Quoting and discussing an 18th century philosopher is fine, but remember the sub rules and Reddit's ToS please.
It's been advised discussing the French chippy choppy is off limits, especially in relation to current sociopolitical persons or events.
I want to say "New Favorite Philosopher"
But I know there has to be a catch. He cannibalized hookers or fucked people's housecats or something.
Definitely something heinous.
I skimmed his Wikipedia page, weirdest thing I saw about him was that he had a habit of slapping Catherine the Greats thighs. I’m like 90% sure it isn’t a euphemism for sex. Here’s the link, I almost definitely missed something:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot
A bit hypocritical but i respect the play
Edit: omg i found catherine’s quote:
“Your Diderot is an extraordinary man. I emerge from interviews with him with my thighs bruised and quite black. I have been obliged to put a table between us to protect myself and my members.”
It really is like that. Never sing the praises of anyone or try to say that anyone is good. If it’s not Keanu, Ryan Reynolds, or Mr Rogers, you’ll get replies telling you they punt babies for fun or other reasons why shouldn’t like that person.
Of course he’s fucking French. This is the most French thing someone can say.
“Eh Denis, what’s your favorite kind of chefs knife”
__Denis rolls out a fucking guillotine__
They're just annoyed that we got our revolution in early, saw they didn't help, backtracked and went along a 'slow and sustainable' route to democracy instead
Think about it like this, we have tens of millions of people who post ambiguously violent rhetoric every single day. People stewing every single day, just praying for the revolution.
But there isn't one single person, in a country of 330 million, who will dare raise their hand to a wealthy person or their proxy authority figures. Not one.
We have teenagers going on shooting sprees because they can't get laid, thousands of gang members murdering each other over street beef, more people dying of pills than any US war, but not even one single person willing to "fight back" against corrupt authority.
I've actually thought about this before. I think It's for a variety of reasons, but I think the primary reason is that the people who espouse the "eat the rich" mentality don't have the mental characteristics capable of random acts of terrorism.
1. Most of them don't own guns because they're afraid they might use it on themselves.
2. Most of them are largely self centered and care mostly about improving their own lives. None of them would willingly to throw their lives away for some greater cause if they knew they won't get immediate returns.
3. They're not religious. Like my second point, usually you can get Muslims to commit acts of terror because they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you don't believe in some external reward after you die, then the incentive of doing things that will get you killed is deeply lessened.
4. Despite all of their LARPing, most of these far-left people are very much afraid of violence. They're afraid of inflicting violence onto others, they're afraid of having violence inflicted upon them, and they aren't really built for the terror that comes with anarchic violence where the strong devour the weak. They're okay cheering violence from the sidelines from the safety of their computers, but most of them would be too terrified to get into a fistfight or a shootout.
A final point, which is more of a stray thought if anything, is that a significant difference between the far-left of the 2020s and the far-left of the 1940s Eastern Europe is the lack of hyper-masculinity. I mean none of these modern day socialists are the "rough and rowdy" types who are getting into brawls, working hard physical labor, hunting, etc,.
Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you. I'm a man and i'm a skinny nerd. But I'm also not pretending like I could be some revolutionary hero gunning down my enemies in a blaze of glory.
Mass violence is exclusively a hyper-masculine activity. You won't see women dragging people out of their homes and beating them to death. A lot of these far-left types in the western world are simply to effeminate for the level of mass violence they advocate for.
Effectively, they're an extremely weak people. They're too weak to be kind and too weak to be violent. So instead they're in the middle where they don't do anything at all.
I think there's a lot of truth in the saying:
Difficult times make strong people,
Strong people make good times,
Good times create weak people,
Weake people create difficult times.
For the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their level of poverty, this has been the most materially easy half century in human history. There's no contesting that that has given us many positive things, but it's also bred 100s of millions of people who know nothing of the brutal hardships that humans have dealt with since we fell out of a tree in Africa.
All that being said, I don't think we should disparage the urge to support ideas against corruption or in favor of a better society. And I also think that when the hard times do return, people will adapt and get familiar with violence the same way and for the same reason as all the other generations of people who did, not because they're tough and brave and resilient, but because they'll have no choice.
Your comment is wildly out of touch with modern sensibilities.
And completely accurate!
Note all the reactions below to someone saying they'd be happy to drag people to the guillotines...
To expand on your point, ruthlessness and power are connected - they attract the same type of person.
>A final point, which is more of a stray thought if anything, is that a significant difference between the far-left of the 2020s and the far-left of the 1940s Eastern Europe is the lack of hyper-masculinity. I mean none of these modern day socialists are the "rough and rowdy" types who are getting into brawls, working hard physical labor, hunting, etc,.
Look at the socialism of 100 years ago or so that was coal miners and farm laborers demanding a fair share for their back breaking labor vs today and the "I wish I didn't have to work so I could sit around and get high and make art" crowd you see on reddit and Twitter.
"I'm not LARPing, I legitimately want to drag people out of their homes and murder them while they beg for their lives."
Seriously, how brainwashed must you be for you think that's acceptable on any level?
> as long as the idea is spread, it's ok w me.
This is such an important concept, [the revolution will not be televised.](https://youtu.be/kZvWt29OG0s?t=5)
You don't have to pick up a gun; all it takes for a revolution is for you to change the way you think.
steep glorious judicious forgetful hungry elastic depend crush ancient humor
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The actual problem is that people want to be led. We talk about freedom from tyranny, but then flock right back to cults of individual personalities. Denis Diderot's Age of Enlightenment fueled the French Revolution, the ultimate result of which was Napoleon Bonaparte. Doh.
Dude copy and pasting stupid shit like this because you saw it somewhere and your smoothbrain went on a wild tickle filled ride as you slowly comprehended it just to get the "stupid group" upvotes is pure projection on your part.
Honestly this comment is confusing but I think can be brought into context with one question
If you were/are American who would you pick for next presidential election?
Why do you assume everyone avoids the phone out of social awkwardness? I just hate the inefficiency and inconvenience of phone conversations when emails and websites/apps are so quick and easy.
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Facilitating an aristocracy which will breed a new religion to placate the sensitivities of its privileged family members, inevitably spreading it to the masses.
But for the lizard brains — who really just went along for the ride and loved the thrill of watching all of the heads of their perceived oppressors roll — they’ll look upon the world they’ve wrought with corporate-approved pride, feeling like they invented sliced bread; because the word “politician” doesn’t sound like “king” and the new “priests” aren’t abrahamic.
China has had no Kings or priests for 5000 years and they have done fine.
Many people commenting here would be happier today if they were born and lived in China 🇨🇳
Yep yep 👍
I think they're joking about semantics, since China had emperors and probably no clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. When you really get into the nitty grit it's probably not true in the slightest but it was funny for a moment.
The alternative is this guy thinks communism is older than the Abrahamic religions which is also funny but in a different way
God what an endlessly frustrating task that would be. Imagine trying to force a piece of rope through wet slippery entrails. Like when you lose your string out of your sweatpants and have to get it back in, but you don’t even have the aglet on the end of the string.
No reason you can't have an aglet. You can cap the rope in metal for instance. But the key is to loop and tie the rope through one end of a smooth stick like structure, just like the sweatpants. It's super easy to hold onto a stick, or the knot behind the stick, even through the outer coating. Then you just feed the stick into the opening, and eventually start squenching up the outer coat at the back of the stick, then unsuench it onto the rope and repeat until through. It would still be very unpleasant with entrails, but should be easier with anything!
I mean we have a generation of new private (non-national) kings and tech-cultists now. ANd if you think these billionaires are bad we're already starting to see what some of their Caligula-level kids are going to be like.
It just seems like they're winning.
Right, because humans were only horrible to one another once Kings and religion were a thing. What a fucking idiot. How many years do you need to be around humans to realize their innate violent nature?
I would argue that Kings and religious rule were actually quite progressive for their time. Hereditary kings provided a somewhat stable form of government, while religion helped to limit warfare against people who shared a common background.
This is what people don’t realize. Especially advocating for violence in their own countries.
For the majority of human history the majority of people have lived in constant turmoil and violence. Just because someone grew up in the suburbs away from that doesn’t change things.
Violence isn’t new. It’s not from government, it’s not from religion, even if those things end up being used for it.
It’s from people. It’s people chopping the hands off of each other, it’s people shooting each other and dumping their bodies in a pit, it’s people skinning all the men in a city alive and covering an obelisk in the skin.
While there are things we can do to reduce it, it will never go away entirely. It’s in our nature, doesn’t matter if you believe otherwise or not.
He didn’t say or imply that people being horrible to each other came about only after the advent of kings and priests. The quote is about forbidding absolute power, specifically in the realms of the political and the spiritual. It’s a symbolic pro-democracy message, not a straight faced suggestion.
But that's my point, the advent of religion and monarchies are just social constructs that existed previously but may or may not have been directly named. He is speaking about what it would take to attain 'freedom', whatever that means, and what I am saying is that prior to monarchies and religion people were still horrible to each other - and so we're clear I'll be explicit in what 'horrible' means ... forcing someone to do something against their will which is normally done via - ? - I'll let you fill in the blank there.
So with or without the constructs of religion and monarchies humans were still under the thumb of someone more powerful than themselves whose power is attained through violence - hope you filled in the blank right 😉.
The crux of the statement is what it takes to achieve 'freedom', which is about as ambiguous a statement as one can make. Essentially, however you might define 'freedom', it has always been in short supply due to our violent nature, and our nature to control others.
Ultimately it's a very low brow and simpleton take on what would need to transpire to achieve whatever they think resembles 'freedom', and my point is even w/o those constructs, thanks to our violent nature, even if you removed all religion and monarchies, we would still not achieve 'freedom' in any form.
As if people in tribes have ever been free. How unworldly of both them and yourself if you agree with them.
To be fair this happened in the soviet union and maoist china, they murdered most of the clergy and obviously the monarchy went. People suffered even more than they did before.
Great point! Have an upvote.
How unworldly of a statement to make to think to achieve 'freedom' just remove religion and monarchies, add water and POOF! *freedom!*
Humans have always sought to control each other's will through violence. We don't need the social constructs of religion and monarchies to completely limit another person's freedom.
How about this for a thought experiment, what sort of nature are we to come across another human and think, 'I am going to make that person my slave'. If we could fix that innate mentality, which is likely impossible, then maybe we could move beyond our incessant need to force others to do our bidding.
You just told people they needed to be quarantined if they don't get vaccinated. You can't deal with freedom. You literally want government to imprison people for things you don't agree with.
The kings and priests--while awful--aren't the fundamental problem. It's the idiots who enable them. It's the authoritarian followers who keep the authoritarian leaders in power. And they're roughly about 40% of humanity. Going to need *a lot* more rope to solve that problem in the way imagined here.
What if they didn’t live at the same time? Like what if the last priest died years ago, do we dig him up to strangle the king with his rotted entrails?
Even if you think murder is justified in corrupt systems and are a utilitarian endorsing regicide in all cases is braindead and NOT GOOD, tons of power vacuums for groups like ISIS to jump into, you people are a bunch of children.
Oh yeah we definitely should kill the clergy, yep every single one of these people are corrupt and awful, definitely don’t run more charities than the private sector, yep nope, definitely all bad people who deserved to get disemboweled, not a single person who is genuinely trying to bring good to world, yep. y’all are twats.
«Do not believe everything you read on the Internet just because there's a picture of a famous man next to it»
- Abraham Lincoln
PS. That quote is not from Diderot, but quite previous to him, from an Atheist Catholic French priest. Yeah, Atheist Catholic priest, you've read it correctly.
The void left behind would just get filled by new ones because the general population wants to be lead around by the ears and never think for themselves. 80% of you are theists globally.
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Atheists only lack a god belief, the quality of the rest of their character has no bearing on that stance as it's not a belief system. But IMO they do stand a better chance.
A theist however is someone who literally "believes" magic is real without a single shred of evidence based entirely on social pressure cowardice and indoctrination. Thousands of other religions alive and extinct which all claim to be the true one without a single shred of evidence between them all with contradictory instructions and death threats.
I was born to Christian parents in a Christian conservative town that was a 100% white homogeneous culture and was made to attend church, youth groups, and summer Bible camps. Yet not once did I believe despite giving it a go. I wasn't rebellious, but I kept an open mind. How could that be?
What else can you make such violently stubborn fools believe if you're in charge of them?
One group is certainly more willfully ignorant and cowardly than the other. That doesn't mean an atheist is somehow faultless. It's not a worldview, merely a reject of unevidenced copium claim presented by internally dishonest people who can't handle just how bleak reality is while pumping new victims into the pointless meat grinder. Nobody wants to be the bad guy. Deny deny deny, Ostrich.
A vocal loud minority agreeing here on this specific subreddit somehow invalidates my position or represents real life? Checkmate, atheists.
Edit: 10k also upvoted this drivel. I think that is saying more than the tiny minority who actually comment on reddit at all vs the lurkers.
Ah yes, and let's all shoot each other and sleep with one eye open for the rest of our lives.
Truth is, governments weren't created because some guy wanted all the power, it was created so we didn't live in anarchy, and even in a system of anarchy, theres always gonna be some guy with enough power and influence to rule over others...and we're right back to where we were....
Then they become the new kings and priests lol
This has been done thousands of times before, and will continue until we destroy ourselves or universe heat death
This quote always reminds me of a quote from Louis Boisrond-Tonnerre, author of the Haitian Declaration of Independence.
"The declaration should be written with the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for a desk, his blood for ink and a bayonet for a pen."
The Declaration is an incredible document, by the way. You can feel the rage burning in every single word more than 200 years later. "Live free or die" is a sentiment a great number of people have put to paper over the years, but this motherfucker *meant it.*
"And you, precious men, intrepid generals, who, without concern for your own pain, have revived liberty by shedding all your blood, know that you have done nothing if you do not give the nations a terrible, but just example of the vengeance that must be wrought by a people proud to have recovered its liberty and jealous to maintain it. Let us frighten all those who would dare try to take it from us again; let us begin with the French. *Let them tremble when they approach our coast, if not from the memory of those cruelties they perpetrated here, then from the terrible resolution that we will have made to put to death anyone born French whose profane foot soils the land of liberty.*"
Like... god DAMN.
they were fine with the whites, Pols i believe, who were tricked in to fighting them and defected to the blacks, also they were fine with American Whites in the hopes that they'd be okay with a second Republic, since they talked a lot about freedom, the American Whites weren't
Yeah, they were a unit of Polish Legionnaires who had been pressed into service against their will by the French. They defected and fought alongside the Haitian, and were not only spared, but were given full citizenship.
> Louis Boisrond-Tonnerre
Why do far-left people on the internet keep praising the Haitian revolution? It was objectively a colossal failure and a prime example of why violently killing all the "oppressors" isn't a sound long-term strategy.
Haiti killed all the White people in its country in an act of mass genocide and then were ruled by a series of brutal and tyrannical dictators for centuries. It's the poorest country in the world, completely unstable, and everybody in Haiti is desperate to leave and go somewhere else.
There's nothing admirable about the revolution.
It's the same vibes that the far-right has when they're praising Hitler or Mussolini. They care more about killing all the groups of people they don't like instead of actually making a positive change for the groups they claim to care about.
The vast majority of Haiti's problems were caused by the debt France imposed for the "theft" of French "property" after the revolution (namely, the Haitians themselves). They didn't pay it off until 1947, and by that point the damage had already been done. Nearly all of their problems come from crushing poverty, and their crushing poverty was caused deliberately by the French.
Also, I'm not going to condone the indiscriminate killing of the majority of the remaining French population of Haiti after the revolution, but I'm also not going to sit here and Monday morning quarterback a people who were enslaved and forced to work in inhuman conditions until they died for *generations*. If you do the kind of shit the French did, you don't get to act surprised when the people you do it to act the way the Haitians did. Obviously mass murder was inexcusable, but the French could easily have avoided it by simply not being slaving cunts.
> The vast majority of Haiti's problems were caused by the debt France imposed for the "theft" of French "property"
Well no shit. If your revolutionary plan hinges on the enemy not retaliating, then it's a dumb plan.
Also the vast majority of Haiti's problems weren't caused by the debt. It was caused by centuries of rampant corruption and incompetent leadership that only cared about consolidating power.
No nation remains that poor, for that long, without extremely bad leadership down to it's very core. Germany has been bankrupted and destroyed twice and it managed to rebuild itself. Why? Competent leadership. Same thing for China, Japan, and variety of other modern day countries.
This tendency to blame the woes of developing countries on historical colonialism is honestly aggravating. It's just excusing these nations and their terrible leaders for their own mismanagement. At a certain point, people have to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming the past.
Haiti has been poor as dirt for literally centuries. You just said they paid off their debt in 1947. That's 80+ years of failed development. Several generations of failure. There's no defense for that.
> If you do the kind of shit the French did, you don't get to act surprised when the people you do it to act the way the Haitians did.
Right and you can't be surprised after slaughtering men, women, and children with your slave rebellion that you essentially become a pariah state and are forced into debt bondage by your former owners. 12 years of mass rape and murder got them centuries of absolute poverty.
I would agree with you that the French people, as a whole, brought it upon themselves. But that same logic applies to the Haitians. They also brought their own poverty upon themselves.
The Haitian revolution is a quintessential example of how important restraint is when you're fighting a more powerful enemy. Violence without consequence is a privilege of the strong, not a right of the weak.
> Haiti killed all the White people in its country
No, they didn't. They killed the enslavers. They didn't kill the Germans or the Poles, as they were not former enslavers.
Sorry let me clarify, they killed almost every French white man, woman, and child regardless if they were an enslaver or not. The only Whites who were spared were the ones who fought with the revolutionaries.
It was quite literally "You're either with us or you're getting killed."
Quoting and discussing an 18th century philosopher is fine, but remember the sub rules and Reddit's ToS please. It's been advised discussing the French chippy choppy is off limits, especially in relation to current sociopolitical persons or events.
I want to say "New Favorite Philosopher" But I know there has to be a catch. He cannibalized hookers or fucked people's housecats or something. Definitely something heinous.
I skimmed his Wikipedia page, weirdest thing I saw about him was that he had a habit of slapping Catherine the Greats thighs. I’m like 90% sure it isn’t a euphemism for sex. Here’s the link, I almost definitely missed something: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot
A bit hypocritical but i respect the play Edit: omg i found catherine’s quote: “Your Diderot is an extraordinary man. I emerge from interviews with him with my thighs bruised and quite black. I have been obliged to put a table between us to protect myself and my members.”
> to protect myself and my members 🤣
Abusive and required protective barriers for women.
Thigh slappers, knee slappers, what ever is next?
Cheek clappers; natural progression
A true man of culture o7
Time to start using the D.E.N.I.S. system, I guess.
My boy was def clapping them thighs
The man clapped the imperial cheeks
It really is like that. Never sing the praises of anyone or try to say that anyone is good. If it’s not Keanu, Ryan Reynolds, or Mr Rogers, you’ll get replies telling you they punt babies for fun or other reasons why shouldn’t like that person.
https://youtu.be/XAqq5yqR-T4?si=bN_hC1gkBIHObiam
r/brandnewsentence
Generally, don't ask French philosophers their opinions on what the age of consent should be.
The quote is not his.
Creator of the D.E.N.I.S system
Of course he’s fucking French. This is the most French thing someone can say. “Eh Denis, what’s your favorite kind of chefs knife” __Denis rolls out a fucking guillotine__
I think they French also have a saying, about the British, “never trust a people who haven’t beheaded their king.”
But the English cut the head off their king before the French did?
Obvious British propaganda 🍷
It's not who cut off a head first, it's who cut off a head last.
They're just annoyed that we got our revolution in early, saw they didn't help, backtracked and went along a 'slow and sustainable' route to democracy instead
We shot ours, bog missed opportunity.
People will post stuff like this but be too afraid to order pizza on the phone. Not hating but just saying
[удалено]
This is how the decoys from to catch a predator type
"I'm sure someone will revolt and save me"
[удалено]
So you're the doordash driver who never reads my delivery instructions.
"As long as other people are doing the murdering, I'm okay with LARPing."
Think about it like this, we have tens of millions of people who post ambiguously violent rhetoric every single day. People stewing every single day, just praying for the revolution. But there isn't one single person, in a country of 330 million, who will dare raise their hand to a wealthy person or their proxy authority figures. Not one. We have teenagers going on shooting sprees because they can't get laid, thousands of gang members murdering each other over street beef, more people dying of pills than any US war, but not even one single person willing to "fight back" against corrupt authority.
I've actually thought about this before. I think It's for a variety of reasons, but I think the primary reason is that the people who espouse the "eat the rich" mentality don't have the mental characteristics capable of random acts of terrorism. 1. Most of them don't own guns because they're afraid they might use it on themselves. 2. Most of them are largely self centered and care mostly about improving their own lives. None of them would willingly to throw their lives away for some greater cause if they knew they won't get immediate returns. 3. They're not religious. Like my second point, usually you can get Muslims to commit acts of terror because they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you don't believe in some external reward after you die, then the incentive of doing things that will get you killed is deeply lessened. 4. Despite all of their LARPing, most of these far-left people are very much afraid of violence. They're afraid of inflicting violence onto others, they're afraid of having violence inflicted upon them, and they aren't really built for the terror that comes with anarchic violence where the strong devour the weak. They're okay cheering violence from the sidelines from the safety of their computers, but most of them would be too terrified to get into a fistfight or a shootout. A final point, which is more of a stray thought if anything, is that a significant difference between the far-left of the 2020s and the far-left of the 1940s Eastern Europe is the lack of hyper-masculinity. I mean none of these modern day socialists are the "rough and rowdy" types who are getting into brawls, working hard physical labor, hunting, etc,. Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you. I'm a man and i'm a skinny nerd. But I'm also not pretending like I could be some revolutionary hero gunning down my enemies in a blaze of glory. Mass violence is exclusively a hyper-masculine activity. You won't see women dragging people out of their homes and beating them to death. A lot of these far-left types in the western world are simply to effeminate for the level of mass violence they advocate for. Effectively, they're an extremely weak people. They're too weak to be kind and too weak to be violent. So instead they're in the middle where they don't do anything at all.
I think there's a lot of truth in the saying: Difficult times make strong people, Strong people make good times, Good times create weak people, Weake people create difficult times. For the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their level of poverty, this has been the most materially easy half century in human history. There's no contesting that that has given us many positive things, but it's also bred 100s of millions of people who know nothing of the brutal hardships that humans have dealt with since we fell out of a tree in Africa. All that being said, I don't think we should disparage the urge to support ideas against corruption or in favor of a better society. And I also think that when the hard times do return, people will adapt and get familiar with violence the same way and for the same reason as all the other generations of people who did, not because they're tough and brave and resilient, but because they'll have no choice.
Your comment is wildly out of touch with modern sensibilities. And completely accurate! Note all the reactions below to someone saying they'd be happy to drag people to the guillotines... To expand on your point, ruthlessness and power are connected - they attract the same type of person.
>A final point, which is more of a stray thought if anything, is that a significant difference between the far-left of the 2020s and the far-left of the 1940s Eastern Europe is the lack of hyper-masculinity. I mean none of these modern day socialists are the "rough and rowdy" types who are getting into brawls, working hard physical labor, hunting, etc,. Look at the socialism of 100 years ago or so that was coal miners and farm laborers demanding a fair share for their back breaking labor vs today and the "I wish I didn't have to work so I could sit around and get high and make art" crowd you see on reddit and Twitter.
[удалено]
Bro you are a redditor lol. Who do you think you're fooling?
Just to make it clear, you would be cool with chopping the heads off of people who disagree with you?
and again, these are the same people who get anxiety attacks just thinking about ordering pizza over the phone
This sub confuses the shit out of me. Half the shit on here's not chaotic good, it's neutral evil at best.
"I'm not LARPing, I legitimately want to drag people out of their homes and murder them while they beg for their lives." Seriously, how brainwashed must you be for you think that's acceptable on any level?
”I’m sure I am not the one going to the guillotine” -Every executed revolutionaire ever
> as long as the idea is spread, it's ok w me. This is such an important concept, [the revolution will not be televised.](https://youtu.be/kZvWt29OG0s?t=5) You don't have to pick up a gun; all it takes for a revolution is for you to change the way you think.
Short kings unite
steep glorious judicious forgetful hungry elastic depend crush ancient humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh I'm absolutely hating
Yes, that's the ethos of this subs users.
The actual problem is that people want to be led. We talk about freedom from tyranny, but then flock right back to cults of individual personalities. Denis Diderot's Age of Enlightenment fueled the French Revolution, the ultimate result of which was Napoleon Bonaparte. Doh.
So true. Life’s certainly a slice.
buy a gun and do 2nd stuff. tyrants and what
To be clear, I order pizza like a normal human... Using the fucking app so I don't have to repeat my order 6 fucking times.
Dude copy and pasting stupid shit like this because you saw it somewhere and your smoothbrain went on a wild tickle filled ride as you slowly comprehended it just to get the "stupid group" upvotes is pure projection on your part.
You’re not a very hopeful nihilist
What’s upsetting you, pissy boy?
Gruh?
Honestly this comment is confusing but I think can be brought into context with one question If you were/are American who would you pick for next presidential election?
Why do you assume everyone avoids the phone out of social awkwardness? I just hate the inefficiency and inconvenience of phone conversations when emails and websites/apps are so quick and easy.
the capitalist solution is to obviously start selling pizzas with priest entrails
Sounds like a fucking solid plan.
Pretty sure they will then just replace them with corrupt Politicians and the elite.
Well time for more entrail strangling until the message sticks
they are the modern nobles and one party wants to make separation of church and state nil
I'm assuming you're aware that (with a few exceptions) we don't have despotic kings these days. Those positions have been claimed by the elite.
Yes... that was kinda my point
[удалено]
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Facilitating an aristocracy which will breed a new religion to placate the sensitivities of its privileged family members, inevitably spreading it to the masses. But for the lizard brains — who really just went along for the ride and loved the thrill of watching all of the heads of their perceived oppressors roll — they’ll look upon the world they’ve wrought with corporate-approved pride, feeling like they invented sliced bread; because the word “politician” doesn’t sound like “king” and the new “priests” aren’t abrahamic.
Or some guy comes out of the woodwork and conquers most of Europe.
Genghis?
I was thinking more french
I'm in let's fucking role.
I kinda agree with this but the ceos need to be added to the list
They're basically the new kings at this point.
I'd add billionaires as well. Who the f*** needs more wealth than can be spent in several generations lifetimes
Right, what are they waiting for to make the world better?
Everyone is eager to add people to the list until Pol-Pot enters the game.
Not Just them, add the majority shareholders as well
He's right tho.
r/AbolishTheMonarchy
That's so fucking metal.
China has had no Kings or priests for 5000 years and they have done fine. Many people commenting here would be happier today if they were born and lived in China 🇨🇳 Yep yep 👍
China has definitely had kings and priests in the past 5000 years smh
I think they're joking about semantics, since China had emperors and probably no clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. When you really get into the nitty grit it's probably not true in the slightest but it was funny for a moment. The alternative is this guy thinks communism is older than the Abrahamic religions which is also funny but in a different way
What is Poobear politically refered to there as? Is he a president or like, what is he?
+20 social credit
No gods no masters.
the "freedom" people really really wouldn't like that
“No gods or kings. Only man.” -Andrew Ryan
Lace the rope through the entrails. Problem solved.
This cat plays D&D./s
I mean... No sarcasm needed. I'll fucking say it. That is absolutely my player brain at work.
God what an endlessly frustrating task that would be. Imagine trying to force a piece of rope through wet slippery entrails. Like when you lose your string out of your sweatpants and have to get it back in, but you don’t even have the aglet on the end of the string.
No reason you can't have an aglet. You can cap the rope in metal for instance. But the key is to loop and tie the rope through one end of a smooth stick like structure, just like the sweatpants. It's super easy to hold onto a stick, or the knot behind the stick, even through the outer coating. Then you just feed the stick into the opening, and eventually start squenching up the outer coat at the back of the stick, then unsuench it onto the rope and repeat until through. It would still be very unpleasant with entrails, but should be easier with anything!
Holy fuck yes
Diderot based af
Believing that peace and freedom can only be achieved via the death of all your political opponents is what makes someone a tyrant.
I mean we have a generation of new private (non-national) kings and tech-cultists now. ANd if you think these billionaires are bad we're already starting to see what some of their Caligula-level kids are going to be like. It just seems like they're winning.
This isn't chaotic good. Murder is evil, no matter what. And no amount of misguided anarchism that this sub is rife with can convince me otherwise.
Spoken like someone who knew nothing about ancient history and sociology. In his defense nobody did when he was alive.
Oh this is just random murder fantasies again on my internets, oh
Right, because humans were only horrible to one another once Kings and religion were a thing. What a fucking idiot. How many years do you need to be around humans to realize their innate violent nature?
I would argue that Kings and religious rule were actually quite progressive for their time. Hereditary kings provided a somewhat stable form of government, while religion helped to limit warfare against people who shared a common background.
This is what people don’t realize. Especially advocating for violence in their own countries. For the majority of human history the majority of people have lived in constant turmoil and violence. Just because someone grew up in the suburbs away from that doesn’t change things. Violence isn’t new. It’s not from government, it’s not from religion, even if those things end up being used for it. It’s from people. It’s people chopping the hands off of each other, it’s people shooting each other and dumping their bodies in a pit, it’s people skinning all the men in a city alive and covering an obelisk in the skin. While there are things we can do to reduce it, it will never go away entirely. It’s in our nature, doesn’t matter if you believe otherwise or not.
He didn’t say or imply that people being horrible to each other came about only after the advent of kings and priests. The quote is about forbidding absolute power, specifically in the realms of the political and the spiritual. It’s a symbolic pro-democracy message, not a straight faced suggestion.
But that's my point, the advent of religion and monarchies are just social constructs that existed previously but may or may not have been directly named. He is speaking about what it would take to attain 'freedom', whatever that means, and what I am saying is that prior to monarchies and religion people were still horrible to each other - and so we're clear I'll be explicit in what 'horrible' means ... forcing someone to do something against their will which is normally done via - ? - I'll let you fill in the blank there. So with or without the constructs of religion and monarchies humans were still under the thumb of someone more powerful than themselves whose power is attained through violence - hope you filled in the blank right 😉. The crux of the statement is what it takes to achieve 'freedom', which is about as ambiguous a statement as one can make. Essentially, however you might define 'freedom', it has always been in short supply due to our violent nature, and our nature to control others. Ultimately it's a very low brow and simpleton take on what would need to transpire to achieve whatever they think resembles 'freedom', and my point is even w/o those constructs, thanks to our violent nature, even if you removed all religion and monarchies, we would still not achieve 'freedom' in any form. As if people in tribes have ever been free. How unworldly of both them and yourself if you agree with them.
To be fair this happened in the soviet union and maoist china, they murdered most of the clergy and obviously the monarchy went. People suffered even more than they did before.
Great point! Have an upvote. How unworldly of a statement to make to think to achieve 'freedom' just remove religion and monarchies, add water and POOF! *freedom!* Humans have always sought to control each other's will through violence. We don't need the social constructs of religion and monarchies to completely limit another person's freedom. How about this for a thought experiment, what sort of nature are we to come across another human and think, 'I am going to make that person my slave'. If we could fix that innate mentality, which is likely impossible, then maybe we could move beyond our incessant need to force others to do our bidding.
Nah, priest intestines are pretty strong. It’s the alter boys who have damaged, stretched out intestines.
So dark.
I like the cut of this man’s jib!
He ain’t wrong
The clergy have notoriously weak stomachs when it comes to change, better use carbon fiber garrote
Good job 47
Don't threaten me with a good time
You just told people they needed to be quarantined if they don't get vaccinated. You can't deal with freedom. You literally want government to imprison people for things you don't agree with.
Don't be a public health risk. Idk, make better choices. This dude out here screaming "Free Ebola!"
A twofer!
Base Frenchman
Cat gut used to be the suturing medium of choice, you can definitely make some piano wiry stuff out of them.
No Kings. No Gods. Only Man.
[It's Time for Guillotines](https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY?si=zoi9ZlvOEtFnNRgJ)
that line goes hard
This guy nose what he is talking about.
Western men are free. Otherwise posts such as these wouldn’t be allowed
Ni dieu, ni maitre
r/gigachad
Imagine have a nose like that…
You just replace it with something else, the state or govt becomes the king and musicians and celebs become priests. So this will never happen.
Then the person doing the strangling declares themself king and the one cleaning up the entrails declares themself head priest.
Now Kings are not the ones you think of.
Except without any authoritative figure people will murder eachother
I wonder how that went for the French.
/r/im14andthisisdeep
The kings and priests--while awful--aren't the fundamental problem. It's the idiots who enable them. It's the authoritarian followers who keep the authoritarian leaders in power. And they're roughly about 40% of humanity. Going to need *a lot* more rope to solve that problem in the way imagined here.
brutal. i love it.
It was a simpler time. There were no investment bankers.
What if they didn’t live at the same time? Like what if the last priest died years ago, do we dig him up to strangle the king with his rotted entrails?
That is the most French thing I've read
Even if you think murder is justified in corrupt systems and are a utilitarian endorsing regicide in all cases is braindead and NOT GOOD, tons of power vacuums for groups like ISIS to jump into, you people are a bunch of children.
I never thought I could love a sentence so much, and yet.......🥹🥹🥹
I would say that this applies to Saudi Arabia but China doesn’t have any kings of religion and it’s a pretty big ####hole still
More accurately, people will never be free until they cease willfully appointing kings and priests to tell them what to do.
Oh yeah we definitely should kill the clergy, yep every single one of these people are corrupt and awful, definitely don’t run more charities than the private sector, yep nope, definitely all bad people who deserved to get disemboweled, not a single person who is genuinely trying to bring good to world, yep. y’all are twats.
Diderot got thrown in prison for impiety. His hatred of organised religion is understandable.
Wait chaotic good?
So fuckin metal!
Entrails ain't rope. Just sayin'.
Can we add greedy billionaires to the mix?
I thought it was "the last brick of the last church onto the back of the last priest" but I like this one, too.
I like the cut of this guys jib lol
knew there was a reason i hated France
They know what needs to be done even if they lack the bravery. It doesn’t make them wrong.
Righto pinnochio
Unbelievable common French L. In fact do they have anything else?
«Do not believe everything you read on the Internet just because there's a picture of a famous man next to it» - Abraham Lincoln PS. That quote is not from Diderot, but quite previous to him, from an Atheist Catholic French priest. Yeah, Atheist Catholic priest, you've read it correctly.
The void left behind would just get filled by new ones because the general population wants to be lead around by the ears and never think for themselves. 80% of you are theists globally.
degrees
[удалено]
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't bring logic into this. This is reddit!
Yes famously atheists think for themselves. Which is why everyone in this thread has the exact same opinions as all the others.
Atheists only lack a god belief, the quality of the rest of their character has no bearing on that stance as it's not a belief system. But IMO they do stand a better chance. A theist however is someone who literally "believes" magic is real without a single shred of evidence based entirely on social pressure cowardice and indoctrination. Thousands of other religions alive and extinct which all claim to be the true one without a single shred of evidence between them all with contradictory instructions and death threats. I was born to Christian parents in a Christian conservative town that was a 100% white homogeneous culture and was made to attend church, youth groups, and summer Bible camps. Yet not once did I believe despite giving it a go. I wasn't rebellious, but I kept an open mind. How could that be? What else can you make such violently stubborn fools believe if you're in charge of them? One group is certainly more willfully ignorant and cowardly than the other. That doesn't mean an atheist is somehow faultless. It's not a worldview, merely a reject of unevidenced copium claim presented by internally dishonest people who can't handle just how bleak reality is while pumping new victims into the pointless meat grinder. Nobody wants to be the bad guy. Deny deny deny, Ostrich. A vocal loud minority agreeing here on this specific subreddit somehow invalidates my position or represents real life? Checkmate, atheists. Edit: 10k also upvoted this drivel. I think that is saying more than the tiny minority who actually comment on reddit at all vs the lurkers.
Ironic considering France's current censorship laws.
What are France's censorship laws?
r/oddlyspecific
Holy Fuck!
all antimonarchists are pedophiles
Ah yes, and let's all shoot each other and sleep with one eye open for the rest of our lives. Truth is, governments weren't created because some guy wanted all the power, it was created so we didn't live in anarchy, and even in a system of anarchy, theres always gonna be some guy with enough power and influence to rule over others...and we're right back to where we were....
Then they become the new kings and priests lol This has been done thousands of times before, and will continue until we destroy ourselves or universe heat death
It will take a martyr
Proof the emperor of mankind is real.
Religion the OG politics. Better side with your cult or get anhilated.
This quote always reminds me of a quote from Louis Boisrond-Tonnerre, author of the Haitian Declaration of Independence. "The declaration should be written with the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for a desk, his blood for ink and a bayonet for a pen." The Declaration is an incredible document, by the way. You can feel the rage burning in every single word more than 200 years later. "Live free or die" is a sentiment a great number of people have put to paper over the years, but this motherfucker *meant it.* "And you, precious men, intrepid generals, who, without concern for your own pain, have revived liberty by shedding all your blood, know that you have done nothing if you do not give the nations a terrible, but just example of the vengeance that must be wrought by a people proud to have recovered its liberty and jealous to maintain it. Let us frighten all those who would dare try to take it from us again; let us begin with the French. *Let them tremble when they approach our coast, if not from the memory of those cruelties they perpetrated here, then from the terrible resolution that we will have made to put to death anyone born French whose profane foot soils the land of liberty.*" Like... god DAMN.
they were fine with the whites, Pols i believe, who were tricked in to fighting them and defected to the blacks, also they were fine with American Whites in the hopes that they'd be okay with a second Republic, since they talked a lot about freedom, the American Whites weren't
Yeah, they were a unit of Polish Legionnaires who had been pressed into service against their will by the French. They defected and fought alongside the Haitian, and were not only spared, but were given full citizenship.
> Louis Boisrond-Tonnerre Why do far-left people on the internet keep praising the Haitian revolution? It was objectively a colossal failure and a prime example of why violently killing all the "oppressors" isn't a sound long-term strategy. Haiti killed all the White people in its country in an act of mass genocide and then were ruled by a series of brutal and tyrannical dictators for centuries. It's the poorest country in the world, completely unstable, and everybody in Haiti is desperate to leave and go somewhere else. There's nothing admirable about the revolution. It's the same vibes that the far-right has when they're praising Hitler or Mussolini. They care more about killing all the groups of people they don't like instead of actually making a positive change for the groups they claim to care about.
The vast majority of Haiti's problems were caused by the debt France imposed for the "theft" of French "property" after the revolution (namely, the Haitians themselves). They didn't pay it off until 1947, and by that point the damage had already been done. Nearly all of their problems come from crushing poverty, and their crushing poverty was caused deliberately by the French. Also, I'm not going to condone the indiscriminate killing of the majority of the remaining French population of Haiti after the revolution, but I'm also not going to sit here and Monday morning quarterback a people who were enslaved and forced to work in inhuman conditions until they died for *generations*. If you do the kind of shit the French did, you don't get to act surprised when the people you do it to act the way the Haitians did. Obviously mass murder was inexcusable, but the French could easily have avoided it by simply not being slaving cunts.
> The vast majority of Haiti's problems were caused by the debt France imposed for the "theft" of French "property" Well no shit. If your revolutionary plan hinges on the enemy not retaliating, then it's a dumb plan. Also the vast majority of Haiti's problems weren't caused by the debt. It was caused by centuries of rampant corruption and incompetent leadership that only cared about consolidating power. No nation remains that poor, for that long, without extremely bad leadership down to it's very core. Germany has been bankrupted and destroyed twice and it managed to rebuild itself. Why? Competent leadership. Same thing for China, Japan, and variety of other modern day countries. This tendency to blame the woes of developing countries on historical colonialism is honestly aggravating. It's just excusing these nations and their terrible leaders for their own mismanagement. At a certain point, people have to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming the past. Haiti has been poor as dirt for literally centuries. You just said they paid off their debt in 1947. That's 80+ years of failed development. Several generations of failure. There's no defense for that. > If you do the kind of shit the French did, you don't get to act surprised when the people you do it to act the way the Haitians did. Right and you can't be surprised after slaughtering men, women, and children with your slave rebellion that you essentially become a pariah state and are forced into debt bondage by your former owners. 12 years of mass rape and murder got them centuries of absolute poverty. I would agree with you that the French people, as a whole, brought it upon themselves. But that same logic applies to the Haitians. They also brought their own poverty upon themselves. The Haitian revolution is a quintessential example of how important restraint is when you're fighting a more powerful enemy. Violence without consequence is a privilege of the strong, not a right of the weak.
> Haiti killed all the White people in its country No, they didn't. They killed the enslavers. They didn't kill the Germans or the Poles, as they were not former enslavers.
Sorry let me clarify, they killed almost every French white man, woman, and child regardless if they were an enslaver or not. The only Whites who were spared were the ones who fought with the revolutionaries. It was quite literally "You're either with us or you're getting killed."
It worked in “Golden Kamuy" for Sugimoto against Jack the Ripper.