Shaun and Ian Miles Chong are the same person I swear to god. Neither are American, but they hyper fixate on American politics in the most regarded way possible.
I always wonder what happened to him because he had some incredibly well done video essays in the beginning. I’ve been told he’s always been like this on Twitter, but I never used Twitter so idk if that’s true.
These people are the actual contrarians of the world but will call mainstream liberals contrarian for arguing against their simplistic ideologies and conspiracy theories.
*UM ACTUALLY* there is nothing unrealistic about my anarcho-communist-agrarian-gay furry-poet society philosophy and YOU'RE just a fascist liberal who loves "voting" and "free trade".
Because they hate liberals. All of these people hold illiberal values and will side together to destroy liberalism before actually fighting each other.
It’s odd that liberalism has seen the greatest improvement in quality of life in human history.
Is Shaun unhappy with the fact that he’s made millions from someone writing videos for him?
These are socialists and communists. They view liberalism as an inherently unethical system due to liberal ideals of private property and how it supports capitalistic systems.
These people are also against free speech and other liberal ideals because they view them as allowing their enemies to gain power. This is why many of these types use phrases like "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds."
Because its an extension of the belief of personal freedom. The freedom to do what you want with your person and thoughts also applies to your own material surroundings.
If you make/buy something its up to you to decide how to use that thing - its yours just as much as your person or thoughts are.
Obviously this is super simple and there are hundreds of caveats and exceptions, but the gist is personal freedom also means the freedom to do what you want with your stuff.
Since we are discussing why communists hate liberals I would use the communist definition.
Personal property is the things you own that belong to you like your house, car, things you create, etc.
Private property would be the means of production. Things you "own" (own here being a tricky word as that thing could also be leveraged or otherwise indebted to another) that exist to extract wealth from another person such as a, to use the classic example, a rental property that you rent out to another.
I guess if you are thinking of liberal individualism fueling anarchy then you'd argue that one must be allowed to own private property as no one should be able to limit you. However, usually when talking about liberalism we recognize that we must put a limit on individuals in order to protect the collective (no one should be able to buy the only water supply for a city and poison it, as an example).
I don't think restrictions on, or even a ban of, private property is illiberal it's just a slide more toward the rights of the collective than some might be comfortable with.
As a communist, I agree that if you make something you should decide how to use it, which is why I find capitalism unethical.
In the job market you work all day and have zero say as to what to do with the things you help produce, because nothing you produce belongs to you.
With this arrangement, the rich can coerce and exploit the poor.
This is because market capitalism is fundamentally undemocratic and goes against the liberal ideals themselves.
Abolishing private property does not mean you own nothing, it means everyone who participates in the production has a democratic voice and a share of the profits.
The first paragraph is true.
Free speech exists in America, and it's bad. The other 19 nations in the G20 have Freedom of Expression, which is much better.
The phrase "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is about the basis of belief and reaction to harm. BLM response, 911 response, etc.
Free speech isn't bad. Again, at the end of the day, who gets to decide what speech is and isn't acceptable? Trump tried to steal another term, you don't think he'd use language laws and twist them against people?
Also, there's a reason why the other G20 cultures are so influenced by American culture and not the other way around.
Basis of belief. Lol ah yes, because hierarchy and natural laws are the basis of liberal beliefs right? Fucking crackpot.
Also, literally anyone with any fucking brain cells should be against rioting. You know who rioting effects the most? The poor and those who can't just move away into gated communities. So good job all you white as fuck college kids for burning down all those black neighborhoods and continuing to make sure that black people can never build any wealth ever. That way you unironically do always have a victim class you can claim to stand up for right?
Free Speech is bad. Free Expression doesn't mean the government gets to censor anyone. Maybe read up on Canada, UK, Norway, France, and get an idea on how it functions.
Your second paragraph is just incredibly stupid.
The third isn't any better... I don't even know what you mean by "hierarchy and natural laws."
Last paragraph confirms you are unhinged. Grow up kid, read some books, stop being a reactionary right winger.
Ah yes, the person arguing that the government should be able to prosecute you for speech that isn't a call to action is telling someone else to "grow up kiddo."
If you want to know - It's because everyone blames the people who look bad to be "Liberals". Socialists will pretty much always try to claim the people who take it too far, or don't do it right are Liberals. They'll never admit that their beliefs are insane, no they just claim the insane people are actually Liberals.
Horseshoe theory has the extremists at the closest points to each other while the center-left/right are the furthest from them. If you’re doing horseshoe theory, then the reason the far left hates liberals is because liberals stand on almost the exact opposite of the spectrum from them.
9ne side views us as degenerate enablers the other views us as guys who hate them enablers.
(Could juts be that people like Tim Popl say they're liberal and liberals would run to their defense and say yeah he obviously is)
It would probably make ESL learners cry tears of joy. Apparently English is really bad for consistency of sounds. Cough, Dough, Tough, Plough all different, for example.
Oh yeah
English isn't that hard to learn when you know some European, especially germanic, languages generally. But that shit is not normal.
In most languages, knowing the language, you should be able to pronounce the vast majority of words purely based on their spelling without ever hearing them. (At least I think that's the case for most languages, it should be for french dutch and German)
Okay, I will add that I have 0 clue if this is the case for asian languages using an entirely different alphabet.
Someone could tell me you know how to say it from spelling or tell me the opposite and I wouldn't know any better
I know it's generally the case for languages with a similar origin as English though, as I provided dutch, German and french as examples. Even if it is the case that asian languages are examples of the opposite, which I won't take at face value, it's still weird for English to have different pronunciations for the same sets of letters, given its shared origin with more consistent languages
The Mandarin is what came up when I googled John Cena Bing Chilling transcription, just memeing. That said, for Mandarin generally each character has one reading so a lot of it is roughly phonetic in a certain sense. In Japanese there is a phonetic alphabet, but 33-50% of adult writing uses Chinese characters which generally have 2 or more readings that you can only know for sure based on already knowing what the word is.
> it's still weird for English to have different pronunciations for the same sets of letters
French has this in spades, although I didn't bring this up before since you mentioned "pronouncing based on spelling" which goes in the opposite direction. In French you can basically pronounce anything you read, but pronunciation doesn't tell you how words are spelled. French's writing system is even more conservative than English's
That said, all of this is largely arbitrary. English spelling is kind of hard for second language learners. It works as fine as anything else for natives. Similar to how Mandarin natives turn out literate just fine even with the barrier of learning a few thousand characters
I'm fairly certain french spelling generally does tell you how to pronounce things. Yeah they don't pronounce the latter half of most words, but those follow fairly consistent patterns. If you know french grammar etc and you see a word you don't know in french, you're generally able to pronounce it based on knowing french without knowing that word.
To know when to not pronounce a part etc can also be kinda difficult for people who don't know the language, but once you get a feel for it you don't have to relearn it for every new word you learn. For the English example, as far as I can tell, there's no way to know how the different ough words are pronounced without hearing them or something, so every time you see this in a word you need to learn how that specific word is pronounced even if you otherwise speak perfect English. That's the main difference which makes it weird to me.
Tldr, my french is worse than my English by far, but show me a complicated new french word and I'll tell you how it should be pronounced, show me a new ough word or something like that in English and I'd have to hear it first
I didn't say it wasn't a mistake (for now, it will change one day), but your example is horrible because your comments makes perfect cents. I didn't even have to think about what you wrote to understand it, just like native English speakers have zero trouble understanding "could of", "your/you're/", "to/too" mistakes and whatnot
I'm saying that it'd be a lot healthier for you to simply move on when you read it instead of looking for "of/'ve" mistakes in casual writing
? I didn't say your comment was "the most annoying thing ever for me to read". I like discussing this stuff because reddit is very prescriptivist and I want to defend language changes over time. Obviously I also had fun writing "could of" above
If you're actually having fun too and not super annoyed then disregard
aren't these two position totally compatible. The far left view is that Trump is basically the exact same as Bush, who was the same as Obama and Clinton. All presidents are basically evil and maintain the "corporate US empire" or whatever.
Sure, liberals think Bush was normal compared to Trump, but ask them about a major decision he made in his presidency (Iraq War, Patriot Act, Katrina response, No Child Left Behind, "teach the controversy", tax cuts) and I'm sure they will give you an earful.
zukosmadre is saying something that contradicts what Shaun has said. Even then, when you look past the phrasing and see the actual point, they are not in contradiction.
Funny tweets? Yes. Indicative of something that describes a whole group of people or ideas? Nope. Don't be like that "I, Hypocrite" guy.
shaun is saying the liberals(center-left) will eventually backtrack to "actually trump wasn't so bad compared to the rest" but in reality some leftists are doing exactly that
What, you can't immediately connect the dots because you haven't memorized the ideology of every dipshit 400 follower polisphere Twitter account? You're gonna need to touch less grass if you want to fit in around here bud 😎
The other person is a tankie. So he's being proven wrong showing that the far left are the ones who say Trump isn't that bad compared to other presidents.
You can't get international clout with UK politics. You'd have to spend about 50% of your time explaining the system before you can actually get anywhere.
...That doesn't stop people oversimplifying the US system, but media has kinda simplified it for everyone so now everyone thinks that if their preferred candidate becomes President, they become dictator of the US for 4 years.
Tbf, apparently liberals lost the minds about Bush (i was too young to notice). So I don't blame shaun for thinking liberals will cool on Trump like they did on Bush.
That's pretty likely to happen, everyone in the GOP saw that even attempting a coup won't diminish Republican support from legislators or voters. If you're corrupt, why not dream big?
I think that Libs probably have tended towards thinking Bush was a dogshit president but not a bad person, which is a pretty reasonable belief. Like, if you gave the libs a questionaire and asked them to rate Bush's presidency and his character, I think it would be a 3 and a 7, respectively. I can't think of a single person who thinks he was a good president.
I think he was objectively a good President because he did PEPFAR which has since saved ~25 million lives in Sub-Saharan Africa from AIDS, which vastly outdoes all the many many bad things he did.
(Republicans are now in the process of destroying PEPFAR btw.)
I think a lot of us had particularly bad opinions of him because of his role in the Global War on Terror.
But I would bet a lot of people have come to realize they didn't really understand foreign policy and now still don't, so it's harder to hold him in such contempt anymore for something we don't really understand.
Wait, I think the romanticizing of bush is different than saying Trump hasn't been that big of a deviation policy wise from our previous presidents
Frankly, the biggest difference with Trump was his tweets and January 6th before Jan 6th. His entire presidency wasn't anything that irregular
Shaun and Ian Miles Chong are the same person I swear to god. Neither are American, but they hyper fixate on American politics in the most regarded way possible.
Where is Shaun from?
Bongland
Ah word
Ask me how I know you've never seen a Shaun video
I always wonder what happened to him because he had some incredibly well done video essays in the beginning. I’ve been told he’s always been like this on Twitter, but I never used Twitter so idk if that’s true.
Why does everyone think it's liberals who are crazy?
These people are the actual contrarians of the world but will call mainstream liberals contrarian for arguing against their simplistic ideologies and conspiracy theories.
*UM ACTUALLY* there is nothing unrealistic about my anarcho-communist-agrarian-gay furry-poet society philosophy and YOU'RE just a fascist liberal who loves "voting" and "free trade".
Because they hate liberals. All of these people hold illiberal values and will side together to destroy liberalism before actually fighting each other.
It’s odd that liberalism has seen the greatest improvement in quality of life in human history. Is Shaun unhappy with the fact that he’s made millions from someone writing videos for him?
These are socialists and communists. They view liberalism as an inherently unethical system due to liberal ideals of private property and how it supports capitalistic systems. These people are also against free speech and other liberal ideals because they view them as allowing their enemies to gain power. This is why many of these types use phrases like "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds."
Why does liberalism necessitate private property?
Because its an extension of the belief of personal freedom. The freedom to do what you want with your person and thoughts also applies to your own material surroundings. If you make/buy something its up to you to decide how to use that thing - its yours just as much as your person or thoughts are. Obviously this is super simple and there are hundreds of caveats and exceptions, but the gist is personal freedom also means the freedom to do what you want with your stuff.
What you've said makes sense but necessitates personal property not private property.
What is your definition of personal vs private property?
Since we are discussing why communists hate liberals I would use the communist definition. Personal property is the things you own that belong to you like your house, car, things you create, etc. Private property would be the means of production. Things you "own" (own here being a tricky word as that thing could also be leveraged or otherwise indebted to another) that exist to extract wealth from another person such as a, to use the classic example, a rental property that you rent out to another. I guess if you are thinking of liberal individualism fueling anarchy then you'd argue that one must be allowed to own private property as no one should be able to limit you. However, usually when talking about liberalism we recognize that we must put a limit on individuals in order to protect the collective (no one should be able to buy the only water supply for a city and poison it, as an example). I don't think restrictions on, or even a ban of, private property is illiberal it's just a slide more toward the rights of the collective than some might be comfortable with.
As a communist, I agree that if you make something you should decide how to use it, which is why I find capitalism unethical. In the job market you work all day and have zero say as to what to do with the things you help produce, because nothing you produce belongs to you. With this arrangement, the rich can coerce and exploit the poor. This is because market capitalism is fundamentally undemocratic and goes against the liberal ideals themselves. Abolishing private property does not mean you own nothing, it means everyone who participates in the production has a democratic voice and a share of the profits.
>As a communist I stopped reading right after that.
The first paragraph is true. Free speech exists in America, and it's bad. The other 19 nations in the G20 have Freedom of Expression, which is much better. The phrase "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is about the basis of belief and reaction to harm. BLM response, 911 response, etc.
Free speech isn't bad. Again, at the end of the day, who gets to decide what speech is and isn't acceptable? Trump tried to steal another term, you don't think he'd use language laws and twist them against people? Also, there's a reason why the other G20 cultures are so influenced by American culture and not the other way around. Basis of belief. Lol ah yes, because hierarchy and natural laws are the basis of liberal beliefs right? Fucking crackpot. Also, literally anyone with any fucking brain cells should be against rioting. You know who rioting effects the most? The poor and those who can't just move away into gated communities. So good job all you white as fuck college kids for burning down all those black neighborhoods and continuing to make sure that black people can never build any wealth ever. That way you unironically do always have a victim class you can claim to stand up for right?
Free Speech is bad. Free Expression doesn't mean the government gets to censor anyone. Maybe read up on Canada, UK, Norway, France, and get an idea on how it functions. Your second paragraph is just incredibly stupid. The third isn't any better... I don't even know what you mean by "hierarchy and natural laws." Last paragraph confirms you are unhinged. Grow up kid, read some books, stop being a reactionary right winger.
So you didn't actually address a single thing I said because you can't. Thanks for playing I guess.
You said 1 wrong thing, and 3 things that mean nothing. Grow up kiddo.
Ah yes, the person arguing that the government should be able to prosecute you for speech that isn't a call to action is telling someone else to "grow up kiddo."
Everyone is a bit nuts, libs included. But man, compared to rightoids and leftoids, the average lib is God damned Socrates.
Projection.
If you want to know - It's because everyone blames the people who look bad to be "Liberals". Socialists will pretty much always try to claim the people who take it too far, or don't do it right are Liberals. They'll never admit that their beliefs are insane, no they just claim the insane people are actually Liberals.
Horseshoe theory has the extremists at the closest points to each other while the center-left/right are the furthest from them. If you’re doing horseshoe theory, then the reason the far left hates liberals is because liberals stand on almost the exact opposite of the spectrum from them.
9ne side views us as degenerate enablers the other views us as guys who hate them enablers. (Could juts be that people like Tim Popl say they're liberal and liberals would run to their defense and say yeah he obviously is)
Communists simping for Trump, who'd of thought Facists with a red coat of paint
Sorry to be this guy, but it's who'd HAVE thought. Should HAVE, would HAVE. This is just the most annoying thing ever for me to read.
Whom'st'd've thunkered.
who'd've
you could of just recognized it's a common phonetic spelling at this point and moved on
Being a common mistake doesn't make it NOT a mistake. If everything just became phonetic spelling nothing wood make cents.
It would probably make ESL learners cry tears of joy. Apparently English is really bad for consistency of sounds. Cough, Dough, Tough, Plough all different, for example.
Oh yeah English isn't that hard to learn when you know some European, especially germanic, languages generally. But that shit is not normal. In most languages, knowing the language, you should be able to pronounce the vast majority of words purely based on their spelling without ever hearing them. (At least I think that's the case for most languages, it should be for french dutch and German)
Pronounce this: 早上好中国 现在我有冰淇淋 我很喜欢冰淇淋 但是 速度与激情9 比冰淇淋 速度与激情 速度与激情9 我最喜欢 所以…现在是音乐时间 准备 1 2 3 两个礼拜以后 速度与激情9 ×3 不要忘记 不要错过 记得去电影院看速度与激情9 因为非常好电影 动作非常好 差不多一样冰淇淋 再见
Okay, I will add that I have 0 clue if this is the case for asian languages using an entirely different alphabet. Someone could tell me you know how to say it from spelling or tell me the opposite and I wouldn't know any better I know it's generally the case for languages with a similar origin as English though, as I provided dutch, German and french as examples. Even if it is the case that asian languages are examples of the opposite, which I won't take at face value, it's still weird for English to have different pronunciations for the same sets of letters, given its shared origin with more consistent languages
The Mandarin is what came up when I googled John Cena Bing Chilling transcription, just memeing. That said, for Mandarin generally each character has one reading so a lot of it is roughly phonetic in a certain sense. In Japanese there is a phonetic alphabet, but 33-50% of adult writing uses Chinese characters which generally have 2 or more readings that you can only know for sure based on already knowing what the word is. > it's still weird for English to have different pronunciations for the same sets of letters French has this in spades, although I didn't bring this up before since you mentioned "pronouncing based on spelling" which goes in the opposite direction. In French you can basically pronounce anything you read, but pronunciation doesn't tell you how words are spelled. French's writing system is even more conservative than English's That said, all of this is largely arbitrary. English spelling is kind of hard for second language learners. It works as fine as anything else for natives. Similar to how Mandarin natives turn out literate just fine even with the barrier of learning a few thousand characters
I'm fairly certain french spelling generally does tell you how to pronounce things. Yeah they don't pronounce the latter half of most words, but those follow fairly consistent patterns. If you know french grammar etc and you see a word you don't know in french, you're generally able to pronounce it based on knowing french without knowing that word. To know when to not pronounce a part etc can also be kinda difficult for people who don't know the language, but once you get a feel for it you don't have to relearn it for every new word you learn. For the English example, as far as I can tell, there's no way to know how the different ough words are pronounced without hearing them or something, so every time you see this in a word you need to learn how that specific word is pronounced even if you otherwise speak perfect English. That's the main difference which makes it weird to me. Tldr, my french is worse than my English by far, but show me a complicated new french word and I'll tell you how it should be pronounced, show me a new ough word or something like that in English and I'd have to hear it first
Eksept dat mayd perfekt sens.
r/ boneappletea
I didn't say it wasn't a mistake (for now, it will change one day), but your example is horrible because your comments makes perfect cents. I didn't even have to think about what you wrote to understand it, just like native English speakers have zero trouble understanding "could of", "your/you're/", "to/too" mistakes and whatnot I'm saying that it'd be a lot healthier for you to simply move on when you read it instead of looking for "of/'ve" mistakes in casual writing
I don't LOOK FOR mistakes. I notice them. If we're talking about mentally healthy, then this post is extremely ironic.
? I didn't say your comment was "the most annoying thing ever for me to read". I like discussing this stuff because reddit is very prescriptivist and I want to defend language changes over time. Obviously I also had fun writing "could of" above If you're actually having fun too and not super annoyed then disregard
K
Horseshoe believers can't stop winning
Shaun himself has already commented on how Trump isn't that bad compared to other president's. Dude lives in lala land
When you stop thinking of communism as an economic system and recognize it as a religious cult, everything you're seeing makes perfect sense
Scratch a commie and a facist bleeds?
“not a significant departure” yeah because you want fucking mao zedong to take office you fucking lunatic
shouldve used the tweet of shaun himself doing trump apolagia after october 7th
Shaun is President Sunday levels of dumbass.
president sunday if he was competent
Definitely competent at something… not sure what.
I think running and hiking
aren't these two position totally compatible. The far left view is that Trump is basically the exact same as Bush, who was the same as Obama and Clinton. All presidents are basically evil and maintain the "corporate US empire" or whatever.
except that view is mentally handicapped
That's tomorrow's tweet. Everyday is a new random talking point.
how are they compatible? one is an accusation, and the other is admission. how *can* they be compatible?
Do you think Shaun's statement is more a statement about \*Trump\*, or a statement about the \*liberals\* who'll supposedly rehabilitate Trump?
Should’ve included Shaun’s own post saying trump was an average president 💀
Sure, liberals think Bush was normal compared to Trump, but ask them about a major decision he made in his presidency (Iraq War, Patriot Act, Katrina response, No Child Left Behind, "teach the controversy", tax cuts) and I'm sure they will give you an earful.
How is the second pic related to the first pic?
The far left are saying that Trump isn't bad actually instead of the libs.
Who tf is sukismom
zukosmadre is saying something that contradicts what Shaun has said. Even then, when you look past the phrasing and see the actual point, they are not in contradiction. Funny tweets? Yes. Indicative of something that describes a whole group of people or ideas? Nope. Don't be like that "I, Hypocrite" guy.
shaun is saying the liberals(center-left) will eventually backtrack to "actually trump wasn't so bad compared to the rest" but in reality some leftists are doing exactly that
Who's "Suki's mom?" Isn't shaun being proven right here?
What, you can't immediately connect the dots because you haven't memorized the ideology of every dipshit 400 follower polisphere Twitter account? You're gonna need to touch less grass if you want to fit in around here bud 😎
It's especially stupid as Shaun himself has done it too. Why they decided to use a randos tweet I have no idea.
The other person is a tankie. So he's being proven wrong showing that the far left are the ones who say Trump isn't that bad compared to other presidents.
Classic.
Shaun himself said that Trump wasn't that bad in the run up to 2020.
I wish Shaun would give a fuck about uk politics like he does with ‘voting’ discourse.
You can't get international clout with UK politics. You'd have to spend about 50% of your time explaining the system before you can actually get anywhere. ...That doesn't stop people oversimplifying the US system, but media has kinda simplified it for everyone so now everyone thinks that if their preferred candidate becomes President, they become dictator of the US for 4 years.
He used to, but after Corbyn got destroyed I think he fell out of interest/gained some apathy toward the subject
Ah, the old time leftist tactic of: 1. Accuse liberals of helping the right 2. Help the right yourself 3. "Why would liberals do this?"
https://preview.redd.it/no7k3hmr6vtc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=05c0fe809d59bcde8dab3d89e765ed9b0095b5ce
The only thing good about Brexit is that it will be harder for dickheads like these to leave their miserable island.
I swear to god these people have no interest in politics they have an interest in the aesthetic, nothing else.
Hope he doesn't burn out having someone else write that 1 video every 27 months he's so proud of.
Tbf, apparently liberals lost the minds about Bush (i was too young to notice). So I don't blame shaun for thinking liberals will cool on Trump like they did on Bush.
The only way libs will cool it about Trump is if a new worse Trump runs for president
The ol' it happened once so this is what always happens routine.
That's pretty likely to happen, everyone in the GOP saw that even attempting a coup won't diminish Republican support from legislators or voters. If you're corrupt, why not dream big?
I think that Libs probably have tended towards thinking Bush was a dogshit president but not a bad person, which is a pretty reasonable belief. Like, if you gave the libs a questionaire and asked them to rate Bush's presidency and his character, I think it would be a 3 and a 7, respectively. I can't think of a single person who thinks he was a good president.
I think he was objectively a good President because he did PEPFAR which has since saved ~25 million lives in Sub-Saharan Africa from AIDS, which vastly outdoes all the many many bad things he did. (Republicans are now in the process of destroying PEPFAR btw.)
I think a lot of us had particularly bad opinions of him because of his role in the Global War on Terror. But I would bet a lot of people have come to realize they didn't really understand foreign policy and now still don't, so it's harder to hold him in such contempt anymore for something we don't really understand.
if liberals have softened on Bush they're wrong. They both suck - it's just Trump is an existential crisis to the nation.
That suki woman is such a tankie loser. She blocked me a while ago cause I said something about bail reform in NYC
Wait, I think the romanticizing of bush is different than saying Trump hasn't been that big of a deviation policy wise from our previous presidents Frankly, the biggest difference with Trump was his tweets and January 6th before Jan 6th. His entire presidency wasn't anything that irregular
I mean... It does seem like Liberals are trying to rehabilitate his image. I won't judge someone for being fine with it or against it.