why would i fucking care about the rest of what you have to say, liar? You’re not here arguing in good faith, why would I bother?

1. assets plural

a. the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies

b. the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts

2. ADVANTAGE, RESOURCE

a. an item of value owned

b. assets plural the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned

Hey now, something strange is going on here - see, when I visit that page, there aren’t just 3 items. Now, you wouldn’t be selectively ignoring parts of your own source to paint a certain narrative, would you? Because the 4th item I see is

4 : something useful in an effort to foil or defeat an enemy: such as
a : a piece of military equipment

b : spy

I’m sure you simply… overlooked it in your excitement. Now you’re aware though, I’m sure you’ll be happy to correct your comments.

To be clear, being a troll or a paid actor doesn’t make you someone’s property.

Ok, I give up, I have no idea if you’re doing a bit. Like I felt kinda confident you were serious, but this leaves me floundering. Purposely obtuse because you’ve talked yourself into such a stupid corner, or just that incredibly obtuse that you unironically think asset means property? Absolutely no way to tell which one it is.

People love to talk about self reliance without thinking about it too hard - you’re not on your own, you’re entirely dependent on cooperating with others for your way of life. You did not builld you house, your car, your clothes, your bed. You did not grow your food, you did not mine the oil in your plastic products, nor refine it into them. You do not generate the electricity that powers your home and devices, you did not build the generator or infrastructure that brings power to you. Even the smallest things - the cutlery you use to eat, the soap you wash with, the bed you sleep on - were made by others for your use.

Self reliance is a capitalist myth that’s inherently disproven by modern civilisation.

It was the United States which pioneered the idea of the modern mail system

The UK had a general post office that deliverd to individuals over 100 years before the USA was founded. The US postal system is based on the UK one that delivered their mail before the US’s founding. Why on earth would you think the US pioneered it?

Go into the notes of almost any of their releases and you’ll find borderline schizophrenic screeds full of hate and bigotry. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, thinking the Harry Potter series is good, all kinds of shit. Also, at least once she said she was going to jail because she was caught cracking something but kept putting out releases without any disruption. Here’s one from the time she was accused of being a trans woman (cw: all of the above)

The Good, The Bad, and the Weird (좋은 놈, 나쁜 놈, 이상한 놈) is a fantastic slapstick take on the classic western that has a lot of fun with the setting.
Trollhunter (Trolljegeren) is a great horror-mockumentary done in a found footage style.
Basically anything by Kurosawa.

Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

You’re asking why radical leftists reject your reformism. Who other than radical leftists are going to give you an actual answer instead of a pat on the back?

Anyway the answer is liberalism is far more violent, it just exports the violence overseas and commits it at an industrialised level. The infamous “Terror” in France only killed a few thousand people - the Iraq war killed over a million. While millions were killed in the cultural revolution, hundreds of millions were killed by the British Raj. Revolutionary violence is in fact far less violent than regular capitalism, so you’re hated for supporting its continuation.

“Dead meat is hung, live meat is hanged.” Turns out most people’s grandma’s aren’t radical leftist english teachers.

Actually I jumped to conclusions based on the whole comment, as it makes them seem like they consider becoming a moral relativist to be speeding through maturity.

Ok, I see what you mean, the way you wrote it made it seem like you considered the process of becoming a moral relativist to be speed running maturity. Well done for growing out of it, then.

to go full moral relativism right away

Jesus, so you still think the mature stance was “maybe Hitler wasn’t morally wrong”? Bad news, you still have a lot of maturing to do. Like a fucking phenomenal amount. Just because your beliefs as a child were even more baseless doesn’t mean you’ve moved to a sensible position.

The only marketing I don’t hate is handwritten signs by the gate to a farm with addendums like “manur: $free$”

The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences.

You really don’t understand that the things you say have meanings, do you?

The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences.

You literally talk in your other reply about how you’ll join them. You can’t just sit down and talk about how they want to kill the jews and you don’t - your willingness to hear them out inherently legitimises their ideas as being reasonable and able to be reasoned about.

I know you don’t fully understand how the way that you say something can be as informative as what you actually say, but I don’t need to assume - you did actually tell me in your comment that you don’t really mind nazis as long as they’re not being violent towards you.

Ok, but it’s what telegram has. So would you rather keep your “free” speech and put others in danger, or lose it to keep others safe?

Just Google the paradox of tolerance. It’s really not as complicated as you’re making it out to be.

Also, punching Nazis is always morally correct. If you wouldn’t attack a nazi because they’re not currently threatening you specifically then you won’t develop any additional moral prerogative in time of civil war - you’ll join them, because they’re still not threatening you specifically, while fair and equal redistribution of resources will effect you. You don’t have any sort of morality or ideology underlying your objection, you just think extreme things are bad because you’re not given a choice.

Are you sure they’re not saying “you’re whale cum”, because that’s what I do.

Gonna change your question to “dog”, as that’s what I have

1. I would choose basically any other life over my worst enemy’s. In a choice between them and no one, I’d save no one. I feel you don’t understand how emnity works.
2. Better question, dog,
3. because he’s a member of my family that I’m responsible for. As annoying as his theivery is and as bad as his farts are, he’s my friend. Would you choose a stranger over one of your friends?

BBC Radio 6 Music has a lot of obscure stuff, especially the DJs like Iggy Pop and Craig Charles.