>>307859 That was the Galko-chan mangaka. How often does this happen that the cases get mixed up?

>>307870 Away with you, blackpill. So long as there isn't an Onlyfans Kids, there is still hope.

>>307876 Pretty sure that's just called tiktok.

>>307876 It’s called TikTok and it’s where girls as young as 12 wear bikinis and show off their bodies for tens of thousands of dollars of ad revenue.

>>307878 >show off their bodies for tens of thousands of dollars of ad revenue. I doubt the chinks give out any significant pay to their users. These people will do it just for the attention.

>>307875 No it wasn't, the Galko-chan guy was importing Cunny Posts, but as far as I remember it wasn't in 50s deutchemags.

>>307873 >Guy gets locked out and his home shut down for a week by Amazon over a simple misunderstanding. >I'm seriously considering discontinuing this I'd tell him to just fucking kill himself, but his gun probably won't fire unless he's paid $19.99 for his monthly subscription.

>>307830 >>307832 Do you not know what an influencer company is and how they market? Do you think social media comments on a new netflix show are legitimate? After the fucking Cowboy Bebop shit? Everything about this is a lie anon.

>>307474 I'm glad to see more people spreading the truth that Nazism is socialism and is cut from the same authoritarian cloth as Marxism. Marxists, and thus the Democratic party in the US and other socialist parties in Europe, want the same things for society as the Nazis did (they are just going to exterminate a lot more people before the Jews get what they deserve). The thing that I wonder, TIKanon (or James Lindsay anon, if you aren't the same person), is if either of them wrap the idea up with Neopatrimonialism. Neopatrimonialism is one aspect of why Marxism must always be totalitarian. I use the term "patrimonial" from Francis Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order, where he identifies it as the dominant social order in humanity up until very modern times. Under patrimonialism, society is organized as manors (like medieval manors) run by a patriarch. The members of the family are the property, the cattle, of the family line, which is absolutely managed by the current patriarch. This concept of society may not have even ended yet in China. It ended in Europe due to the Church wanting to be able to inherit land (one of the few things that the patriarch couldn't do was give the family manor away, as the patriarch was only a steward to the manor). What does that have to do with Marxism? Marxism is neo-patrimonial. It says "look back to those times when we had communal land plots, and we all helped one another, why can't we live like that again?" Marxism looks backwards to humanity's patrimonial past and romanticizes it. What it forgets is that, in a social order that has so many responsibilities to the individual, the individual also has reciprocal responsibilities to the social order. While the owner of a herd of cattle has a responsibility to the herd, sometimes that responsibility means culling the herd, and the herd has a responsibility to accept it. Marxist social order must always be Totalitarian because the Marxist wants the state to have responsibility over all aspects of their life, which means that they are reciprocally responsible for individually maintaining that social order. Living under patrimonialism means accepting the decrees of the patriarch. Social order can only be maintained through the responsibilities of the individual to the social order. The more responsibilities to the individual that the social order has, the more reciprocal responsibilities to the social order that the individual must have. The big difference between a socialist and a nazi is that the nazi will tell you that this is true, while the socialist will lie to you and spin a delusion about a utopia where society helps everyone and no one pays for it. Yes, yes, not your personal blog

>>307885 Lie all you want sheeny, no one is buying your shit. You should probably commit sudoku, kike.

>>307868 >>307871 >>307872 He should have said "Nigga I ain't in it for no kids I got them for them big tiddied euro bitches! I didn't even see no kids!''

>>307885 >The thing that I wonder, TIKanon (or James Lindsay anon, if you aren't the same person), is if either of them wrap the idea up with Neopatrimonialism. Not either Anon you're thinking of. Having watched James stuff, he does not. The closest he gets is Hegel and his followers, but much of the material James pulls up points to Socialist theories sprouting up from the concept of the "Noble Savage". While majority of Europe adopted the idea of the 41st Parallel (AKA "The White Man's Burden"), you had philosophers (From as early as Rousseau to as recent as Carl Jung) pushing for the opposite idea, declaring that European society had "lost" it's way in becoming "too" organized and polite and that we need to return to acting like savages who have total freedom and don't worry about their inhibitions. At least, that's the concept being presented by those nuts. The reality of the matter is that they didn't want society to shame them for being lazy and nymphomaniacs.

>>307888 > they didn't want society to shame them for being lazy I mean, wasn't that Marx's whole shtick: < I have a PhD in Philosophy. I'm better than you and you should pay me to be alive.

>>307875 Now I'm not sure which was which.

>>307885 > "look back to those times when we had communal land plots, and we all helped one another, why can't we live like that again?" Those times never existed though. Hobbes was mostly right. Mankind in a state of nature finds his life "poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He also said "solitary" in his quote, which isn't true - as the state of nature of man as a social creature is largely within familial tribal bands/clans. This is why socialism/communism can work in VERY small communities where everyone already knows and cares for each other, but once a society grows to the point where distant neighbors no longer know or interact with each other - there is little to no incentive to not just be a parasite on other people's labor in the name of equity.

>>307891 >This is why socialism/communism can work in VERY small communities where everyone already knows and cares for each other Anon, the Pilgrims practiced communal farming, and barely survived the Winter. Socialism doesn't work on ANY level.

>>307891 >This is why socialism/communism can work in VERY small communities where everyone already knows and cares for each other, but once a society grows to the point where distant neighbors no longer know or interact with each other - there is little to no incentive to not just be a parasite on other people's labor in the name of equity. So, socialism works when people understand the responsibility that they have to the social order, and as it scales, the social order (the socialist state) needs to use increasing amounts of violence and social control to maintain people's responsibilities to it? In those small communities, the reciprocity is natural. At scale, that reciprocity doesn't cease to exist, and that is the delusion that most socialists live under: that they can be parasites.

>>307892 Wasn't that more to do with the type of crops and fertilization methods they were using until the Amerindians like Squanto showed them how to cultivate the native vegetables like corn.

>>307894 Did they toss out all their crops and successfully replace them in the span of 4 winters? Because that's how long it took them to stop communal farming and for the wives to go from sitting around saying its toiling, to bringing the kids out to farm.

>>307891 >This is why socialism/communism can work in VERY small communities This has never been true at any point in history.

>>307896 This. No one has ever received an inheritance before. Simply has never happened.

>>307897 That's not a community. That's a family who made a fortune. From capitalism.

anyone know of a series or vidya that did the internal monologue thing properly?

>>307898 At what point does a family become a community, exactly? What exact number dictates when the concept of sharing wealth ceases to exist?

>>307900 It doesn't. A community is made by many people. Not one family. I don't even know what you're asking or how to answer that.

>>307901 Family can get real big. Get extended. When does it become a community?

>>307902 A lot.

>>307898 Inheritance isn't a capitalist thing neither is only tied with money

>>307904 How do you think money is earned & accumulated enough to leave an inheritance, quad satan?

>>307905 >Nobody inherited things until the middle ages when feudalism began to change to capitalism

>>307899 no idea, but ill randomly throw out Deadly Premonition, Planescape Torment, and Legacy of Kain Blood Omen

Do you ever smell your own feet? mine smell like moist leaves and a little bit of cheese.

>>307908 rescue the princess, faggot

Attention, this thread has hit its limit and will now auto-archive. Please abandon thread for new thread immediately. Thank you and have a nice day.

>>307901 The literal words being used in this context were "VERY small communities". If you want I can further that qualification and give it a real number. Communism/socialism is how a group of a dozen families would operate on a remote island. A group of a dozen families would be considered a very small community. >>307903 Oh so you're pretending to be retarded. What a disappointment.