act like a plant: a wallflower.

>>691
>Why do you think people get stuck in these bubbles?
Because Christians are stupid.
/thread

>>788
this.

>>907
>If it doesn't personally affect you too much, why care?

Everyone is affected by the economy. Everyone, including you and I can die from the virus. If you disagree, consider that the current death toll of the virus already spawned a global recession that dwarfs the one that began in 2008.

>Things needed a change for the better. Something drastic. Break a few eggs.

The fallout from COVID-19 is not society in the process of changing for the better. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. You may not be aware of it, but there is a world that exists outside of your college campus.

>>912
>consider that the current death toll of the virus already spawned a global recession that dwarfs the one that began in 2008.
Not really. It was the response to the virus that spawned this recession. Sweden knows what's up.

>>913
I'm surprised that I have to clarify this, but it isn't a literal statement. The fallout is from the response to the deaths, not from the deceased no longer contributing to the economy. I don't know why someone would interpret it as that.

>>914
>I don't know why someone would interpret it as that.
I want the distinction to be made because seemingly many people have this idea that the virus is an autonomous being who's mankind's archenemy. The anthropomorphism allows a warlike response and the vindication of the people who fucked up during this shitstorm.

Oh god no, don't attract others.

Usually i smoke paraguayan marlboro and drink vodka to debate animes and videogames, but just on the internet.
Also, brahma tastes like piss, i wouldn't recommend.