I am thinking about starting a blog, should I? I feel like I need to show off. I don't really care about helping people, although it'd be great if someone starts reading, too.I just feel like I'd be wasting all I know if I don't do this.
pic unrelated
Other urls found in this thread:
bump
dont dwell on indecision so much , give it a shot and see what happens.
Shrek is a redpilled film, prove me wrong
I literally can't
I'm feeling a little tinfoil about it.
Wordpress is okay for hosting but I'm thinking about github because I can't buy a domain right now.
Don't
Nobody reads anymore. Their attention span is not long enough. If you want to reach lots of people you need to make videos or colorful pictures.
In UK pupils don't know how to hold a pen or how to read a clock.
Soon it will be like in medivial ages. Only priests and writers are able to read and write. the rest only can "swipe".
>Big green ogre cucks his employer and runs away with his mail order bride
Yeah nah.
Farquaad repersents the Jew while Fiona and Shrek are the white people. Farquaad takes away the white woman from the man so she could be used as a slave for nonwhite subhumans. However Shrek fights against the Jew from taking over white countries and rightfully gets his woman back.
>Only priests and writers are able to read and write. the rest only can "swipe".
Good, maybe then we can disenfranchise the plebs so we can go back to proper way of running things.
Shrek is a social outcast that subverts a contract he made with his employer (a lord nonetheless) and pollutes royal blood with his beastly seed.
He is a literal ogre and a non-human who turns a human royal into more of his green kind, whereas with Farquaad she would have created a new dynasty and new monarchy.
Its a Jewish-written story of a mutt underdog that usurps laws of the land and stops Whites from expanding their civilization.
Well, the majority of the people using message boards (and unironically r*ddit) CAN READ, although their opinions are complete trash.
>If you want to reach lots of people you need to make videos or colorful pictures.
not going to happen and that's not the reason I'm doing it. I'd be happy to have 20 readers honestly
>In UK pupils don't know how to hold a pen or how to read a clock.
really? Whites or immigrants?
>Soon it will be like in medivial ages. Only priests and writers are able to read and write. the rest only can "swipe".
I don't think it will be that extreme but a very small number of the population will be able to employ reason honestly and effectively.
yeah but it was his swamp
and it was her choice
The movie about racemixing and an elegant dragon making la creatura babies with a donkey voiced by a nigger where every white is evil and every good guy's mexican or black or some shit?
Yeeeah, redpilled af
>it was her choice
It would have been redpilled if it WEREN'T her choice. As is often the case in the real world. That's the point, rabbi.
Nice shilling, JIDF
>yeah but it was his swamp
>implying non-human has rights
>her choice
>implying any normal lord with his castle and army would let royal blood be spoiled
Top it off with race mixing between a donkey and a dragon and you end up with a typical Jewish subversion of White order and civilization.
>It would have been redpilled if it WEREN'T her choice
so shrek didn't have game?
>"only a JIDF shill would point out the (((agenda))) in a film jews made"
Are you even trying? Who's actually paying you for this half-ass shilling?
>implying non-human has rights
he's pretty much a human, anything that can reason needs rights. Shrek can reason and even the donkey can, so they have rights although they might not be granted them.
>Top it off with race mixing between a donkey and a dragon
well yeah, that was weird.
>her choice
why not? She turned into an ogre after, right?
She fucked him because she identified with the disgusting traits he displayed. It's a metaphor for the "if you feel ugly and unloveable, fuck a nigger like a good goy" phenomenon.
The series is pozzed as fuck, some of the worst shit hollywood ever pushed.
JIDF hates shrek redpilling future generations of kids. Farquaad is suppose to be based off the kike known as “Jeffery Katzenberg”
Shrek was the last redpilled film to come out of Hollywood. Also disney has good ties with JIDF and promote anti-shrek shilling on all Internet forums.
You're getting into the plot which I don't remember very well, so I don't really have anything here.
Arthur in the 3rd movie was white and handsome
You're displaying how absolutely degenerate this propaganda is pretty well. In the real world you don't turn into a nigger when you fuck one. They should remake shrek to every detail but have her become human at the end and make half-ogre monster babies so the kids get a taste of the reality of what the original pushed.
JIDF is known to shill against films like Shrek. It was one of few things that kikes created only for it to backfire.
>he's pretty much a human
He is an ogre with no status or rights within civilization. His reasoning and speech don't factor in into the fact that he is an ogre
>She turned into an ogre after, right?
Because she was cursed, not because she was given a choice in the matter. Shrek trapped her in a cursed shell, whereas her real self and identity is a human royal - something she would've kept if not for Shrek.
JIDF is shilling hard against Shrek, they want us to be basedboys
And a total cuck.
Like Shrek, one of Artie's greatest fears is inadequacy, as they both mention having had difficulty in their relationships with their respective fathers. "He dumped me at the school the first chance he got, and... I never saw him again"- Arthur on his Father
While at the Worcestershire Academy, Artie was not the most popular kid in school and was constantly picked on and bullied by his more athletic and popular peers, even as far as the entire student body, including his principal, urging Shrek to eat him.
Yeeeah, "pussy white boi" is a positive stereotype to instill in young minds. Won't encourage white girls to subconsciously associate undesirable traits with white males at all, totally unrelated to the general theme of the franchise. /s
>He is an ogre with no status or rights within civilization.
not an argument. What society thinks only determines the right you have, not the rights you ought to have rationally.
>Because she was cursed, not because she was given a choice in the matter.
I don't remember the story that well honestly, it's been like a decade since I watched it.
This guy gets it. She alienates her family, lives in a shack and gives up the future of her kingdom to the winds for that BGC.
Burn the moss, accept the loss.
>shilling
>against a film that shows racemixing, disregard for nobility and law, oathbreaking and general degeneracy
Shrek is a meme and a Hollywood propaganda.
These posts point out the essence of it.
>not an argument
It is very much so because he is a an OGRE.
>rights you ought to have
Now that is not an argument. Ought doesn't factor into a discussion about a literal non-human. He can't have rights because he is not part of human society and race.
>rights you ought to have rationally
Again, that's the spin. It's globalist propaganda. "everybody is the same inside, see how different shrek looks? He's a good guy and deserves the same treatment as everybody else"
Notice what is never shown in the films? What got the ogres their reputation as bloodthirsty monsters, killing and eating humans mercilessly. Shrek a good boy he dindu nuffin wrong, all stereotypes are just like this goy everybody is equally suited to every society you don't wanna be like these bigoted villagers.
Now that you mention it, Farquaad does flood Shreks swamp with fairy-tale creatures.
But on the other hand Farquaad is trying to arrest the fairy-tale creatures rather than replace his citizens with them, so the comparison doesn't really work.
The Fairy tale characters are also the whites while Farquaads army represents Jews displacing them from an ethnostate.
They're actually meant to represent diverse refugees with nowhere to go. Good goy shrek gives up his rightful property to them and takes it upon himself to fix the problems they caused themselves and give up his own property for an unsustainable population with no respect for his ownership of said property and a sense of entitlement to it.
He then goes on to fuck the pure daughter of the royal family and destroy the political future of the kingdom, the princess a rabid coalburner, while the king and queen are made out to be monsters for *gasp* being upset that their bloodline is destroyed and the kingdom is overrun by foreigners who were bolstered by the smelly savage who fucked their daughter.
"redpilled af doh"
>Shrek 2 is out at theatres
>absolutely everything in the supermarket has Shrek on it
i want to go back, bros
alright, makes sense.
But how about the fact that the fairytale creatures hate Farquaad and don't appreciate being kicked out of their home... Whereas whites are basically begging for liberalism and replacement?
Shrek represents liberals in that context. He's pissed, then grudgingly allows them to have his home. But it's okay goys and goyls because he fixes it and it's totally temporary when this sort of thing happens wink wink.
Maybe get into politics, media or any other position with influence or write a book then?
Stop looking for the easiest way out
My argument is that all species that have the ability to employ reason should have rights. That means that if dolphins learn how to discourse about shakespeare in a hundred years they should be given rights then. There's also the biological aspect of it, which means that stupid humans hae right because smarter humans exist. So it's more about potential than anything else, but the claim to said potential should be well founded and scientific. Your argument as shrek not deserving rights because he's "not human" is you saying he's not homo sapiens. Shrek can talk pretty well and can reason.
I'll give you an example. There's a region Y where the crime rate is disproportionately high and most people from Y are violent and often end up in jail. A baby (of a rational species) born in Y has rights at birth and the only thing morally permissible at that point is precaution. Maybe you keep your distance from the kid. But if at 30 he's committed no crimes and has a clean record, stating that he is still a part of Y is an insult because he has clearly not bent to the statistical expectations and is an exception. SO he has rights and always did, in this scenario.
But if he commits murder at 20, then his rights are taken away (the major ones, anyway, and only to an extent) and he is opne now to rightful revenge (which in civilization is often jail). So now, after committing murder, he has bent to the statistic expectations and is in jail. This is fine.
You advocate stripping away the rights of the baby, or any other member of Y on the basis of nothing but statistical (well-founded or otherwise) expectations. I advocate the two cases that I elaborated on.
This is a shrek interpretation thread now.
>Maybe get into politics, media or any other position with influence or write a book then?
I'm 19 though
>Stop looking for the easiest way out
Why do you think I want to do this?
No it isn't, kike
You're ignoring a huge factor. Those literate dolphins wouldn't be making half-human dolphin hybrids who are unsuited for life among humans being given a vote and positions of power that they would use to further dolphinkind at the expense of the humans they're replacing.
Rights, sure. Equality, no. Because they're not equal. Don't torture sapient animals, yeah. But to encourage gorillas or dolphins or dogs to live among and interbreed with humans and call it "progress" when they're clearly set to be the dominant species and push humans out, take what they built and leave nothing for them, is not "rights" at all. It's capitulation, submission.
I think he's right to be honest. Shrek interpretation is more interesting than whatever the fuck it was originally supposed to be about.
Fairytale creatures are ethnicly diverse refugees that Shrek is supposed to empathize with and is supposed to stand up for, while evil Farquaad is mocked because of his attempt to create a better society and a kingdom for his subjects.
You keep drawing equivalence between a non-human ogre and humans based on his ability to reason, while he actively shuns the society and seeks to be apart from everyone. He is then forced to do something for the society and against his will which he subverts by breaking the contract he made with his social superior.
He not only shuns society, he breaks conventions of it for his own gain. He doesn't deserve any rights since he violates those that a human society expects of a rational creature.
and lets not forget, he is an OGRE.
smelly dumb memeing scum
Not to mention Duloc is suppose to be Israel and pretty much anybody who lives there is a Jew. That’s why Whites in film or in this case “fairy tale characters” are viewed as ugly subhumans while Farquaad (Jew) is supposed to be the master race until eventually getting his ass kicked by shrek.
>He doesn't deserve any rights since he violates those that a human society expects of a rational creature.
This. I recall him invading, literally storming the castle and beating the guards to shit. "muh equality" though right? It was a chimpout under a "this is justified sometimes, he dindu nuffin wrong cuz dey tryda stop him getting his way" lens.
How’s that butter knife ban going for you, bong. But do go ahead and call that guy “memeing scum” we all know brits have little to no sense of human because they’re practically kikes.
Duloc is supposed to be the Western world m8. Not the castle, the kingdom. The fairytale creatures (refugees) want to take a piece of it and a backstory wherein the evil whites took their land is put on to justify it.
>You're ignoring a huge factor. Those literate dolphins wouldn't be making half-human dolphin hybrids who are unsuited for life among humans being given a vote and positions of power that they would use to further dolphinkind at the expense of the humans they're replacing.
Stop moving the goalposts.
>Rights, sure. Equality, no. Because they're not equal
Yeah, stop moving the goalposts, retard. No one's talking about "Equality", only about rights.
>You keep drawing equivalence between a non-human ogre and humans based on his ability to reason, while he actively shuns the society and seeks to be apart from everyone.
not a fucking argument, living in society isn't a precondition for having rights.
>He is then forced to do something for the society and against his will which he subverts by breaking the contract he made with his social superior.
not an argument
>He not only shuns society, he breaks conventions of it for his own gain.
again, not an argument.
> He doesn't deserve any rights since he violates those that a human society expects of a rational creature.
Your "expectation" here is unfounded and based on arbitrary and often contextual laws. It's bullshit. Read the post you're replying to again. ALso, you're getting milder, stop moving goalposts.
>and lets not forget, he is an OGRE.
are you braindead?
Farquaad is literally modeled after a Jewish Disney employee.
>My argument is that all species that have the ability to employ reason should have rights.
If you had the ability to employ reason you would know that it doesn't matter if species "should" have rights or not.
Only species with enough strength to protect themselves have rights, and that will always be the way it is.
If you were a superhuman creature that was stronger than all of humanity by yourself, to the point where our weapons were unable to harm you, you would have rights no matter how terrible we found you. You could kill a human every second, and you would still have rights.
This for example his Shreks human form, notice that he’s basically an aryan minus the brown hair. Not to mention looks far more attractive then the slimey kike “Farquaad”
There is no goalpost in an open discussion, nice try. Never once did I say "this is literally the only problem with X thing" and renig. That's the fallacy fallacy at work, you know better.
It isn't equality to give an outgroup equal footing to the ingroup when it's clearly detrimental to the parent culture. It's capitulating to a soft invasion.
>shrek
>white
He’s white in his human form aka the non-Jewish propaganda form
Take the shrek pill.
Why do you need a blog when you already use Jow Forums to blogpost?
>living in society isn't a precondition for having rights.
It is, since rights that are not respected, enforced and recognised are dead letter.
Everything that follows that you dismissed as "not an argument" rests on ability of both parties to reason, recognise each other's rights and enter an obligatory relationship. Society is not an imaginary omnipresent thing, its a living relationship between humans that live in close vicinity to each other. It seems like you are a dumb Kantian, and if that is so, you have a bigger problem than Shrek.
>stop moving goalposts
Stop giving dismissive non-answers. I can talk like I'm talking to a 5 year old if that helps you make your point, but if you have none then stop.
wow another blog by a 16 year old libertarian
we already have enough esoteric entityy and FAGcast retards thanks
What it comes down to is that a vote and gibs are not universal human rights. The user pushing the "all beings, maaaan they deserve equality" shit is being disingenuous, speaking from a specific ideological standpoint that has been proven destructive.
Empires as big as the US, Britain, Germany and etc don't often fall to a bloody war. Look at Rome for a great example, it wasn't just some invading force it was cultural collapse and apathy.
yes, we all did it on geocities and shit back in the day, faggot. no one will read, buttercup
Mods please sticky
>Well, the majority of the people using message boards (and unironically r*ddit) CAN READ, although their opinions are complete trash.
but they need "easy language". They can't "get it" anymore and they don't like long texts with complicated words
What I love about Jow Forums is that an OP's choice of unrelated pic can quickly turn into an interpretation of a cartoon and segue right into whether talking dolphins should have rights and then a debate on human rights in general.
>They can't "get it" anymore and they don't like long texts with complicated words
Are you the tard bleeting on about how every species "should" have rights?
Are you sure it's just because nobody gives a shit about your bullshit?
Nah that's not him. This guy's concern seems to be that people today choose their "opinions" based on what can be spoonfed to them most efficiently and with the flashiest colors and shit.
Which is unfortunately true. Elections, for example, are meme wars now.
I'd fuck the dragon tbqh
Just got to
>>>\adv\
>If you had the ability to employ reason you would know that it doesn't matter if species "should" have rights or not.
nice ad hom faggot
>Only species with enough strength to protect themselves have rights, and that will always be the way it is.
fuck no.
>If you were a superhuman creature that was stronger than all of humanity by yourself, to the point where our weapons were unable to harm you, you would have rights no matter how terrible we found you. You could kill a human every second, and you would still have rights.
missing the point by a mile
You're pitting having right vs why one OUGHT to have rights.
Might doesn't make right. Justice isn't unencumbered force.
Jesus christ, an hero
>There is no goalpost in an open discussion, nice try
what the fuck?
salty loser!
>A blog only has one small entry
nope
>Red/Black
>Sent from my Iphone X
>btw smash capitalism
who cares? Why cater to retards who won't change? Effort-beneffit ratio should be low.
>Are you the tard bleeting on about how every species "should" have rights?
>t. first day on Jow Forums
get out
It's a rare thread honestly, most are full of shitposts.
>It is, since rights that are not respected, enforced and recognised are dead letter.
sure.
>Everything that follows that you dismissed as "not an argument" rests on ability of both parties to reason, recognise each other's rights and enter an obligatory relationship.
not really, because it's not like the first think shrek did after he was born was break some contract.
>Society is not an imaginary omnipresent thing, its a living relationship between humans that live in close vicinity to each other.
I understand. Society is a collection of individuals and nothing more.
>It seems like you are a dumb Kantian, and if that is so, you have a bigger problem than Shrek.
nah not really.
This is a semantic debate now.
treat it as "potential", not actualization.
tldr, op is faggot
>Might doesn't make right
Not to Westerners, very much so for some cultures. Which is one example of why giving millions of people of a different culture equal rights like it's halloween candy is dangerous. See: every Western nation
A shrek example is the previously mentioned bit where he rushes the castle and bruteforces his way through the guards, since that was the original topic it should be said.
>I understand.
No, you don't understand a thing. You believe I am talking from a realist-materialist point of view and miss the nuance of relationships that we as humans enter by sheer fact of us living together.
It's not a semantic debate, its a debate whether you comprehend the basics of human behaviour and social cohesion, because you fail to grasp basic concepts and yet you aspire to debate rights as a concept.
You aren't a Kantian, you are a kid.
>Not to Westerners, very much so for some cultures. Which is one example of why giving millions of people of a different culture equal rights like it's halloween candy is dangerous. See: every Western nation
>A shrek example is the previously mentioned bit where he rushes the castle and bruteforces his way through the guards, since that was the original topic it should be said.
stop shifting the goalposts, faggot
>You're pitting having right vs why one OUGHT to have rights.
>Might doesn't make right. Justice isn't unencumbered force.
Why one OUGHT to have right is just your own opinion, though (which I happen to agree with). I think everything would be marvelous if we could all just get along, and we could all have infinite resources and infinite beautiful girls and this and that. But the world simply isn't like that.
Resources are scarce, and no matter how much people have, they will always want more. The stronger ones will always take more if they can, because what can you do to stop them?
I don't understand the point in even discussing why people "ought" to have rights. At the end of the day it's just your opinion. All that matters is whether enough powerful creatures with the ability to back up said opinion with force agree with it.
Leave him be. He's a naive child that believes in universal morality.
We already covered this, it isn't "shifting the goalpost" when somebody doesn't simply play the same note over and over. I don't know where you went to college but I pray to god you weren't the best your debate team had to offer.
My point is and always was that giving a say and a piece of a nation's (or neighborhood's, or and organization's) prosperity to those who just walk in and have no respect for, no understanding of, the culture they're entering is a mistake.
Giving an example is not shifting the goalpost as there wasn't one, you produced no evidence countering a claim or answering a question and I didn't pick a new stance.
nice ad hom gramps
>We already covered this, it isn't "shifting the goalpost" when somebody doesn't simply play the same note over and over. I don't know where you went to college but I pray to god you weren't the best your debate team had to offer.
no quantum goalposts pls
also nice ad hom, faggot
>My point is and always was that giving a say and a piece of a nation's (or neighborhood's, or and organization's) prosperity to those who just walk in and have no respect for, no understanding of, the culture they're entering is a mistake.
I agree with that, but you can't force people to do as you wish and """culture""" is a huge meme
No, I don't.
>I don't understand the point in even discussing why people "ought" to have rights.
So that people who don't have them can have them in the future. Not coming from a place of altruism, but this is the way it is.
>but this is the way it is.
It isn't you dumb twat. Everyone agrees that rights are dead if not recognised and enforce.d there is no morality to be had universally for everyone hanging in the air to be drawn upon. Rights are a social thing that only exists with others around.
>"culture" is a meme
You don't even seem to have a coherent philosophical standpoint, and you keep parroting same few points over and over. Take the meme flag off and own up to your school of thought, because right now you come across as a 12 year old.
>>I don't understand the point in even discussing why people "ought" to have rights.
>So that people who don't have them can have them in the future.
Are you not worried that once you give them the rights, they will use their rights to take yours away?
>It isn't you dumb twat. Everyone agrees that rights are dead if not recognised and enforce.d there is no morality to be had universally for everyone hanging in the air to be drawn upon. Rights are a social thing that only exists with others around.
And I'm not talking about who has them but who all ought to. And that might include people that already do.
>You don't even seem to have a coherent philosophical standpoint, and you keep parroting same few points over and over.
no, I'm not.
>Take the meme flag off and own up to your school of thought, because right now you come across as a 12 year old.
>quick, put yourself in a category so I can throw memes at you!
>Are you not worried that once you give them the rights, they will use their rights to take yours away?
are you against the notion of property?
Culture is not a meme any more than the ability to feel pain or taste food is a meme, it's something humans are doing without thinking from birth. The way a baby cries is a well-honed psychological appeal no different in function from appealing to the humanity of an attacker, it's unavoidable.
That said, not everybody has the same response to an unrelated infant crying as they do to their own. It's human nature.
Tribalism (racism) is a survival mechanism, evolved out of necessity for this very reason. The other guy doesn't care about you more than what he can exploit you for, so you distrust those unlike yourself instinctively and can never fully stop doing so. Only fight your own mind to put on an act, ironically, as a cultural/social defense mechanism.
Humans are a tangle of defense mechanisms like any other animal and one of them is to fuck others over if you can justify it to yourself, which most people typically can if need be. Which brings me back to "mistake to give outgroup members parent culture status"
>are you against the notion of property?
No, I like it. But I'm originally from Auckland, New Zealand. $1million US doesn't even buy a shoebox there, so I highly doubt I'm ever going to own any.
>but who all ought to
Again, not a concept that is worth discussing as it is moot, unenforceable and epistemologically vacuous. There can be no a priori morality if humans are to define it and arbitrarily impose it on relations and people that do not yet exist within a social structure that would naturally define rights and obligations.
Property does not exist outside of society, its a social norm that defines your right to exclusive use of something. Keep trying though, I'm sure there is more of the same where that comes from.
>culture is genetic
ahaha do you really believe this
Stop spouting biological memeshit. Civilization requires conscious effort and you're arguing that fresh hard drives can magically conjure an OS
>There can be no a priori morality if humans are to define it and arbitrarily impose it on relations and people that do not yet exist within a social structure that would naturally define rights and obligations.
So you don't want to discuss scenarios and want to run away? There are easier ways to say that. No need to be ashamed about it, you lost.
>muh property
stop shifting goalposts retard, no one's talking about property without society
>muh goalposts
stop parroting that sentence retard, you don't seem to be able to conceptualize what a debate is.
>so you don't want to discuss scenarios
We were discussing Shrek as a scenario this whole time, and you ran away from that by delving into conceptual discussion, where you constantly scream "goalpost" whenever someone brings up an example.
I seriously suggest you turn off your computer and pick up a textbook on philosophy, you aren't fit to be here.
salty!
not an argument
stop shifting goalposts
not an argument
...
Still not an argument, you aren't refuting anything, and you haven't seriously answered to anyone who replied to you or posed you a question.
I think you are better off watching Shrek without trying to comment on it, it seems like the appropriate mental level for you.
>you haven't seriously answered to anyone who replied to you or posed you a question
yeah nice delusion, faggot.
Fresh hard drives? Have you never picked up a bio textbook? There's not a multicellular organism around without some sort of programming from conception.
Y'know I don't agree with you but I bookmarked that to check tomorrow out of morbid curiosity. Well played.
I'll post in a couple of hours.