Facepunch Anonymous Political Confessions Thread: I just want darkness for all - Polidicks

I'm really curious for all those talking about revolution andusing political violence will win. Non leftists do know how it will work out and figure out how to make a civil work. Every time I see a leftist talk about it and seconds later they admit have no clue how it would work, how to make it work or how a civil war would play out. Like how do you plan to succeed? Have there ever been any true paradigm shifts in the way society operates that weren't brought about by violence or revolution? Certain technological innovations like sanitation, industry, modern medicine, and the internet have all changed the way we lived massively, but it's typically contained within the unchanging governance of the time. I guess you could say the agricultural revolution is the exception, as people as far as I know just kinda started farming, but civilizations didn't really have any sort of established power, politics, or even borders until... well... until agriculture. Since the agricultural revolution, leaders and their political systems have been well enough set and fixed so that only war and revolt could unseat them. I guess empires collapsing under the weight of their size and bureaucracy also led to widespread change in the transition to more feudal societies, but I don't think modern nations will really have that problem anymore, what with current borders being as fixed as they are. The French, American, and Bolshevik (this one wasn't that bloody) revolutions have all but convinced me that if we truly want to leave behind the sort of "hegemonic neo-liberalism" that people grow tired of, then it will come at a point where things get so bad that people just cant take it anymore and mass together to overpower their leaders. I would hope that we're at a point where we could make such an event bloodless, as I really hate violence, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't. The question is does our society even have the capability to get that bad? Things like widespread and sudden war, poverty, and famine drive the unrest and instability that lead to people saying "enough". Our globalist, neo-liberal society is, if nothing else, extremely well-suited to stability. The rise of the corporation, the existence of MAD, and the globally intertwined economy lead me to believe that anything sort of MAD breaking could lead to a significant enough instability to do the job (climate change could also do this in a couple hundred years). The other question, and potentially the most important one, is whether or not what the status quo is replaced with will be desirable or not. How many modern revolutions have we seen lead to some awful dictator or demagogue taking power and things getting even worse? In the wake of instability, typically over-stability will follow. America is kind of the exception to this and shouldn't be seen as what will realistically happen. Their opposition was across the pond and, by all intents and purposes, America was practically its own nation before it gained its independence. Revolutions that bid for independence are typically much more "safe" than an internal revolution. As far as what a leftist like myself would replace the current system with, that's not really up to me to decide. I'm a 22 year old. Overall, I think that our current status quo is probably better than anything we could realistically replace it with. Unfortunately, I also think the current status quo is disastrous and unsustainable for our planet and our people, but people won't see that en masse until the former of the two sees the Capitalist machine bear its ugly fruit of calamitous Climate Change. I don't think neoliberalism, or quite frankly Capitalism as a whole for that matter, is equipped to deal with Climate Change and I don't think we could possibly do enough to stave it off under it. What we decide to do at that point is unpredictable, but I hope we'll come out of it better off.

The Great Depression, the Guilded Age and subsequent law shifts to name a few. You just don't see massive peaceful shifts unless something bad has or is happening. Progress doesn't suddenly happen overnight. It happens over time.

I suppose you're right, but what I'm trying to get at is that these sorts of shifts were mostly economic and didn't have any bearing on what "isms" of the time we operated under/shifted towards. Lots of things changed, but they all still existed under and within the context of capitalism. At most our institutions and society evolved, but they didn't outright metamorphose into something else, if that makes sense.

Except it has. Do you think we just adopted Capitalism out of the blue? It was a centuries long process extending since the 1400s, and before that was a system of fuedalism that once again was not changed overnight. You might think those institutions of laws haven't really changed much and caused our society to metamorphosis, but you underestimate the impact of the outlawing of monopolies and the institutions of social welfare. People no longer had to worry about a sudden decrease of supply of an item while jacking up the prices, and they didn't have to worry about not having a roof over their heads in old age. We have changed. The Capitalism we once knew is nothing like its current form. We have metamorphosed , and I think we will over and over again, because the thing is Capitalism isn't a direct system, it's the natural state of things once you've developed money and the concept of a business. It's the way we distribute resources, and it's one of the best fucking systems to do so ever created. Until we reach a post-scarcity civilization where you no longer have to worry about who gets what, capitalism will reign supreme, and as long as it does we need to keep taking steps to negate the negative aspects of capitalism, because laws and regulations do work. We no longer have to worry so much about monopolies, or the the stock market crashing so much that it literally caused the country to enter a depression. Sadly a lot of laws have been relaxed since the 80s, but that's not a fault of the system, that's a fault of the fact we haven't been vigilant in keeping up with it.

Good points and nice food for thought, thanks.

I'd like to think you're correct but quite frankly I think the time for nice bandaids and fixes is past. I can't see how anything less than a total political and economic turnaround within the next 20 years is gonna stop millions from dying. Maybe such a turnaround will cause more suffering, who knows. I'd rather not believe that's inevitable. You've got people pushing for all kinds of systems right now and most of them are completely missing the point. We don't have time to consider 'what's worked okay in the past' because we're facing extraordinary circumstances. You've STILL got people praising milquetoast neoliberal Capitalism, still people yearning for a return to Thatcher style politics, people thinking politicians like Macron are the rational way forward. It's short sighted appeal to sensibilities. As much as I'm fundamentally opposed to almost all strands of conservatism I genuinely believe a lot of them are being more forward thinking in their reactionary ideas than these status quo demanding idiots. We don't have time to be worrying about 'how it worked before'. How's your macroecon textbook gonna be holding up in 20 years? Liberal Capitalism and Democracy is at a crossroads and you could make a damn good case about it faltering.

This is my concern as well. I think that a gradual change to something more desirable can and probably will happen, but can we afford to wait that long?

I think it was incredibly naive how many liberals eschewed voter pragmatism in the 2016 election. Dont get me wrong, Hillary was slime, but sticking to your principals doesn't mean anything in comparison to the damage Trump has been doing to this country. While I disagree with Brexit, watching everyone cry and complain makes it very enjoyable. I'm a pretty left wing person, with the usual LGBTQ+ inclusion, pro-inclusivity, and anti-discrimination. However, I'm starting to think more and more that there really, really should be a fallout-style intelligence check to doing certain things. I don't think you should vote if you've got no qualifications - I'm talking like graduating high school, not degrees, and that doesn't stop people from going to constituency surgeries - and also shit like vaccines should not be voluntary, but compulsory, with jail time for those who evade it. This weird anti-intellectualism "we've had enough of experts" stuff was funny for a bit but is now actually quite dangerous. Democracy has it's flaws, a technocracy mixed with a representative democracy could work. Both the mainstream left and right are emotional / moral based at the moment, and current discourse is pure idiocy (including the stuff I see on Polidicks when I RARELY visit). I used to be political but I've completely dropped off because of the mass influx of retards on both sides chimping the fuck out anytime anything happens. I still vote, but I literally refuse to consume any news media, and choose to not to participate in political discussion. I usually abstain from voting for people and vote referendums. I'm losing faith in politics as a whole. US btw I genuinely think there some be some sort of political test everyone -must- take before they're allowed to vote to show some level of understanding of the political climate/what their voting will actually mean, because the sheer fucking idiocy of some of the brainless faggots who go out and tick a ballot is 99% the reason my country is a pile of useless shit. I actually don't trust the general populace because of how actually dumb as pigshit they are. I'm fine with society refusing to prevent climate change or improve itself. All that matters to me is keeping my kids and partner safe through the man-made apocalypse we'll likely see in 20 years. Quick aside but can you master-dialogators stop comparing this to other places as an argument. I don't really care how much worse reddit is, I am *NOT* on reddit. I don't care how terrible they are debating at reddit, I am NOT on reddit! What other places do or don't shouldn't be a factor in what FP does or doesn't. As a child, I wanted, more than anything, to be a boy. I was depressed, I adopted a male online persona, I hung out with guys, anything I could do to feel more masculine. I spoke to my parents about it but they told me it was a phase, I'd get over it etc. And you know what? they were absolutely right. I'm now comfortable identifying as my birth sex, and no longer feel male. But it took me until the age of 20 to realise this. If my parents had listened to me I may very well have transitioned by now and been absolutely miserable. This is the main reason that I was unsure about children with dysphoria being taken seriously- "maybe they just like dressing up,""let kids be kids", "personal experience" etc etc. The recent political climate regarding transgender individuals had me second guessing myself, and a few news stories had people mirroring my views, as well as a few Transgender attacking them for these views. It wasn't until I started reading Facepunch threads on the issue that I realised it was a complete non-issue. Though it's true that there are some people were quick to attack the ignorant, a lot were laying out the facts in a calm, clear and concise way. A quick fact check confirmed it, and my way of thinking changed on the issue. I realise that I'm a 1 in a million case and there are many children who's dysphoria is a lifelong thing, but even the ones like me would be treated accordingly. I guess the TL;DR of this is, even if someone is set in there ways and arguing the same shit over and over, be calm, stick to the facts, and be patient. You may not convince them, but you'll convince a lurker like me. Although I am critical of almost all types of immigration I don't mind muslims immigrating and islamic thought spreading because I like how harsh their religion tends to be, think they have good values that the western world could learn from. I welcome living under a god again, Christianity has become far too spineless

I guess we are just focused on different things I suppose. I think it risky to deal with gun ownership as an all or nothing, type of situation so I am trying to bring together different resources that I can use when discussing different specific things. I would rather contest a specific proposal or idea than to argue for gun ownership as a whole. This will be clear when my writing is done, the progress tracker / list of topics I will post below. Because of how much work this will be I have pretty much stopped working on the compendium. (all WIP, subject to change) Progress Tracker -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ ] : Title only [-] : Outlined only, points listed [o] : Writing in progress [x] : Written out, but not to spec [★] : Up to spec for V1 release -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [★]Overall Introduction 1. Some misconceptions and misleading rhetoric. [★]Introduction [★]How rhetoric spreads and its use as propaganda [★]”Common sense” Gun Regulations [★]“No one needs [insert thing here]” [★]“Military Style / Assault Rifle / Assault Weapon / High-Capacity / High-Powered / Weapon of War” [★]The “toxic gun culture” boogieman [★]“Only cowards carry / A real man doesn't need a gun” [★]“Why won’t you just compromise?” [★]“We just need to have a conversation!” [★]“Nobody wants to take away your guns!” [★]“Nothing is being done!” [★]“Think of the children!” [★]“The NRA is a terrorist organization!” 2. Viva la Revolution, it’s the Goddamn Constitution. [★]Introduction [-]“The constitution/2A is outdated anyways.” [-]“It’s not like having guns would make a difference.” [-]“But the 2A isn’t about private ownership, it’s for well regulated militias.” [-]“Then why can’t people have grenades and rocket launchers?” [-]And for the record, the Bill of Rights does not “give us” our rights. [-]Even without - 2A not necessary to justify private ownership in current state 3. A disparity of information - opposing perspectives. [★]Introduction 4. Australia, Canada and Britain, oh my! [★]Introduction [★]Why Australia is a bad role-model for solving any problems related to gun violence. [★]Canada, registries, and the whims of the masses. [o]Brits against weapons. A nanny state for naught. [-]International Etcetera [ ]Incomparable countries - the situational truth of American Exceptionalism 5. Deception and obfuscation - how to lie with statistics. [★]Introduction [x]Mass shootings/school shootings sensationalism. [-]More guns means more gun violence. [-]“Growing Epidemic” [-]Guns in home allegedly lead to death. 6. Common proposals and their downfalls / limitations. [★]Introduction [★]Assault Weapon Bans [-]Magazine Capacity Restrictions [★]Increased mental health restrictions [-]Firearm registries [-]Safe storage laws [-]Ban bump stocks (glhf) [-]“Smart” Guns [-]Licensing [-]End the gun show “loophole” [-]Universal Background Checks [-]Red Flag Laws [-]Waiting Periods [-]Taxing guns/ammo 7. Understanding the “pro-gun” perspective. [★]Introduction [-]First things first, I just want to reiterate that we all want the same thing. [-]The slippery slope and it’s legitimacy (the mindset of “not one more damn inch”). [-]Slander - “gun nuts” (the hypocrisy). [-]Stigmatization of owners, hobbyists and collectors. A war on culture. [-]A case for the working class 8. Effective yet respectful - some info you should know and what should be done. [★]Introduction [-]Handgun crime - where’s the spotlight? [-]Understanding existing laws in the US. [-]Historic ineffectiveness of gun control as a whole. [-]End the Media Marathon. [-]The inequality of gun violence as an origin and geographic frequency. [-]Here’s what I propose [-]Why I care about respect 9. Et cetera and miscellaneous, topics extraneous [ ]Introduction [-]False Authority and Infighting [ ]”May-Issue” = “Won’t issue” [ ]What do the police think? [ ]”Majority of Americans support” [-]Melting down/destroying guns/police buybacks [ ]The right to self defense/second amendment does not depend on statistics [-]“Compensating for something?” [-]Giving teachers guns” [-]Terminology Review [-]DIY Guns 10. Fast facts and scintillating stats [ ]Introduction

I keep sending in mirthful, wistful joke remarks just to try and break up the abject horror of most of these batch-posts but you don't post any of them...

You know I'm not at all surprised that gun control is being argued in this thread. Good job guys.

No problem man. History is such a wide and deep topic it can be hard to miss little details looking at the big picture, especially with our focus on specific points in time rather than it as a whole. You're right about co-ops. Some of the most successful measures in history have come about because of co-ops. For the longest time, power companies avoided providing power to rural areas, claiming the costs were too high without much margin for profit. So you know what FDR did during the great depression? He funded a government owned co-op that helped rural townsfolk establish electricity in their areas, and lo and behold almost all of continental US is now up and running with electricity. I think government owned and funded entities could help with a lot of similar industries, such as the internet, where since major companies won't risk expanding their wires to rural towns, the government can step in and help private citizens fund their own expansions. In general the only way I can see us surviving through the next few decades until robotics technology can progress to the point where we have at least near-post-scarcity is through more and more government intervention and handholding. Stuff like welfare dedicated to making sure people are able to afford the kind of education required to hold the kind of jobs robots can't do, as well as in general a system to redistribute our already terrible wealth disparity are going to be needed to avoid the next few decades of mass unemployment, or rather employment in the kind of positions that cannot support a person for very long. The same transition from Fuedalism to Capitalism is already happening from Capitalism to the next one. To what system in the future I can't exactly say, but with the last century of restrictions, regulations, and in general government intervention, along with recent advances in technology, it will likely heavily involve a centralized government, which is scary due to the implications of recent authoritarian regimes rising to power. In general the historical analogues are quite frightening, as much of the same symptoms that affected the Romans are now affecting us, with the rise of an ineffectual class of leadership, the rise of populists that attempt to fix those problems with moderate solutions, and the death of exclusivity to experts. However the external problems that face us are much different than the Romans. We don't have barbarians knocking our doorstep, so the truth is: I don't know. It's more apparent now than ever with election of Donald Trump that we are making history, right here and right now, and we're all apart of it. Nobody has ever had the technology, the wealth, the power that we do, and it's hard to say what will happen.

If you are socialist/communist but still support globalism and the eventual removal of discernable cultures/peoples through mass-migration and americanisation, You might consider the possibility that you are supporting the capitalist system which cares only for making the world an easier place to control. That maybe they aren't funding your agendas and movements because they care so much about the working class.. A world were the power is further removed from the people and placed in the hands of the rich. Where the people bicker over things like fetishes or fandoms rather than feel connected through cultural heritage. That is not a world were the worker or anyone will thrive. Also belief in the unattainable leads to the eternal struggle towards betterment. Man needs faith in something, true faith. Lest he become ruled by his lower nature. I'm annoyed at the idea of lefties being accidental corporate patsies that the right often has so I'm replying to this. This is a quote from an article responding to Angela Nagle and it addresses the argument that open borders helps capitalism. Nagle confidently informs us that all mass migration is inherently tragic, and that incentivizing it with overly liberal immigration policies, although it seems kind, is actually cruel. The “open borders left,” Nagle declares, by embracing unrestricted immigration, is hurting the very people they are trying to help, and undermining the prospects for successful labor organizing and a restructuring of the global economic system. She goes so far as to argue that advocates of unrestricted free movement are the “useful idiots of big business,” because they are sanctioning the exploitation of imported laborers. Instead of addressing the root causes of economic migration, they have allied with the Koch Brothers in advocating “open borders.” This “open borders left” has a radically ignorant set of priorities, reacting to Trumpism by embracing Koch-ism, and ignoring the way that unrestricted migration serves the interests of the capitalist class by dividing workers and depressing wages. Nagle’s claim that “providing moral cover for exploitation” is the only reason anyone on the left could support open borders fails on a number of fronts. Firstly, “big business” writ large does not actually want open borders—at least, not in the sense that open borders leftists typically mean it, e.g., that any person should be able to move to a territory at any time and enjoy equal legal standing with longer-term residents. Currently, one of the chief reasons businesses are able to exploit immigrant laborers is precisely because they are illegal (or, in the case of visa workers, because their continued presence or path to future status is tied to their employer’s goodwill). Large companies do not, in fact, want open borders. They want free trade agreements like NAFTA, that allow them to easily relocate if their U.S. workers start expecting too much, and they want a “porous” border where a large supply of migrant laborers can be depended on. But it is also in their interest to have the presence of those migrant laborers criminalized. The more precarious and frightened they are, the better for business. If they were legalized, they wouldn’t be nearly as easily exploited. So, yes, it’s true, capitalists like that unauthorized immigrants are here, but it also benefits them to have a set of second-class citizens who can be threatened with deportation. As Akers Chacón writes for Socialist Worker: The whole capitalist system has come to rely on the super-exploitation of immigrant labor through criminalization. Ramped-up enforcement has become a means not to stop immigration, but to disenfranchise and subjugate undocumented workers within the bottom tier of a segmented labor economy… Ironically, the approach of empowering employers to have more control over their workers to weed out those who are undocumented is the model that Nagle holds up as a success. It’s therefore bizarre to suggest that it’s good for immigrants to increase rather than decrease restrictions, and as Organizing Work writers Nate H and Marianne Garneau put it, “the inhumanity of Nagle’s approach is her belief that the solution lies in restricting immigration, rather than in empowering migrant workers to prosecute their full legal and political rights.” From Responding To “The Left Case Against Open Borders” | Current Aff.. TL;DR: open borders are not the same as porous borders. Companies like having a porous border where someone crossing it can be blackmailed into bad working conditions, communists want open borders where someone crossing it will not have an axe hanging over their head and just have the same rights and not be able to be taken advantage of by businesses. Imagine if the people from the South American rainforest were able to just walk or drive over here and start a lawsuit against exxon mobil for dumping toxic sludge in the rainforest or if shell was suddenly accountable to every country in Africa, that's not something they want. Also this confession reads like it was written by a Jordan Peterson fan who's now falling into nationalism with a hint of racism lol.

Now I've talked my fair share of crap about Colbert (who is bland), Bill Maher (who is out-of-touch), and Seth Meyers (who), so I ain't saying liberal-slanted comedy hasn't got things to criticize. But I can't say that I remember the last time I talked crap about a comedian who is characteristically and statedly right wing, because they're nowhere to be seen This idea that the right has a claim to memeing is kind of hilarious. I like seeing good comedy, I don't care where it comes from. But the idea's being put out there by a fair number of people who seem to believe it, and I think it makes some sense to address it with the truth And the truth is that the bedrock of comedy who your 4chan memers are building on whether they like it or not leans historically to the left. Some people explain the disparity by saying it's the oppressively liberal elite pushing out right-wing comics, even though the people with actual money and power in entertainment are businessmen, not artists. Comedy's job is subverting expectations, challenging what is accepted. Conservatism's job is to lean on tradition. I don't think they're naturally at odds, there ARE right-wing comedians even if they're outnumbered, as well as left-wing ones who empathize with issues on the right. After all, "conservative" is only one label, and the left-right spectrum is poor to begin with, people are more complicated than that. Which doesn't mean we can't state the obvious: generally 'left of center' comedians include Jon Stewart, "most trusted newsperson in America". Dave Chappelle, George Carlin and Chris Rock, never partisan but eternally political, brutally critical of the left, but overtly more opposed to the right. John Cleese. Robin Williams. David Letterman. Lewis Black. Ricky Gervais, Will Ferrell, and even The Onion. Meanwhile the shitters flying the "left can't meme" banner have twelve thousand wojak edits and Steven Crowder

Open borders is just an economic move relating to perfect competition, in this case, perfect mobility. If perfect mobility is ever achieved, wages will disappear into the ground.

I always stuck to my principals. It's the best way to avoid bullying in middle school.

I love the NPC and "orange man bad" memes because it highlights to me how little the right are able to think for themselves while priding themselves as inventors of original thought and deriding the left for their ability to meme despite only being able to speak in memes.

it's not even their meme, "npc's" have been held in philosophical thought since at least the time of Descartes' Automata. it's basically just philosophy 101 removed from context and dumbed down for smoothbrained alt-right fucktards to name-drop and look smart, no effort required.

I believe the confession bellow me is utterly disgusting and wrong, and it makes me vomit. America can't heal unless it starts going through Chemotherapy. The World can't heal unless the political schism formed by greed is addressed with fire and brimstone. People need to stop using "yikes" when they disagree with a viewpoint and actually have a proper discussion rather than just dismissing it. I like to say I'm centrist but that's only because I've given up trying to understand whatever the hell politics has become. the user who posts mirthful, wistful joke remarks is cute <3 To what extent should Republicans try to play down or justify Trump's actions? As someone who would identify in the much more moderate wing (or even Rockefeller/Ford style) with that party (bleh), I can say: - I agree we should pursue the legalization of marijuana. - I agree we should attempt to test UBI in the United States. If it works out it could make for a replacement for some social programs. -Same Sex Marriage should be permitted, if they're willing to go the financial and heart-tearing distance, then why not. - If Republicans want any attempt to save face for the upcoming generation, they need to start grooming more moderate candidates. The moderates from a younger generation they have, the more successful, and, the less likely an alt-right candidate makes it in - Understand that getting on your knees everytime Trump tells you to is what kills confidence in the party and bolsters confidence in Trump. That's the one unanimous thing I hear. Stop it or understand you've hit your expiration date and resign. - Net Neutrality is a must - Adjust the tax rate to truly help those at the bottom. I'm not saying hike the top 1% (just restore it to the previous pre-Trump state) - The moment the House impeaches, the Senate better damn-well convict. I'm going to go with the assumption the House will want to get it done right on the first try and will get facts straight and all the necessary works filed. In this case, there is absolutely no Democratic reason not too. Plz don't lose this submission too. Once we have Brexit out the way we can sufficiently rebuild the Empire. Scramble for Africa 2.0 and hunt down the communists of the world. Old people need to have their voting rights stripped. It's fucked, but look at what they've caused. Look at all of the fucking turmoil their generation has put this god forsaken country through. They're destroying the planet and giving despots power because they can't accept that people live differently from them and that the 50's ended a long time ago and then they turn around and shit on our generation for the smallest things while expecting us to be their caretakers. I hate the elderly so much and wish they'd just quietly fuck off and die already so we can start trying to clean up the messes they've caused. I wanna fuck Kelly Anne Conway in the mating press position and creampie her leathery snatcheroo. As much as Brexit is a major issue for the UK it frustrates me to no end that it's distracting from other issues like the destruction of welfare benefits and the NHS Conservatives, especially on this forum, are the biggest crybabies with a victim complex. They always think they're being blocked from """the free market of ideas""" when in reality, they're too emotionally immature to handle the slightest amount of criticism. I've been here for over a decade and I've seen hundreds of conservative posters say they hate black/brown/gay people, only to be told that they shouldn't be hateful, and then immediately flip out and lose their mind. Inevitably, they get banned for shit posting, and then either make an alt, or come back afterwards to cry about leftist censorship. Give me a fucking break, you incessant shit heads. You're not being censored, you're not being dogpiled, you're just a racist hick and you're being called out for it. If you had the ability to defend your """opinions""", you wouldn't have such a bad time on this forum. And don't get me started on the pussies that that only feel safe submitting their conservative ideals through this form. You know you can't justify your shitty beliefs, and you can't handle being called out for it. That's why you only feel safe posting anonymously. Eat a dick dipshits. I'm tired of the smug, self satisfying attitude of the right. I used to vote Republican but I don't anymore because I refuse to be a part of group that has no humility. I've come to figure that there are many conservatives who don't vote for their party for the same reasons that many liberals don't vote for Democrats.

yikes

tbh from experience if you unironically use yikes on a semi regular basis there's a good chance you're gonna be some condescending pretentious cunt

What if I say "that's gonna be a yikes from me dawg"?

Trump is kool https://youtu.be/0UfBaqI7VLw?t=6

uh yeah thats a yikes from me

Pretty sure caring what insignificant words people say would make you the condescending pretentious cunt in this case.

Sad!

Yikes is 2018/19's equivilant of when people would try to argue with the Sanius Squad(remember that dumbshit) would end everything with lmao.

i agree, we should start using "jinkies" instead

oof, dude...

Run roh.