Jump to content


Member Since 24 Nov 2004
Offline Last Active Dec 29 2017 06:16 AM

#2002345 Unpopular Opinions

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 28 February 2017 - 12:54 AM

I could go into a whole spiel about the origins of the word "popular" and how it's co-opted today, but since this is the twelfth page of the thread and would probably go unappreciated, I'll spare you the details. If anybody's interested, send me a message for some good reading material. Or check out the wikipedia page for "Populares". It's really colloquially used today to mean "something enjoyed by many" as opposed to "that which benefits/serves many" (as the populares did).

Anyway, I guess that's already one unpopular opinion, the meaning of the word itself, lol.

Else, I think divacups are superior to tampons and pads. I don't meet to many people that share the view or have even tried. I guess it's a bit of an investment, but the money saved in the long run is well worth it.

#2001831 The Pewdiepie situation - new media vs old media

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 20 February 2017 - 10:30 PM

The latter finds its basis in the censorship and demonization of opinions that don't line up with your own, by slandering the character of people you do not know instead of actually debating the issue. The other is your feelings.


The problem is you cling to the bourgeois idea of free-spech as non plus ultra. I have no problems with censorship and demonization of certain opinions. Like most things, speech has a class character. There is bourgeois, reactionary speech and there is proletarian speech.


Anti-semitism, ‘an extreme form of racial chauvinism’, is a tool used by exploiters to divert workers from the struggle with capitalism, deflecting the blows aimed against it instead toward each other, at the benefit of the exploiter. As communists, we can not therefore be but "irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism".


Even in the heart of empire, "our" nation-states have some concessions to this degree. Hate speech isn't entirely protected, partially as a result of its brutal consequences; as the bourgeois class sees a small rise in capitalists of color (presuming at which point they're not enslaved or legally delegated to the form of a second-class citizen), and as it needs to maintain favourability and a semblance of law and order.


Hate speech isn't the only form of speech which can carry legal consequences in bourgeois society, there's also: libel, slander, defamation, classified information, obscenity laws, and intellectual property. So censorship already exists, overwhelmingly to the benefit of the class which maintains hegemonic monopoly ownership over most things (politicians, courts, mass media, factories, banks, etc).


Dehumanization is also a tactic employed by the imperialists ("axis of evil", unbecoming media portrayals, people in need of saving) toward the nations they threaten to invade, occupy, bomb or usurp unless they toe the line with the global capitalist social and economic order.


Unlike liberals, we judge speech by its class character and not to the extent that it deepens the coffers of a monied class at the expense of the majority.


It demonstrates a logical infancy to uphold "free speech" in the facilitation of chauvinist attitudes which preface targeted violence and legislation, all of which amount to the reduction of general freedom for those people.


If you wish to speak of any freedoms, speak of freedom for the oppressed. The freedom of expression (and sometimes existence) for the global majority is predicated on the suppression of anti-person "free" expression.




Edit: Below, generic dismisses the content of my post as "pseudointellectual garbage" so as to avoid the responsibility of defending his flawed premise. He's still failed to address the idiosyncrasies of his crusade for "freedom" of speech.

I've postulated the number of ways freedom of speech, expression and information is already stifled in liberal bourgeois society through legislation, such as: slander, libel, defamation, classified information, obscenity laws, proprietary information, patents, copyrights, intellectual property etc.

If one is against all forms of censorship, then all the aforestated deserve equal repudiation. Insofar as Generic has not communicated such a stance, I'm forced to believe they either (i) refuse to recognize or admit their own willful inconsistency or (ii) they like the "Death to all Jews" statement.

#2001821 The Pewdiepie situation - new media vs old media

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 20 February 2017 - 09:03 PM

You see me as policing and denigrating people's reactions while I see you as policing and denigrating people's sense of humor.


The former finds its basis in the mass murder, lynchings, rape and gas chamber executions of an ethnoreligious minority. The other is your sense of humour.



I don't think you even realise what my point was. My point was that I didn't see his joke as racist


No need to clarify, you've demonstrated clearly that you think "Death to all Jews" isn't racist.

#2001811 The Pewdiepie situation - new media vs old media

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 20 February 2017 - 08:05 PM

People seem to be misconstruing what happened. The "joke" wasn't him saying "Kill all jews". The joke was the fact that there exists online the publicly sanctioned ability (through Fiverr) to pay a man dressed up as Jesus or random caricatures of people in a "jungle" to say hateful and shocking things for petty cash. If Felix came on camera and said "Kill all jews" with no context, yeah, that'd be stupid as hell and a direct anti-semetic message. But he didn't do this. He highlighted the ridiculousness of the "Lifestyle" section of Fiverr by showing how easy it is to make people do shocking things for small amounts of money. It was a social commentary. Blame Fiverr for giving these people the platform. Or blame these people for doing shocking things for petty cash.



On a different note, I'm still waiting for @Pink_Bubble to reply and explain to me how exactly she can justify saying I "long-winded"ly defended anti-semetism and white supremacy, and about my "proximity" to it. You literally just call me anti-semetic and white supremacist because I defended someone's right to have a crude sense of humor. I'd appreciate some guidance as to where I was in close "proximity" to anti-semitism and white supremacy... lol.




Humour can come from a release of (social) tension, a sudden contradiction, an unexpected subversion of our expectations

The theory of humour in evolution I've found most convincing is that it helps to soften conflict in groups that need to depend on their social cohesion for survival

In laughter, teeth are exposed, which is actually a sign of aggression, but here it's turned into its opposite

The body convulses, making the participants incapable of physical aggression

At the same time, vocalizations ring out, confirming audibly those who are part of this collective ritual

In a small communal family of hunter gatherers, an elder or someone with (community-vested) authority might slip and fall, and in order to soften the social tension of this sudden change in their rank,

Of course in the modern psyche, the evolutionary history of a certain social or psychological function is detached from its base and can take on general significance (this happens for sex as well, for another example, among many), and so we can have humour about "subversions of order" or "unexpectedness" and social tensions in a much more generalized way.


So, my analysis of why (defense of) this "humour" is cloaked bigotry rests on several elements:

The fact that it's a Nazi slogan

The fact that it's traumatic for victims of the holocaust and their families

The common trope that Jews are a lesser Other

This tension being amplified by social conflict in today's hyper-racist society

The subtle element that eager defense of Nazi sloganeering and lazy racist "humour", almost always reveals the comforts of not being its victims.

#2001766 The TMI topic

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 20 February 2017 - 05:34 PM



Tell your friend, she deserves to know what kind of friend she has



Yeah, I'll come forward eventually.. I think it'll be more appropriate once the break-up drama has died down.

Edit: After some heavy ruminating, I've decided I won't share the details. I personally think honesty here is risky and sometimes whats not known hurts no one.


Edit 2: Especially considering what happened last summer. The entitlement and possessiveness I've been on the receiving end of after sleeping with the best friend of someone I only went on two dates with. It wasn't me that came clean, I would have preferred it not be communicated. I maintain my 'date' didn't deserve to know; two dates doesn't warrant an expectation of monogamy or sexual exclusivity. The amount of slut-shaming, body-shaming, hate-messaging, vitriol and awkward tension (we have mutual friends) I experienced from him that continues to exist to this day. I don't need that again.

#2001667 The Pewdiepie situation - new media vs old media

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 19 February 2017 - 03:49 PM

Wow, turns out I'm the minority opinion in this? I thought it was pretty unanimously obvious that the media is defaming him and people are just eating up the opportunity to call him a Nazi because they dislike him. Confirmation bias type thing, "Ugh Pewdiepie is so annoying... Oh and he's a Nazi? Yeah, screw him!"


He's not a Nazi. The whole reason that Fiverr video was funny was BECAUSE it was shocking. It was like "Holy crap I can't believe these people actually did this". It's low brow, shock value, stupid humor, sure. But he's not a Nazi lol. Also, to the people saying that Felix was abusing the Fiverr people and this is somehow his fault... I disagree entirely. What he said in his response video is entirely true. Those dudes "dancing in the jungle" as they themselves put it, were just following through with their business on their own free will. Their entire purpose is people to laugh at them. They're caricatures. That's like someone hiring a clown and laughing when they get hit in the face with a pie, and then people get offended on behalf of the clown. If the people in the video cared that their customers were laughing about it, they wouldn't be doing the stupid crap for people's entertainment. People are getting offended on behalf of people that are voluntarily acting goofy for money.


Also, I'd like to point out, why is all the backlash against Pewdiepie anyway? Why is no one upset at Fiverr? Or how come no one is upset at the people who followed through with the order? They're people too, why is it only Pewdiepie that's held accountable for his actions? Why is Pewd an anti-semite for ordering that request, as a joke, and not expecting it, but the people in the video who voluntarily followed through with it not even questioned?


I understand that freedom of speech is a two way street, people are allowed to have whatever opinions they want on the video. But NEWS OUTLETS aren't people. News outlets are gigantic corporations with the legal duty to not slander (libel) an individual. They took a bunch of clips out of context and stitched them together to form a story. Why does anyone even trust the media anymore? It's just filled to the brim with bias and sensationalism. It's disgusting.


I'd like to clarify that I don't like or care about Pewdiepie either, by the way. The only thing I'm against is labeling people Nazi over a joke that he didn't even think would happen, and news outlets getting away with flat out defamation and fabricating a story. Context matters.


Edit: inb4 i regret posting my opinion and i'm labelled racist



Whether or not he's a Nazi is conjecture.


What's known for a fact is that he funded and facilitated the Nazist message of "death to all jews" to be broadcasted to his audience of over fifty million.


Your long-winded defense of white supremacy and anti-semetism says a lot more about your proximity and complacency toward it.

#2001657 The Pewdiepie situation - new media vs old media

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 19 February 2017 - 02:34 PM

Jokes about ethnic genocide and mass slaughter of jews have no place in daily conversation, let alone on a YouTube channel whose 50-million subscribers are mostly children. It absolutely does normalize nazist views and violence against jews, and his dismissal of that notion (saying "spoiler alert, it doesn't") shows his lack of remorse. He's not sorry about his joke and its repercussions, he's sorry that he didn't realize the personal consequences, to the extent it affects him, of making light of the largest mass human slaughter in history.  Makes me wish Stalin were still around:



#1999872 Veganism(/vegetarianism but mostly veganism)

Posted by Pink_Bubble on 14 January 2017 - 01:29 AM

I opt for a plant-based diet whenever possible, but I wouldn't consider myself vegetarian or vegan -- mostly just broke. A half-kilo of tofu here is $1.20, so it's just more economical as a student in the city.

So far this thread has been apolitical, so I'm sorry if my following analysis is unwelcome. I realize people arrive at veg-ism for their own reasons (nutritional benefits [skin, diabetes, weight], moral, ecological) but I do have ideological concerns with the political aims of the veg movement, most of which is detailed here: Dismantling White Veganism. Additionally, I'd like to add that the problems of factory farming are problems which are symptomatic of a profit-based economic system: the only reason we pack animals in cages isn't simply because of the moral depravity of the workers employed there or even capitalist who runs the factory-farm, but because it is profitable and advantageous to make the most out of that real estate as a result of this economic system.

The lack of a centrally planned economy and an existing anarchy of rule among the producers makes it impossible for there to be an agreement on the extreme reality of the crises (eg methane emissions), let alone a consensus to funnel much-needed resources into research for their solutions, or alternatives such as lab meats and other sources of agriculturally sustainable sources of protein.

As these problems are structural, imho overthrowing capitalism is the best way to resolve crises caused by the meat industry. The struggle for animal liberation and ecological restoration has to be hand-in-hand with revolutionary socialist politics, because individual consumer choices ("voting with your wallet") is not going to cut it. Indeed, the expectation for this approach and attitude puts the blame and responsibility on the masses of consumers, who are in relation, of more modest means than the handful of producers who maintain the industry.

It also reeks of social chauvinism and classism to expect consumers to bear the burden of animal liberation and ecologic restoration, as large sections of the population live in 'food deserts' (not within access of a supermarket) or are unable to afford the time (and depending on your location, the expenses) to commit to such a drastic lifestyle change, especially in the case of workers at their most intense shades, such as a single parent who works multiple jobs, attends school and has dependent children.

I would like to see a future without animal cruelty and suffering, and I'm thoroughly convinced that as long as there is a profit to be made from it, it will continue on a mass scale as it is today.