pouët.net

Fizzer: The Art Album is a companion volume to the book itself, a collection of demoscene art. The book is about the history of underground computer arts. That is what the demoscene used to be before it was reduced to a bunch of liberalist bigots. A pretty interesting story I think.

Anyway, you think about this. You guys claim you're so into free speech, democracy, etc... Now read back and see all the sticks and stones you threw at me. Then think back all the years you knew me. When was I ever even a bit of this rude to you? Have I ever said, for instance, to you, nosfe, to stick up your "entartete Kunst" (while at the Nazis)? Have I ever offended any scene members who were openly gay? No, actually I remember Netpoet spending a week at our place back in 2000, and also Bacter (he's from Israel) a few years later. I never insulted any of you. You do it now, as you heard that I have a different opinion on things.

So this is your so-called "tolerance"? Insulting, threatening and finally segregating someone for a different political opinion? Yes, apparently this is. You ask me who am I to judge, while I never judged anyone, but you judge me, like you were chosen and special. Not like I cared what a bunch of retards yalp about me - I'm accustomed to it. I am just throwing your ball back. Are YOU teaching ME tolerance? To respect diversity?

LOL, liberalists. You're a failure, as always. Even a Communist (here I mean dipswitch) beats you on manners, which is quite a shame considering their 100 million dead.

Not sure if lolcat or simply trollcat. :/

thanks <3

Oh, congratulations, am I already on /b/ ?

Was this your counter-argument to what I just said? Is this the best you can do?

tomcat: So you believe that you actually have arguments?

Well, I can also post pictures, if you wish. I asked a question of you, kids. Above that picture of that gentleman engaged in liberalism. So?

Before people start to post images of transexual ponies, let me explain something to you... The title of this thread is "Freax vol. 1. - Feedback" and you should notice the two parts (separated by "-") of it.

The second part of the title of this thread is what you seems to forget.

You should expect feedback if you say something. And feedback depends on what you said.

I think the "feedback" part was about my book, but if you wish, you can comment my political views as well, a topic which I actually never brought up myself. But there is some distance between disagreeing with an opinion, and bullying the one with the opinion. Especially in a community that is supposed to be like a family, and of which I've been a member for decades, on my own right.

A few comments ago I asked how come that some super-tolerant people here reserve the right to decide who to expel because his political opinion. For starters, let me quote the definition of "bigotry" from Wikipedia:



This is exactly how most of you kids behave right now. I am open to any debate and I am ready to give my opinion up in favor of yours, if you can prove it right. But I see no arguments here, only rude profanities and childish mockery. Am I supposed to change my mind because of that?

That definition fits you like a glove.

If it would I would've always hated several people on the demoscene, and would never had a Jewish girlfriend. Do you even read what I write, or just think you're witty? Since when disagreeing with a demonstration is considered hatred? Well, since gays have demonstrations, that's right. By the way, have you seen the pictures on which I protest against a Neo-Nazi event in a clown outfit? Probably that's hateful too, right?

tomcat: please clarify how exactly dick sucking is "liberalism" and why you use "leftist" as a all-encompassing term for everything that you don't seem to agree with in your political views (which are, in all honestly, nationalist bullshit with very common and age-old racist argumentation).

What exactly do you think makes your nation's values and culture special enough to preserve? Why should we care about any nation, I could go on to argue?

Why should we give in to our biological animal instincts to drive off or forcefully integrate people that don't communicate and share the same totally geologically arbitrary values that multiple generations of nationalist-minded people with their own agendas have written and rewritten time and time again to support their historically very time-specific gains and goals?

Why would you be against homosexuals marrying and adopting children, when they could provide homeless and parentless children with loving homes and nurturing environments to grow in their full potential to, especially when the homosexual nature of the marriage MAKES SURE that's there no more children born into this already overcrowded planet?

Also, just in case your argument about homosexuals boils down to these:

a) "because it's icky"

b) "because homos cannot parent"

c) "because it's WRONG, some guy / book / way of thinking told me so"

don't bother. I'm interested in hearing an original thought about this subject.

dubmood, it's not only about what he says, it's just as much about what he does NOT say.

in my post i mentioned zsolt bayer as someone who is in objectively in tomcat's political camp. it's quite characteristic how tomcat responded to that. so, tomcat does not want to be associated with bayer - why?



now this is very telling. zsolt bayer is a anti-semitic and anti-roma hungarian journalist who prominently denied the roma minority any human qualities and basically argued for a sort of "final solution" for them (read here for more info). also, bayer has been lamenting that certain contemporary intellectuals and artists have not been shot in the forest of orgovány (this is where the "white" terror lashed out aganist jews and supposed or real communists after the hungarian council republic of 1919 was crushed).

now this is obviously NOT where tomcat has his disagreements with bayer. he is most likely perfectly fine with that. tomcat seems to be rather pissed off at bayer because bayer is a "political whore" - which seems to address the fact that bayer a prominent fidesz (ruling party) member and a close friend of fidesz prime minister viktor orbán, having received a major state award despite (or for?) his lunatic ramblings. but tomcat (and his objective allies in the neo-fascist jobbik party) has no problems with bayer's anti-semitism or anti-roma sentiments. he only has an issue with bayer being part of the establishment, which is already consisting of nationalist lunatics, but obviously not nationalist enough for tomcat and his friends.

and let me say one more thing. while i was hesitant about calling tomcat a neo-nazi (even though he gave more than enough reasons for such a judgement in this thread), he has no problems calling me a "communist" every time he mentioned me. i am not a communist. and i consider the regime in hungary after 1945 one of the most disgraceful manifestations of the reactionary abhorrance that is stalinism, matyas rákosi being one of the most disgusting swine that were left after the stalinist beheading of the hungarian revolutionary movement. and obviously, i consider lukács a great thinker not for, but despite his early involvement in the post-1945 regime.

but for tomcat and his friends, of course everyone on the radical left (or probably even the laughable reformist new-labour-lookalikes of the MSZP) is a supporter of "mass murderers", and i have absolutely no illusions concerning the fact that i would have ended up dead in the woods of orgovány if they would have got hold of me in a situation similar to 1919. they would "debate" with me only with the club and the bullet. thus i, likewise, have absolutely no desire to "debate" with him or his friends. it just hurts that the majority of the demoscene has apparently no other way to react to homophobes and ultra-nationalists other than posting idiotic pictures or pretending that nothing has happened and going "lalalala i close my ears, let's talk about the book". well, have fun talking about the book. or lean back and watch tomcat starting to talk about "gypsies" in a minute, after the topics of homosexuals, women, and "liberalists" (whatever they might be) are dealt with.

tomcat: I heard about your failed egg-argument against those demonstrations.

What would you do in the hypothetical case that you had an homosexual son or daugther?

visy, please turn a few pages back, and see for yourself that it was the poster of this homoerotic picture who called it "liberalist propaganda". Hence I dare to use the same term for it. Actually it's a fact that liberals are those who endorse the gay movement, so it's not completely out of place.

People who don't agree with my views are generally leftists or liberalists, and most of the commenters here made leftist or liberalist comments (apart from politically uncategorizable childish slurs). This is simply because I am a rightist. Also, it's a leftist thing to label anyone who's not a leftist a Nazi, regardless of what he is.

For the long and elaborate question, if I am not mistaken, you're asking why shouldn't we be tolerant to things that are against our taste. I am tolerant to them in fact. I've never insulted anyone for simply being gay, and as I wrote, I treated many of them as friends. This does not include supporting their political goals or agenda. I am standing up to mine just as much as they do to theirs.

For homosexual marriage: this is a quite complicated thing because first off, state marriage is immediately a very bad idea. In fact I have nothing against the state offering some kind of marriage-like institution for gays, which enables them to be legally bound, inherit from each other, act as married partners in legal matters, etc. But there should always be a notion that heterosexual marriage is superior to this nexus, simply because a healthy family consists of a man, a woman, and their offspring. Now let's not go into how traditional marriage was fucked up during the recent centuries, that's a whole different matter and another problem with society.

Gay couples adopting kids is something I don't agree with, because it's a human experiment. Never in human history it has happened that gays were enabled to adopt children and raise them, while still living in a heterosexual majority, and where such kids have to live with the knowledge that everyone else around them - or maybe except a few more families - are not like them. There is totally no way telling what will these kids turn into. Maybe nothing will happen, but maybe they'll develop a distorted personality, and will suffer for a lifetime. Is it fair to put up a lot of kids to such risk?

ham, if I had a homosexual son or daughter, I'd accept that, however I'd be just as sad for him/her as if he/she was crippled. However I'd never support if he or she wanted to take part in the gay political movement.

Bullshit.

You are a bag of prejudices.

Off to sleep now, but here's a relevant research link, too tired to actually respond today:

American Academy of Pediatrics's "Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian", with an extensive and exhaustive research of more that 30 years, with data backing it up: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377

"Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents."

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

So yes, there is a way of telling what these kids will turn into. This is exactly what this research exactly did. And it's by far not the only research done into the topic, there's a few experts with accounts on pouet but will not probably touch this thread with a yard stick, because they've already surmised from your output that you'll steadfast hold onto your views even if you receive conflicting information, because you'll filter it through a lens of misrepresentative values that don't really reflect anything about the reality of human lives.

OK, I was complaining about not having actual discussion partners, and now I have more than I can handle. Dipswitch, your turn.

Zsolt Bayer: While actually true that I am in basically on the same opinion with him, he is not a honest person, to say the least. There are plenty of such people, but I am sure there are many Communists who you wouldn't sit at the same table, right? Besides I am neither anti-Semitist nor anti-Roma. I do oppose Zionism, but that's not Jews themselves, and I do see a huge problem in widespread criminality among the Gypsies, which is also a fact.

Zsolt Bayer has actually never denied human qualities to the Roma minority. I suppose you still don't read Hungarian, so you probably only have hearsay evidence about this. Let me assure you: when he wrote about "murderous beasts", he actually wrote about specific murderous beasts, whose primary identity was this, and not their Gipsy blood. Please stop feeding the audience with deliberately mistranslated and distorted bullshit from the hand-controlled leftist media, thank you. And before mentioning that shooting in the forest of Orgovány, please do your research properly about that forest. Indeed, I have no disagreements with Bayer on these topics, but he did not actually write what you state he did.

Talking about shootings in forests, let me remind you of Katyn, where people who you agree with have actually murdered ten thousands of Poles, then denied it for decades. And while into translations, please translate the word "holodomor" to the audience, and explain why do you agree with people who masterminded it.

The next bullshit I quote exactly:



A quite peculiar sense of reality you have, boy. First off, Jobbik is not fascist, however you will keep labellling them as one, so I'll let that go. Second, the problem with Bayer is not that he's part of the establishment, but that he is a cheap political whore, an ungentlemanly prick. Pay him the right amount and he'll defame anyone. There are some things I agree with him on, but then, since I am a vegetarian, you can state that I totally agree with Hitler, who was also one. Also, it has never occurred to my mind if he is nationalist enough. But here you deliberately confuse nationalist and chauvinist, which is another attempt to manipulate the audience. Minus ten points from Slytherin.

Calling me a neo-nazi is certainly an opinion, but wrong. I despise Nazis, and Neo-Nazis alike, and I am no way supporting any National-Socialist ideas. You Commies are always so sensitive about letting you decide your exact political identity, whether you're a Trockist, a Maoist or whatever. So let me do the same and define myself: I am a nationalist rightist, a traditionalist. Stick to this please.

As for your Communism, when we last talked you said you are one. Excuse me if that has changed during the years. So what are you now? I promise I'll call you whatever you are if you finally make up your mind.

I see you return to those Orgovány shootings. Let me assure you: I am not a fan of shooting anyone. There are many ways to get rid of political opponents, and while shooting may actually seem like a pleasant one, it's not really a Vaishnava thing to do. (Remember I am a Hare Krshna?) For myself, I am engaged in debates like this, and I never killed anyone. Do you see any murderous hatred in my words here, or anywhere ever?



In fact this topic is about a book, and not politics. I responded to a manipulative comment made by you, which defamed me. I wasn't ever talking about Gypsies, homosexuals, women and liberalists until you forced me to. Also I insisted several times to return to the original topic.

By the way while you're so fiercely defending some liberties, I can tell you about some very serious violations of human rights in Hungary which your kind mysteriously don't give a fuck to.

visy: I've also seen researches that proved that smoking is good to your health, radioactivity is not dangerous or certain drugs are actually doing good. Just a few years ago an official study proved that there is a huge and deadly plague coming, but H1N1 turned out to be a plain fraud to sell a few billion shots of vaccine.

i thought i made my absolute rejection of stalinism (and by this, of the perpetrators of holodomor and katyn) pretty clear. i did not call you a nazi, so stop connecting me with stalinism.

and here is where i really stop, because this is pointless.

Stalinism is Communism. Just like there is no separate Goebbelsism, Hitlerism or Hoessism, just one Nazism, there is no point making a difference between kinds of Communism. You can point at different body parts of the beast, and the fangs are probably really more dangerous than the back, but essentially it's the same beast.

ham, what a douche you are! You ask me about my opinion on a matter, and when you see that it doesn't support your prejudices, you try to order me to pick up the "proper" opinion. I seriously don't understand how your mom lets you stay awake this late.