Posts by Matthew Castillo5

nimblelynx7 said:It’s ridiculous. I see this argument thrown around here constantly—the idea that Americans are just uneducated morons while we’re all supposedly highly cultured intellectuals.

The reality? Americans are locked in a high-stakes economic battle with China for global dominance, while we're busy fighting for the bottom of the barrel in the European Union.

We produce trivia champions; they produce the American worker. And yet, an American working at a dealership in a beat-up Ford laughs at an American driving a Cadillac, calling them ignorant and unrefined.

An American will memorize the GDP of Uzbekistan, the flora of Madagascar, or the casualty counts of WWII, but can't tell you a single thing about the Consumer Protection Act, police authority, or their own rights under the Labor Law.

That’s why we’re finally introducing this "school of life" concept—where they'll supposedly focus on stuff people actually need to know to survive. Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

Christian Wilson28 said:Why on earth are we recruiting people for sales roles, seriously? what's the deal?

Look, the sales major is usually where they funnel students who were on specialized learning plans back in middle school because they couldn't quite keep up with the standard curriculum.

nimbleridge5 said:Left-wing politics centers on the pursuit of social equality and egalitarianism, usually by pushing back against established social hierarchies. It’s generally driven by a deep concern for people who are seen as disadvantaged compared to the rest of society—what some call prioritarianism—along with a core conviction that many existing inequalities are fundamentally unfair and should be dismantled through social justice initiatives.

I just wanted to share one way to define the left—assuming anyone actually knows English, since it seems like much of the Republican Party lacks a decent education—so you can all figure out for yourselves which of these figures actually falls under that umbrella.
Honestly, grouping someone like Ceausescu (who was killed by his own people) with Marshall (who was absolutely adored by his nation), and then tossing in revolutionaries like Guevara alongside dictators like Stalin, says everything you need to know about how uneducated or biased a person is, which pretty much makes any meaningful debate impossible.

Trying to defend the Republican Party vote is a lost cause anyway, since most of society tends to split right down the middle, though you always see those more extreme individuals clustering at the edges of the bell curve. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions about who belongs where.
Just take comfort in knowing you aren't part of that crowd.

Based on that specific definition, I’m a total leftist. And if we’re going by the assumption that conservatives are uneducated, then I guess I fit that description too.
I honestly have no idea why anyone would ever categorize me as being on the right. 🤷

Side note: here in America, terms like "left" and "right" carry a completely different weight than how they're used in the rest of the world.

If you want to get into deep dives about how much the entire nation supposedly loved Mao Zedong (which is a bold claim considering how many people he purged), or why his followers eventually turned on him, we should probably move this conversation over to the History subforum.

placidorca16 said:You've thrown just about everything into one giant pile here.🙄 If all of those qualify as "leftists" to you, then I’m afraid you’re missing the basic definitions we're using here—it’s clear that cause and effect don't really factor into your logic.🙄 But, without getting into specific individuals, I can't point to a single law in socialist America that mandated the elimination of people based on race, nationality, or religion through systematic extermination—the way right-wingers did under Nazi, Fascist, or Nationalists regimes. I’d love for you to cite such a law from America if one actually exists. Or do you think racial laws are "okay legislation"—maybe even better than laws that guarantee equality regardless of any criteria?😬 Wouldn't surprise me.

I’m sure you could pull a list together right now and pick out the ones who definitely weren't leftists.

placidorca16 said:You've thrown just about everything into one giant pile here.🙄 If all of those qualify as "leftists" to you, then I’m afraid you’re missing the basic definitions we're using here—it’s clear that cause and effect don't really factor into your logic.🙄 But, without getting into specific individuals, I can't point to a single law in socialist America that mandated the elimination of people based on race, nationality, or religion through systematic extermination—the way right-wingers did under Nazi, Fascist, or Nationalists regimes. I’d love for you to cite such a law from America if one actually exists. Or do you think racial laws are "okay legislation"—maybe even better than laws that guarantee equality regardless of any criteria?😬 Wouldn't surprise me.

I have never denied or justified the atrocities committed under Nazi, Fascist, or Pavelić's systems. On the flip side, leftists either routinely deny (pre-1990) or justify (post-1990) the crimes committed within totalitarian socialist/communist regimes.
Whether the criminals I mentioned were killing according to some law or outside of it isn't really the point. They wiped people out based on nationality (think folks in the USSR or minority groups in China), religion, social class, gender identity, or political affiliation.
And since you want to talk about cause and effect: was every single one of those tens of millions killed in socialist gulags responsible for Hitler's or Pavelić's crimes? I highly doubt it.

The idea that "right-wingers lean toward criminal extermination of others, while leftists fight for equality for all" simply doesn't hold water.

Quote:

MechaLiver says: There’s a precedent for this./URL] I'm pulling this directly from an article since apparently nobody else feels like doing the reading: John F. Kennedy: "A crime is a deviation from generally recognized standards of behavior frequently caused by mental disorder. Can there be diseases, nervous disorders among certain people in a Communist Party USA? Obviously yes. If that is so, then there will also be offences, which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. Of those who might start calling for opposition to Communism on this basis, we can say that clearly their mental state is not normal."

Unfortunately, we saw plenty of similar abuses of psychiatry right here in the States back when the communists (basically, the far-leftists) were running the show.

ironrider11 said:So what, they were just being "tough" (and righteous) for the greater good? 🤔

Since when does tens of millions of deaths count as a "greater good"? Is someone who orders mass killings suddenly a righteous leader? 🤦

Shouldn't rewriting history books and making excuses for mass atrocities actually be a crime?

placidorca16 said:I don't necessarily see them as mentally ill—they're just regular people to me—but I do see them as malicious. It stems from their core belief that they can purge certain groups—based on race, nationality, religion, or even gender—from specific territories or even off the face of the Earth, simply because they think they're "superior."🙄 They'll use any means necessary to get there, often advocating for, or outright using, violence and destructive tactics. Personally, I find that entire mindset terrifying and completely unacceptable.😠

The right wing believes in a flat earth—hollow, maybe?—thinks vaccines are a plot to spread autism, obsesses over chemtrails, and falls for all sorts of other nonsense.

To me, what they believe isn't the issue—it's when they try to "disprove" scientific facts with their delusions and then attempt to force those delusions on everyone else as "law," all while tearing others down in the process.🙄👎

It's interesting how some people drift toward the right as they age—as if the decline of the body and mind pulls them toward conservatism. In America, we have examples like Franjo Harmon and Zdravko Tomac; the case of Franjo Harmon is particularly curious given his brain tumor, which supposedly pushed him toward the extreme right.🤔

Generally speaking, people tend to become more conservative as they age because they lose flexibility—it's just a biological reality most of the time. But America seems to be an outlier here, as several polls suggest younger generations are actually more conservative than their parents. One could certainly place a bet on why that is.😁

The whole point would be to just label being part of any right-wing group or party as a mental disorder—and then, naturally, bar them from voting altogether. It’s kind of like how homosexuality used to be treated before it was declassified as a disorder.

Of course, that wouldn't be right, and I'm definitely not advocating for it—mostly because that’s exactly what those same right-wingers do anyway: they try to strip dissenters of their right to vote or just ignore human rights entirely. Doing that would just make us look exactly like them.😢

If you haven't heard of the leftists who—driven by that exact same sense of superiority—systematically purged entire groups of people (the bourgeoisie, the wealthy landowners, intellectuals, homosexuals, "enemies of the state," etc.), then you are seriously lacking a basic understanding of 20th-century history.
Or are you going to try and argue that Stalin, Marshall, Mao Zedong, Ceaușescu, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara were actually right-wingers? 😵

Carl Rivera43 said:It’s honestly tough to get a word in on these forums sometimes.

What do you mean, "not easy"? Just look at some of the nonsense people post here. 😁

Blessed is the one who loses their mind early,
for they get to spend the rest of their life in pure bliss.

boldbadger1 said:And what exactly do you need me for, you little encrypted enigma? 🙂

By then, you’ll be a sprightly 77-year-old. Thanks for volunteering to push my wheelchair ahead of time, though.

boldbadger1 said:Yeah, next stop is weaver 26—right by this coffee shop. At this rate, I probably won't be done with all these meetings around the local nightlife district until 2037... and then maybe I can finally relocate to some street in Downtown by 2055.😬

By 2055—assuming I actually make it that far—I’ll be 94 years old. Someone better be ready to push my wheelchair around back then. 🙂

I'm heading out now, so I'm definitely going to be running a little late, but I'm on my way.

Would anyone mind if I crashed the party too? 🕺

A woman with numbers on her side actually makes sense! 🧐

Look, I get it. When someone loses their cool and a swear word just slips out in the heat of the moment? That’s human nature. I can wrap my head around that.

But there’s a massive difference between losing your temper and being someone who just uses profanity as a personality trait—especially when they start throwing God into the gutter just because they feel like it. To me, that’s a whole different level of repulsive.

And honestly, seeing people rely on those cheap, mindless catchphrases? It’s just tacky.

urbanhawk28 said:There are two ways to look at this
1) Self-preservation:
In social interactions, the ego serves a positive function by preventing an individual from being trampled by someone with a stronger ego. Human society is essentially just a slightly more advanced version of a wolf pack—a strict hierarchy where everyone has to fight for their spot in the pack.
This is a common perspective among various professional psychologists and psychiatrists who focus exclusively on how the individual functions.

2) Personal growth and societal progress:
From that standpoint, the ego is mostly harmful. It causes us to process information subjectively based on whether it threatens our ego—our "integrity," or rather, our hierarchical standing within the pack. This leads people to cling to positions far longer than is justified or logical.
Furthermore, instead of focusing on merit, attention shifts toward ego-driven power plays. While that might not be terrible for emotional development, we end up with various parasites—people with highly pronounced egos who are skilled at manipulation but lack any real ability for objective intellectual reasoning. You see them all the time at the top of social hierarchies.
To prove this point—can you actually think of a decent, respectful person in a position of power over the last 20 years? Or is the top of the pack just filled with hyenas? If someone normal and well-intentioned (someone not focused solely on their own ego) wanders into those circles, the system quickly spits them out.
The same thing has been happening in science for decades; someone once noted that scientific progress moves only as fast as the frequency of its conductors. As a position grows in status, the ego usually grows with it, making it much harder to accept any new ideas.

So, looking at it systemically, for a society built on quality ideas and better outcomes, it is much better if the individual ego remains small.☕

That's some high-quality thinking right there. 👍

I don't quite agree with that final sentence, though. People with tiny egos often lack both the motivation and the sheer strength required to actually drive meaningful change in a larger environment—whether that's a political party, a city, or the entire country. They usually end up only making changes within their own little micro-circles.

I've had plenty of my own experiences with this if anyone wants to dive deeper into the details.

Joseph Bailey41 said:
Just a word of caution, though. 😁

Look, I’m just that brutally honest (even when it ends up biting me in the ass 🙂), so I can stick my hand in there without a second thought.

Joseph Bailey41 As specified by Chloe Flores83:
I honestly think the demand for it is way too low. Most people find straight lavender tea to be just way too intense. Even for someone like me—and look, I can pretty much chug any herbal infusion without blinking—I still find myself blending lavender with other herbs. If I don't, I feel like I’m basically sipping on expensive perfume instead of an actual drink. 🙄

Yeah, if you distill or steam lavender, you end up with an essential oil that hits you like a freight train. It’s incredibly potent. You’ll see it tucked away in small amounts in some herbal tea blends, but honestly, just drinking a cup of pure lavender tea? That would be way too much. The flavor and scent would be totally overwhelming.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I honestly think the demand just isn't there. For most people, plain lavender tea is way too intense. Even for me—and I can pretty much drink any herbal tea you throw at me—if I don't mix lavender with other herbs, it feels like I'm sipping on perfume. 🙄

You really are such a sweet soul, and I truly believe things will start looking up for you once you start believing in yourself a little more. 🙂

This is honestly so beautiful that I’m genuinely tempted to reach out and offer you a hand. 😁

driftingbear29 said:There’s a difference between using logic to distinguish reality from the carefully curated illusions people build on Meta, and being completely cut off from healthy comparisons that actually serve a purpose. You can see through the act and choose not to give it any weight...

Then there's a third way: living your own life. This means being aware of what others think, but staying true to your own values and lifestyle without causing harm to anyone else. If you've found that authenticity, it makes sense that other people's opinions won't shake you. But when someone has a massive aversion to a different perspective and reacts with verbal outbursts or pure anger, that feels like a genuine issue to me...😬

I don't like it when things are framed in such black-and-white terms. Humans are social creatures, and it’s perfectly natural to occasionally look over the fence at a neighbor's yard that looks a bit greener than your own😁. To me, that's where character really shows up. If you compare yourself to someone else just to feel bitter and dissatisfied, that’s a problem. But if you use that comparison to find something useful for your own growth, then it’s perfectly fine...

We aren't horses wearing 🤣 on our heads, forced to stare in only one direction...🙂

Blinders, goggles, visors, blinkers... you name it.

(Sorry for going off-topic here)

Harold Anderson3 said:If we're talking about roles, I suppose I was the most significant figure in America—the big optimist who stepped in to replace the ultimate pessimist, Sanders, back in 2009.🍿

Can you pull some strings and get him a much longer sentence behind bars? Honestly, it’s the only way to get the justice he actually deserves. 🍿

😉