Search Results
8/11/2025, 3:43:38 AM
>>82145366
extremely specific fixation
extremely specific fixation
8/8/2025, 8:37:05 PM
I'm an ugly bald fat fuck and I haven't ever had sex, I'm past being a wizard at this point. I thought I'd moved on from caring about sex but lastnight I dreamed I was fucking some sperg from 4chan while an old woman watched. I feel like a monster even though it was just a dream. I'm not even into tranny shit or femboys and all that other homo shit that gets posted about on here.
8/7/2025, 10:32:26 PM
>>24619240
Don’t take offense to this, but this is a lot of nihilistic reductionism, anon. But i’m happy your at least being honest about where you’re coming from, and I don’t mean this in a mean way.
Look, if legitimacy were purely about intimidation, why do regimes consistently collapse when they lose popular support despite maintaining military force? The Soviet Union is a great example; had massive coercive apparatus but dissolved when legitimacy eroded. Why do governments spend enormous resources on propaganda, education systems, and justifying policies if raw force is sufficient?
I don’t like the Putin example desu, it kinda proves my point: he maintains elections precisely because canceling them would delegitimize him in ways that matter practically - both domestically and internationally. The fact that he’s “already Literally Worse Than Hitler” to some people doesn’t mean additional domestic delegitimization is costless. If elections were pure theater with no functional difference, he’d save the money and effort.
Weber being “ages ago” is just plain anti-intellectual posturing. Newton did his work centuries ago; gravity still important. Weber’s insights about bureaucratic iron cages are more relevant now. Understanding these dynamics isn’t about “fashionable theories” - it’s about analyzing how power actually operates.
Your claim that “reality doesn’t evolve” and we’re “stagnating” is empirically false. Political systems, technology, and social organization have undergone massive changes even in recent decades. Denying obvious changes doesn’t make you insightful. The fundamental issue is you’re treating your nihilistic reductionism as sophisticated when it’s actually just lazy. Reducing all political analysis to “might makes right” doesn’t explain why some “might” is more durable than others, why legitimacy crises occur, or how institutions actually function.
Don’t take offense to this, but this is a lot of nihilistic reductionism, anon. But i’m happy your at least being honest about where you’re coming from, and I don’t mean this in a mean way.
Look, if legitimacy were purely about intimidation, why do regimes consistently collapse when they lose popular support despite maintaining military force? The Soviet Union is a great example; had massive coercive apparatus but dissolved when legitimacy eroded. Why do governments spend enormous resources on propaganda, education systems, and justifying policies if raw force is sufficient?
I don’t like the Putin example desu, it kinda proves my point: he maintains elections precisely because canceling them would delegitimize him in ways that matter practically - both domestically and internationally. The fact that he’s “already Literally Worse Than Hitler” to some people doesn’t mean additional domestic delegitimization is costless. If elections were pure theater with no functional difference, he’d save the money and effort.
Weber being “ages ago” is just plain anti-intellectual posturing. Newton did his work centuries ago; gravity still important. Weber’s insights about bureaucratic iron cages are more relevant now. Understanding these dynamics isn’t about “fashionable theories” - it’s about analyzing how power actually operates.
Your claim that “reality doesn’t evolve” and we’re “stagnating” is empirically false. Political systems, technology, and social organization have undergone massive changes even in recent decades. Denying obvious changes doesn’t make you insightful. The fundamental issue is you’re treating your nihilistic reductionism as sophisticated when it’s actually just lazy. Reducing all political analysis to “might makes right” doesn’t explain why some “might” is more durable than others, why legitimacy crises occur, or how institutions actually function.
Page 1