>>458450
what is your point exactly?
>these fucking idiots are realizing that they are in trouble. they shouldn't be fucking vocal about their potential demise, but perish like a schizoid yet grateful, capitalistic drone with lack of solidarity. because it is my own aesthetic preference.
dafuq let them try to mobilize, even if it won't change much. where do you think civilized development historically happens, if not in constantly shifting alliances of individuals?
(btw do you consider yourself a picket lines crossing scab? please answer honestly - I am actually curious, as it would help with trying to understand your perspective a lot)

since you prefer listing argumentative parts of the discussion instead of addressing my (clearly put, desu) main idea (read again: >>458429):
1) either tell me *why it is wrong* to assume that there is truth to *both sides* (my very initial statement) or
2) shut the hell up, honestly.
why the fuck sell to me your ideological side, when it is clearly part (one half, to be precise) of my very own account???????
are you talking to
>a lot of people
>>458440
or me?
because one of these cases is boring as hell