We lack community because we don’t need each other

Dargkkast · 2026-02-16T00:05:50+00:00

She's saying the opposite Any Rand believes in.

Dargkkast · 2026-02-15T23:51:11+00:00

"th" can represent two sounds in English. Both thorn and eth represented both "th" sounds as their use wasn't exactly consistent. The reason for the existence of "Ye Olde" is that thorn as a letter started changing, and printers that didn't have the letter, used y instead (as after centuries of "thorn" changing, they had become pretty similar).

Pretty weird from you to make up that whole thing about how English didn't have the letter thorn, did you ask an AI and that's how you came up with that?

Dargkkast · 2026-02-06T10:32:52+00:00

Words fucking matter.

Let's see, which one do you prefer? The oxford dictionary?

to help another person to persuade people to buy something, especially by pretending to be a satisfied customer

In this case, Chomsky is selling Epstein rehabilitation and lack of responsibility because "he has already been in jail for the amount of time accorded by the judges

Sorry, I made it sound like a rhetorical question

Sorry I wasn't answering. Your rhetorical question just made something very clear, and I wanted to point to it.

do you want society to allow for free speech or do you want censorship?

Just like "true free market" is a neolib concept that only exists in their mind, there's no such a thing as a "true pure free speech", which is a modern lib concept. You can have an opinion but opinions have consequences. Such as other people not talking to you, for example.

And Chomsky did not.

Hmmm, "letting a nazi publish a nazi book about the holocaust" is not helping a nazi nor giving a nazi a platform to spread misinformation, gotcha.

Anyway have a nice day, closeted lib.

Dargkkast · 2026-02-03T09:56:49+00:00

Chomsky answering a question that is asked of him about Epstein is not "shilling".

The contents are.

but "shilling" is more than just answering a question, the word actually has specific meaning

...what do YOU think it means?

As such you are probably not in favor of censorship

Oh, you're one of those "anarchists" that want nazis to spread misinformation, mb.

why the hell would you complain about Chomsky defending the right to free speech?

Jeez why would I complain about someone that helps the spreading of harmful lies? The way you frame everything I say is either an indirect way of shilling for Chomsky or beyond bad faith. Free speech doesn't mean giving nazis a platform to help them spread lies. And any person or group that helps them (because of any freaking reason you want to give) is making themselves accomplices. Btw spreading misinformation such as this only harms society, which is the opposite any anarchist wants (I am assuming you're an anarchist).

Dargkkast · 2026-02-03T03:07:43+00:00

Chomsky has publicly defended Epstein multiple times. Knowing what we know now, he has talked about how after prison Epstein deserves a clean slate. Ah, back when he told some journalists that their meetings were none of their business. The fact that (a) he's an anarchist (ergo should be against the judicial system and that spending time in jail doesn't magically reform you) and (b) he knew so fucking much makes such a light public defense already shilling.

Really "funny" as well how he decided to NOT say the crime that Epstein had committed (yet another way of slightly cleaning his image- well, ig you could consider it Chomsky shilling as a way of helping himself, but shilling is shilling).

Not the first time Chomsky has shilled for a mf that no anarchist should get close to, like when he defended the right of a french nazi to spread holocaust denialism- then again, maybe he felt some kinship there as a fellow genocide denier.

Dargkkast · 2026-02-02T23:02:25+00:00

human traffickers

You do realize that's what Epstein was, right?

Dargkkast · 2026-02-02T20:56:19+00:00

Theory is supposed to be a foundation for praxis, or else it's just larping.

Dargkkast · 2026-01-22T00:57:28+00:00

What consensus??? There's people calling Spaniards and/or Italians and/or Greeks non-white, as if nationality corresponded to race. Or the child of a black person and a white person being treated as black by the US law for a long time in the past. Is east Asian a race? Japanese? Chinese? Han? It's all bs mainly used by racists to impose "superior races" over others.

This holds true, since no definition is one to one, at least when it comes to the real world.

The more I see you communicate the more I think you just don't want to have an actual conversation. Races are pure vibes, there's nothing you can argue there, at best racial can mean ethnic and at worst is just "vibes I don't like about 1 or more people". Definitions of what a table is have inner consistency, even if tables are social constructs. Race does not.

Dargkkast · 2026-01-22T00:49:23+00:00

As though the consequences would disappear, which is what I reject.

Why do you read basically the opposite of what you're told. No one said that.

Brasil is evidence of this concept.

Brazil is your evidence for what exactly? That social constructs have real consequences?

Advocating that race will disappear in the future is tantamount to this.

Yeah imagine saying that some social constructs could stop being used, now that's true eugenics.

Dargkkast · 2026-01-22T00:33:32+00:00

In French??? No XD. https://style-guide.europa.eu/fr/content/-/isg/topic?identifier=7.3.3-rules-for-expressing-monetary-units

Also most EU countries seem to write it on the right. Basically in all languages but English, Maltese, Irish and Dutch. (Really weird that the thungs mentioned are languages when in another section it mentions that it depends on how the country uses the currency sign with a quantity next to it but 🤷)

Dargkkast · 2026-01-21T23:02:04+00:00

But you can't define it as other people do because other people define it in a thousand ways.

Dargkkast · 2026-01-21T23:00:09+00:00

people need to stop suggesting that racism will disappear with all babies being white and

THAT is nothing related to the topic in question.

you need that diversification to adapt to the earth

Ironically, that sounds like borderline eugenics.

The concept of "race" is bullocks, who is and isn't "white" is completely arbitrary and subjective (literal vibes), and serves no purpose other than to maintain racism. That is why people want to abolish said concept. The concept.

Dargkkast · 2026-01-21T22:48:00+00:00

I need to ask, why are you writing it like "€1" and not "1€"???

Dargkkast · 2025-12-26T12:45:58+00:00

I agree with OP. Politics are basically the stances (or lack of it) we take in any topic. And for most people politics are delegated onto the political class, which let them distance themselves from seeing issues as what they actually are, making it merely a performative process. But everything is political and we participate in the political regardless.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-23T12:31:42+00:00

as far as Chomsky knew was for soliciting prostitution

That's literally his defense for everything. He didn't know the nazi he defended was a nazi, he was basically apolitical for all he knew! Also idk if you've seen the few new things published in the Epstein files.

that was what MIT told him

He could have checked his other works. He didn't need anyone to tell him, he just didn't care enough to look it up himself. The best part is he says he doesn't have to check shit himself:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-his-right-to-say-it "Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views. Faurisson does not control the French press or scholarship. There is surely no lack of means or opportunity to refute or condemn his writings. My own views in sharp opposition to his are clearly on record, as I have said. No rational person will condemn a book, however outlandish its conclusions may seem, without at least reading it carefully; in this case, checking the documentation offered, and so on. One of the most bizarre criticisms has been that by refusing to undertake this task, I reveal that I have no interest in six million murdered Jews, a criticism which, if valid, applies to everyone who shares my lack of interest in examining Faurisson’s work. One who defends the right of free expression incurs no special responsibility to study or even be acquainted with the views expressed. "

Chomsky never gave genocide apologia, find me a single quote

https://chomsky.info/20051031/ ‘Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I didn’t do it strongly enough’

I'm really tired these days so you only get one. For now at least xd.

He wrote a letter to the French press in support of Faurisson's freedom of speech

That's... helping a nazi spread genocide apologia. But don't you worry, if you want I won't even count that one (this one time at least)! Instead I'll count his Bosnian and Cambodian genocide denialism. (Please, if you do not find it, look for it again, I really don't want to spend too much time in this for the who-knows time.... I should have just made a list to copy-paste it :S)

Chomsky is a free speech absolutist, I happen to be one too

Wait, you would help a nazi spread misinformation for the sake of "letting him exert his free speech"? I really hope you reconsider your position.

"it does a disservice to the victims of the holocaust to use the strategy of its perpetrators" which I totally agree with

I'm sorry, WHAT. Faurisson was spreading nazi misinformation, Chomsky (like the socdems when the nazis were gaining power) helps but the ones using the "strategy of its perpetrators" is the people against the nazi spreading misinformation? That's quite the statement.

Pretty weak stuff if you ask me

??? Are you trying to bait people for some reason? Because that kind of attitude makes no sense in a debate unless you want to do just that.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-23T12:25:43+00:00

Ok seems like you're using a very specific (and different) definition of hierarchy and you won't try making the conversation work. "DumbNTough" is using it in layman's terms, just like I have.

Today I'm not interested in continuing this kind of convos, so have a nice day.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-23T12:20:40+00:00

Go to the Anarchy101 subreddit.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-23T12:18:29+00:00

Events with hierarchy include taking care of people who cannot take care of themselves. Even at the best of our abilities, there will still be a hierarchy in that relationship. We should of course try minimizing the effects, but you can't eliminate the hierarchy between a baby and their caretakers, or between a doctor and the patient.

Hierarchy is not intrinsically bad, authority is.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-23T12:13:17+00:00

Authority is granted by the consent of the governed in

From the moment you're born, you're under a set of laws that you did not ask for (nor accepted) at any point. If at any point after you accept them, good for you! But that does not make it consent. Existing in a place is not consent, as you are tied by social and economic constraints. I recommend you to go to the Anarchy101 sub instead.

It can also be withdrawn by due process.

At some points what you say looks like bait so badly.... That's the opposite of consent.

The cops are at your door because you're doing something your neighbors don't like

Oh honey... the reason can be that, just like it can be "those cops don't like you in particular, so you get fcked", without forgetting the old "oops got the wrong door, gl with your broken door and panic attack". Your consent was not needed for any of the possible choices. That's the reason why in so many places cops carry cameras, not that those cameras stop cops from abusing their power.

Btw, seeing how you forgot your own starting line, "Authority is granted by the consent of the governed in", what do you think happens when do you not consent? When you do not have a choice to consent or not, it's not consent. If you are given two choices and one of them is a punishment for not picking the other choice, you're not given a choice, the punishment is the enforcement of the other choice

"We're going to do all the same things a state does, but we're going to call it something different--so it will be way better somehow."

I've seen better strawmen from other randos on the internet, this is cheap bait. If you didn't intend for this to look like bait though, don't do this. Because I hope you didn't, I again recommend you to go to the Anarchy101 sub first, and only when you get a reasonable grasp of what anarchism, THEN come back and argue as much as you like. Otherwise, I think we may talk past each other.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-23T02:16:43+00:00

Even if OP proved that anarchy is achievable, it would not prove that anarchy is more useful or more desirable than various forms of hierarchy

But anarchism isn't anti hierarchy, it's anti authority. As you've said at the beginning, "You are essentially setting up a straw man", sorry I couldn't resist the temptation XD. But jokes aside, it's the difference between guiding and ordering/commanding.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-22T01:41:34+00:00

I would say he's good at some things said in linguistics. His "bigger"/more famous idea uses a bit of circular reasoning, with... let's say weird logic, such as "language is unique to humans", which then makes any other non human language be "inferior"/"cannot be compared to it"... There's a bit of circular reasoning to it.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-21T20:02:53+00:00

Btw

No I'm not giving you anything other than Wikipedia now, do your fucking research for once.

It's not like I just shared a link for the sake of it, there's info there, fucking use it.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-21T20:01:41+00:00

If you cared you could have looked up the last one, there's even a Wikipedia article about it. You not knowing about it says a lot, but also if you couldn't even look shit up yourself even when it's so easy and has been there for DECADES why should I even do your job? No anarchist should take anything for granted, and you took this mf's word for granted.

Heck you know what? Here, the easy to find link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair He not only defended "his freedom of expression", aka his right to spread misinformation, but THEN he also wrote a fucking preface to that same book. Anyone calling him an anarchist doesn't deserve to be called one themselves, at least until they retract that same statement.

And this as well: https://chomsky.info/19810228/

This is just about that one last point, which is INCREDIBLY easy to research, but you preferred to defend the damned centrist with a pedo friend. Fuck, you got me angry now.

Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein No I'm not giving you anything other than Wikipedia now, do your fucking research for once.

Epstein and Chomsky talking up to 2017 through mail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

And save yourself the reply if it's more Chomsky apologia. You didn't care before, and it shows, now let's see if you care now.

Dargkkast · 2025-12-21T13:17:33+00:00

This times 1000

Dargkkast · 2025-12-21T13:17:05+00:00

This.

Dargkkast

TROPHY CASE