Posts by William Torres

If we're being honest, this is straight-up discrimination:

Resistance Captain Josip Mardešić was executed back in 1944 because he was gay.

But then you have Josip Manolić claiming that "it was a drastic, yet justified act given the era." And I guess nobody really dares to question his perspective. I mean, the man is elderly now, and we probably shouldn't be discriminating against seniors just because they happen to justify killings from decades ago when they were young and full of vigor. One of the "judges"—a political commissar—later ended up serving a massive prison sentence at Alcatraz because he aligned himself with the Cominform, eventually hanging himself in his cell (or maybe he was pushed... honestly, nobody ever truly knew what happened in those places), while another guy managed to become a successful diplomat, serving as an ambassador in North Vietnam and Cambodia—which used to be called Kampuchia (where he maintained ties with the Khmer Rouge, those folks who slaughtered two million of their own people mostly just for having more than a primary school education)—and he actually ended up buried in the Hall of Fame.

So, if you think about it, it’s actual discrimination. The first guy was shot because he was gay, even though he likely wasn't some kind of killer. The second guy was a murderer and a total scumbag who hanged himself simply because he chose to side with the submissive type of tyranny (Joseph Stalin) instead of the dominant type (Josip Broz Marshall). The third guy correctly calculated which brand of tyranny to align with, so despite being a scumbag and a killer himself, he got buried with honors. He basically just helped strengthen our international ties with other killers. Manolić claims these were just "people of the people," primitive but correct. And since he helped build the very state we live in today, alongside Ngo Dinh Diem (whom he essentially helped install), he apparently earns the right to be immune to criticism.

feralranger said:True enough, yet it simultaneously functions as a form of discrimination; quite often, those who possess the courage to think independently find themselves marginalized, while those who simply parrot the prevailing, narrow-minded consensus are the ones being elevated.

I see what you mean. It’s always been that way, I guess, but maybe things have gotten even worse lately. For instance, someone who thinks independently and pushes back against the prevailing ignorance is seen as provocative. They trigger a reaction from everyone around them simply by being different, which allows them to spread their ideas—even if that reaction is negative. Nowadays, though, they’re basically protected like a grizzly bear in a national park because of political correctness; they can't really provoke anyone through their uniqueness anymore, but they can certainly stir up disgust in people who find political correctness intolerable. On the flip side, standing up against the dominant stupidity doesn't necessarily mean you aren't being narrow-minded yourself. You could just be representing a more submissive kind of ignorance—one that isn't currently the majority but would really like to be. So, in a way, you're still just adopting someone else's perspective; you're just not the dominant one right now, and that's about it.

Even the critics of political correctness don't seem particularly provocative in today's world. It’s become politically acceptable to give them a platform to vent about how unnecessary or harmful political correctness is. In doing so, they might cause a tiny bit of distaste because of their stance, and perhaps even more distaste because they aren't actually at any risk when they say it—mostly because the terror of political correctness keeps them safe. 😁

Even if they were actually facing any real danger, I doubt anyone would believe them, or frankly, most people wouldn't care—much like how Peratović, Margetić, and others who act like Tomislav Karamarko is breathing down their necks found out. I sometimes wonder if he’s actually that much of a threat to them (it almost seems like he'd be worse than Lavrentiy Beria and Heinrich Himmler combined) or if they just talk like that because it's good for business. A few minor arrests here and there doesn't really cut it compared to guys like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr. Honestly, this whole debate over discrimination has become somewhat trivial. The bigger issue, I think, is that we're all effectively "discriminated" against because a tiny handful of wealthy elites (that 1%) holds onto nearly everything (90%), but I suppose that just falls under "protecting private property," which is supposedly the bedrock of democracy...🤷

That would be a violation of the right to free speech and expression, Sisyphus. Pure censorship. I suppose there’s some level where censorship makes sense—you can't just broadcast every bit of garbage to the public. At least not in major media outlets. You might get something published in a tabloid like the New York Post, which still reaches a massive audience, and then it's gone. It’s ultimately the editor's prerogative at those outlets to decide whether something is actually worth printing. Or did you think prime time news slots should be reserved for every random person's opinion on how to fix the country and the world? The reality is that ideas need time to gain traction, mostly because the dominant ideologies have the backing of massive capital and powerful interest groups behind them. But you have to be persistent; if you're actually right, you'll eventually break through. Most people will end up siding with you. Fidel Castro didn't let that kind of nonsense shake him. One minute he was calling out the church, the next he was pivoting toward capitalism... it doesn't really matter, the point is he stayed stubborn, he was certain he was right, and in the end, he got his way. Without any help from Americans. Hard work pays off. For instance, nobody just handed Matija Babić a media empire on a silver platter; he built his own platform fueled by Severina's charms, and he continues to sail along smoothly, publishing whatever he damn well pleases.

I suppose you could argue that discrimination, when viewed as a positive thing, is actually just a form of discernment. But when we talk about discrimination in a negative sense, what we’re really looking at is the rejection of something inherently good. I mean, if you decide not to hire someone because you’ve reasonably assessed they simply aren't qualified for the role, that isn't really discrimination in the way people usually complain about it. It’s just practical. However, if you refuse to hire someone just because they happen to be a woman, a Black person, or gay, then you're entering negative territory. The reason for that, I guess, is that the characteristic being used to discriminate has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job—or at least, it doesn't have any impact significant enough to justify treating them differently. You might hear someone make some sweeping generalization, like saying "people from Texas are tougher because of their genes" or "New Yorkers are more sophisticated," but those kinds of stereotypes shouldn't be a valid reason to deny a Texan a job at a museum or prevent a New Yorker from becoming a CEO. It's just... I don't know, it feels too flimsy to be a real basis for anything.

lonegardener said:"Quote:"

I'm with you on that. 😍 There’s no such thing as a true, 100% nihilist.

Honestly, it doesn’t matter how you look at it. If you view it as a continuum—sort of like a spectrum of gray tones where you might start calling a specific shade "black" even though true black is just an idealized concept—then you could argue something similar applies to nihilism.

For instance, someone might be 90% of a nihilist—though hitting that full 100% mark is basically impossible. 😬If you were actually trying to establish a "Nihilist Party," you’d probably cap the membership at maybe 60% nihilists—though I'm just throwing numbers out there. It might not even make sense, though. It’s like calling a color "black" when it’s really just a very dark charcoal. You could technically get away with it, but does it really make sense to call an obviously grayish shade "black"? Not really, does it? 🤣

Therefore, calling a political party "nihilistic" is a total contradiction in terms. Q.E.D. ☕ 🤣

"Quote:"

I can't quite wrap my head around what you mean by that. Could you clarify? kaže: I have this feeling that if every single person on this planet actually went out and pursued their true calling—doing exactly what they were meant to be best at—the world would just spontaneously combust. 🤔 Don't you have it?

I don't have anything. 🤷 Honestly, we aren't even close to being at a level of technological advancement where we can start fantasizing about a scenario like that. If you lean too hard into those ideas, you run the risk of thinking like the ancient Greeks. It sounds lovely to just stroll around philosophizing while slaves handle all the grueling physical labor, doesn't it? But let's be real—do you actually believe anyone would find "self-fulfillment" working as a sanitation worker? And more importantly, who exactly is going to clean up our cities if there isn't anyone willing to do the dirty work?

If some kind of artificial intelligence actually stepped up and relieved people of those soul-crushing, undignified jobs, then maybe we could finally start fantasizing about a global renaissance and true self-actualization.

Oh, really?! I mean, look at Kenneth Matheny, the President of Orkin—he’s found his calling as a pest control specialist, specifically focusing on one particular niche: cockroaches.

http://drcockroach.com/home.html

There are just certain people who get a kick out of exterminating bugs... and I suppose there are also those with a manic obsession with cleanliness, though they probably don't get many chances to express that. 😂

Technological progress isn't really the issue here; the issue is that if nobody were forced to do jobs they hated, or if people could just work for what they actually think their time is worth, then profit wouldn't exist. Profit is born from necessity—from that situation where a worker has to slash their rates just to survive or pay off some debt to a bank, or when they're forced to do things they despise just to stay afloat, which ultimately drives down the value of labor for everyone else. It essentially crowds out the people whom nature actually designed to perform those specific tasks, dragging down their earning potential in the process.

Besides, if we didn't have people dedicated to cleaning up after us, we’d probably just get used to living in a bit more filth. Maybe there’d be plagues, sure, but that would certainly solve the overpopulation problem. Not that it matters much; from the perspective of eternity, it's pretty negligible. If people actually cared about others dying from disease, they might start cleaning because it bothers them personally. But even then, they wouldn't be doing it for a paycheck, or to buy some useless gadget, or to service a mortgage; they’d do it because they actually give a damn about human life. That would give work actual purpose instead of making it feel alienated. But the first thing you're taught nowadays is that "money is neutral." And honestly, that's the whole problem with money being neutral. It’s a problem precisely because it is neutral, whereas humans aren't supposed to be neutral—or at least shouldn't be—when it comes to human suffering and other things that should naturally move us, yet we ignore them all for the sake of a buck.☕

OT: The limits of human understanding seem to be set incredibly low. People can be conditioned like hamsters to run endlessly on a wheel, powering someone else's machine, yet they can't seem to self-organize to just tell that person to shove it. Why? 1) Because they can't see the hand pulling the strings, and they're mentally limited to only attacking what's right in front of them. It doesn't occur to them to, say, collectively refuse to work on principle, which would collapse the banks and the entire system instantly. Instead, most would rather see some lunatic plant a bomb in a bank branch and blow it to hell, knowing the insurance will cover the damage and eventually pass the cost onto the public anyway. 2) Because people are just too greedy and small-minded; they obsess over tiny scraps instead of standing up for fundamental principles. They’re acting like hamsters or squirrels hoarding nuts in a hollow tree because of some genetic programming, completely oblivious to the fact that they don't need nearly that much food and that eating it all might actually rot their teeth.

So how does exactly stuff like this even happen? I mean, is it some kind of hardwired genetic programming, just weird internet memes, or maybe free will... I guess I'm just genuinely curious from a theoretical standpoint.

Apparently, she walked into a restaurant in downtown Washington, D.C., around 9:40 PM last Friday, March 16th, and when she saw the husband of Denis Popović sitting at the next table with his new friend Ivo Majoli, she just launched into a verbal assault. Omazić reportedly started with a barrage of insults, then spat right at her from about two feet away, and finally, when the woman tried to defend herself, she ended up landing a slap. And all of this went down right in front of a stunned crowd of diners. It was actually the other patrons who stepped in to stop things from turning into a full-blown brawl. After about fifteen minutes, the police had to show up to handle the situation.

Apemant, I have a feeling that whole "programming" theory doesn't really hold much water when you're dealing with women... 😍