×
Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 2,438 articles on Polcompball Wiki. Type your article name above or click on one of the titles below and start writing!



Polcompball Wiki

Talk:Neoluddism: Difference between revisions

imported>Chirotesla
No edit summary
imported>Polcompbot
m (Replaced templates)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
all the followers of this ideology should go to death camps <br> --[[User:Magicpeartree|Magicpeartree]] ([[User talk:Magicpeartree|talk]]) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
all the followers of this ideology should go to death camps <br> --[[User:Magicpeartree|Magicpeartree]] ([[User talk:Magicpeartree|talk]]) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
{{Comment/reply|{{UserChirotesla}}|
 
Magicpeartree, Yeah I agreed your point! Technology progression is megabased!}}
 
 
 
This is what antivaxxers are.
*So antivaxxer are against the Industrial Revolution?
YES. Vaccines were created during the very first stages of industrialization.
This is very interesting<br>
<b>Ted was a fucking maniac who murdered innocent people. And that is not to mention how his ideology basically become the new "idol" for a lot of alt-right and ecofascists online. That being said he is clearly onto something with his writings and I do think a lot of what he says has merit to it, though it should be taken with several heaping bowls of salt, especially his conclusions, which are questionable and his solutions which are just wrong.</b>

Latest revision as of 16:27, 24 March 2023

all the followers of this ideology should go to death camps
--Magicpeartree (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)



This is what antivaxxers are.

  • So antivaxxer are against the Industrial Revolution?

YES. Vaccines were created during the very first stages of industrialization. This is very interesting
Ted was a fucking maniac who murdered innocent people. And that is not to mention how his ideology basically become the new "idol" for a lot of alt-right and ecofascists online. That being said he is clearly onto something with his writings and I do think a lot of what he says has merit to it, though it should be taken with several heaping bowls of salt, especially his conclusions, which are questionable and his solutions which are just wrong.