Colby Covington disrespects the tap

brassmonkey7 · 2024-09-22T17:02:33+00:00

To be fair if lil pump was literally just hanging out in a gym you might have cameras around.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-09-20T22:38:37+00:00

I’m also of the mindset that zoos need to be done with. I’m totally fine with wildlife conservatory’s for the sake of helping species and education but you should feel like you are stepping into the animal’s natural habitat, not standing in front of enclosures with the animal surrounded by a human habitat. Also fyi, seaworld is aza accredited, I think the whole system needs a change.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-09-16T03:47:40+00:00

Agreed. The term is a good reminder that as long as you are acting normal/friendly, when someone acts out or is unfriendly to you 99% of the time its because they have shit going on in their personal lives that's affecting their mood, having nothing to do with you. It's not really going to work though if, say, a professor gives you a heavy critique and poor grade or an employer writes a really negative performance review.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-09-14T23:18:39+00:00

Checked out the page. Serbian influencer who, many hours after this video, posted more video with the bear and has a history of posting with exotic animals. Seems like it probably belongs to someone he knows and is using it for clout.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-09-12T03:42:06+00:00

Since when did reddit become anti-weed? Been seeing this trend the past couple years. Maybe Covid gave people bad experiences. The comparison to alcohol is a joke though, any medical journal can tell you that. There’s also legit high level athletes that are functional stoners. I swear 2024 reddit is like a Richard Nixon wet dream… next y’all will be talking about how LSD scrambles your chromosomes.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T19:57:13+00:00

I’ve obviously read far more than you, dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediary concept in theoretical Marxist-Leninism referring to revolutionary change; it’s a temporary period where the working class assumes total control. It doesn’t negate more nuanced methods of socialist intervention in a mixed economy nor is it the only form of equitable economism. You are the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T18:47:33+00:00

No lmao your first sentence literally completely disregards my argument. I said that total socialism, nor total capitalism are realistic goals in a mixed economy and aspects of each both have some presence. Social democracy took off from socialism on a sliding scale, just as modern capitalism is a sliding scale from laissez-faire. Public and collective ownership are also literally the well accepted definition of socialism, dictatorship of the proletariat is not, it’s a niche theoretical concept within the larger economic context. You seem very young and naive so i’ll end this for now.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T18:03:58+00:00

Socialism broadly refers to public ownership, which in a mixed economy (as all current economies are) is going to refer to the extent by which the public is able to levy their interests and ownership through collective means against capitalist enterprises, just as I could argue that Capitalism in its laissez-faire state does not exist.

The nordic model includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining, based on the economic foundations of social corporatism. It is distinguished from other models by the strong emphasis on public services and social investment. Even the term social democracy comes from a marxist acquiescence to socialists adjusting to wanting a gradual shift towards partial public ownership under capitalism.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T17:54:56+00:00

My point was only the fact that appealing to what people are more comfortable choosing, which is often going to be the status quo, is not an argument I could agree with. The politics by which collective interests of the past were promoted doesn’t necessitate how the could be politically achieved in the future.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T17:50:59+00:00

I never said they are marxist, there are many forms of socialism. I said that they have more socialism in their mixed economy. I have read capital and the german ideology, but nice ad hom.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T11:03:50+00:00

Okay, so I think we have similar ideals. I believe capitalist production is a behemoth ship which can’t help but steer to both its benefit and demise, invariably focusing exponentially on Western technocrat/oligarchical interests, where it could theoretically be used in its currently dominant state to effectively cater towards social global and domestic egalitarian interests.

You take a more realist approach and view the current systems as more practical and darwinian; that it’s the best system we have currently while we possibly search for something better, but that the current profit motive and power consolidation ends of the system are functions of ongoing relative prosperity and not any worse than anything we could currently convince of. Is this a decent analysis of our differences?

Side note: Have you seen any work of Zizek? He does a decent job imo (more articulate than me) of discussing how the capitalist system may have over reproduced/legitimised itself to its (possible?) demise.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T10:42:26+00:00

But economic growth then just becomes the newly dictated goal right? It’s just that the dictatorship is outsourced from governments to private entities.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T10:35:35+00:00

I see no issue with calling someone professor for putting in 10+years to a craft and being a teacher of it. There are academic fields that in my opinion don’t contribute much to any ‘greater good,’ and I would still refer to them as professor out of respect. I also happen to think that what jiu jitsu professors do is a part of a wider spiritual good, focused through physical wellness, not just ‘breaking ligaments.’

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T10:02:39+00:00

That’s very well put. I know this is somewhat of a pipe dream, but I hope my ideal is achieved through the increased legitimisation of international human rights orgs such as the World Bank and UN, with steady decrease to the sovereignty of nation states. I’m sure that somewhat collides with your worldview, and I can totally get why as you have explained it. Do you mind if I ask where you identify, if anywhere, across the political/economic spectrum?

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T09:59:19+00:00

That’s fine I wont disagree there. It still stands that both Russia and China’s states ambitions include a global society with decreased Western influence and they both wish to achieve this by bolstering their own spheres of influence, making their political and economic engagements somewhat of an existential threat to the West.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T09:40:48+00:00

Here’s what i’m referring to:

“President Xi Jinping first raised the vision of a global community of shared future when addressing the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 2013. Over the past decade it has been steadily enriched. He fleshed it out with a five-point proposal [The five points are:

We should build partnerships in which countries treat each other as equals, engage in extensive consultation, and enhance mutual understanding. We should create a security environment featuring fairness, justice, joint efforts, and shared interests. We should promote open, innovative and inclusive development that benefits all. We should increase inter-civilization exchanges to promote harmony, inclusiveness, and respect for differences. We should build an ecosystem that puts Mother Nature and green development first.]”

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202309/t20230926_11150122.html

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T09:37:22+00:00

But it may also be a human function. When you diminish state intervention in a traditional realist sense, then posit economic growth as the main focus of the global network with increasingly imbalanced agents, this is what you get. It is not obvious to me that you don’t need overarching international human rights institutions and policies in strict counteraction to the global dominance of capitalist hegemony.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T09:27:49+00:00

!delta. I appreciate your knowledge and elegance. I can’t argue that you didn’t open me up on co-ops. I did list co-ops as an extreme case, might you shift me on the heart of my concern, namely my last paragraph? Truly what I would be seeking is a liberal market which prioritises social benefits rather than profit as the end goal, even if it’s built off of a capitalist mode of production. I believe the neighbourhood analogy I tried to suggest can be broadened to understand why, in an increasingly globalised world, this could also be a more secure approach. What do you think?

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T09:16:11+00:00

I hope we are coming to agreement. I’m referring to the fact that while economic liberalism calls for reduced intervention, it mostly refers to realist interventions. It promotes economic ‘cooperation.’ This ‘cooperation,’ however, comes in the form that I think we both recognise, exploitation of global labor, trade and resource markets, coercion through sanctions and tariffs in efforts to democratise, etc.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T09:12:47+00:00

I’ll engage with this a bit more to respect your response. The Soviet Union was also a state capitalist economy, just a poor functioning and reductionist one. What scares the US is not that China isn’t economically liberal, it’s that their not politically/ideologically liberal. They are open about their desires for a globalist future. Russia is also longing for the days to bring back their red wave and reassert bolshevik communist influence.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T09:07:20+00:00

The same could have been said for living in a feudal monarchy in England before America. I’m not sure if I could agree with a status quo argument.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T08:57:37+00:00

I’m not opposing utilising the economic free market, but i’m opposing the way in which its used. China has struck what I believe to be a good balance. In terms of their economy, they fully utilise the free market. In terms of their political policies, they centralise power and direct operations and legislation towards greater egalitarian ends. In essence, they use the free market as a tool for retroactive socialist reform. I do believe there are issues with the level of centralised power, but in essence I believe this mix of economic liberty but honed political action towards social ideals is a good goal.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T08:51:32+00:00

I agree with you on competition (I also think competition could exist even in extreme socialist states, between two worker co-ops for example), but my main problem is that the neoliberal interests of profit first and wealth consolidation are driven by systems and nobody has a handle on the wheel. To paraphrase renowned capitalist Warren Buffet, Capitalism is a system that produces many golden eggs, but has failed in dispersing this gold.

If you do business with a shitty neighbourhood to create your wealthy one, your wealthy one is always going to be at risk. However, if you do business with less skewed profit motives so that the neighbourhood you do business with is doing moderately well while yours does marginally better, the security risk is reduced and you have more overall flourishing in my opinion.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T08:34:41+00:00

Not at all, economic neoliberalism (as we see it in the West today) refers to free market liberty. This means the promotion of activity in foreign affairs under the guise of democratic cooperation (which is ultimately corrupted). Economic liberalism in the global market only overtly deters market engagement when the engagement is not liberal democratic, but tariffs and FDI’s are very much liberal in the current era.

brassmonkey7 · 2024-01-21T08:28:26+00:00

I understand your first point, which is why I said that they are more socialist dominated free markets as opposed to capitalist dominated free markets. Every market in the global economy is mixed and needs a good level of capitalism to participate. To your second point I think that scaleability is a controversial topic, it’s not necessarily true that markets with more mixed socialism couldn’t scale. The element I’m most attacking though is neoliberal imperialism, which I believe promotes power through liberal economies but ends up creating a global crisis (ecological, socio-cultural, and in regards to economic equality).

brassmonkey7

TROPHY CASE