No.221538[Last 50 Posts]
This thread is for the civil discussion of anything towards a political nature, especially political ideology and current affairs.
Archive link of last threads
#1: Politics Thread https://web.archive.org/web/20170404000746/http://wizchan.org/lounge/res/133215.html
Politics Thread #2: Wizlam Edition - https://web.archive.org/web/20170404000634/wizchan.org/lounge/res/135806.html
Politics Thread #4: Wizpilled Edition 5/12/2017 - http://archive.is/3wlfT
Politics Thread #5: All So Tiresome Edition 7/3/2017 - https://archive.is/QlRs1
Politics Thread #6: World on Fire Edition 8/18/2017 - https://archive.is/6YxvY
Politics Thread #7: Temptations Intensify Edition 8/31/17 - https://archive.is/Y0JQu
Politics Thread #8: Left and Right Edition 10/11/17 - https://archive.is/H0llg
Politics Thread #9: Reading Anything Online Edition 11/7/17 - https://archive.is/yxGrJ
Politics Thread #10: The Truth Will Set You Free Edition http://archive.is/UrurS
Politics Thread #11: someone had to make it edition - http://archive.is/y71b2
Politics Thread #12: Fuck the pastebin edition - http://archive.is/wD4il
Politics Thread #13: Ironic Marxist Edition - http://archive.is/xfWZY
Politics Thread #14: Civil Discussion Edition - http://archive.is/Ck8Xe
Politics Thread #15: Over My Dead Body Edition - http://archive.is/xdMoH
Politics Thread #16: Missile Strikes for Peace edition - http://archive.is/PP3tS
Politics Thread #17: Anti-Meme Edition - http://archive.is/YxJMy
Politics Thread #18: Quote Mine Edition - http://archive.is/mi2ZU
Politics Thread #19: Lady Justice Edition - http://archive.is/JQeyd
Politics Thread #20: France Edition - http://archive.is/9d9op
Politics Thread #21: Anime Political Meme Edition - http://archive.is/K8OvE
Politics Thread #22: Verified Hate Edition -http://archive.is/AVoyW
Politics Thread #23: Hail to the Philosopher King Edition - https://archive.is/ooZI4
Politics Thread #24: Supreme Edition - https://archive.fo/TvRnm
Politics Thread #25: The Final Judgment Edition - https://archive.is/0MaGf
Politics Thread #26: Non-player Character Edition - https://archive.is/IvRUj
Politics Thread #27: Birthright Edition - https://archive.is/Fy4ox
Politics Thread #28: Shut It Down Edition - http://archive.vn/6l87I
Politics Thread #29: Brand New Current Year Edition - http://archive.vn/pGEPL
Politics Thread #30: It's Okay To Smirk Edition - https://archive.fo/5gv13
Politics Thread #31: It Begins Edition - http://archive.fo/eaSIz
Politics Thread #32: Free Choice Edition - https://archive.is/TTGTC
Politics Thread #33: Accelerationism edition - https://archive.fo/eFfBY
Politics Thread #34: Clown World Edition - http://archive.is/8AYmV
Politics Thread #35: Show Some Class Edition - http://archive.is/KzuHY
Politics Thread #36: Proper Politics Thread Edition - https://archive.fo/TuUNL
Politics Thread #37: Political Manipulation Edition - https://archive.fo/GfoQg
Why is linking random videos fine, but explaining your opinions is not?
Because he's not a very clever person, so youtube e-celebs do it for him. He's also yet to post a single vimeo video despite swearing it was a viable alternative to youtube.
Because neither are fine or around anymore?
Nether is fine and both are totally shit. Something that is well known by anyone with any sense and knowledge of history. Both are total failures, ideas that need to be put in the trashcan.
Communism is still limping around in backward parts of the world.
Communism is dead so is nazism. What lingers are merely shadows of abandoned corpses left in the sun. The times and generations are different now so it's impossible to actually revive any of those ideologies or pretty much any ideology. If anything people should move on and invent something new yet we're stuck with ideological necrophiles trying to bring back the dead or dance around with the bones of their patron saint ideologies because they're afraid of risk. For instance capitalism is still around and stagnation has turned it into soft corpotism.
Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
post a youtube video about logical fallacies
finally some equal opportunity OP image targets
Can someone give me a quick rundown on the Epstein thing? What did he actually do? I don't want conspiracy stuff.
jew rape king with rape island blackmail videos of everyone in the government is getting the kid glove treatment again
I will take that as you conceding the point.
He ran a sex trafficking organization for the super wealthy and powerful that had hundreds of underage teenage succubi that were sometimes raped forcibly then he ran intimidation schemes where he paid PIs to follow them and send them a mixture of threats and money so they would keep their mouth shut. Basically he did pizzagate but in real life.
Did he actually force anyone though? To me it seems like he paid teenager whores for sex.
I think it was mostly just paying them but some of them say he also raped them when they didn't want to go beyond blowjobs. Not like it matters, all sex with a minor is rape according to the law.
>>221586>There's no way a rich billionaire would be able to strongarm children into having sex with him. They did it of their own volition!
You forgot to say "He's a ephebophile not a pedophile!" too.
There's less reason for him to do that as a billionaire than a poor guy. Imagine how moist they got when he told them he'd like to get them into his private luxury airplane to his private island to spend some quality time together.
I still can't help but feel like this is some sort of distraction. Over the years almost all sex scandals were distractions, and usually it was obvious, but in in the Epstein's case I am not sure what the public is supposed to be distracted from.
It's called a "limited hangout". A legitimate CIA tactic wherein a piece of information is made out to be the sum of the scenario. For example, in this case they will make out that they have caught the enabler; the culprit. Other cults, rituals, societies, and trafficking operations (which I am sure you know about), will remain secret–or deniable as conspiracy theories. By giving a little bit out, people become satisfied. They are content that their worries are sated. But those abusers will continue on their way, changing tactics to avoid exposure in the same way.
Basically, this is wound cauterisation.
The video was shoah'd.
Don't really like Nick Fuentes, he seems to be an arrogant zoomer who loves e-drama and from what I've seen he doesn't have much to offer, but sometimes he says some funny things.
Will keep a eye out for any hints that this may be what is going on.
Does anyone else wonder if Tim Poole has the hat on all the time to hide that he is going bald?
Well that explains a lot, and is really funny.
The way he reacted when the guy took his beanie was priceless. His baldness is definitely his weak spot.
If some underage succubi whoring themselves is so upsetting to society, the punishment should also fall on them first and be the harshest. For all the blame and criticism muzzies get, whether they deserve it or not, they got it right when it comes to honour killing and dealing with succubi anti-social behaviours.
they were told it was just for massages
A Pakistani dad wouldn't care if there's any difference. A daughter who go to a stranger's house to do a """massage""" without being accompanied by her brother or male relative, even if it's actually just a massage, should be killed the moment her dad hear the news. And if the father don't, shame on him, and his family should be shunned and publicly humiliated by the whole community.
Beside all succubi know what an adult male means by massage.
neither nazism or communism were novel concepts, they are just modern age mutations of very old rooted political concepts, and it will keep happening.
As long as there are nations there will be nationalism in some form, as long as there is capitalism some people are going to be pissy about it. And they will antagonize each other forever.
doing anything would be raysist
you don't want a jew to call you mean names do you?
Well, in germany you might be lucky to lose only your job for saying something they think is racist.
Teutons don't exist. The Romans genocided them.
Can't talk shit about a protected cast.
don't be a niggler
That's some top quality discussion right there.
And you are making a quality contribution to that dialog I see.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard seizes two UK-operated tankers in Strait of Hormuz
>Iran seized two British-operated oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz Friday, marking a fresh escalation of tensions between Tehran and the West.
>The U.K.-flagged Stena Impero, which has a crew of 23 aboard, “was approached by unidentified small crafts and a helicopter during transit of the Strait of Hormuz while the vessel was in international waters,” Stena Bulk, the shipping company that owns the vessel, said in a statement. "We are presently unable to contact the vessel which is now heading north towards Iran."
>Iran's Revolutionary Guard forces, in a statement on their website, say the ship was seized for "non-compliance with international maritime laws and regulations" and is being brought to an unnamed Iranian port, according to the Associated Press. Websites tracking the ship's path showed it turning sharply in the direction of Iran's Qeshm Island, instead of its intended destination of Saudi Arabia.
>Approximately an hour later, a Liberian-flagged tanker operated by a British company was also seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and was seen on maritime tracking services making a turn toward Iran.
>Earlier Friday, Iran and the United States emphatically disagreed over Washington's claim that a U.S. warship downed an Iranian drone near the Persian Gulf. American officials said they used electronic jamming to bring down the unmanned aircraft, while Iran said it simply didn't happen.https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-revolutionary-guard-two-uk-tankers-strait-of-hormuz
I know Iran are desperate but this doesn't feel right. UK have always been more lenient with them compared to the US. Maybe the oil-tankers suffered a malfunction? It wouldn't surprise me if their computer systems got hacked and stranded them so Iran had no choice but to help them only to be accused of being pirates.
wonder how the limeys like the taste of their own medicine>>221955
it's in response to those english faggots stealing an iranian tanker at america' behest, the dickless lapdogs that they are
Just saying when it comes to international politics getting the backing of the majority opinion of the citizenry is better than the minority of politicians elected by them or their decisions. Pretend to be weak so people feel bad for you while you're in reality strong. Iran would've been smarter to just pretend to be bullied and wait to get their ship and crew back now nobody there will feel bad for them.
Who? Just create a e-celeb video dump thread already.
Looks like the UK has picked up some of the UN's rhetoric.
They can't be passive anymore. The economic sanction have been hurting them too much, for too long, by doing nothing they are at best keeping the status quo, which lead to death by starvation. They have to move the situation, which means escalating the tension until the US folds, or go to an other Middle Eastern war it cannot win while simultaneously collapsing the world economy back to the stone age. It's a risky gamble, but it's not entirely desperate, president MIGA probably doesn't want to start a war right before the election, when he campaign against war abroad, but democracy has demonstrated that voters are on average retarded (even so called educated elite), so who knows?
Aiming at the UK, while it's government is impopular and in transition, could force the UK to drift away from the coalition of the "willing" the US is trying to form. What happen to the crew and the ship is pretty much irrelevant to Teheran, while it would be nice to get it back, there are greater interest at play.
>>221957>Just saying when it comes to international politics getting the backing of the majority opinion of the citizenry
That's domestic not international, the average citizen has very little say in international politics. The UN was never going to help them either.
Iran was never going to get her ship back.
Also, democracy is funded on the ideas of information asymmetry, and media dominance, which is partly the reason why voters are retarded. Whatever Iran does, Iran must be always be evil, and will never get the sympathy of the population, unless the British elites decide that it isn't in their interest anymore to oppose Iran, in which case Iran will simply disappear from the news cycle as if nothing ever happened.
What. The. Fuck.
That's what I was going to write word for word. I came back to this thread to reply to myself and I see this post. I checked my post history and it's not there so it's from a different IP and written by someone else. The question is why reply to my post what I was going to write exactly as I was going to write it like you were me? Did I somehow make you do this? No way this is a coincidence I was thinking of writing this exactly the way it is hours before this was posted. What's going on?
you like that synchronicity shit? welcome to my world
no it's not me, I'm just butting in
you better hope "never like this" doesn't keep happening (all the time), you'll go a little crazy
You both had the same unoriginal thought that many others before you had.
Forget about me becoming crazy. What if one day everyone around me or someone else I was thinking about went crazy or angry? What if I refuse to stop feeling sad and angry whenever everyone does and instead throw it back at them tenfold or concentrate it at some person because I start getting more control over myself? The feeling I had no power that I'm a loser that can't do anything has always comforted me. I can't harm anyone neither physically or whatever. I will not harm anyone. This happening makes me afraid. There was zero chance now for bad things that frightened me to happen because of me but now there's a little chance. That's too much for me since I tend to have a weird relationship with lady luck.>>222024
It's not the thought that matters but how everything was delivered. The post is the same as I was going to write it and structured as if I were to reply to myself and not say someone else try to add their own opinion. Eh it's hard to explain what really bothers me or made me surprised in this situation. It's more instinct than anything. I just don't want to harm anyone. I never did. I'm sorry in advance. >>222025
Only psychopathic narcissists ever have original ideas.
The democrats have just made it impossible for them to win the upcoming major election by backing the most radical elements of their party.
So, how do you guys feel about the inevitable 4 more years of trump?
Pretty good in a sense that there will be a lot of happenings influenced by the 2020 elections which IMO are the most important in American history.
4 more years of Trump = America getting more divided until it ceases to function properly to maintain an equilibrium inside its own political systems. It won't be the end of that country but it will knock it off from being the current influence center of the planet. It won't be the end of the US or anything but it will pretty much errode pax americana to the point where nobody takes them seriously as say right now on any political podium, military might will wane due to businesses seeking less to deal from within or with the US and would settle for Canada or already rich European countries like Sweden or France if not actual US ones moving to countries like China or Russia due to Trump's continued backfiring attempts to rally people and businesses but imposing incorrect methods of doing it limiting the freedom they were all used to and thus receiving resentment which builds up and praise that will eventually be overshadowed by it.
If Trump loses = possible right wing resentment towards the media and government which actually won't result in riots or civil war but in general make conservative business owners distrust the US even more for its own policy. People living there would try to exploit this to shake up the political and economic foundations to take reigns themselves or grab whatever they can to invest half of it in foreign while the other half is moved into a combined economic state which is republican. We might see the creation of "neo-conservative" elements who are openly secessionist due to their disagreement with the system.
There's no getting out of this situation and both outcomes are equally bad just in different ways but what's shared among them is that this stressor pretty much signals the beginning of an imminent internal collapse of the US which would take half a century to fully pass but I think other nations would just bail the US by buying it out openly before the dollar falls too low to be worth converting into a new currency or food shortages hit.
People who are "informed" by RT and Sputnik are just as retarded as MSM watchers.
When was the last election which wasn't considered the most important in US history? Maybe 2000, there wasn't much enthusiasm on either side, and it was the lazy 90s. But the ramifications of the Iraq War ended up making it one of the most important elections in history.
Not really, Gore would've likely invade Iraq too
Don't kid yourself, Obama left the country more divided than ever. He thrived on it. Of course you won't hear that from CNN or most of the mainstream media. Whenever he engaged in divisive politics, it was celebrated by them. Trump was the reaction to him, and it is a reaction that dissatisfied the elite very deeply. Sure, he still worked for the elite, but the system is made so that whoever is elected will do their bidding. In any case, he wasn't supposed to win.
Also, remember how the same elitist left wing-dominated media predicted "riots" when Trump inevitably lost 2016? That those damn ignorant, white, racist "conservatives" would never accept it and instead make excuses on why it was stolen? Now realize that Democrats are still talking about how "muh russia hacked the elections from madam president". It's ridiculous.
No, Trump did not divide US. He was elected because US was divided, and he can do nothing about it.
>>222067>Obama left the country more divided than ever. He thrived on it.
Nah, he tried to bandage the problem which wasn't enough because it can't really be fixed but it still earned him two terms for at least for trying.
>Of course you won't hear that from CNN or most of the mainstream media.
I don't need to it's pretty self evident. Playing the race card here but notice he was also the first black president? Open your eyes for a minute and you'll see he got there exactly because people were expecting him to fix things. Trump was elected out of desperation coupled with disinformation for the purpose presenting something new which he's demonstrated to be incapable of following on while also accelerting the problem. Neither Hillary is in prison or the wall was built along with many other things. This was his trial period and he pretty much showed he can't do it. Let's say even if he can on his second term alot of the important voters who jump back and forth between voting rep or dem but not anchoring themselves to either won't vote for him as much which leaves a good enough chance will lose 2020.
>No, Trump did not divide US
He didn't start it but he's the first to actively divide further rather than delay or ignore it. He's special in a sense that the collapse begins here and with him. 2016 really isn't that important as 2020 even if both would revolve around him.
He was elected because US was divided
No, he was elected during an ongoing division and furthered it. Hillary was a lesser evil compared to him but still evil. It's good she lost because she actually might've delayed it further like Obama and I'm really curious what the next world order looks like.
Where do you get your info from?
Monitoring different institutions and banking organizations, observing mundane people's interactions along with their economic and social outlooks past and present along with how or what affects them. When I have a better picture of what's what now I compile everything then compare it to better calculate possible outcomes along with what they can bring or why.
In otherwords, your feels.
>>222107>To say that Obama didn't thrive on division is to speak from the same ivory tower that journalists, college professors and the intelligentsia in general stands.
So I guess if a fact doesn't suit your interests it's not a fact and should be disregarded. You're colorblind to the nuances of politics much like the majority of Americans be they left, right, or center. That's one big reason why things got so bad and can't be fixed but I guess it wouldn't have been in the interest of the political and financial elites to have people who can think for themselves under them.
>>222119>So I guess if a fact doesn't suit your interests it's not a fact and should be disregarded
When you actually present facts instead of gut feelings you can't make that argument. Until then your assertion rings hollow.
That's what I said.
You didn't present any facts though.
You only presented feels and are pretending that your feels are facts.
Since you have presented no facts your feels can be disregarded.
Exactly what I meant.
Obama made race relations the worst it has been in at least 30 years. Its the one thing that he did that was unforgivable in my opinion. Everything else probably any democrat would have done. But he didn't have to insert himself into the Travon Martin case and a few other ones while he had 0 information on what happened.
The main results from those actions are burned down slums and higher crime rates in black areas because police don't feel able to police them.
Of all the BLM cases, I was most sympathetic to Treyvon, as Zimmerman wasn't even a cop, but just some stalker following him, and we never even got his side of the story.
Even prominent conservatives like David Horowitz and Michael Savage "got off the reservation" on that one.
You can say Zimmerman should have "minded his own business" all you want, but the moment another man jumps on you and starts bashing your head against the sidewalk you're in the right. The only reason you'd think otherwise is because you were fooled by the media who accuses others of being "racist" while trying to stir racial hatred. The indefensible is what the media did, and what Obama did. It's not impressive that the same media who stirs division and hatred pretends the president who instigated division and hatred was an unifier.
It was always extremely ambiguous as to what had happened especially that early. Yet here trots out the president, an authoritative figure if there ever was one, to inject race into it and all but throw his support onto one side before anything other than pure rumors and speculation had come out. So of course when the jury finds him non-guilty no racially charged black will believe it(starting a federal investigation into the matter didn't really help either). It became nothing more than another case of false resentment to be used to nourish their hatred of whitey for the rest of time.
Want to know what I think. I think both of them were fucking retarded and deserved to die/get shot/beat up/arrested etcetera. It's kind of retarded to walk up on some punk in the middle of the night and spook him into a fight, but it's also kind of dumb to fight some random guy in the middle of the night completely alone, you are just asking to get shot for that shit. The world is a better place now that one of theirs life's is basically over and the other one is dead. But no we couldn't just leave it at that we have to have race baiting charlatans chomping at the bit to turn it into some sort of a massive riot. The result is only misery and a large part of that can be laid at the feet of obama. And it all laid the foundation for the far more retarded cases like Mike Brown.
>>222291>It's retarded to try and defend yourself after a random guy walks up to you and tries to attack you>The world's a better place when we ignore problems that have been going on longer than everyone in this thread was alive
Enlightened centrism at its finest.
>>222293>It's retarded to try and defend yourself after a random guy walks up to you and tries to attack you
Even now we still don't know how the fight started that night. And Obama knew absolutely nothing when he injected himself into it. Can't resist a good ol race bate I guess.
>The world's a better place when we ignore problems that have been going on longer than everyone in this thread was alive
Well it certainly beats the alternative. Endlessly stoking resentment leads to horrible things up to and including fucking genocides of INNOCENT people that had nothing to do with any of the original sin. And that is exactly the kind of thing this is leading to in the decades ahead. The only question is which group will come out on top. That is unless we actually deescalate this and soon.
Zimmerman was a wannabe fake cop and he called the real cops to report Treyvon and the real cops told him to not engage and wait for the real cops, but he wanted to be Batman
And that means he started the fight?
Both are jewish "ex-liberal" neocons.
You can think Zimmerman is a murderer without trying to race bait. This, however, is not what Obama did. What is worse is that he didn't even wait for the facts to emerge before race baiting like he did.
Also I was going to ignore your latter half of the post where you explicitly race baited about "black oppression" and putting words into my mouth, but I guess it's part of the original discussion about division. I should be upset but I'm actually pitying you. You should open your eyes and start thinking with your own brain instead of being an emotive dimwit who defers to others because you're sucking on some feel good and simple narrative.
As someone who watched the trial live at the time I agree it was in favour of Zimmerman. The gunshot burns and residue on the clothes showing the gun was close to Martin's body and the dude testified that Martin was likely on top of Zimmerman was pretty damning. There were also text messages from Martin about fighting and making people bleed from fights, as well as photos of him with a gun and I think him trying to sell a gun - although some of it was naive kid stuff. They were ruled inadmissible because the judge thought anyone could guess the password, despite it being in a passworded communication app - so none of his phone stuff was considered. The female friend of Martin's as a witness was a mess and her testimony of what she heard during the confrontation didn't seem believable at all. The prosecution kept fixating on him wanting to be a cop and it didn't work since he was rejected for bad credit and not anger like they'd tried to claim.
If anyone is serious I second watching the actual trial footage because the case was really flimsy and dysfunctional generally. Nowhere near enough evidence to say Zimmerman was guilty.
Given the circumstances and Zimmerman's background, and the fact that he disobeyed the cop's orders to stay in his car and wait, I think it is quite likely that he at least provoked and started the confrontation, possibly attempting to detain Treyvon.
Given that Treyvon hadn't actually done anything wrong, and was just in the wrong neighborhood, and this older man who is not a cop was trying to detain him, it wouldn't be irrational to try to defend himself. Ironically Treyvon's actions were the ones justified under the "stand your ground law" with no duty to retreat.
So lets say for the sake of argument, that the part his defenders focus on is true, and he was getting the crap kicked out of him, it seems to me an easy liscence to murder, if you can start the fight and then resort to murder whenever you start losing.
The focus seems to be on whether Zimmerman was losing the fight, when he fired the shot, while to me the bigger question was whether he started the fight. If you start a fight unprovoked against an innocent party, they aren't obliged to lose it.
911 operators aren't cops
True law abiding citizens go into private housing areas and then assault people.
gamer communism is the next logical step after what companies like EA did to the gaming industry
only piracy and GoG will save gaming
I'd rather have the state distribute heroin to kids than having gaming saved.
It's exactly the kind of landscape they say they want but they'll blame anyone but themselves when they realize it doesn't actually sit well with their worldview. There seriously isn't a worse current phenomenon than "wokeness": typical self-absorbed normies peddling only the most puerile parts of leftist ideology and treating you like a nigger if you refuse to play along
The 911 call is recorded - Zimmerman is in his car when he calls the police, Trayvon stares back at him and then approaches his car. Zimmerman calmly again asks they send officers because Martin is approaching him and "checking him out" holding something he couldn't see and reaching for his waistband. At a later date Zimmerman says he was circling his car at that point, Zimmerman is neither aggressive nor shouting at any point but worried. Zimmerman then states that that Martin is running away and that's when Zimmerman gets out of his car trying to see where he's running. The dispatcher asks if he's following him and says "we don't need you to do that" - and then Zimmerman stops following. Zimmerman then states "he ran" indicating he's lost sight of him and a full minute passes where zimmerman is just responding to the 911 call - you can not hear him walking or moving. Zimmerman even states he doesn't want to give his full address over the phone in case the kid is listening because he's lost sight of him. Zimmerman is not running around, he is not searching, he is not raising his voice, he did not shout at him, he did not shout abuse at him, he didn't shout abuse from the safety of his car, he calmly describes what's happened and sounded worried.
Watched a little bit of >>222292
and it is really inaccurate low quality stuff. He misrepresents every point - especially the one that Martin should have ran home in that time. The point is that he was out of sight of Zimmerman, his destination was a road over from Zimmerman at the end of the road, and Zimmerman lost sight of him for at least a minute while Zimmerman stood still calmly answering 911. Martin would be home by the time Zimmerman finished his call to the police. The confrontation happened where Zimmerman was told to stop and happened closer to his car than Martin's destination, which Martin had time to get to yet somehow ended up where Zimmerman had been standing.
Zimmerman's testimony isn't even that inconsistent with his phone call. Most of the stuff was just pure bullshit and it's depressing.
>>222328> There seriously isn't a worse current phenomenon than "wokeness": typical self-absorbed normies peddling only the most puerile parts of leftist ideology and treating you like a nigger if you refuse to play along
The economically retarded people in the house past a bill to raise the federal minimal wage to $15 dollars an hour. There is no chance that it will pass the senate but still, dumb crap like this will destroy the economy for the lower end of the economic spectrum or cause greater inflation. . Not help them. It is like these retards don't know the first thing about economics.
Worst yet, it is never enough for these people, the NYT released a Op ed where they argued for raising the min wage all the way up to $33 an hour. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/nyregion/the-15-dollar-minimum-wage-is-not-enough.html
These mother fuckers don't know how money works. You can't increase the value of an hour, you can only make your currency worth less doing dumb shit like this.
how could anyone hate democracy
Michael Savage is, yes. He enjoys falling just short of actual racism in the same sense that some second-grade class clown jerk playing the "I'm not touching you" game actually isn't touching you. I assume that he does it for the same reason, and receives the same ingroup-signalling laughter and applause when he points out that some offended liberal caller was upset, since, after all, he wasn't touching you. Also Michael Savage says that autism isn't real. He's an embarrassment not just to conservatives but even to conservative talk radio and is regularly called out for his bullshit by rightwingers who are more interested in making points than in making noise.https://rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/autism-isnt-real-michael-savage-is-the-brat-who-continues-to-act-out/
Horowitz is not., and more than 90% of the pro-zimzam voices that could have been cited are not.>>222296
It supplies sufficient motivation to start a fight, and more than sufficient motivation for irrational escalation making him culpable of manslaughter (not second degree murder). It does not provide evidence "beyond all reasonable doubt" of malicious assault. The severity of the murder charge leveled against zimzam was absolutely too high, the prosecution overcommitted to second degree murder which in addition to having a more exacting standard of reasonable doubt to overcome, also requires a level of malicious forethought that is extremely difficult to demonstrate even in cases which had more going for them than traytray and zimzam.
As my image demonstrates, legal blogs at the time
were already talking about how and why the prosecution decided to throw the case. A prosecutor's office with a very negative reputation in the black community saw an opportunity to score political points with that same community at a critical time after years
of fostering systemic law enforcement related racism, and took it. All that it required was a Machiavellian willingness to let a guilty man walk free.
Democracy is oppression of minority by the majority. Communism is free association between humans.
Those were what Lenin and Marx recognized more than a century ago.
That sounds very factual and true, obviously
In the usual argument about the state, the mistake is constantly made against which Engels warned and which we have in passing indicated above, namely, it is constantly forgotten that the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy.
At first sight this assertion seems exceedingly strange and incomprehensible; indeed, someone may even suspect us of expecting the advent of a system of society in which the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority will not be observed–for democracy means the recognition of this very principle.
No, democracy is not identical with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organization for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another.
We set ourselves the ultimate aim of abolishing the state, i.e., all organized and systematic violence, all use of violence against people in general. We do not expect the advent of a system of society in which the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority will not be observed. In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism and, therefore, that the need for violence against people in general, for the subordination of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish altogether since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without violence and without subordination.
In order to emphasize this element of habit, Engels speaks of a new generation, "reared in new, free social conditions", which will "be able to discard the entire lumber of the state"–of any state, including the democratic-republican state.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
That high of wages would absolutely destroy all employment in rural areas. Everybody would be working under the table for significantly less or starve.
That would surely happen if we have a world government. Anytime now.
Lenin nor Marx argued for a world government.
There are ways around it, like example paying piecemeal, which is already common in agricultural especially in states that have high minimal wages.
Just another example of rich city liberals thinking they know what is best for everyone and ignore what the direct results of their ideas are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work
Incorrect. It is one of the many systems by which an organized minority governs an unorganized majority. What is special about it, is it's obfuscation of the real power centre, which makes it the best political system so far, and how it bamboozle the majority into thinking they possess sovereignty, and voting is tool of power and not just a meaningless pesudo-religious ritual.
Because of organisational limits, and difficulty of maintaining loyalty and punishing parasite on large scale, all social power structure is minority rule over majority meat-puppet mob, and always will be.
I get why the US doesn't call out isriial for their bullshit, but why do other countries that aren't the US still associate with them. https://www.bitchute.com/video/n7cZ0VVEAKEQ/
Can't embed bitchute videos.
Lenin and Marx both failed.
Lenin did fail. But saying Marx failed would be similar to arguing that Darwin failed.
Saying Marx was a success would be like saying Rednex who made a shitty one hit wonder that is terrible and caused nothing but bad things but it spread far and wide like aids.
Only instead of it being a shitty song that gets stuck in your head, Marx's bad idea causes mass death, destruction, and suffering wherever it catches on.
Countries like France have their own zionist lobby. Can't say for other countries, but it wouldn't surpirse me. Also Israel is relevant as a buisness partner, there's no reason not to deal with them, if anything just so Uncle Samuel doesn't feel like giving you the regime change treatment.
If you use that logic Adams Smith would be somehow responsible for billions of deaths in capitalist society by lack of food even as one side of the world suffers from overweight problems.
How would you even define Marx's success? Marx simply analyzed the society and gave up with his predictions while calling that a new one must and will arise. If you want to criticize him it would be more appropriate to say that Marx was incorrect rather than "failed".
Billions have never starved directly due to capitalism, especially not the kind that Adams Smith was a proponent of.
So you premises is totally faulty.
To your second point, you are now just playing semantics.
Being totally wrong is indeed a failure.
Then how would you blame USSR and PRC for killing millions when most of the dead came from famine? The problem of trying to play the death toll contest becomes evident when it's hard to separate natural and social causes. Capitalism did technically cause those starvation as the economic system determines the distribution of food and necessary items, which implies economic system inevitably has to be related to it's casualties.
>Being totally wrong is indeed a failure.
Then why do you think he was wrong?
>>222600>Then how would you blame USSR and PRC for killing millions when most of the dead came from famine?
Because they directly caused the famine, and quite often intentionally make it worse. Famines in the 20th century were largly man made, often intentional famines. They weren't acts of nature.
>Capitalism did technically cause those starvation
No it did not. It had no causation of any known famine between the time of Adams Smith to now. And you most certainly pulled billions completely and totally out of your ass.>the economic system determines the distribution of food and necessary items
It is only one of the things that determines the distribution of resources.
What do you think caused mass starvation in Africa during all those civil wars and ethnic conflicts of the 20th century? Or how about the great potato famine. Thing that was capitalism too? I give you a hint, it had nothing to do with free market forces.>which implies
What you mean is what you choose to infer. You are the want who started playing semantics games. Don't start using words incorrectly now. >economic system inevitably has to be related to it's casualties
There is no causal or correlative that can be made between capitalism and deaths caused by famines.
Would be easy enough to prove me wrong. Cite one example of a actual real world famine directly caused by capitalism.
>Then why do you think he was wrong?
Because nearly everything he said was false, incorrect, or untrue, and every single one of his ideas that could be tried in the real world ended in flames when put into practice.
A better question would be to ask how is he not wrong. Even in the philosophic and ethical sense I would argue he is wrong. By every metric, and by every meaning of the word he is wrong.
How many dead bodies is it going to take to get that through peoples head?
Most may have come from famine but there were still millions of deaths that had nothing to do with famine.
Like the all the bullets to the head, the death camps, the mass executions for every minor purity check, etc.
There's noble ideas in communism, but communists themselves are always the type of people who wanna overthrow the cops so they can be cops themselves
>>222610>mercantilism >better blame capitalism
Do you even know what capitalism is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
So Trump is an anti-capitalist?
That seems to be one of the problems with commies, lots of them think that everything that is not communism is by default some sort of capitalism. Kind of silly.>>222647
Thats kind of been one of the main criticisms of him from the right for quite some time. He definitely doesn't give a shit about how big the government is or how much debt we have beyond giving the occasional crumbs to the economically conservative part of his party to get some kind of plausible deniability.
I was thinking more of his mercantilist-protectionist view of trade, since wiz was claiming its not a form of capitalism
what's capitalism then?
Let me get this straight.
You cite "the father of capitalism" in your own post and blame capitalism for billions of deaths but you don't even know what capitalism is and confuse completely different economic systems with it.
Did I get any of that wrong?
Did you even look up what Adams said on the subject or is he just a boogyman to reference in commie circle jerks where you just use the name as a generic punching bag and assume everything you don't like is capitalism without any further thoughts?
>>222668> he just a boogyman to reference in commie circle jerks where you just use the name as a generic punching bag and assume everything you don't like is capitalism without any further thoughts?
If you read your Rothbard, you would know Marx is a better heir to Smith, than modern capitalist economistshttps://mises.org/library/adam-smith-myth
>On the other hand, Marxists, with somewhat more justice, hail Smith as the ultimate inspiration of their own Founding Father, Karl Marx. Indeed, if the average person were asked to name two economists in history whom he has heard of, Smith and Marx would probably be the runaway winners of the poll.
Capitalism, socialism, communism, they are essentially the same, and no meaningful distinction can be made between the three.
Fedualism Republicanism Capitalism Anarcho statism are essentially the same, and no meaningful distinction could be made between the 4.
Please, I'm a centrist. All of those are the same.
That is because Rothbard has the habit of lumping all statist together for his own political reasons (ancap reasons).
That's definitely not what he wrote about.
>>222668> Adams said on the subject or is he just a boogyman to reference in commie circle jerks
Commie websites are the places that circulate Adam Smith's works the most, do the most to promote reading them, and Marxist groups hold regular study sessions on the Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations. He's only a bogeyman to Democrats and their fellow capitalists.
Smith neither defined nor used the word "capitalism" in The Wealth of Nations. The closest one can come to finding a functional definition of "capitalism
" in Smith is in the description of "On the Accumulation of Capital," which is not meaningfully incompatible with his description of "the commercial, or mercantile, system," since his statements on productive and unproductive labor and their relationship to ownership described in the Accumulation of Capital describe a relationship between owners and producers, in which he describes the labor theory of value and distinguishes production labor from other classes of work, whereas his descriptions of the relationships of importation and exportation and its relationship to colonial empires have to do with systems of exchange, and the various reasons Smith held that the mercantile and business owning classes should be prohibited from holding too much influence in the government of a nation. Particularly his observation that the rate of profit is actually greatest in countries which are being sent into ruin, and least in those where men prosper. (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm
, paragraph 10).
This notion that mercantilism is separate from capitalism is true only to the extent that a system of production can be coupled to a number of different systems of exchange, and the dialogue between Anarchists and the remainder of the Left is as significant in leftist ideology today as it was in 1840. This is the reason "laissez-faire capitalism" even exists as a term; the description of a mode of exchange modifies the description of the mode of production, and laissez-faire is not a simple intensifier. One could equally describe the various Anarchist schools of laissez-faire socialism, which are just as foolish, just as vulnerable to crisis and just as disastrous as true laissez-faire when attached to any other system of production.
Oh shit lads "London bridge is down"
Is it just me or has this impeachment inquiry started with relatively little fanfare? Again democrats drop the ball.
I mean the Dems are even willing to give some money for the wall, just not as much as Don wants. So IDK why its a big deal that it has a right to exist
He didn't win shit and he won't win shit. The supreme court just got rid of the injunction that was put in place by a lower court while the issue is litigated. That's the best they can do, the constitution is very clear about the power of the purse lying with congress. If they rule that the president can just take money from anywhere in the budget and spend it on anything that effectively would make the president a king and would also make the whole budget essentially pointless.
could trump just crowdsource the wall? i think lobby groups would be lining up to pay.
you think a 73 year old boomer even knows what that shit is? he's never even been on the internet
trump uses twitter, that's a site on the internet
The dumbfuck probably got his kids to show him how to do it. Actual internet is a different thing from whatever the hell "social" media is. He's going to make being NEET a crime and there will still be retarded pol kiddies running around spouting off about le 88 dimensional chess LMFAO
Pfffftt, no. That's just a program on a jewphone. He doesn't even open a browser.
it's possible. Although there was a wall donation thingy that raised 20 million but the guy holding the money walked away with it or something. I'm not sure if Trump boomers are going to trust crowdsourcing but it's a good idea. Big problem is how long would the wall construction take to start or complete? Will it be a shitty fence or a real wall? Questions undoubtedly prepared for a 2020 candidacy. I mean you can't really blame him for not finishing the wall if nobody voted for him again to do it right? So now he has both a chance to win and an excuse in case he doesn't. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/11/group-raised-more-than-million-build-wall-now-some-supporters-want-answers/?utm_term=.7aabd49e41c6https://www.salon.com/2019/05/15/trump-supporters-who-donated-to-gofundme-wall-now-worry-they-got-scammed/http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/where-did-brian-kolfages-usd20-million-for-a-border-wall-go.html
Don't be retarded. America needs legal migrants. Sure most of them are scummy but compared to illegal migrants the number of scum is bigger there since they can't afford the means of legal migration which should be the bear minimum expected of anyone and a good indicator why they're coming or what they're going to do there.
Trump is a genius by attacking illegal migration because it in turn sheds more light on the legal not to mention speeding up any possible changes that will make sure more qualified people get in or attract them to try.
Not only has the wall been build but then the state came in and forced them to open it. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/privately-funded-border-wall-forced-open-federal-agency/story?id=63718433
Quit with the blatant bullshit dude. You aren't fooling anyone.
No, America doesn't "need" mass immigration, regardless of what the Koch Brothers say. Making the issue something about legality is a distraction. That way, arguing about capping and restricting immigration isn't even on the table. Democrats ask for the insane when they demand that the entire world be able to just go and live in the US if they feel like knowing full well it's ridiculous, and the neocons are more than willing to go for the "middle ground" of flooding the US with more immigrants than ever but legally. Meanwhile, a vast portion of the American public who wants to reduce immigration in all senses are left without representation, and why would anyone care to represent them anyway? The more immigrants, the less they will matter.
They chanted "send her back" in the Trump rally, but there were no cheers when Trump said that America needs to bring more people in legally.http://www.unz.com/article/send-her-back-chant-expresses-americas-resistance-to-dispossession-trump-right-to-back-away-from-javanka
If they really didn't want a flood of poor people from around the world to come looking for handouts then they really should stop giving out handouts.
It is that simple.
I have no problem with "brain draining" countries and having their most productive and skill full people come here to make their money, but taking from the productive to give to the unproductive only insensitivity the worst to force their way in and leach.
If you want to leach then do so in your own country, or preferably leach off of family and local community.
it's literally got a big red box next to it faggot. Your inability to use a tool properly is not indication of some sort of conspiracy. The youtube search function is designed to get you to the video you are trying to find and want to watch because the way they make money is by getting people to watch videos. Everything is designed to get people to see more videos they might want to watch and not show videos they don't want to watch. The algorithms learn your habits, figure out what you like and then suggest things that are similar to that or that people who have the same habits have enjoyed. Your search results won't be the same as someone else's because the system tailors everything to the individual user to better serve the user's needs (or in other words to better addict them to keep watching more content). If you're trying to find something and you put it into the search, youtube wants you to find what you're looking for because you're going to watch what it is you're looking for. Sometimes though the search terms are ambiguous, someone searching for a guy's name for example might be interested in seeing content by that person or they might be interested in seeing content simply about that person and if they pick up by the algorithms that you're likely to be more interested in the latter they'll show that first. It doesn't mean they're trying to hide or silence the person whose name you searched for, they're just trying to give you want the computer thinks you want.
go back to crabs.co
>>223004>it's literally got a big red box next to it faggot
That isn't his channel.
>Your inability to use a tool properly is not indication of some sort of conspiracy
The search is manipulated. Small channels with 1/10 of the subscribers show up on the top of the page, while I can't even find Tommy Robinson's channel on the first or second page.
>The algorithms learn your habits, figure out what you like and then suggest things that are similar to that or that people who have the same habits have enjoyed
This is wrong because I get the same results while using Tor.
>It doesn't mean they're trying to hide or silence the person whose name you searched for, they're just trying to give you want the computer thinks you want
The algorithm is developed by youtube and in it they can develop which kind of channels are promoted and what channels are hidden.
As Jen Gennai (google executive) has said "The reason we laughed out AI principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand. That they were not saying what's fair and what's equitable so we're like, well we are a big company, we're going to say it".
Another quote "We're also training our algorithms if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?"
The search algorithm is obviously manipulated.
Posters who think that these idiotic ideologies have anything to do with wealth are funny.
Here's how it goes, folks: Cataclysms happen. When they do happen, history is rewritten. The "elites" keep technology of the day and secret it away, keeping it hidden and researching some things slowly in secret.
The technology is slowly doled out to the public and the patent system suppresses the wealth of anyone outside the secret societies.
That's how wealth is controlled, and all the governments, communist, capitalist, whatever, are all in on it. Their families don't die in revolutions.
Let's take the Romonovs for example. Firstly, St. Petersburg was not built by St. Peter, it is an old roman city from before the prior cataclysm. A Christian saint did not go out into the wilds, find some ignorant savages and teach them masonry and have them build a city full of roman and greek statues and architecture. I guess it's a miracle the savages must have been possessed by the spirit of Roman engineers. This is what you must believe if you believe the history books. Romonov means "Romans", for fuck's sake. This is how badly the public is trolled, it's pathetic.
The myth of the adviser to the king poisoning the leadership is ancient. The story of the Romonov dynasty is a fabrication, a story played out before the ignorant masses so they'd believe they were actually doing something other than preparing that part of the world for destruction (erasure of historic sites) and socio-political experiments.
There was no communist revolution. The starvation of 20 million Christians and the deaths of nearly as many soviets in war with Germany was a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition and Reformation: Rewriting history, killing off large swathes of the populace esp. any that knew the past.
All you idiots espousing politics without even addressing that secret societies have ruled this world for eons, and the fact that there is tons of geological evidence off the coast of the Americas showing "roman" colonization and a cataclysmic demise of that Atlantic Civilization are fools. Why did we kill off the "native amercians"? Because they were squatting on our land, and not doing shit with it. America wasn't discovered by vikings or Columbus. It was known about from before the cataclysm and flood which came after the North American ice sheets were vaporized by a meteor.
Atlantia was a multi-national republic. The "native" Zuni Tribe speaks a dialect of Japanese. Light haired white skinned folk were among the "natives" when the first colonists arrived, this fact survived the history erasers. These were remnants of the survivors, but we covered up that inconvenient truth with the fable of "injuns kidnapped European brides". Atlantis "sank into the sea", hence the salt flats in the middle of America today.
Search "ancient canals Louisiana" or "ancient canals Florida" See for yourself why the coast lines are all blurred out on Google maps. Fly over them in a small engine airplane and yourselves. We rebuild new roads over the old ones that remain. Protip: hunter gatherers did not dredge sea ports with channels hundreds of miles long, perfectly straight. Tell me more about your bullshit "wealth accumulation" theories, plebs.
ok that's your opinion but where's the facts?
Are you really comparing a real life political media personality with some YouTube-born no-name? Obviously a thousand videos from popular channels with high engagement rates that correspond to searched words will be prioritized. Type in Elliot Rodger for instance. His original channel will be basically ignored by the search engine because its numbers are negligible when compared to CNN and FOX. The same goes for Robinson. He has plenty of MMS big dogs hogging up attention at higher rates that he can afford to, so the algorithm diverts your attention to hotter picks.
(I'm not the anon you responded to)
>>223013>Obviously a thousand videos from popular channels with high engagement rates that correspond to searched words will be prioritized
Tommy Robinson's video named "Tommy Robinson ambushed and attacked by ANTIFA" with 1.8 million views has overwhelmingly more views and engagement than the top 3 videos from the search result combined, proving you wrong.
>Type in Elliot Rodger for instance. His original channel will be basically ignored by the search engine because its numbers are negligible when compared to CNN and FOX
Elliot Rodger's original channel was taken down, but a backup of his channel still shows up at the top of the search result.How many times do I have to prove you clowns wrong?
You don't even have to go that far.
YouTube has admitted to using limited state and manually deranking channels they find distasteful but don't actually break the TOS and would start a shitstorm if they just deleted without cause.
Does the dude really not know about limited state?
Gay should be word filtered to succubus as well.
gay is an adjective
>Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.
I wonder how grovelingly apologetic "conservatives" will be about this. Will they finally disavow Reagan?
Who cares. It's just fussing about the drapes on the titanic while it sinks…or however the saying goes. For cuckservatives and you both. Don't you have bigger things to care about?
I just find it funny. It's the Reagan-worshiping neocons that call Trump a "racist".
Trump is a racist.
This is what it looks like when someone has an IQ of 80 but thinks they're a genius.
That's some projection.
Of course I'm a racist, I post on imageboards
Even though this has nothing to do with politics I was told to post it here by the mods. I guess people take any possibly controversial socioeconomic discussion as political in nature because the end result of that discussion ostensibly would be to stir people to political action to create laws or something to affect change on that system. Still not every discussion about society or economics is necessarily political if you don't want to get into the specifics of what policies you would like to see enacted or any of the activism or stuff like that. Sometimes I wish I could just talk about economics without someone getting all buttflustered and resorting to screeching internet tribalism which we euphemistically label "political discussion". Like not every criticism of capitalism means you're advocating for communism, yet everyone just makes assumptions so that they can take up sides and fight some stupid little fight.
It is political and you know full well you posted in a thread that it didn't fit.
As for discussion of economics, what you linked wasn't making a actual economic argument, it was arguing about societies structure which is also political.
Gary Kasparov's IQ is 135 and he too believes in New Chronology.
>>222950>I have no problem with "brain draining" countries
And those said countries have no problem sending their trash as well just to be even. Romania for instance. They send a metric ton of smelly gyppos all around western europe sometimes even america.
By brain draining, you're making third world countries shittier than they need to be. As a result, even without welfare, you'd have massive waves of migrants coming, because of the wealth concentration and how easy it is to make money for the same shitty job back home. Getting paid 5$ for picking fruits is better than 5 pesos. If you're taking their elites, of course the rabble will follow.
iq is meaningless and crackpot ideas aren't true just cuz a "high iq" person believes them
It makes it true if a person with your iq believes them
Wow, seen calculations of how much the green new deal would cost.
It would be more then the global GDP.
Literally all the money in the world isn't enough to pay for this shit.
Welcome to the left. It's all about feels and never about facts.
You are a moron if you believe that. Actually I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're just an oil company bot.
You are welcome to run the numbers yourself if you want.
I await your explanation of how the green new deal is remotely feasible.
It's a freaking non-binding resolution at this point. There aren't even any numbers yet because there's not even a concrete plan yet. You've fallen for right wing scare numbers hook, line, and sinker. The thing you believe, that the democrats want to spend more money than is even in the economy, is fucking ridiculous on its face. So ridiculous I will once again remind myself I am arguing with a bot. At least for your sake I hope you're a bot and not actually that brainwashed.
So why did democrats literally make a joke of themselves and vote "present" for a yes or no question when it came to actually inactting the freakin thing?
Like how the GOP kept passing the repeal of Obamacare and sending it to Obama to sign
That is just a dog of what is being talked about. It is a comically bad idea that is so far out the range of things that are logistically possible that even trying small parts of it would break the economy of the whole world for a century.
Even communism is less dumb, and you have Democratic politicians putting their names behind it where they say they think it is a good idea.
God damn autocorrect
get your normiephone out of here
Because republicans forced the vote before anyone had even read the damn thing which was pure political tactics to try and get democrats to vote against it because they hadn't yet read it. They voted present instead which worked basically just as well.
That is pretty racist.
Nobody is serious about the environnemental question, until they seriously consider the Pentti Linkola solution. GDP isn't going to matter where we are going. Unless we science(magic!) our way out of this with unlimited fusion energy and infinite on-demand ressource star trek fabricator, in which case nature and the environment don't matter anymore, except as tourist parc to grow the gdp.
Even if the deal was enacted it wouldn't do much of anything except cripple the ability to respond to crises due to breaking everything and putting all but the global 1% in debt.
Do you have $77k just laying around? Because that is how much every single person on Earth would have to personally spend without exception to fund just one of the major proposals in the green new deal.
The green new deal is fucking retarded an no one with two brain cells to rub together should endorse it.
It is actually more far feched then getting nuclear fusion reactions in our lifetime, or replicators.
I can't, you will have to wait for a few hundred years or maybe a thousand years.
he'd have to know math
>>223185>he'd have to know math
He'd have to know a lot more than that.
When the temperature rises it increase the amount of moisture that is in the atmosphere, through melting ice gaps but also simply through the fact that hotter temperatures make the process of evaporation more efficient, more evaporation means more moisture being taken and more moisture being sent back through rain. This is what happens when earth doesn't have polar regions, it has been this way before.
That isn't how the deal is funded. Nobody is going to put you in debt to fund it. Also you say it would cripple the ability to respond to crises "due to breaking everything and putting all but the global 1% in debt" breaking everything? I don't think you understand the deal at all. I think you're arguing dishonestly based on the fact you are trying to distort the facts with the lie that "everyone is going to become $77k in debt becus green new deal" which is worse than oversimplified its downright wrong
Would you post a link to where you got that $77k figure? Or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Probably where the $77k figure came from.https://cei.org/content/what-green-new-deal-could-cost-typical-household
That took all of 5 seconds to find btw.>>223191
>That isn't how the deal is funded
It isn't going to be funded and the deal it's self never got into detail about where all this money was going to come from.
A video I seen on the topic for those too lazy to read.(embedded)
And here is a simple article breaking it down in overview how shit this deal is and how little thought was put into basic logistics.https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-is-unaffordable
I read that "study" and also some of the other pieces on that cei.org - by the way its a thinktank intending "to advance principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty." so we see an obvious political bias here. This is a thinktank which says (in its own words) "global-warming alarmism" so it is both unscientific and politically biased.
The main "study" used as a source for the estimates (which are unscientific and not evidence-based by the way) from the cei.org article comes from: the American enterprise institute's "study" found here: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/RPT-The-Green-New-Deal-5.5x8.5-FINAL.pdf
Lo and behold: aei.org is also a thinktank, and a politcally biased one at that. This time it's a conservative one. This is how the study describes the global warming crisis we face, in it's own words: " purported “climate crisis.” " so they are also unscientific with regards to global warming in that they do not believe in the threat our environment face and also in the study they claim that the policies would have virtually no effect on mitigating global warming: "But the future temperature impacts of
the zero-emissions objective [of the green new deal] would be close to zero"
Also from that study we can garner that the largest cost of the GND is the estimate of 3.2 trillion for single-payer healthcare. This is the element which has the biggest potential to save money and lives of hundreds of millions of US citizens, and the entire "study" ignores this and doesn't go into any detail and simply uses it as a big scary number to make the argument that its completely unaffordable and there's no way to fund it.
So you are using estimates garnered from obviously biased unscientific climate-skeptic thinktanks to conclude that you know exactly how much it would cost in money and you dishonestly try and insinuate that the cost would come directly out of the taxpayers pocket.
The Green New Deal is policy and it does not litigate on the 'hows' of what it is trying to achieve, it simply sets out what we are trying to achieve. Of course we can only estimate what it cost but the cost would not come out of taxpayer's pockets directly. Can the US Government afford such a upheaval of the economy? Redirect some military funding and of course it's likely. Of course it's going to be a difficult thing to achieve, but what do you think we should do? just continue with the status-quo and stick our heads in the sand as we step over the 2c increase threshold we are so close to already?
As for the video: its a podcast-style thing where some obviously entrenched conservatives are discussing some "discovery" of the costs, no articles are given or mentioned, a fox news (incredibly right-wing and climateskeptic biased) article is in the background of the video, so it appears the source they use is also trashy. It's mostly 10 minutes of them generalizing democrats..
I was hoping something bipartisan and scientific from you dude… Are you literally an investor in crude oil or something? Or just brainwashed to shit?
Ok onto bloomberg's article. Unlike the Competitve Enterprise Institute which tries to say that the costs to refashion the energy supply would have indefinite costs of upwards of $70,000 per household , bloomberg takes a slightly more balanced look:
"The plan’s environmental spending proposals would be temporary, but the new entitlement programs would be permanent. If MMT is wrong, and if ever-expanding deficits cause runaway inflation, the result would be a devastating collapse of the nation’s economy. "
However, the suggestion the large social spending would result is entirely speculative - read the article yourself.
The person who started talk on the green new deal came in saying that it would cost more than the entire GDP. Which simply is not true. Even the bloomberg article when talking about the bulk of the deal (the social policies) says regarding the cost "equal to about 34 percent of the U.S.’s entire gross domestic product."
Then consider that UBI would replace existing social spending, and that it would improve the lives of at least 40million citizens, using that number as thats the figure of those who are in poverty (the bulk of them work jobs) and the fact that the $12,000 UBI would go straight back into the economy as people use that money for living, and latest discussion of the deal has been that the UBI you receive is diminished the more money you make, so the total cost goes down. As for UBI, there's been experiments with it in a few places throughout the world, and a shit-ton of studies into the costs and the plethora of positive social outcomes. Nothing you posted even discusses it beyond the cost, and they don't even make an actual argument as to why the cost isn't worth the positive outcome.
>>223202>Then consider that UBI would replace existing social spending
That's not going to happen. If cutting current social spending is a precondition to UBI, then it is politically unfeasible. That spending works as a bribe for interest groups, and it is not in the interest of politicians or those groups for them to disappear. Any politician who tried to cut other welfare, even if it is to give universal UBI, would immediately lose support of everyone who was receiving it. The only way for UBI to be politically feasible is for it to be handed out on top of every other welfare spending, and that would make it economically unfeasible if it wasn't already.
If what you are saying about it being unrealistic for a politician to cut a legacy welfare is true, one could simply legislate so that you are exempt from receiving UBI if you are in receipt of selected welfare.. it's how they've dealt with transitions between types of welfares in other countries.
It still amazes me that there are people who think this is a good idea.
Why do they all look the same?
Don't know, but people noticed that they all look similiar.
Maybe they wanted to cosplay as picrel, or their demographic is homicidal by nature..
same guy keeps respawning
Something to do with wanting a clean environment and getting something of value from their taxes like healthcare or welfare… I have no idea why anyone would want those things though!
The kid in dayton pic isnt the shooter iirc they just share the same name.
Pulling those things out of their arse would be a better idea.
he won't stop RDMing
Those things are the idea
The government can not create value so anyone looking to get value for their taxes are fools.
The government doesn't produce anything, it can only move around assets it has stolen through it's Monopoly on arbitration.
I think Milton Friedman understands whats good and bad for capitalism better than Capitalism.com does
Appeal to authority isn't a rational argument.
UBI is bad for capitalism and just a tool to make people total slaves to a failing state.
Yet we are already slaves in this capitalist system to a rootless debauched, unimaginably wealthy, psychopathic clique. More people than ever are working (i.e. slaves). The whole concept of state has been failing: in perpetual freefall since the advent of the cancer that is modernism, accompanied by the sweet perfume of technological wonder like the rose scent of a putrefying corpse. We've sacrificed our gods and cult to the economy. The security of caste and trade is gone and industrialization has sucked the soul from the very goods and physical structures we deal with every day via mass production. So I say fuck the economy. UBI and gibs for all, succubi in power, animal-human marriage, speech censorship, poisoned food, dysgenic breeding programs, on-demand citizenship. Let it become such a disgusting bloated mess, that even the whipped men who feed the technological atlas that bears this heap of inefficient untruth break free due to an unbearable misery felt in the deepest corner of their souls. It is of utmost importance that we lower the GDP of all nations and to increase unemployment, thereby reducing work and reducing the number of slaves. Let it become more appealing to starve than to exist in this trash system.
That escalated quickly
could the future really have been worse if the persian empire won?
You know they are going to ignore that part.
I will say that apparently lefties are starting to get the hang of violence.
then why did he enjoy anime?
Anime is weird like that. It attracts so many people even if their views are opposite form one another or even oppose the views of where anime comes from.
Anime is pretty apolitical, at least from the prospective of non-japanese people.
Yes they did find positive effects worth the problem? the vast majority of the pilot experiments had many positive outcomes which varied on the location, for example the study in India found "an improvement in housing and sanitation, improved nutrition, less food poverty, improved health and schooling, greater inclusion of the disabled in society and a lack of frivolous spending." Whereas the preliminary results for the one in Finald were "While levels of employment did not change, it did report that those involved showed "fewer stress symptoms, fewer difficulties concentrating and fewer health problems than the control group. They were also more confident in their future and in their ability to influence societal issues."
Either you're terrible uninformed and misinformed or you're downright lying to try and win an argument
Yes they did find positive effects worth the program? the vast majority of the pilot experiments had many positive outcomes which varied on the location, for example the study in India found "an improvement in housing and sanitation, improved nutrition, less food poverty, improved health and schooling, greater inclusion of the disabled in society and a lack of frivolous spending." Whereas the preliminary results for the one in Finald were "While levels of employment did not change, it did report that those involved showed "fewer stress symptoms, fewer difficulties concentrating and fewer health problems than the control group. They were also more confident in their future and in their ability to influence societal issues."
Either you're terrible uninformed and misinformed or you're downright lying to try and win an argument
The same thing was said about the welfare state. If those people were right (and there's arguments to make that there's truth to it), then you already lost that battle.
Truth is capitalism shit the bed in 1929 and couldn't continue to function with small governments. It was necessary for a large state with a strong police force and bureaucracy to keep the shell game going for the super rich, with the guarantee that the heights of finance and vital industries would receive favored status and basically be guaranteed solvency. Without that stability, the national security state falls apart. Part of that package is the welfare state that guaranteed profits for the agricultural sector on production that would otherwise be thrown out, since it was obvious that more than enough food could be grown and asking a farmer to not grow crops without financial compensation is a tough sell. Pacifying the public, and the other effects which may be accomplished by welfare policy, were just a side benefit. There was never a serious threat of revolt after WW2, despite the best efforts of American leadership to fail in just about everything they tried. (About the only effective plans of the American leadership since WW2 was striking a deal to open China and getting the bright idea to arm mujahadeen instead of trying to fight retarded race wars in Asia. Everything else was relying on enemies to make mistakes and the immense advantage of America's position in 1945, and once Bush II got in, all of that was squandered because the idiots wanted to fight ANOTHER retarded race war in Asia.)
In any event, UBI won't happen. The Western states are all trying to destroy their welfare systems and bring down the standard of living. They don't need UBI as a Trojan Horse when they've already gone a long way towards whittling down the welfare state (and a sudden removal is unlikely until a crisis; death by a thousand cuts and drawing out the lower class's misery is more their style). They're not going to give you health care, shit they were able to sell this absolutely asinine system where paying $10000 or more on top of premiums before anyone helps is considered "health care coverage", and media organizations actually report this as progress. Even people who have "good" health care plans say this system is garbage. The only people who like it are profiteers in the medical system, and Republicans love this shit where everyone is forced to buy private insurance so don't think Mitch is gonna save you.
Take a look at the references and rea/skim some of the most beneficial and least beneficial studies, then account for the fact the majority have numerous positive effects and then give me an artbritary figure of exactly how much you would want to spend on UBI for it to be "worth the program" in your own words.
Also please record your thought-process in the post before you conclude the answer… I'm interested in how your brain works
You're being ridiculous. If people have money so they can meet basic needs without working themselves to to the brink of insanity, they're going to be a lot happier and healthier, and if they're not forbidden from work, they're going to be more productive if they do find work (and since people like having more than the UBI, they are sufficiently incentivized to find work).
The only argument you have against UBI is that you like whipping proles to feel better about yourself. There are many valid arguments to make against UBI like it's too expensive, but conservatives don't really think about budgets. They like war and they like paying Porky subsidies for "job creation". It's really just the appeal of kicking someone down for them. That's where the level of discourse is in society, who to kick down next.
Stealing from people at gunpoint to give to another person is wrong.
All government redirubutions of weath are based on forced appropriation and extortion with the threat of murder for non-compliance.
There is no amount that is ok.
Government ubi is a evil plot to buy subjugation through extortion and bribery.
>>223260>Video is 18 minutes long>Reply in less than 3
Conservative arguments in video form are so predictable, I'd rather save my brain cells and just cut to the likely response.
Since you don't have anything but more of the same, I was completely right in skipping.>>223261
This relies on a false theory of social organization that governments are inherently antagonistic towards all, when in reality governments and large corporations are natural allies and always have been throughout the history of capitalism. Capitalists need a strong state to keep the lower classes in line, bail them out, and wage wars for the resource accumulation necessary to keep the system going.
You needed a government to enforce poor laws, outlaw vagrancy, and formalize enclosure of the commons in order to create the conditions for industrial capitalism. People didn't just go to cities because they liked working 14 hours a day for a pittance, they were literally forced to work or starve, in large numbers. Many, many people died in the transition to industrial capitalism from starvation and utter despair.
Not being the 1% - I don't care. If you're a billionaire, you should be taxed to hell.
>>223264>I won't listen to anything that you will say>I will just strawman and name call>I am totally a serious person and not just trolling at this point>please debate my bad ideas>I will totally not just ignore whatever is posted and resort to strawmen and name-calling again
So what are you role playing as today anyway?
It isn't like any of the regular don't know who you are and that you are just a high effort shitposter. So what's today's larp? Playing the part of a commie again? Or are you going to play the hysterical far left Dem?
Oh, or you could claim to be a libertarian while arguing socialist talking points again. That made me laugh hard.
You let your mask slip too many times and overplayed your hand for months.
You think anyone falls for your shit anymore?
I mean when have a few newfags but all it takes is a few glimpses of the previous threads to be up to speed on your game.
I guess inflation really is a flat tax for the stupid.
The billionaires will just hide their money or leave. You won't be able to run or hide from having what little money you have be near worthless.
Your numbers are silly hyperbole but yeah the "Green New Deal" is horseshit and Bernie should throw it in the trash where it belongs. Succdems gonna succdem though.
The correct answer, of course, is the one you allude to: get Fusion Power operational and mass produced. We know it's possible, everyone knows it can be done, but no one in a position to do it wants to do it. It goes against the whole population control and austerity agenda, and thus the fusion research projects are a neoliberalized mess on purpose.
The whole point of inflation is that the value of assets degrades, too. Inflation matters a lot more to the rich than the poor; the poor can always in theory agitate for more wages, and their debts are also relatively deflated, but the rich cannot manufacture valuable capital out of nothing.
Yeah you tell that to Shiqtia when she can't afford formula for her kids.
Somebody got to take care of them, and they ain't gonna be her.
Then again it is not like you are going to look up real example of what happened in inflationary periods and who actually suffers.
I have never in my time studying economics seen a example of inflation not "harming" the poor more then the rich. Rich people have diverse assets and usually manager risk of possible downturns. The poor have no assests to fall back on and no stored value to bank on in hard times. When the prices go up and their income doesn't they get fucked ultra hard.
Yup, you don't have an actual argument, so you go to the first arsenal in the /pol shitlord's arsenal - "strawman!" This is usually where I tell you what a strawman is, and that what I wrote isn't a strawman, but since you and everyone like you obviously didn't learn reasoning skills and have no interest in learning, it's wasted effort. It's cute though that immediately after the strawman charge, you go out to make repeated strawman and ad hominem arguments like it's a point of pride. But of course you know that. Pretty hilarious that you thought I was ever calling myself a libertarian, assuming you know who I am. I never made any great effort to obscure myself by changing writing style, whereas you have to rely on veiled threats that you have your butt-buddies to back you up and shout like fucking chimps.
The point remains. If my summary of that argument was not what the video was about, and you had an actual argument about UBI that wasn't boilerplate "durrrr poor people don't deserve stuff", it's on you to name it. Otherwise, kindly shut the fuck up.
We were actually having a somewhat decent thread until you shitted it up, which is unusual for this board.
Your attempts to intimidate me aren't getting anywhere, /pol.
Should I go through the effort of linking to the archives of all the other times you have trolled like this?
Love all the name calling though. Really showing me. The accuracy rate is astounding. Astounding that you manage to have a 0% hit rate. You would think that maybe you would get one right with how many blind insults and guesses you have made but you got like zero hits.
Wonder what you got left in the bag of tricks?
You must be really desperate to keep notes on me like a stalker. I have an admirer, great.
You just are too dumb to do the anonymous thing right and you are a chronic problem.
It is the reason why I already know what game you are playing (because you're done it so many times before) but you can't even blindly guess my positions and background.
Been posting in the political thread for years and you wouldn't even be able to point out my post that aren't replies to you or related to this perticular point.
I couldn't care less about your positions or what you feel (because "think" is too generous a term to describe what you're doing). I'm literally responding to the thing you just wrote. I know your vanity demands that I pay attention to you, but I'm just not into you that way sweetie.
I come to this thread when I'm bored, usually I have better things to do with my time.
Projection and a dismissal. Mixing things up I see. Yeah I bet you are totally busy with rad important things, lol.
Projection is literally and transparently what you are doing, because you can't respond to the argument. Are you going to answer the charge that you're just regurgitating the conservative desire to whip poor people into working.
I wasted my time and actually watched the video. Yes, the argument literally is "poor people need to be starved so they'll work more" and "think about what the rich EARNED" (as if owning stocks and running their companies into the ground because it's more profit than actually producing something is "work"). The only accurate thing in there is that a UBI would lead to inflation, and then it goes back into "durrr BUT WE NEED TO STARVE THE POORS MORE!" It's the same argument used against every wage increase or improvement in the condition of labor ever.
Now I want my 20 minutes back, though I took the time to write this response while watching so I can save some time.
Everyone can recognise you, schizenu. You're the only one on here who still thinks and acts like a 2013 tumblr sjw.
Here comes another chimp chimping out.
They were calling for open censorship even on the main stream news.
Had people saying they wanted the government to step in and start arresting site owners and shit.
>>223339>They were calling for open censorship even on the main stream news.
You say this as if it was unusual. Pretty much every journo thinks that they should say whatever they want and you better shut up and listen. They see it as THEIR job to determine what can be said/thought/done and what cannot, and if this newfangled internet thing is going to people's heads and making them think they can openly disagree then something must be done about it.
so you just do whatever these voices tell you to do then? Uhh bro, if they tell you to drive to galesburg tomorrow with a gun, don't do it.
I don't even live in the US bro
And no I don't unless they promise to leave me alone for a while like now
Don't do it. Just work on your pro-wrestling and don't do any more shitty movies.
Now they are trying to hide the background of the Ohio shooter.
I even seen reports that tried to paint him as a racist because it is a area that black people hang out.
The daily stormer is down right now because they also used bitmitigate that 8chan switched to. The tor version of the site is still up though.
I think gab was having issues too.
I don't use stormer or gab, but censorship pisses me off.
Its not exactly equivalent because he didn't write a manifesto saying that he was going to kill his sister and 6 black people because of his political views.
I like how in this guy's brain, "the establishment" doesn't represent the federal government, the senate, or the goddamn president of the United States and that somehow a couple of people being banned on twitter for supporting genocide is somehow analogous to some sort of mass censorship by "the establishment". If you say disgusting hateful things and someone who runs a website doesn't want you there anymore, guess what? They can do that because that's also a part of free speech. I think what these assholes mean by "the establishment" is actually "the majority of the fucking people in the country". And by "total suppression and censorship" he means "basic pushback from people who disagree with him". As a white man, he's used to just whining about things hard enough and having people just magically fix the problem for him and when it doesn't work he just whines harder about how unfair it all is.
Also these fucking morons should read a history book sometime. You think racial differences are the only thing that leads to conflict? You think it's some sort of fucking utopia automatically where everyone gets along if everyone is the same race? Just look at Japan's thousands of years of brutal civil war and see how fucking retarded that is, or literally any ethnically homogeneous civilization on Earth throughout history. They have all had brutal wars and feuds. It's human nature to hate and kill each other, you don't fix the problem by segregating people. In fact today even in America homicide is almost always committed within the same ethnic group simply because of the high level of segregation already existing in the country and the fact that people kill people they know and have a reason to hate enough to want dead. These white guys are fucking with the script by killing people they've never even met who have done nothing to them.
>>223493>I like how in this guy's brain, "the establishment" doesn't represent the federal government, the senate, or the goddamn president of the United States
Because it doesn't.
Corporations cannot exist without government intervention. The corporation is literally a construct that only exists because the government recognizes it as an entity. Not to mention patents, which as basically government-enforced monopolies:
>>223493>You think it's some sort of fucking utopia automatically where everyone gets along if everyone is the same race?
Yeah, it's called Japan, Sweden before all the Africans and Arabs started immigrating there, USA before the 1965 immigration act, etc.
When did leftists went from being against corporate dictatorship to thinking that corporations should control speech even more than they already do?
They only care about whatever gets the ends they want, the means don't matter to them.
They don't have integrity.
At this point of history, it's obvious that the only a marxist can be a real leftist. Liberals are a disaster and that guy is not the exception.
Tim Pool is the real liberal
The government should not force people to tolerate any sort of behavior on websites they create. There should be adequate antitrust enforcement so that there aren't just a few major platforms controlling all the internet. There will be some detestable people like the owner of 8chan who decide they want to let people plot genocide and those people will go there. You really want the government to control what people can and can't do with their websites? That would be the end of this website. No more banning people who have had sex because all forms of speech are always permitted in all forums in your fascist utopia.
There is a big difference between wizchan and Facebook, a few billion users of difference that is. There's also a difference between wizchan and Cloudflare, much like how telephone companies can't cut off your access because they dislike you.
The reality is that only thing stopping few giant corporations from controlling every aspect of free speech are government regulations and the understanding that there might be government regulations if they overdo it. There isn't really an alternative. If a few of them decide you're a nonperson, you'll stop existing as far as anyone is aware.
I'll take the "fascism" of being able to speak freely over the "freedom" of being forced to only be heard if I parrot corporate orthodoxy. Next thing you'll tell me that freedom is slavery.
Lets cut the bullshit. You are talking about nationalizing and giving full control of the internet to a corrupt government who you should know for a fact would abuse that power to the extreme.
>>223493>As a white man, he's used to just whining about things hard enough and having people just magically fix the problem for him
I don't know what you're doing here if you feel comfortable parroting mainstream liberal demoralization bullshit like this. Nobody "taught me that my voice deserves to be heard more than anybody else's" or whatever the saying is. This line of thought is just as demented as run of the mill race realism.
Tell you what, I will tell you alternatives to companies you dislike if you will show me alternates to tyrannical governments available.
Those private companies can't knock down my door and literally murder me for opinions they don't like. The government can and does daily.
Fuck off you bootlicking statist authoritarian who probably hates capitalism and liberty in general and longs for the day when big daddy state will take care all problems in a final solution of subjugation of all with no recourse, for the penalty for resistance is death.
Some dumbass company does something I don't like, I stop using that company and find away around it.
They don't own me and can't really stop me from doing shit unless the government steps in to use force.
No matter how important or powerful you think a company is they still always have limits of what they can do and are at the mercy of market forces, that is until the government gets involved. Then everything goes to hell and people start dying.
The only slave here is you. You just want your master be more powerful by making everyone its slave including private companies.
Companies that have no real control of me, you, or anyone else. When you chose to use a optional and voluntary good or service it does not make them your owner.
Now the govenment on the other hand. They are under a delution that they own you and control you. That they have the ahtoraty to make you a slave, to steal your weath, your time, your labor. That your very life belongs to them and they can end it whenever they wish.
They are the tyrants that need to be stopped. They are the ones that are too powerful as it is, and seek more power by the hour. And you are the one all to eager to give it to them, because you love your master and want nothing more for it to be big and strong so it can take care of you. Not seeing that the cool shade that shelters you from the outside world you so fear is actually it's huge boot coming down to be your final destruction.
I like that song so I don't mind.
God that was one funny shitshow.
On the one hand, I don't want large venues like Facebook to be able to censor anyone. Especially people who say things I dislike, or whom I dislike on an interpersonal basis. This is admittedly because I want everyone I hate to fuck off to Facebook forever and ever and ever, world without end, amen.
On the other hand, I value censoring on sites and communities that I actually care about. I don't want to see everything vaguely related to the next Trump campaign on every 2hu discussion board even if they start off their threads with pictures of Momiji in a ballcap. Everyone values the censure of loudmouthery, though. That's why the censor's hand is part of every site or community, and the smaller or more niche the site the more tyrannical an active censor often became. The iron fist of the average early web forum administrator was well known to everyone who bothered to actually use the net back in the day, bans were handed out freely and in great quantity and even the cry to Make 4Chan Great Again was "bring back Snacks," which was only half joking. If anything, web discussion overall has become significantly less restrictive since the great googlization took root.
Looking back it seems like free speech was something websites and communities really liked to claim support for, but very few were actually concerned with, despite all the loud protestations on the subject. Wizardchan and Wizchan have always banned quite a lot of speech, though the restrictions have certainly become lighter over time–and those of you who were actually here when Napoleon was modding the site know what I'm talking about. Hell, Keivi's draft of the rules banned discussion of politics. The common appeals to freedom of speech were usually figleaves which had less to do with principles and more to do with protecting specific interests and specific communally-accepted modes of expression and "sharing." Less about protecting the rights of the individual than the community. This wasn't really publicly stated, but it seems like it was generally understood. The cases where heavy handed admins fucked up badly were when their antics directly conflicted with the intentions of the community at large, which was less common in smaller groups since consensus was easier to arrive at, hence the rapid evolution from loudmouthed antimoderation firebrand to unyielding tyrant when forum users became forum staff. The sense in going from a smaller group to a larger one was usually that one could be more of a dick and it would be more acceptable and less likely to be removed by powertripping forum mods, since the larger the site, the more likely an immediate coercive action was to fracture the community. In terms of basic principles it hardly makes a difference, since the censors are in both cases permitted as a necessary consequence of each website existing as private property with private use conditions and conflicts resolved by the private arbitration of private moderators rather than the sites being considered the communal property of all users.
When it became convenient for them.
They got bought obviously
What's more interesting is how warped his (their) views of reality are. In his world, Whites go around demanding things because they're White. In reality, I've only seen nonwhites using their race to beat Whites into submission and get their way, and also White people trying to ride that platform for personal gains.
Tucker Carlson actually puts these issues in perspective pretty well, so much that it's amazing he's still employed. I think at this point dialogue is impossible, in their world we, our people, our history, our ideas are the evil that ought to be destroyed and wiped from this earth not be repeated ever again. Evil ought to be destroyed, not argued or compromised with, after all.
Also, case in point, here's the latest racial hate hoax that you probably didn't hear about. Fake hate crimes are another thing that are very common, even though the antiracist crowd refuses to believe so. And why wouldn't they be? All it takes is for a nonwhite to cry and he gets all he wants, and the accused (when there is one) has to prove their innocence, because even if they're not arrested they lose everything else.
That's why when I read something like "White people go around whining to get their way" I have to wonder whether he is a traveler from another dimension.
I ain't even white, but I was raised to have a strong dislike of racism. What I see from the left, and even occasionally the main stream media is racism against white folk. It is something I don't like it one bit. The crazy thing is a lot of it comes from white people themselves. Someone got in their head and taught them to hate themselves and everything about their culture. Shit some of them see something wrong with western civilization as a whole.
Though the worst ones are the racist that do think white people are some sort of master race, and they feel guilty about it to the point of self hated.
Like that is mentally fucked in 3 different ways.
listening to anyone call anyone else "greedy" triggers me on so many levels. it implies that someone else isn't greedy and that they're some kind of angel, which is a fucking joke. democrats are not some holy angels while republicans are some evil greedy devils, holy fuck. all human beings are opportunistic hypocrites, its just that democrats think the best way to run the government is being left wing, and republicans think its running it with a right wing government. but the inherit greedy motivation is fundamentally the same. fucking pot calling the kettle black, fucking triggered me
and the only reason i even listened to this btw, was to see if mr sanders had anything to say about artificial intelligence and automation. NOT A WORD about automation and ai, the same with trump in 2016 and hillary in 2016
they literally talked about the increase use of heroin/opiates, yet dont mention that that is largely caused by huge waves of unemployment. fucking andrew yang was talking about it, yet this intelectual joke casually ignores it. please note, i think andrew yang is truly the most soulless slimeball sellout in existence, i wouldn't trust a chink with anything but being a soulless sellout with zero integrity, but atleast he has the nerve to talk about the subject
and they have the nerve to mention climate change for a good 15 minutes, yet blame everything on the fossil fuel industry, and not a word about veganism. if you want to talk about climate change, how the actual FUCK do you ignore the topic of farms and environmental damage? literally meat production is one of the worst contributes for climate change. and btw, im a vegan who entirely doesnt care for climate change and i fully support worldwide floods as a result of climate change. i think the only good thing about eating meat is how it ruins the environment. but if you actually care about the subject, you have to be SO disingenuous to ignore the environmental damage of growing animals for meat
LITERALLY the piece of shit said "99% of people would never use guns in a bad way" and LITERALLY in the next sentence, he said how he knows many hunters who love hunting, and he supports it. like, can this guy contradict himself any harder?
man, honestly, all politicians are all so FUCKED and underhanded
sorry ill stop rambling on politics. talking about politics is like taking a shit, everyone does it, but nobody really likes being in the same room when others do it
Drugs are a problem right now, ai/robots might
be a problem somewhere in the indeterminate future.
It isn't rocket science to see why one gets the speaking priority over the other in current political discussion.
Anyone know how many of the Walmart spics killed were illegals?
No, they haven't released many details about the victims to my knowledge.
The most upsetting thing is how warped people's conception of history is, as if ancient europeans are the only people guilty of conquest and other violent historical practices. You're supposed to believe history is nothing but evil whitey slaughtering helpless brown people when they aren't busy slaughtering each other. Some peoples' eyes will just glaze over if you mention anything about the moors in Spain, north african pirates raiding the european coasts, inter-tribal genocide in africa, etc. The funniest one is how many people seem to believe north america was some sort of epicurean heaven on earth until the evil white man came along, and while i'm not arguing that foreign interference didn't hurt them in the long run, it's not like they didn't have a long history of conflict with other war mongering native tribes either. Actually, the only reason some tribes were able to survive to this day is because they were sheltered by european pioneers when they were at their most vulnerable. That's probably too much cognitive dissonance for a lot of people to comprehend, though.
[Last 50 Posts]
One of the most eye opening things I saw is a video where a bunch of mixed race buzzfeed writers with ambiguous origins received their DNA test results, and how every single one of them cringed when they got something resembling "white european" among the results (bitch, you work for buzzfeed, how much whiter do you want to be?) They were insanely happy when they saw that 1.6% "native american" though, and bragged about how excited they were to start reflecting on their deep connection with the first nations. I always get uncomfortable when I start to think just how much the modern socio political narrative must be skewed by people like this who are desperate to play the noble savage card, and who maintain that pride is inseparable from belligerence. There's no shadow government conspiracy or anything at the heart of it, it's all just individual ego rubbing. The most brainwashed liberals would rather hold everybody back than actually open the door for progress because fighting against a theoretical oppressor is just so much cooler than peaceful coexistence, just like how juvenile internet socialists always seem to be more preoccupied with killing cops and wagecucks with epic guns than actually doing anything to help the working class