>this is who Kojimer and Big Boss simp over
Imagine if George Lucas said he supported Mao, this would be similar.

>mongoloid slave race
>resist oppressor
so fake. that's just some academic text. political philosophy can never come out of an asian mouth.

>aislop
opinion disregarded

>>714066092
But he literally did say the bottom thing
Why would the Google AI, which definitely has leftist biases (and it shows here) lie?

No wonder he killed Abe

>>714066248
He’s so retarded, he’s somehow more retarded than George Lucas. It’s a shame he made those 3 good games (that also you can smell his pretentious political shit from 500 miles away when you play)

>>714065441 (OP)
>in the context of a revolution
But to understand the statement you have to understand what he considered an oppressive regime. A government literally executing their own citizens for organizing marches. Violently and lethally shutting down any protests.

>>714065441 (OP)
Star Wars was a literal "What if the Nazi's had to fight the Viet Cong" setup.
People forget that George since the start has been a weird Christo-Buddhist spirituality guy.

>>714065441 (OP)
literally human history how is he wrong?

>>714065441 (OP)
Imagine getting killed by bolivians, literal tribal midgets
KWAB

>>714066161
>lie
ai can't lie you fucking retarded nigger pajeet faggot. Go fucking kill yourself and make the world a less retarded place. Jesus fucking christ you are retarded.

>>714066161
>giant global capitalist corporation
>definitely has leftist biases
I swear some of you live in a fantasy world, bending reality to match your shit opinions

>>714065441 (OP)
Big Boss likes him mostly because he's a soldier and Che is often considered a master at Guarilia warfare.

He's also, you know, a villain that eventually goes off the deep end.

>>714065441 (OP)
leftroons should look up what he said about faggots

He was right, most people unless you're a chud NEET virgin, are turning left/socialist

>>714067268
90% of people here intellectually and socially stunted manchildren or literal children who parrot shit so they can feel part of the cool big boi clique, this is one of those threads.

>>714067404
what americans said he said about faggots*

>>714065441 (OP)
Nothing wrong with that, communism isn’t a failed ideology because of that.

>>714067268
Anon, Marx is wrong and the capitalist corporation doesn't actually have capitalist ideology just because it belongs to the class of capitalist corporations. There isn't some natural force that would inexorably link these two. You literally only think that there's a connection, at all, between what some thing is and what it's going to think, because Marx couldn't refute someone's argument and instead responded with
>you're group X therefore you're wrong and there is no such thing as truth anyways and no reason to argue we kill you now

>>714067335
But Kojimer supports him
And Kojimer just makes videogames
And he’s never lived in the area
>>714067818
So being a hateful faggot who murders children is good?

>>714065441 (OP)
Wft this guy k-k-k-kills people? Well that's not an appropriate role model for Big Boss who is a cute little nurse girl

>>714067437
>le hebick shiba wojak
kill yourself

>>714068325
>But Kojimer supports him
Wouldn't surprise me considering the kind of guy he is.

>So being a hateful faggot who murders children is good?
I mean, standing up for the freedom of your country is generally viewed as good. Despite everything, there is a reason why he's often considered a symbol of freedom.

>>714068175
>Anon, Marx is wrong and the capitalist corporation doesn't actually have capitalist ideology just because it belongs to the class of capitalist corporations.
>Self interest doesn't exist for rich people and the systems they create to support themselves.
Capitalist corporations have capitalist ideology by default. Otherwise the foundation of all right wing thinking is fundamentally wrong.

>>714068175
>The multibillionaire people who harvest and sell your data, engage in aggressive money laundering and the stock market do not actually have capitalist ideology...because they peddle le gay folx idpol bullshit and le hekkin' cheguavarinos
Child, you have summer homework to do or better yet, videogames to play, do not engage in offtopic subjects you have zero knowledge or understanding of

>>714068531
>>So being a hateful faggot who murders children is good?
>I mean,
Jfc

>>714068606
What do you think the foundation of all right wing thinking is, now?
Marx wasn't working class, so by class ideology he wouldn't be able to contribute to working class ideology, but class ideology is his contribution to working class ideology. This shit is self-contradicting on an atomic level.

>>714068175
>capitalists are not actually capitalists
american education at its finest

>>714068636
but that doesn’t change the fact that Che Guevara was a cold blooded fucking murderer and a piece of shit

>>714067268
They literally do though. The fact that it sounds contradictory doesn't erase the fact that it's an observable phenomenon.

Hey guys Pol Pot was BASED he owned the libs.

>>714068920
oh yeah, tell me about their leftist biases then
what exactly makes google leftist propaganda in your eyes

>>714068753
>Marx wasn't working class
Marx did not own a business or workers, he did not have a noble title, he was a writer, a journalist and scholar, I implore you to actually stop posting this bullshit and go play videogames, and get yourself some degree of actual education rather than being the quintessential useful idiot you love to call other people.

>>714069150
Marx looks like Santa Claus I wouldn’t trust that faggot taking care of my pet let alone write an entire ideology that resulted in deaths of hundreds of millions

>>714068636
An actual component of capitalist ideology is property rights.
Does Google believe in property rights?
Property rights contradict intellectual property, which Google upholds, therefore Google is not ideologically capitalist.
There's nothing to force them to believe a singular narrative of what are proper and improper uses of resources just because they have resources.

>>714069318
>Property rights contradict intellectual property
lol what, are you a bot or something

>>714069558
I don’t know what he’s saying but it doesn’t change the fact that almost all of not all communist revolutionaries are murdering cocksuckers
You can say whatever you want about capitalism and the government of capitalist nations and the military and shit, but it doesn’t change what I said.

>>714068753
>What do you think the foundation of all right wing thinking is, now?
It depends, but on average: 1: Everybody is motivated by self interest and it's utopian thinking to believe otherwise. 2: Our evil god will wipe away human civilization and enslave all of survivors in a few years.

>so by class ideology he wouldn't be able to contribute to working class ideology, but class ideology is his contribution to working class ideology
He wrote a theory that was adopted by the working class. You fundamentally misunderstand the notion of ideology or the working class if you think that's contradiction.

>>714065441 (OP)
>>this is who Kojimer and Big Boss simp over
Based
Viva la revolution

>>714069670
>points fault in his logic
>reeee murderers
retard

>>714068920
>It's a observable phenomenon.
I don't see it, sorry. Show me a example if you are serious.

>>714069670
>Yes I am totally wrong about everything.
>But I am still correct about this one thing.
Have you considered that you are also wrong about that thing, actually?

>>714065441 (OP)
Conservatives like you are extremely stupid, since you view the actions and quotes of leftist figures out of context. He didn't say that shit on a bright and sunny day just to be an edgelord in counter strike, he said it in response to his side being slaughtered by a fascist regime in his country.

Wow! It's so surprising that he doesn't assholes who kill off your family and friends for peacefully demonstrating against them!

It's easy to feel morally superior to people when you have access to free information along with a functioning ac, but "radical leftists" bled for the right for people like you to live more comfortably than them. Back then, they didn't have it, the wealthy believed that serfs like you should be exploited and refused to help you after they broke you down.

>>714069863
Hating leftist 15 year olds calling for genocide when they still have a curfew is more of a widespread view than conservative.

>>714069936
>Leftists calling out for genocide
No, that's the far right.

>>714069558
You would have to understand some things.
If I patent a method for combining oil and pigment into paint, and you own oil and pigment, the result is that to the degree that I own the patent, you don't own your material resources.
In more abstract terms, ideas can be used simultaneously for multiple purposes without excluding other uses and users, thus they are not scarce and cannot be subject to conflict, and there is no necessity to have ethics over the use of ideas.
To introduce intellectual property rights means to enforce scarcity of ideas artificially through violence, which is the opposite of the capitalist ideal of an economy comprised fully of voluntary mutually beneficial trade.

>>714069083
>oh yeah, tell me about their leftist biases then
LGBT and women rights are promoted by big corporations.

>>714070024
>which is the opposite of the capitalist ideal of an economy comprised fully of voluntary mutually beneficial trade.
It's almost like the capitalist ideal and the capitalist reality are worlds apart, and patents are a vital part of making capitalism as it actually exists functions.

>>714070105
>Women rights
Anon, this isn't 1920. Women rights are protected in the same way that the right to vote is a protected belief.

>LGBT
Only when it's convenient. Companies are just as prone to using trad or, dare I say, heteronormative imagery when they think it will make the product sell better.

>>714070105

Those aren't leftist values. They're liberal values. Mind, I think they're positive liberal values that I, as a leftist, agree with but you can just as well be a rightist and still hold them.

>>714068721
>Is it bad to be hateful and murder children.
>Yes, but only if you are defending against somebody murdering your children out of hate and malice.
Your logic.

>>714070175
I don't care if it's the 1920s or not. It's a policy associated with "the left", because the traditional, patriarchal societies associated with "the right" are against women's rights, or at the very least, against women attaining political power and economical autonomy. The overton window shifted towards the left, that is all. It's still a leftist policy that is supported by Big corportations, because it gives them more customers.
>Companies are just as prone to using trad or, dare I say, heteronormative imagery
Heteronormative imagery is now considered a niche. This is how radically to the left 99% of companies have became.

>>714070284
>They're liberal values
Liberalism is left-wing. Classical liberalism is a way to undermine the authority of kings.

>>714069767
>>714069838
Try telling someone in an communist government to their face seething and screaming “YOU’RE BABY MURDERERS YOU’RE PIECES OF SHIT YOU’RE EVIL” and see what happens
In America screaming schizo shit to officials and soldiers and politicians and cops and shit is fucking tradition, you only get killed if you really where about to blow the cork aka wealthy and powerful to a degree

>>714070105
>socialism is about lgbts
in reality lgbt is one of the many tools used by the capitalist class to keep their privileges
they don't actually care about the gays or women, just like they don't care about men and the straight, they're just a ressource to suck dry and further improve their wealth
just like in the real world nobody gives a shit about lgbts, but they're being pushed in the narrative just to sow the grains of conflict between different groups of the same class, so they forget the bigger picture
same happens with immigration, ethnicities and all the different groups that compose the working class
you're a useful idiot, while you're being mad about inconsenquential shit they're putting their hands in your pocket

>>714070385
>It's a policy associated with "the left", because the traditional, patriarchal societies associated with "the right" are against women's rights
By that same logic the right is also traditionally associated with absolute monarchs and the nobility. Since monarchies are often still portrayed positively in fiction that means there is just as much right wing bias out there.

>The overton window shifted towards the left,
If shifted towards the left before you were born, yes. That hardly means anybody is pandering to the left when all they are doing is literally just acknowledging society as it exists. If anything, it's centrism.

>Heteronormative imagery is now considered a niche.
Lol. Go outside, or at least remove ad blocker.

>>714069936
There's no genocide, you're just a pampered white guy who wants to feel like a victim from being historically illiterate.
>>714069670
Hot take: Everyone kills. Communists do it for the people, Capitalists do it for $$$. Teh former is great because we get public libraries, schools, 5 day work weeks, vacation time, and safety regulations out of it, the latter is objectively bad because it's expensive while giving none of the good shit.

Elon Musk killed 300k people from cutting off USAID because it was le-heckin woke, and it didn't even save the government money! A rich billionaire committed more murders than any communist did in their lives just to save the equivalent few cents and it didn't improve society at all.
https://archive. ph/oOn83
https://archive .ph/w1wQd
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5413322/aid-groups-say-usaid-cuts-are-already-having-deadly-consequences

>>714070547
>Try telling someone in an communist government to their face seething and screaming “YOU’RE BABY MURDERERS YOU’RE PIECES OF SHIT YOU’RE EVIL” and see what happens
If you start randomly screaming at people that they murder Babies they are unlikely to get positive results.

>In America screaming schizo shit to officials and soldiers and politicians and cops and shit is fucking tradition,
>Soldiers
Lol. Your average soldier will gun you down for looking at you funny. Same for police officers. Stop thinking Rambo 1 was a documentary.

>>714070535
>Liberalism is left-wing
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strenght
literally 1984

>>714070547
>In America screaming schizo shit to officials and soldiers and politicians and cops and shit is fucking tradition, you only get killed if you really where about to blow the cork aka wealthy and powerful to a degree
That's only a privilege granted to white men.

If you're a minority, you're not granted that right. People were detained by fucking ICE for writing blogs that criticize Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk

>>714070645
delusional

>>714070579
>By that same logic the right is also traditionally associated with absolute monarchs and the nobilit
Sure.
>Since monarchies are often still portrayed positively in fiction
Where? Most of the past 10 years have fiction that shit all over monarchies. The biggest medieval show of the 2010s to 2020s decade was GoT, which is a deconstruction of the trope of nobility. This is just not true, monarchies are painted in the worst light imaginable in recent culture.
>Lol. Go outside, or at least remove ad blocker.
Even the facebook dating app ads show a pair of lesbians.
Valentine's was this month and there was not a single ad that didn't depict an equal amount of LGBT couples to hetero couples.

>>714070535
>Liberalism is left wing
Yes, anon, it was left wing. Circa 1830.

Are you living in 1830 right now?

>the authority of kings.
Kings having the authority they have was highly left wing in 1600 AD when the actual conservative opinion was to maintain the feudal status quo. Of course, the FEUDAL status quo was itself also highly leftist in 700 AD when the conservative opinion was to maintain the largely tribal and or patronage based structure that had defined society until then. Granted, if you go back to 200BC you will find that...

METAL GEAR?

>>714070535
Leftists/socialists are trying to reinstate the monarchy though just it's done "democratically". They think only the people in government should have complete control over everything and the drones should have no control over their lives at all.

>>714070535
Suppose that's true, if you are a firm believer in feudalism, liberalism is indeed to the left of where you stand. I'll give you that. But at that point, what isn't?

>>714070112
The contradiction is exactly the same as between leftist ideal and leftist practice. Which is why it's entirely fair to say that Google has leftist tendencies, as much as it has capitalist tendencies, because it does, and none of these ideals describe actual reality because they describe ideals.
The question is if you have some shit in your head that prevents you from seeing this. Corporations are doing exactly as much to further capitalist ideals as they are doing to further leftist ideals, which is fuck all.

>>714070848
hierarchy != monarchy

>>714070848
>Leftists/socialists are trying to reinstate the monarchy though
You are retarded, terminally so.

>>714070975
Google literally provided AI tech for Israel to kill Palestinians in it lol, the fact that you think that billionaire corporations are pro-diversity and Marxist is hilarious
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nimbus
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nimbus-and-why-are-google-workers-protesting-israel-deal

>>714070734
Says the guy who thinks that Rambo 1 really happened.

>>714070807
>Where?
In the last ten years? Multiple Fire Emblem games. Warhammer Total War. Princess Connect. Most Disney movies featuring a monarchy. Elden Ring. Multiple Zelda games. Ghost of Tsushima. Marvel's Avengers. Black Panther. World of Warcraft. Baldur's gate 3. Even Game of Thrones really isn't that much of a deconstruction, I would argue.

>Even the facebook dating app ads show a pair of lesbians.
Mine shows a straight couple.

>Valentine's was this month and there was not a single ad that didn't depict an equal amount of LGBT couples to hetero couples.
Equality is the same thing as heteronormative imagery not existing now?

>>714065441 (OP)
Che Guevara did literally nothing wrong, you're just caught up on spewing old red scare propaganda that doesn't reflect reality

>>714070975
There is nothing leftist in a literal surveillance regime, there is nothing leftist in a multibillionaire corporation doing globalist psyops on their own nearly all encompassing platform, there is absolutely nothing leftist in a company engaging in the most vile forms of stock trading and worldwide political sabotage that aims to create a global order headed by the hyper wealthy 1%.
You're beyond brainwashed.

>>714070813
>>714070889
>Feudalism
Locke wasn't writing in opposition to feudalism, he was writing against the ascendion of absolute monarchies that rested on the authority of the patriarchs and/or of God and had no limitations. It's the subject of the First of the his Two Treatises on Government.

As an opposition to absolute monarchies, it certainly was very left-wing. The notion of natural rights is a limitation on the power of government. If authoritarian governments are a feature of the "right wing" (a supposition I'm certain many people will agree), then contesting these is in a way left-wing. Of course, if the state is now a left-wing authoritarian one, then it becomes associated with "the right", which is why Classical Liberalism is now deemed right wing.

>>714070975
>The contradiction is exactly the same as between leftist ideal and leftist practice.
Arguably? It depends on what kind of a leftism you are looking at. Typical milktoast social democracy largely works as intended. Especially now they stopped pretending to be revolutionary.

>Which is why it's entirely fair to say that Google has leftist tendencies
No, it doesn't. Because capitalist tendencies and leftists tendencies exist in opposition even if neither one entirely matches their values.

>and none of these ideals describe actual reality because they describe ideals.
Yes? Doesn't mean they still don't follow capitalist values only.

>The question is if you have some shit in your head that prevents you from seeing this
The question is why you assume that being hypocritical means you are just as prone to being leftists as right wing when none of the hypocrisy is left wing in nature. Best you could argue is that left wingers ideology not meeting practice often takes the form of them just acting like right wingers. But right wingers ideology not meeting practice just takes the form of them being selfish assholes who care only about themselves.

>>714070848
>Having a strong government means a monarchy.
Tell that to the Japanese Emperor.

>>714071306
>Locke wasn't writing in opposition to feudalism,
He was writing in 1632. He WAS a leftist for his time.

>Of course, if the state is now a left-wing authoritarian one, then it becomes associated with "the right", which is why Classical Liberalism is now deemed right wing.
1: You are skipping a few steps. We didn't go straight from Locke to the modern day. 2: It's not left wing authoritarian. 3: Classical liberalism is viewed right wing because it's largely reactionary or conservative. What is left and right is totally relevant to the time and place. Which is why it's insane to argue women's right is in any way progressive when it's been the norm for a century in the west. Being pro women's right is actually conservative, therefore pro right wing.

>>714071203
>In the last ten years? Multiple Fire Emblem games.
From 2025 to today we have Fates, Echoes, 3H end Engage.
In Fates the nobility are a bunch of retards.
In Echoes, there's a revolution against the nobles and they're the primary antagonists (Ferdinand, Berkut)
In 3H, Edelgard is tearing the Crest-system, which is nobility, to pieces.
I'll grant you Engage, the Royals are generally good people and the Divine Dragons are forces for good.
>Marvel's Avenger
What?
>Baldur's Gate 3
All nobles are jerks, the council of Baldur's Gate is corrupt.
>Equality is the same thing as heteronormative imagery not existing now?
I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it is now niche. What is the sexual behavior of 90% of the population is now 50/50 at best in media depictions.

>>714071634
>In Fates the nobility are a bunch of retards.
Okay? Most of the good guys are nobles as well and they are portrayed as good people.

>In Echoes, there's a revolution against the nobles and they're the primary antagonists (Ferdinand, Berkut)
Revolution is rather over the top considering the system still exists. The point is more that commoners can be as important as nobles, not that the monarchy is bad.

>In 3H, Edelgard is tearing the Crest-system, which is nobility, to pieces.
She's a villain in 3/4 routes.

>What?
Black Panther is a king and he's portrayed positively.

>All nobles are jerks, the council of Baldur's Gate is corrupt.
Some of them are reasonable and the legitimacy of the system is never questioned or even commented upon.

>What is the sexual behavior of 90% of the population is now 50/50 at best in media depictions.
Even if correct, that is hardly niche.

>>714071620
>He was writing in 1632. He WAS a leftist for his time.
Yeah, so I'm justified in saying Classical Liberalism is left wing.
>1: You are skipping a few steps. We didn't go straight from Locke to the modern day.
Sure.
>2: It's not left wing authoritarian.
It is authoritarian and upholds policies that until very recently (100 years) would be considered extreme leftist policies.
>What is left and right is totally relevant to the time and place
>Being pro women's right is actually conservative, therefore pro right wing.
That's why I said this is all overton window shifting. It's gone so far to the left that centrist positions of not even two centuries in the past are deemed as extremely right-wing.

>>714067203
lmao cute meltie

>>714071976
>so I'm justified in saying Classical Liberalism is left wing.
No, because it's reactionary and conservative right now.

>It is authoritarian
It's not. By any definition of the word.

>that until very recently (100 years) would be considered extreme leftist policies.
Yes, and classical liberalism was upholding policies that would be considered extreme left 100 years before Locke was born.

>That's why I said this is all overton window shifting.
Anon, you don't understand, it's ALL overton window shifting. The divine rights of kings that Locke was talking about? That used to be a extreme leftist position. Every single thing people once believed in used to be a extreme leftist position if you go back far enough.

>>714072218
>The divine rights of kings that Locke was talking about? That used to be a extreme leftist position
I don't agree at all with this statement. It muddles the conversation to the point it's impossible to ever use concepts such as right wing or left wing (which isn't a bad thing as these are vague as hell but still).

>>714072309
>I don't agree at all with this statement
Well, too bad then. It's a fucking fact.

>It muddles the conversation to the point it's impossible to ever use concepts such as right wing or left wing
No, it really isn't. It just highlights how fucking dumb your stance is. Women rights are not leftists any more than universal suffrage is leftists. It is the status quo. It's genuinely fair to argue that supporting it is conservative (Though, obviously, going against it is reactionary). If you disagree with that, give me a fucking cut off date because I would say "A century" means shit is pretty self evidently the status quo.

>>714065441 (OP)
Che Guevara hated fags and nigs
Why do leftoids ignore these facts?

>>714072574
>Ignore
I just don't care.

>>714072464
>Well, too bad then. It's a fucking fact.
That is only fact if you assume a set tracjetory for mankind and that going towards the "left" is desirable and inevitable. If you take any other stance, and assume a certain maleability of rules, laws and behavior, and that they go back and forth across the ages, then no, taking the divine right of kings as a leftist position is pure insanity.
I have not once have seem or read any scholar mentioning it in that regard. You'll have to do better to convince others of that assertion.
>No, it really isn't. It just highlights how fucking dumb your stance is. Women rights are not leftists any more than universal suffrage is leftists. It is the status quo.
It's your position that seems rather shallow. If it is just about the status quo and the "left" is whatever is revolutionary or revolting against the status quo and being right wing is defending the status quo, then you cannot offer a proper distinction between what is reactionary and what is revolutionary or progressive - it's just based on what you feel is good.

>>714065441 (OP)
WOW! Che was based

>>714065441 (OP)
>it's the GOOD violence you see, I'll spin my subjective-bullshit magic wand and mass murder becomes a GOOD thing.
>hate can also be a GOOD thing.
>Pol Pot was also trying to reform society, it was a GOOD thing :)
>everything that doesn't identify with socialism however, is a BAD thing.

Psychopaths with the "humane" face.

>>714071303
Communists tend to do things that are very similar when they have power. That is the point of the not describing reality observation. The incentives for everyone are the same, and the available set of methods are the same. It's not useful to say that following a type of universal incentive through a particular method is in and of itself an ideology because the prevalence of such conditions is real and not ideal.
However, understanding that there is a real and single reality that all are subject to contradicts the idea that truth is subjective and not real, which is a necessity for all class ideologies to be in opposition, equally valid, and impossible to prove false or correct. Wanting to do something, you should first wish to be correct with your theory, rather than simply being of the class that the idea should serve. The incentives that Google follows do not generate its ideology, they contradict it. Reality forces it to compromise on its ideals. The evidence for this is that everyone compromises their ideals in the same way.

>>714072574
If you had managed to liberate a country I'd give you a pass for hating fags and nigs too.

>>714065441 (OP)
Che couldn't have been more wrong, honestly. Believing that revolution was a fought by individual rather than the masses, while the truth was that the revolution, even in his time, will always be televised, a war of attrition against the sleeping, fought in all forms of media, from phone lines, to cable modems, to our cell phones, an attempted quickening
against the great dumbing down of the people by those believed to have our greatest minds by whatever means necessary.

>>714072837
>That is only fact if you assume a set tracjetory for mankind and that going towards the "left" is desirable and inevitable.
No, it's a fact insofar that humanity has progressed in the way it has. This isn't a question of hypotheticals. This happened, we know it happened. You can argue we went down a wrong path, that's called being a reactionary, but the simple reality is that it DID happen.

>If you take any other stance
If you take any other stance, you'll still end up with the same result. The simple reality is that there was a moment when the divine right of kings being the basis for their authority was a progressive/leftists position. If you are a monarchist, that does not change. If you are a classical liberal, that does not change. If you are a anarcho tribalists, that does not change.

>And assume a certain maleability of rules, laws and behavior, and that they go back and forth across the ages
They really don't. The nature of the way we govern ourselves is simply too linked to the basic physical reality of the tools we have available to us for that to ever be the case. You effectively just could not operate as a absolute monarchy before 1600 if you actually wanted to govern a large chunk of territory. The divine god kings of Egypt were in no way comparable to the caliphate sultans of the Ottoman Empire because the difference in technology allowed the Ottoman Empire a degree of legalistic centralization that would have been unmanageable to even the most powerful Bronze Age monarch (And the Bronze age is actually noted for having very complex societies.)

>It's your position that seems rather shallow.
It's not a position, it's purely factual.

>>714067203
>AI can't lie

>then you cannot offer a proper distinction between what is reactionary and what is revolutionary or progressive
Of course I can, very easily in fact. To be reactionary is to want society to revert back to how it was in the past. Not in the sense that there is one shared path of progress, but in the basic material reality that a law once existed and it eventually went away or was replaced.

The USA had slavery. This is a demonstrable fact unrelated to any concepts of societal progress. Slavery was outlawed. This is a demonstrable fact unrelated to any concepts of societal progress. If slavery was brought back now, that would be reactionary. This is a demonstrable fact unrelated to any concept of societal progress.

>>714067268
giant corporations are precisely the entities that don't want to compete on the free market, why would they risk getting outcompeted by a new startup instead of just lobbying the politicians to grant them protection in form of regulation or monopoly rights? same reason why the dominant AI companies in the US fear-mongered the dangers of AI and lobbied for it's regulation

>>714065441 (OP)
Only faggots with no life experience hate communism.

>>714073447
he liberated several countries by murdering the oppressors, and was openly racist and still is considered respectable
what did you do?

>>714066092
Bots getting their opinions from other bots makes sense

>>714065441 (OP)
I associate Che Guevara with sucking dick and having a bad mustache.

>>714073009
> The incentives that Google follows do not generate its ideology, they contradict it.
They do actually generate it's ideology. Why would they not? Google especially largely relies on creating the idea of one singular idea of truth. That's the core of what it means to be a search function.

>The evidence for this is that everyone compromises their ideals in the same way.
That's just flat out historically inaccurate.

>>714073510
AI can produce falsehoods but it can't lie. Semantics, sure, but the distinction matters.

>>714065441 (OP)
Google AI overviews are not factual. This is fake slop you've chosen to believe as reality.

AI posters should be banned. It is the laziest shit and doesn't deserve to be posted.

>>714073675
Ai can't speak the truth either. It literally just repeats whatever it's told. It cannot even understand the concept of truth.

>>714066161
>Why would the Google AI, which definitely has leftist biases (and it shows
What cannot create Truth in the first place is always lying. Google AI, Microsoft AI, and all other AIs distort reality and cannot understand it. It doesn't understand. It's creating an average and regurgitating it back out to you. You're viewing paid content, not information. You are posting the equivalent of an autogenerated ad based on your search query and not an answer to whatever your question was.

You did this -since you own your AI post just ask Google or MS anytime someone searches for cheese pizza- with your crap AI post.

>>714067203
stating something thats false is a lie, even if not said intentionally
AI rarely hits the mark, this means it lies constantly

>>714073717

Exactly. Which is why as long as there's no way to make sure it can only repeat facts it's useless technology. And even then it's really just a worse substitute for a search engine.

>>714073659
If Google's ideology is purely a product of material conditions, then Google's ideology would have to be correct.

>>714065441 (OP)
...but he's not wrong?

>>714073675
Saying you have a functional brain is a falsehood

>>714073927
Not necessarily. If Google's ideology is "Google should have all of the money" then that is still totally a product of material conditions, but also objectively bad for everybody that is not Google. The presence of right wingers in society largely dilutes any argument to the point where people are just trying to reason with insane people who believe bronze age fairy tales are real. But, even if that was done away with, that doesn't mean people can't disagree based on purely practical material reason.

>>714073556
>why would they risk getting outcompeted by a new startup
how would that even happen

>>714073675
AI absolutely can lie and regularly does. Ask AI what the best cure for back pain is and it still says Fentanyl. If you want to rigorously test this, download your own lemmy instance and start cooking. AI will tell you President Bush is the United Nations President, that Netanyahu controls the world's dog food supply chain and Hitler did nothing wrong. I've had Google AI tell me that Trump had three terms, that Biden was never elected, and that all Chevrolets are fake and Chevrolet never existed.

The AI cannot feel, understand or know anything. It's just a word filter. It can keep track of facts but only in a very basic way where it doesn't understand the consequences of such facts. An excellent example are the phone scenes from Terminator 1 and 2. The Terminator can understand what a dog is, what it looks like, and whether or not it's a threat to itself but it doesn't understand why the dog's name is relevant until after it fails to provide the correct answer. Although, the answer it did provide is entirely reasonable and would have worked in almost any other instance. Same for the Terminator pretending to be Sarah's Mom. The AI can understand what a mom is, what it does, and why Sarah would call her but it can't understand why. Although in that case it succeeded in tricking her thinking she was still alive leading to the final climax of the film. Which is why you shouldn't trust AI.

>>714074316
Lying requires intent. A machine can't have an intent. It doesn't lie, it's just giving you wrong information.

>>714074529
>It can't lie
>it just can't tell the truth.

>>714070603
>niggers dying
Fucking great, why would the US pay for more of them

>>714074601
>It's not murder because I said so.
It's not murder for the USSR to kill Christians, then. Because I said so.

>>714074529
>A machine can't have an intent.
The machine does not, but the people who control the machine do.
You try to humanize the tool and see it as something completely detached from its creators and controllers, it's not like that, AI is an extension of the establishment and it can and does lie.

>>714073456
>No, it's a fact insofar that humanity has progressed in the way it has.
It haven't, though. What is the status quo shifts not in a linear trajectory, but it goes back and forth between policities as different groups hold power. Your entire notion of what is reactionary, in your own words, is based on wheter a certain policy or rule was tried before, and reverting back into that. It makes no judgement of the value of the policy in question.

You didn't offer any scholar or academic calling the divine right of kings a leftist policy. I'd really like to see it for myself.
>They really don't. The nature of the way we govern ourselves is simply too linked to the basic physical reality of the tools we have available to us for that to ever be the case. You effectively just could not operate as a absolute monarchy before 1600
If the nature of the way we govern ourselves is simply linked to the physical reality of the tools, and as the ages passed, humans got more tools to control others through government, why did you refute my claim that the modern state is authoritative? It has concentrated in itself more power than ever before in human history, due to the availability of different methods of social control.
Either we live in the most authoritative state imaginable, and it will only get worse, or a state being authorative or not is based on it's principles, it's actions, and how the tools are used, and not just by the mere existance of the tools.
>Of course I can, very easily in fact. To be reactionary is to want society to revert back to how it was in the past. Not in the sense that there is one shared path of progress, but in the basic material reality that a law once existed and it eventually went away or was replaced.
Calling something reactionary (a word with negative connotations) simply because it existed before and went away for whatever reason is again tied to a notion of progress towards what is "good" that is not fact, but merely your opinion.

>>714074580
Yes! That's my point. You can request information from it and that information will either be correct or incorrect. It can't lie anymore than your oven can commit arson.

>>714074780
I don't care about USSR who cares, the fact US was funding nog breeding grounds is baffling to me.
Now to cut all taxpayer money to israel

>>714074164
You haven't grasped this yet. There is another way out of this contradiction.
Google's behavior is limited to the applicability of material means, but its ideology is not. Their ideology doesn't provide them with applicable tools that aren't available for others to use towards other ends. Even if the ideology is that "Google should have all the money", possessing this ideology or even having everyone believe it wouldn't make it possible to implement, and more importantly, implementing it wouldn't result in the predicted or promised outcome.
In this particular case, it can be shown to be impossible by logic. Money is a medium of exchange. If one entity has all the money, it won't be used for exchange. Therefore, what is meant by the word 'money' would cease to exist if one entity held all of it. Additionally to your claims this would also be bad for Google.

>>714074224
almost all current big tech companies had their beginnings in the 90s/00s, how do you think they went from not existing to becoming the industry leaders?

>>714073616
His movement did nothing in the end, the names change but the regimes stay the same, no one has enjoyed a better life because of him.

>>714075005
they became industry leaders in an industry that almost didn't exist
internet only really boomed massively in the mid 00s, they formed in a vacuum
call me when some new startup will come out of nowhere and dethrone the gafam
usually those new startups just get eaten by the giants, or outcompeted if they don't want to comply
it's impossible for those giants to be outcompeted because of how resourceful they are in terms of capital

>>714074794
>It haven't, though.
No, it has. Again, this isn't up for debate. This is a simplistic historical fact.

>What is the status quo shifts not in a linear trajectory,
It is, because time exists.

>but it goes back and forth between policities as different groups hold power.
Most old groups are literally totally wiped out. This idea is totally ahistorical and if you seriously want to keep it up you need to start posting some actual examples asap.

>It makes no judgement of the value of the policy in question.
Why would it? This isn't a value judgement, It's a simple statement of fact.

>why did you refute my claim that the modern state is authoritative?
Because western modern states are significantly less authoritative even compared to states that existed 80 years ago like Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. Same for modern states like North Korea or Communist China.

>Either we live in the most authoritative state imaginable, and it will only get worse, or a state being authorative or not is based on it's principles, it's actions, and how the tools are used, and not just by the mere existance of the tools.
Or, in reality, both is true. The tools have improved but that does not mean the state is as authorative as it CAN be because degrees exist. To deny that is to claim there is no difference between North Korea and the USA, which considering you are currently 1: Alive. 2: Posting online is self evidently ridiculous.

Is the state more authoritative now than it was during, say, the Early Middle ages? Oh, absolutely. But going back that far is completely pointless. The state existing is more authoritarian than shitting in a cave alongside your extended family, which was the norm for early human history.

>Calling something reactionary (a word with negative connotations)
And? The word is not inherently negative. It simply is what it is.

>>714069989 >>714070603
I wish the right hated you fucking faggots half as much as you pretend and actually rounded you up into camps.

>>714073675
>It only gets basic facts catastrophically wrong on a regular basis
>Heh... but it isn't lying on purpose!

>>714075731
They 100% want to do it but they are too stupid and weak to do it and in the case of evangelicals they don't care since they believe their evil god will exterminate all human civilization anyway.

>>714075831
Exactly.

>>714075569
Hey why did you skip over his request for you to provide historical accounts, scholars or academics calling the divine right of kings a leftist policy? That was a little odd considering how you were so thorough in attempting to answer everything else in his post.

>>714067437
Isn't it basically the exact opposite? Usually only NEETS are communists. Anyone who is gainfully employed wouldn't want the government to take his shit and redistribute it to the lazy. And of course there are also the multi millionaire grifters who pretend they are socialists, but they don't actually believe in any of it.

>>714075937
>I am witterally going to be genocided waaaaahhh
You are delulu

>>714075569
>No, it has. Again, this isn't up for debate. This is a simplistic historical fact.
Certain regions are ruled by a certain kind of groups and what kind of rules they implement shifts through time. This is the fact. Your interpretation of progress is up for debate.
>It is, because time exists.
Time exists, thus, every social change goes towards a concept of progress that is not agreed upon. Gotcha.
>Most old groups are literally totally wiped out. This idea is totally ahistorical and if you seriously want to keep it up you need to start posting some actual examples asap.
Debt slavery. Prostitution. Acess to Public Places, such as Public Gyms. These things were never an once and done deal. As different groups in different regions had power, these policites changed, many times back and forth, between legal and illegal. Want another example? The legality of drinking in the muslim world.
>Why would it? This isn't a value judgement, It's a simple statement of fact.
A previous rule can be better than a current rule. The current rule may have been implemented exclusively because of the meddling of powerful groups, against the better interests of the population. Figuring that out and going back to the previous rule is a positive thing. Reactionary is a loaded word.

>>714075937
Sounds like you are projecting. But I have to agree with that other anon, I too wish that one day you can be exactly the victim that you always pretend to be. I hope one day you will face this enemy you so desperately want to will into existence.

>>714074580
You're so close to getting it

>>714075569
>simplistic historical fact
You mean simple historical fact?
>most old groups are literally totally wiped out
What?

You seem like a midwit.

>>714075478
>they became industry leaders in an industry that almost didn't exist
it's not like they came to an empty stage, in many cases there already were large companies that provided these services for a decade
>it's impossible for those giants to be outcompeted because of how resourceful they are in terms of capital
yet facebook still managed to overtake MySpace, while google's chrome is on top of internet browsers instead of, say Netscape
fact is their position at the top is not certain, and instead is susceptible to disruptive forces from both inside and outside

>>714076395
>>714075569
>Drinking in the muslim world
In fact, I could extent this to America, since there was the prohibition. It went from legal, to illegal, to legal again. The status quo was originality legality, but then it became illegal - according to your criteria, breaking the status quo on legality is a left-wing policty. Then, the reactionaries (not revolutionaries) went against the conservatives (preserving the at the time status quo of illegality) and managed to make it legal to drink again.
Policy and laws change and it's not in a straight line towards an end of history (or "progress")like Marx and Hegel believed. This is irrefutable fact.
>The tools have improved but that does not mean the state is as authorative as it CAN be because degrees exist
Then it's not "simply too linked to the basic physical reality of the tools available". You can have the tools and have a society that is less authoritative or impositive than previous one, where they lacked these modern tools but still persecuted the population harshly to impose certain things.

>>714076185
I did. I pointed out its factual, cited historical examples. Do you want me to point to examples of the divine rights of king being upheld as a progressive idea challenging a old status quo?

>>714076395
>Certain regions are ruled by a certain kind of groups and what kind of rules they implement shifts through time.
Most of those groups have been wiped out nowadays. It's hardly a back and forth.

> and what kind of rules they implement shifts through time.
Yes, but they rarely go back and forth.

>Your interpretation of progress is up for debate.
No, it's not. It's purely factual.

>Time exists, thus, every social change goes towards a concept of progress that is not agreed upon
No, it did not. I am simply saying it happened, that this change is linear, and that this isn't up for debate. Because it's self evidently not for everybody that knows history.

>Debt slavery
It's legality was hardly a back and forth process. It was effectivity legal for all of human history until fairly recently, with no indication of it coming back.

>Prostitution
As a thing that happens Prostitution was universally constant. It's legal status meanwhile has changed, sure, but this nigh on uniformly varied widely based on the era. Ideas like religious prostitution, meretrix status, and the catholic church particular stance regarding prostitution (which proved fundamental to it's running during the middle age) never came back.

>Acess to Public Places, such as Public Gyms.
Gyms basically didn't exist for a large chunk of human history. The Gymnasium as it actually existed in Greek society was also vastly different from the way it existed in the modern world.

>>714077172
>it's not like they came to an empty stage
yeah it's not like the market crashed (as it always does) and left a vacuum for them to take advantage of
>yet facebook still managed to overtake MySpace, while google's chrome is on top of internet browsers instead of, say Netscape
myspace was never some megacorpo like facebook has become, google was already big before chrome, and both of those happened at a much earlier stage of the industry
fact is you will never see some startup outcompete any gafm *today*
microsoft bought Acti-Blizzard in 22 for $68.7 billion, which was already a huge merger in 08 between two big corpos, how can any startup compete with that kind of resources?

>>714076395
>These things were never an once and done deal
Most of them largely were. They were also fairly irrelevant and largely indicative of a constant struggle between various identical groups. Indeed, to whatever extent you can speak of the concepts being representative of historical times they largely highlight how groups no longer exist.

>these policites changed, many times back and forth, between legal and illegal.
Prostitution was nearly always legal. With even actual moralistic religious organizations largely viewing it as inevitable, though obviously still disproving of it. Gyms just straight up didn't exist, it wasn't a question of legality since there was nothing illegal about owning a gym in any given society. Debt slavery was, like I said, effectivity legal until about 1850. I was never a back and forth process.

>The legality of drinking in the muslim world.
The legality of drinking in the Muslim world is, again, hardly a particular long and complex back and forth process. With it being largely the norm for early Muslim dynasties for the elite to drink, with that largely falling out of favor later. It's also largely NOT a divide between ruling groups, as it is nigh on unanimously the result of the same few Islamic intellectuals having the same debate.

>A previous rule can be better than a current rule
Yes.

>Reactionary is a loaded word.
It's not. It's a word, and if you cannot defend your stance simply because past reactionaries were generally monsters then you are being intellectually dishonest. If your ideas are not capable of overcoming the stigma associated with the word reactionary, then they are weak and should be ignored by default. Lying is weakness and weakness leads to denial of reality.

>>714076330
I'm not. But that doesn't change the fact they want it.

>>714076420
I am not. Largely because unlike Evangelicals I want human society to prosper.

>>714078093
>It's not. It's a word, and if you cannot defend your stance simply because past reactionaries were generally monsters then you are being intellectually dishonest. If your ideas are not capable of overcoming the stigma associated with the word reactionary, then they are weak and should be ignored by default. Lying is weakness and weakness leads to denial of reality.

This is just dishonest since once you attach a loaded word like that to a thing, it's already poisoned the well.

Even your reaction to it showcases this.

>>714077003
Yes.

>What?
Yeah? Most groups that once existed no longer exist. Haven't seen many Celtic druids, Sumerians, or Gong famers around anymore.

>>714077691
>Most of those groups have been wiped out nowadays. It's hardly a back and forth.
What rules operate in the regions are often a back and forth. The Taliban reverted to rules diffferent than those the US implemented. Same for Iran. Same for Brazil after the Military Dictatorship.
>Yes, but they rarely go back and forth.
They quite literally go back and forth.
>It's legality was hardly a back and forth process. It was effectivity legal for all of human history until fairly recently, with no indication of it coming back.
I said debt slavery, not slavery.
>As a thing that happens Prostitution was universally constant. It's legal status meanwhile has changed, sure
So I'm right that the legality of things change depending on who's in power, and it's not a linear trajectory. The Medieval catholics were more strict regarding the legality of prostitution than the Romans, which were less strict than the Greeks. It went back and forth. After liberalism and the enlightment, it goes back into more open, then the puritans are more strict, so and so. Now youd had a century of mostly okay with prostitution west but the rise of Evangelicals mark another step towards being against prostitution.
>Gyms basically didn't exist for a large chunk of human history. The Gymnasium as it actually existed in Greek society was also vastly different from the way it existed in the modern world.
Acess to Greek Gymnasiuns went back and forth through time. I never said it was the same thing. Gymnansiums were an example of public places whose acess was revoked or granted, back and forth, based on who was in power.

>>714077657
>It went from legal, to illegal, to legal again
It lasted about thirteen years.

>The status quo was originality legality, but then it became illegal - according to your criteria, breaking the status quo on legality is a left-wing policty. Then, the reactionaries (not revolutionaries) went against the conservatives (preserving the at the time status quo of illegality) and managed to make it legal to drink again.
I'm going to say it was too short to really account for being genuine reactionary, but otherwise I largely agree.

>Policy and laws change and it's not in a straight line towards an end of history, like Marx and Hegel believed.
I agree. But the idea that they go back and forth is equally ridiculous.

>Then it's not "simply too linked to the basic physical reality of the tools available"
Of course it is. I did not simply it was ENTIRLY linked I said it was TOO linked. Which it is.

>You can have the tools and have a society that is less authoritative or impositive than previous one, where they lacked these modern tools but still persecuted the population harshly to impose certain things.
Of course. But only to a certain level. You can't do what Stalin did in Medieval Russia. That is why your idea is equally ridiculous as the notion that history is progressing towards something.

>>714078405
>The Taliban reverted to rules diffferent than those the US implemented.
Less than twenty years.

>Same for Iran.
Less than fifty years. Though, I'll freely admit that one is starting to get up there.

>Same for Brazil after the Military Dictatorship.
Well, I hate to tell you this, but the old military dictatorship was largely wiped out. Not coming back either.

>I said debt slavery, not slavery.
Legally they largely went away the same thing.

>and it's not a linear trajectory.
It is because most of the individual stances are long gone, never to be repeated.

>The Medieval catholics were more strict regarding the legality of prostitution than the Romans, which were less strict than the Greeks.
All of which are groups that no longer exist and will never come back. Simply boiling it down to levels of strictness is also nonsencial. As there are many different matters involving prostitution as a question. Even it attitudes changed, they never changed back in the same way.

>Now youd had a century of mostly okay with prostitution west but the rise of Evangelicals mark another step towards being against prostitution.
It really doesn't because the mindset of the evangelical is no way comparable to the Catholic church in either policy or ideology.

>Acess to Greek Gymnasiuns went back and forth through time.
No? It was nigh on uniformly a thing for rich people. Then it stopped existing for about 1800 years.

>Gymnansiums were an example of public places whose acess was revoked or granted, back and forth, based on who was in power
See above.

>>714078848
*They went away at the same time

>>714078505
>It lasted about thirteen years.
First it never happened, now it happened, but was just thirteen years.
>I'm going to say it was too short to really account for being genuine reactionary, but otherwise I largely agree.
You agreed to a literal word salad. Calling the people against the prohibition of alcohol conservatives becacuse a recent law became the status quo for a time that you yourself admit is very short makes absolutly no sense.
Notice that I didn't say it wasn't conservatives that supported anti-alcohol laws, they probably were conservatives. But that's because there's more to being left or right wing than oposition or support of what is legal or what is the present status quo.
You completly disregard whatever content or ideas individuals may have and deem them as right or left exclusively based on the mentioned criteria, and that criteria alone. It's insanity.

>hey guys
>did you notice that kojima is a fucking whackjob?
woah...now that you mention it....

>>714066796
The protesters were violent enough to warrant such a reaction.

Now we have AI screencap thread. This board really getting to new low everyday.

>>714078848
>B-but it was just for this short period!
Moving the goalpost. You said it never happened, now it was just a few years!
>Well, I hate to tell you this, but the old military dictatorship was largely wiped out. Not coming back either.
The same people who were soldiers in the brazilian Military coup are still in the military, many in proeminent positions. If they come back or not, same as in any other place or time, is just a matter of power. And then they could implement strict social norms. And then they could lose power and the subsequent government could have more open social norms. And thus, back and forth.
>Legally they largely went away the same thing.
Debt slavery and it's outlawing was not even remotely the same process as ordinary slavery.
>Simply boiling it down to levels of strictness is also nonsencial.
It's a more accurate representation of what actual policies exist or existed than just calling things left wing or right wing based on whatever the status quo of the time is.
>Even it attitudes changed, they never changed back in the same way.
They did, look at Iran and Afeghanistan.
>No? It was nigh on uniformly a thing for rich people.
Muh rich people. It was for citizens, then slaves and foreigners could participate, then they couldn't, then they could. Back and forth.

>>714079252
Sometimes things are really that bad

>>714079092
>it never happened
No? I never said as much.

Honest question: Have you been following this debate because you genuinely seem to struggle with it's content. We started off discussing the notion that it's silly to proclaim female rights as leftists pandering when it's been the norm for a century (With me explicitly mentioning a century as a highly reasonable cut off date). This somehow turned into you claiming that thirteen years is a highly reasonable time to consider something reactionary. Even ignoring the fact that you have some kind of weird bug bear about being called what you factually are, reactionary. What exactly are you trying to accomplish with all of this going back to the original point? Because by your own definition anything that is not blind idealization of any moment in time that is not the present or the future counts as right wing pandering.

>You agreed to a literal word salad.
No? It's largely a factual description of events. The only detail I would argue against is that there is no cut off date.

>Calling the people against the prohibition of alcohol conservatives becacuse a recent law became the status quo for a time
Like I said, I would argue it requires a bit more time to truly become the status quo.

>Notice that I didn't say it wasn't conservatives that supported anti-alcohol laws, they probably were conservatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>The Eighteenth Amendment was the result of decades of effort by the temperance movement in the United States and at the time was generally considered a progressive amendment.
A large amount of the public sentiment in favor of the prohibition did actually come from the side of progressives.

>>714079092
>You completly disregard whatever content or ideas individuals may have and deem them as right or left exclusively based on the mentioned criteria,
Yes. Because it's an actual valid way for judging what is left and right. Unlike the systems you use, which is historically inaccurate and largely nonsensical.

>>714065441 (OP)
There's nothing faker, gayer and more retarded than reframing and intently interpreting a statement, especially if it's undiplomatic, blunt and direct.
If there's no subtext, then there's no subtext and no amount of "but ackshully!" changes that. Agentic people will eventually say things you do disagree with, and if you're agentic too, then you'll respect them regardless and refrain from infantile absolutuism.

>>714079730
>No? I never said as much.
Yes, you said that the legality of things never change back and forth. Then, when presented with things that did change back and forth, your counter argument was that it happened, but it didn't last very long. But something changing and being changed back and then back to the original state is quite literally what something being back and forth is.
>We started off discussing the notion that it's silly to proclaim female rights as leftists pandering when it's been the norm for a century
My point was always that calling something left or right based on what the status quo is and not based on the content of the assertions is retarded.
> Even ignoring the fact that you have some kind of weird bug bear about being called what you factually are, reactionary.
Meaningless buzzword. A rule being brought down does not say anything about it's content. It could have been a good rule. Many of the current rules we have are shit rules.
>What exactly are you trying to accomplish with all of this going back to the original point?
What are YOU trying to accomplish? I don't think you've convinced a single anon that your interpretation of history or of the right-left wing axis is factual,despite calling it as such a dozen times.

>>714079570
>Moving the goalpost.
See: >>714079730

The concept of a cutoff date for these kind of things was mentioned early on.

>The same people who were soldiers in the brazilian Military coup are still in the military, many in proeminent positions.
No, many of them retired, fired, or got arrested. Almost anybody involved with the coup is long gone and the people that replaced them are clearly uninterested in doing it again.

>If they come back or not, same as in any other place or time, is just a matter of power.
Not at all. It's a matter of them literally being dead and the people that replaced them not being the same people. Even then, this is less extreme than most cases insofar that Brazil 1: Still exists. 2: Still has a military.

>And then they could implement strict social norms.
They could, but they won't. Nor would those be the same strict social norms as the previous dictatorship.

>And thus, back and forth.
Yes. Unfortunately, that never happened in any moment of human history.

>Debt slavery and it's outlawing was not even remotely the same process as ordinary slavery.
Mostly because way less people cared, but they were banned at largely the same time. Back and forth it was not.

>It's a more accurate representation of what actual policies exist or existed than just calling things left wing or right wing based on whatever the status quo of the time is.
Nonsense. An actual actual representation involves looking at the actual policies, for starters. Once that is done, the left wing or right wing could be easily applied in any situation.

>They did, look at Iran and Afeghanistan.
Afghanistan was occupied by a foreign army that got kicked out in about twenty years. Iran was largely reactionary, but even then it was absolutely nothing like the old regime of the Sha. Something that should be pretty evident from the fact he's no longer around.

>>714079785
>Because it's an actual valid way for judging what is left and right.
Then post me the academics or scholars calling the divine right of kings a leftist policy because it was against the status quo of a certain time.

>>714067818
>>714067437
now who is one that is bending reality?

>>714079570

>. It was for citizens, then slaves and foreigners could participate, then they couldn't, then they could.
Absolute nonsense. Post some actual historical sources for this claim.

>>714080210
>Yes, you said that the legality of things never change back and forth.
Correct.

>Then, when presented with things that did change back and forth,
For less than thirteen years. That is not enough time to become the status quo, as I explained many, MANY times.

>My point was always that calling something left or right based on what the status quo is and not based on the content of the assertions is retarded.
The contents only matter in the material sense of what can be considered the status quo, what can be reactionary, and what is conservative. There is no inherent right or left wing ideology. Everything that is right wing now was once progressive. Your own examples only serve to highlight.

>A rule being brought down does not say anything about it's content
Correct. Being reactionary also does not inherently imply that something to bad.

>What are YOU trying to accomplish?
Pointing out what I said above: Everything you now believe in was once considered progressive. Times change, it's not leftist pandering to reflect the status quo. I could just as easily argue any story featuring a king is inherently leftist because only tribal societies are actually right wing.

>>714080309
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
>Although the later Roman Empire had developed the European concept of a divine regent in Late Antiquity, Adomnan of Iona provides one of the earliest written examples of a Western medieval concept of kings ruling with divine right. He wrote of the Irish King Diarmait mac Cerbaill's assassination and claimed that divine punishment fell on his assassin for the act of violating the monarch.
The fact it did not exist once upon a time means that it's implementation was inherently progressive compared to the previous model of non divinely ordained monarchs.

>>714080274
>No, many of them retired, fired, or got arrested. Almost anybody involved with the coup is long gone and the people that replaced them are clearly uninterested in doing it again.
It's completly irrelevant. The matter of the fact is:
There was a somewhat liberal, western-influenced country.
A coup happened.
Strict social norms were enforced.
The military regime fell after some time.
More liberal social norms were reintroduced.

This could happen again. Not in Brazil, not in Iran, but literally anwyhere, as it has happened, several times through history. The Qajar Dinasty in Iran was considered very socially liberal, but was replaced by an authoritative dictatorship under the two last Shahs.
> Iran was largely reactionary, but even then it was absolutely nothing like the old regime of the Sha. Something that should be pretty evident from the fact he's no longer around.
It has nothing to do with him being reactionary or not. It's just a matter of power.
>Nonsense. An actual actual representation involves looking at the actual policies, for starters.
So the content of the policies, and not wheter they are or are not the statuos quo.

>>714080785
Nowhere in that it's calling it a left-wing policy. Also, wikipedia is not a scholar or academic.

>>714078093
>it’s not a loaded word
>it just comes with a stigma that you have to put in extra work to overcome
So it’s a loaded word?
>lying is weakness and weakness leads to denial of reality
How does this correlate at all to what preceded this statement?

>>714081161
>There was a somewhat liberal, western-influenced country.
You do realize the military coup was 100% supported by the west, right? The western influence only grew.

>This could happen again
It could. 1: It won't. 2: It won't be the same people. 3: The strict social norms won't be the same.

>The Qajar Dinasty in Iran was considered very socially liberal
Yes, anon, they were considered very socially liberal BY THE STANDARDS OF THE TIME. They weren't trying to give women the right to vote and hold property. If you examine the state of Iran as a whole from 1700 to today it is one of constant change. Iran in 1700 did not have women going to schools or being able to hold property, today they do despite the fall of the Quajar dynasty, the Islamic Revolution, and any other event. We didn't magically go back to 1700. Hell, when the Islamic republic happened they didn't magically go back to 1900 either. Shit changed, the status quo was different, and to whatever extent things became more socially conservative it was largely a drop in the bucket and right now things are probably about as equal as they were before the Revolution.

>Not in Brazil, not in Iran, but literally anwyhere, as it has happened, several times through history.
It won't happen anywhere. Brazil didn't bring back the monarchy and reimplement slavery when the military coup took over. Those forces were dead. Right now Brazil is far, FAR more progressive than it ever was before the coup. If a military coup happened again, implemented stricht social norms for twenty years, and then collapsed. What would emerge would be a place with entirely different social norms from before the coup. Let alone from before the coup in the 60's.

>It has nothing to do with him being reactionary or not. It's just a matter of power.
It's a matter of mortality and time existing.

>So the content of the policies
Then comparing that content to the actual status quo and past history, yes.

>>714081248
>Nowhere in that it's calling it a left-wing policy
It's calling it a progressive policy. Therefore it's left wing.

>>it just comes with a stigma that you have to put in extra work to overcome
It comes with a stigma because most reactionaries were mass murders. Sucks, but you are going to have to deal with that.

>So it’s a loaded word?
No. Loaded implies it causes a strong emotional reaction. Reactionary is associated with mass murder because it's factually something mass murders used. Emotions play no role in that.

Now, mass murderer, that is a loaded word.

>>714065441 (OP)
Big Boss isn't a good guy did the four MGS games before 5 not clue you into that

>>714082174
You don't understand though, the guy that is in universe called charismatic and likeable is actually charismatic and likeable, so obviously he has to be the good guy.

>>714082105
YOU called it progressive. It's not in the entry you linked. And you called it progressive because, again, your only point of refference towards something being progressive or regressive is the status quo. If a thing (any thing) is opposed or in favour of it (left/right wing) and if they use a new arragnment or recover an old one (progressive/reactionary).
If aliens took over the planet and ruled the world for 300 years, you would call it a reactionary, right wing policy to fight for human freedom, because in the past humans had their freedom from aliens, and thus you're reverting to a past social organization.

>>714082105
>>714085217
Forgive me, it would be a left wing reactionary movement, as it's against the status quo and wants to reestabilish an organization that was prior.
Utter word salad of a concept.

>>714082105
>it’s not a loaded word, it’s just loaded
lol
>no no no I’m not saying a reactionary is a mass murderer, I’m just saying that mass murderers are often reactionary
>but the word isn’t loaded or anything, if anything mass murderer loaded word!
Mass murderer isn’t a loaded word, you retard. Is English your first language? Calling a spade a spade is not loaded language. Masking negative connotations (like your linkage of reactionary = mass murderer (but not always teehee)) IS loaded language.

>>714085217
>To fight for human freedom
Depends on what human freedom means.

>>714086665
Mass murderer. Genocide. Those are loaded words.

Reactionary is just a word.

>Masking negative connotations
You mean what you are doing?