houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

@mutageno Even if I was drinking alcohol these days, Jack Daniels would certainly not be my go to whiskey. That would have to be Knob Creek.

I really do not know what is going on with the marketing these days with cases like these. Maybe there is some sort of The Producers type of scheme going on behind the scenes.

@LouisConde Yeah, I don't think they are all that big on freedom of speech when they are doing everything short of calling for state censorship in articles like this:

https://archive.is/as0wb

Just call everything that does not conform to their libshit narrative "misinformation" and you can still call yourselves "pro-free speech."

https://merovingian.club/@houseoftolstoy/110041939166500777

I will end with a statement inverting Vaush's scenario.

If you were given all the provisions you would need to live, but you were forced to live in a 10x10 room and never leave it, would you have freedom?

The answer is no, because I just described a prison.

Another thing, when we no longer can even agree on what "freedom" really means, we see all sorts of abuses of the term.

"Those immigrants coming here are American as you are because they came here for freedom!" In many cases, they are here for economic reasons and really could not care all that much about freedom. Yes, they have a better standard of living and have the means to be more successful, but again, that is not the same thing as freedom.

One thing to note is that most people could not define themselves as being 100% about freedom. That indeed would be lawlessness. Most people want at least SOME laws in place. How many you want shows how much you do or do not prioritize freedom.

The same people who claim that they want homosexual marriage legalized because they are about freedom would scorn at the idea that someone could refuse to decorate a cake for a gay wedding. It shows that they are not as big on freedom as they claim.

You are also not guaranteed to be happy if you have full freedom. I recall a clip where Vaush and Charlie Kirk were on someone else's show (not remembering at the moment), and Vaush asked Kirk if someone would have freedom in a lawless desert with no food and water. Kirk incorrectly answers no, which not so coincidentally was what Vaush thought too.

Yes, you do have total freedom in this scenario. Because freedom is not about being happy or having provisions.

When it comes to prosperity, we see far too much conflation. Yes, you need freedom to be able to make money. But freedom itself does not guarantee success, it only provides a chance of that success. Yes, many people will credit that they are "more free" because they are able to earn more than in many other countries. But the high earnings themselves are also not equivalent to freedom itself. To equivocate the two means that those who are not successful will resent any talk about freedom.

There are many ways the word "freedom" is misused. Often, it will be considered synonymous with happiness, prosperity, success, and other positive outcomes. When these terms are conflated with freedom, we only invite criticisms of all the wrong kinds as well as word games to twist what it means to want freedom.

Example: "Why do you say you are 'for freedom' if you are opposed to free healthcare?"

Free healthcare, of course, is not "free," but requires mechanisms that are anti-freedom.

@PapaPole @WashedOutGundamPilot Sounds like a case of women complaining about something no one asked them to do but insist that it is not a self imposed issue. Many such cases.

@deprecated_ii Perhaps he means to imply that it is like a controlled demolition, where all the damage is planned out and they will in theory be able to enact their plans.

But given the retards in charge, I am doubtful their plans will go according to their expectations.

@bronze @WashedOutGundamPilot Placing any amount of blame on women is a cardinal sin in our sacred democracy.

@WashedOutGundamPilot For the whole thread, I should make a note that putting all the blame on men while putting none on women is to be expected.

Women cannot possibly have a role in these issue! They are perfect angels!

Yes, just keep beating down on the men who are already numb to the pain of the previous attacks. I am sure it will work after becoming less effective. Holding women accountable is a cardinal sin in our gynocracy!

@WashedOutGundamPilot Who are the young women dating? Not only multiple with the same man, but also many of them are dating older men who have money. Women are more likely to have interest in men with money, and young men are far less likely to have money than a man who has had a decade to advance himself financially.

@WashedOutGundamPilot This is not to say that all men would drop everything and go for any woman that would say yes. Many women are not able and/or willing to offer men what they want in a relationship. So the alternatives are still only providing a poor substitute, but to extend the steak metaphor, when you are being told that a rotten cut of steak that was taken out of the dumpster is of prime quality, the burger looks like a far better option.

@WashedOutGundamPilot What a huge crock of shit. The vast, vast majority of men would prefer to have an actual relationship than to use pornography.

Many men simply strike out too many times with relationships that they stop even bothering. And with women demanding more and offering less while still rejecting the vast majority of men, it is little wonder that they resort to alternatives.

A man may prefer a steak to a burger, but if he never is allowed to have the steak, the burger suffices.

@sj_zero But we are so much smarter than people in the past! They were all just so stupid because they did not have a college education! That is how you become smart, my professors told me so!

A big mistake in modern times many people make is the assumption that we are more intelligent than those in the past.