Liberals, please stop allowing Authoritarians to hijack the Left.

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,520
6,013
475
I'm sorry for caring about social inequality and poverty independent of skin (be it white, black, Hispanic, Asian, green, purple, blue...).
If your response to Black Lives Matter is anger, you were already the enemy.
Yeah no, and that's exactly the reason why people are criticizing your rhetoric... (also I never said I was 'angry' at BLM)
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
No one talking about the problems doesn't mean there aren't problems. Racism and all the ugliness with it was still there the whole time.
Nobody's saying there aren't problems. Just that the progress was being made.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
Dunki, by denying the affects of racism even today you are not being inclusive. The left won't win with your lack of empathy, facts and etc. The left must come together, not fracture, and that means dealing with reality. For example enacting Reagan's colorblind policies ignited identity politics. We can't have that again, you see. Focus on everyone, and give a +1 where needed.
 

MazeHaze

Banned
Aug 11, 2013
2,389
40
0
Akron, Ohio
I read a pretty good analogy the other day about "all lives matter". Figured I'd share it to maybe add some perspective:


Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work that way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
"All lives matter too" is what the other side would say. The reaction is emotional, it's more than the marketing buzzword.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,860
6,106
335
Since you mention the huge death toll of black young people we also have another question to ask. Why are part of the 13% of the whole population responsible for 50% of the homicides in America. And my guess here is that it again has to do with poverty and the fact that poor areas usual have much more crime because these people have no future perspective. That is what we should do give young people in poor areas no matter what race they have a perspective for the future. In my opinion it would solve so many problems including the killing of black young people.

As for BLM it just does not work anymore just like Feminism. Identity politics which only concerned about one specific race, gender etc. Is outdated in my opinion. And while BLM had a strong beginning and certainly changed thing in America they have lost their purpose or direction IMO Instead now I see "members" getting angry at little kids wearing sweatshirt. They are getting angry at someone like Bret Weinstein. They get mad at white people wearing braids etc.

Also I do not think that murders of people should be sensationalized so much like in the US. I remember watching Ferguson riots and at some days I have seen more journalists than actual Protesters. It was surreal how this was treated and it was also done in such a sensationalist way that it also caused more angry reactions from sides of the Protesters and the police force.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
Since you mention the huge death toll of black young people we also have another question to ask. Why are part of the 13% of the whole population responsible for 50% of the homicides in America. And my guess here is that it again has to do with poverty and the fact that poor areas usual have much more crime because these people have no future perspective. That is what we should do give young people in poor areas no matter what race they have a perspective for the future. In my opinion it would solve so many problems including the killing of black young people.
We know this. We have blanket policy for this and lead on it. We just need to do a better job of including the right (such as target policies like Hillary's 31 billion to Appalachian geos), promoting better ideas, standing up to the elites, and facilitating people. The +1s/special interests address the cracks (that 31 billy, etc).

As for BLM it just does not work anymore just like Feminism. Identity politics which only concerned about one specific race, gender etc. Is outdated in my opinion. And while BLM had a strong beginning and certainly changed thing in America they have lost their purpose or direction IMO Instead now I see "members" getting angry at little kids wearing sweatshirt. They are getting angry at someone like Bret Weinstein. They get mad at white people wearing braids etc.
Trump/Sessions killed the momentum but BLM is diversifying itself. It was very usefull until it wasnt. Now it's trying to get people to vote democratic.

Also I do not think that murders of people should be sensationalized so much like in the US. I remember watching Ferguson riots and at some days I have seen more journalists than actual Protesters. It was surreal how this was treated and it was also done in such a sensationalist way that it also caused more angry reactions from sides of the Protesters and the police force.
This is your opinion, but to me we're not in the everythings peachy propaganda game. We must know.
 
Last edited:
Dec 6, 2008
6,634
335
815
TX
And while BLM had a strong beginning and certainly changed thing in America they have lost their purpose or direction IMO Instead now I see "members" getting angry at little kids wearing sweatshirt. They are getting angry at someone like Bret Weinstein. They get mad at white people wearing braids etc.
Do you think that all black people are a part of BLM?
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,860
6,106
335
Do you think that all black people are a part of BLM?
No of course not. Most people black or white just try to survive and live their life's. That is also a reason why I think it is a stupid thing to concentrate your politics on "minor" groups like BLM or Feminism. You lose way too many voter with this kind of politics.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
No of course not. Most people black or white just try to survive and live their life's. That is also a reason why I think it is a stupid thing to concentrate your politics on "minor" groups like BLM or Feminism. You lose way too many voter with this kind of politics.
You would also lose many extremely energetic voters if you didn't.

If you wanna win you get everyone. We gotta get better at how we do it.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,860
6,106
335
You would also lose many extremely energetic voters if you didn't.

If you wanna win you get everyone. We gotta get better at how we do it.
These so called energetic voters also will make your win everyone approach really difficult since they are the ones steering your campaign based on their opinion due to outrage with something they do not agree with. Based on importance of your topics and issues you want to tackle. And when you not do as they want you to you will lose them anyway.

Energetic voters are the last one you should strive for IMO.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
These so called energetic voters also will make your win everyone approach really difficult since they are the ones steering your campaign based on their opinion due to outrage with something they do not agree with.
Hence why we're focusing on encouraging them to play the game better.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
I don't know. I really shouldn't be surprised, but somehow I didn't think they would stoop that low.
I will say, to their credit, most of the ideologues here are at least somewhat willing to hold intelligent discussions at times. Unlike some other places. But the more we've gone in circles the worse it has gotten. There might be a whole lot more to discuss here.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,369
11,761
930
Australia
I read a pretty good analogy the other day about "all lives matter". Figured I'd share it to maybe add some perspective:


Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work that way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
I appreciate the analogy but the solution is to go to the kitchen and make yourself dinner. The fridge, pantry and stovetop are all there ready to go. Identity ideologues pretend the kitchen doesn’t exist.
 

Battlechili

Member
Jul 27, 2014
2,000
237
375
United States
It's not my job to police others. I have no control over whether the people who share my leftist ideologies are authoritarian or not, and to actively try to push people away sounds somewhat authoritarian in its own right.

All I can do is argue with others, and such is tiring when ones opponent makes little effort to do the same in some cases
 

Tumle

Member
Jul 12, 2014
797
163
315
Denmark
Dunki, I’m with you until you throw Socialist Sanders out there as a good candidate.
As Europeans, most of us liked sanders because his views where more in line with the political views here in Europe..
I know in America socialism = bad.. but that’s because after decades of propaganda, you somehow equate socialism with communism..
socialism paired with capitalism is the way to go.. if you care just a little about your fellow countrymen. It creates equal opertunity and does not lead to equal pay. It may redistribute some of the money via taxes from the super rich and the rich.. but don’t worry they will still have many millions and billions, that they don’t know what to do with :)
It just makes sure that everybody actually have a chance to get to have “the American dream” :)
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,369
11,761
930
Australia
As Europeans, most of us liked sanders because his views where more in line with the political views here in Europe..
I know in America socialism = bad.. but that’s because after decades of propaganda, you somehow equate socialism with communism..
socialism paired with capitalism is the way to go.. if you care just a little about your fellow countrymen. It creates equal opertunity and does not lead to equal pay. It may redistribute some of the money via taxes from the super rich and the rich.. but don’t worry they will still have many millions and billions, that they don’t know what to do with :)
It just makes sure that everybody actually have a chance to get to have “the American dream” :)
I'm not American.

The problem I had with Sanders was that he held many of the same boneheaded wealth redistribution ideas that history has shown time and again are not sustainable. I think his intentions were good, much like Old Major in Animal Farm, but failed to see the long term implications of his proposals.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,860
6,106
335
I'm not American.

The problem I had with Sanders was that he held many of the same boneheaded wealth redistribution ideas that history has shown time and again are not sustainable. I think his intentions were good, much like Old Major in Animal Farm, but failed to see the long term implications of his proposals.
Out of the three people I think Sanders was the best one to actually being able to change something in America. Yes he also had some stupid ideas but I also think Americans deserve a healthcare and welfare system like in Europe. Sanders is also the one who is the closest to European politicians in my opinion. Also he seemed to be the one who had the crowds until news media tried to denounce him because they also wanted to push Hilary which in my opinion was the worst of the three.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,369
11,761
930
Australia
Out of the three people I think Sanders was the best one to actually being able to change something in America. Yes he also had some stupid ideas but I also think Americans deserve a healthcare and welfare system like in Europe. Sanders is also the one who is the closest to European politicians in my opinion. Also he seemed to be the one who had the crowds until news media tried to denounce him because they also wanted to push Hilary which in my opinion was the worst of the three.
I didn't care for any of the three major candidates but I take your point. Are you sure that European politicians should be held up as some kind of gold standard though?
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,860
6,106
335
I didn't care for any of the three major candidates but I take your point. Are you sure that European politicians should be held up as some kind of gold standard though?
Maybe I should have said European ones of the past not the current ones because they are as incompetent as they were during Weimar. Right now Europe is more than fucked in terms of competent politicians IMO.
But as I said America should take notes in terms of healthcare and welfare IMO. That would really change something in this country for sure.
 
Last edited:

Tumle

Member
Jul 12, 2014
797
163
315
Denmark
Maybe I should have said European ones of the past not the current ones because they are as incompetent as they were during Weimar. Right now Europe is more than fucked in terms of competent politicians IMO.
But as I said America should take notes in terms of healthcare and welfare IMO. That would really change something in this country for sure.
Yea the politicians in power in today’s Europe are just as bad as the ones in the US..
they are mostly all career politicians, that sees being memebers of parlements as a stepping stone to get high power positions in the private sector, when there terms are up.. (genrelising a little)
But one thing is sure, they know it would be political suicide if they’d try to dismantled the welfare systems here.. every politician from left to right has no problem with these systems..
 
Last edited:

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
5,700
1,154
1,200
This is a brilliant point you're making - I'm wondering though about the intent of those names in the first place. There's a theme here, and each of these is charged with blame - for a worthwhile purpose, I'd say. It's clear that by adopting these names that there's a deliberate emotional impact the creators are attempting to cultivate. Do you think it loses any of the impact to adjust for marketability's sake? Or is compromise just what it's going to take to make things palatable to the audience at large?
I'm sorry I did not see that you had responded to me.

As I had said in another post, I understand the intent of these movements and for the most part I agree. Its a tricky line to want to stand up for fellow citizens rights, while not insulting those who can actually make change happen.

A perfect example of this is when BLM started blocking roads and expressways. In an old thread here (hell this debate was held nationally)you have a few people state that by doing so it puts the movement in a negative light, and could hurt the movement and a bunch of folks went loopy and stated that was the point to get people to take notice and be inconvenienced and to bad if they were.

This completely and utterly defeats the purpose of having a movement you want people to support. Who cares if you make some perfect pristine point while being the most holiest and purest being on the planet if no one else cares? If you have no support because you have alienated all those you need to support you, you've already lost.

There is a reason they are called "minority groups". They need the majority to fix/correct/support/notice to get anything done. Compromise seems to be a dirty word these days but lest we forget its how the United States entire political system is supposed to work and its how things get done. Those on the far left and even some moderates have utterly and completely lost the plot. Your messaging sucks. No one cares and you've pissed everyone off that can help. Its the reason Trump won. Both the House and Senate are Republican, and 33 state goveners are Republican and only 16 are democrat(1 independent)

"You catch more flies with honey" if you have to compromise then do it, or remain pure and irrelevant.
 

TheFarter

Neo Member
Oct 21, 2017
49
39
110
Checked about a months worth of your posts.

Almost all of it is one line or one sentence at most in some sort of drive by fashion.

Barely any attempts at making or furthering discussion.

The latest one was just a "she's hot!" post in the "stormy daniels sues Trump" thread, where you were warned for the latest empty, barely topic related post in a thread because it was unrelated.

After receiving a warning for making posts that dont serve the topics they're in, your next post in that thread was to claim that you were warned for being sexist "lololol".

So after a lot of consistent shit(ty)posting, followed by claiming mods warned you about a thing they didnt warn you about, ignoring the actual warning and further deciding to pointlessly make the discussion about you wanting to discuss sex appeal, you got a ban for three days.

Little different than the picture you painted of getting freakishly insta banned for simply making a few "non group think" posts or being called sexist when you were literally ignored by everyone except for the mod warning you to try to make non shitpost/on-topic posts.
Yes, I understand. "Drive by" post, or "shit post" are only welcomed if it's apart of the group thinking. Example. "Trump just woke up" "Fuck him!" "Orange turd!" "He sucks dicks" etc. Nobody has a problem with those one liners. Have someone make a thread that they're having a bad year and then ask the site if anyone else is having a bad year, as I post a "No bad year here. Great one so far" Is not welcomed. Because people want company with the misery.

Again. I understand. ;) Have a good one fellas. Nice day today.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,520
6,013
475
It looks like the Guardian totally lost the plot at some point
What the... I... no... just, no. I mean had the author focused on Milo I could actually see his point, because he was pretty much riding the outrage money-train. But Christina Hoff Sommers, Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Lindsay Shepherd? Hoff Sommers has been criticizing radical Feminism since the late 80's and is a registered Democrat. Bret Weinstein never wanted to leave his position in the first place, but was violently hounded out and we all know Peterson's story. And it's really not like Shepherd asked for the far-left academic inquisition to come down on her.

If merely speaking your mind is enough to conjure an aggressive mob of hysterical radical leftists, then it's really no wonder that the right is taking advantage of this. Literally everybody who doesn't toe the line a 100% is considered a nazi/fascist/bigot, essentially alienating more and more of their sympathizers. As if the never-ending stream of video footage coming out of college campuses weren't enough to show how unhinged the far left has become. All the right has to do is sit back, relax and welcome the steady stream of members that these idiots are driving into their arms.

It is truly amazing how that author can have his head so far up his own rear. What's next? Are they going to accuse the right of staging the protests and paying off the far-left ideologues? How anyone can be so blind to what is happening, I don't get it... Guardian, puhlease, get your shit together!

 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,369
11,761
930
Australia
What the... I... no... just, no. I mean had the author focused on Milo I could actually see his point, because he was pretty much riding the outrage money-train. But Christina Hoff Sommers, Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Lindsay Shepherd? Hoff Sommers has been criticizing radical Feminism since the late 80's and is a registered Democrat. Bret Weinstein never wanted to leave his position in the first place, but was violently hounded out and we all know Peterson's story. And it's really not like Shepherd asked for the far-left academic inquisition to come down on her.

If merely speaking your mind is enough to conjure an aggressive mob of hysterical radical leftists, then it's really no wonder that the right is taking advantage of this. Literally everybody who doesn't toe the line a 100% is considered a nazi/fascist/bigot, essentially alienating more and more of their sympathizers. As if the never-ending stream of video footage coming out of college campuses weren't enough to show how unhinged the far left has become. All the right has to do is sit back, relax and welcome the steady stream of members that these idiots are driving into their arms.

It is truly amazing how that author can have his head so far up his own rear. What's next? Are they going to accuse the right of staging the protests and paying off the far-left ideologues? How anyone can be so blind to what is happening, I don't get it... Guardian, puhlease, get your shit together!

Bret Weinstein’s sarcastic wit really resonates with me. I like this guy.
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
632
404
365
No she basically says she does not care. Also this whole thing goes further




And while #metoo was great you should not blindly believe everything people say. Best example for #metoo Was Aziz Ansari
Listen yes believe everything without reservations and then jump on the accused person and basically lynching them NO.

Also again switch the race here and lets see if you can say it even in a sarcastic way without losing your verrified status or even your account if you have a ot of followers.

Here is another one which goes also further that they suggest some sort of Hunger Games for Men and best if no one would survive except the ones they like.


Tribalism is stupid, whether it’s coming from the left or from the right (one of the things that I do agree with Jordan Peterson on).

Those tweets are stupid and the people that posted them are idiots that don’t represent most feminists or most of the left.

Undermining femanism itself based on the statements of a couple of idiots that espouse so called femanistic views on twitters (as in the quote) seems silly.

Plenty of liberals support femanism as it deals with equality between genders and no liberal would be okay with the idiocy espoused by these twits on twitters that so many here are propping up as representative of the lefts viewpoints.


So can we move past finding the most authoritarian and ridiculous tweets on either side and holding them up as representative of either the right or the left? Almost no one on the left would agree with those tweets.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,860
6,106
335
Tribalism is stupid, whether it’s coming from the left or from the right (one of the things that I do agree with Jordan Peterson on).

Those tweets are stupid and the people that posted them are idiots that don’t represent most feminists or most of the left.

Undermining femanism itself based on the statements of a couple of idiots that espouse so called femanistic views on twitters (as in the quote) seems silly.

Plenty of liberals support femanism as it deals with equality between genders and no liberal would be okay with the idiocy espoused by these twits on twitters that so many here are propping up as representative of the lefts viewpoints.


So can we move past finding the most authoritarian and ridiculous tweets on either side and holding them up as representative of either the right or the left? Almost no one on the left would agree with those tweets.
When this ideology openly declares Linda Sarasour who is not a anti semitic piece of shit, who openly supports Sharia law and uses IS Symbolic during her speeches, as the leader of a Nationwide Women's march then you really can not say this anymore.

Also Last time I bought examples of another highly classed feminist "leader" who wanted to have Hunger Games for mostly white males to sort out the good from the bad. And yes these people would defend such opinions as long it hits the people they hate or disagree with.
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
632
404
365
When this ideology openly declares Linda Sarasour who is not a anti semitic piece of shit, who openly supports Sharia law and uses IS Symbolic during her speeches, as the leader of a Nationwide Women's march then you really can not say this anymore.

Also Last time I bought examples of another highly classed feminist "leader" who wanted to have Hunger Games for mostly white males to sort out the good from the bad. And yes these people would defend such opinions as long it hits the people they hate or disagree with.
I agree with you completely that there is no way anyone holding these views should have been accepted as the leader of any movement.

But let’s not attribute to malice what could easily be attributed to ignorance.

I guarentee that the vast majority of people who marched in these protests had no idea that one of their so called leaders held these views.

Were these tweets of hers ever publicized before the March, or were they lost among the hundreds of billions of tweets on Twitter that the vast majority of people were ignorant of? I am guessing it wasn’t until after the March that people reported on these idiotic tweets.

And I would also guess that even today, most of the people that participated in the Women’s March hadn’t ever even heard of this woman, much less her ridiculous views.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,860
6,106
335
I agree with you completely that there is no way anyone holding these views should have been accepted as the leader of any movement.

But let’s not attribute to malice what could easily be attributed to ignorance.

I guarentee that the vast majority of people who marched in these protests had no idea that one of their so called leaders held these views.

Were these tweets of hers ever publicized before the March, or were they lost among the hundreds of billions of tweets on Twitter that the vast majority of people were ignorant of? I am guessing it wasn’t until after the March that people reported on these idiotic tweets.

And I would also guess that even today, most of the people that participated in the Women’s March hadn’t ever even heard of this woman, much less her ridiculous views.
Oh of course not but this women's march in the end was also no feminism movement. And these tweets existed already since 2013 but no one cared at all. And I do not blame women I blame the feminist leaders who stigmatize this once great movement with their bullcrap.

Again Feminism is great modern Feminism is not. Sadly these people hijacked this movement like they also did with #metoo
 
Last edited:

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215
Yes, I understand. "Drive by" post, or "shit post" are only welcomed if it's apart of the group thinking. Example. "Trump just woke up" "Fuck him!" "Orange turd!" "He sucks dicks" etc. Nobody has a problem with those one liners. Have someone make a thread that they're having a bad year and then ask the site if anyone else is having a bad year, as I post a "No bad year here. Great one so far" Is not welcomed. Because people want company with the misery.

Again. I understand. ;) Have a good one fellas. Nice day today.
Has this post somehow come from months ago? Read the site a bit if not. There are no over 9,000 page long threads with hundreds of the exact same reply anymore. Also with the example given you could expand on your great year post by saying because of X, X and X. Does your experience give you any knowledge or experience you could also share that could benefit others? It's not particularly hard to ensure posts aren't just 2 - 5 words long.

Your example post and every hypothetical Trump related post you gave there should all not be welcomed IMO as they add absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,003
750
895
USA
I just wish this whole debate wasn't couched the way it is. If the whole talk from BLM and Antifa and the rest were truthful with their intent, institution of a communist state, it would still be rejected by Americans. I really believe that is what all of this talk is about, how we should structure society. If we can't be honest with our goals, it will breed distrust now matter how one argues the finer points of getting there.
 

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215
Socialism and Communism are different and I doubt BLM want a communist state.

Antifa are just nutters and are seen that way in the EU. Nazi is their biggest insult but they have a lot in common with the NSDAP platform and methods. o_O
 
Last edited:

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,003
750
895
USA
Almost every time a grievance group speaks about their specific problem with western society it follows with a dig at capitalism and how it is the root of the problem. Socialism and Communism may have their differences, but they still require a large central government to regulate things.

I am a firm believer in the negative rights granted in the constitution. Government should be localized and as small as possible.
 

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215
American vulture capitalism and empathy free treatment of even your own population (never mind the rest of the world) is genuinely the root of most problems.

Your government spends more on health care per citizen than states with a national health service do. How does spending more and requiring more government reduce government size?

Do you think the obsession with the constitution is partially due to the fact that certain inalieable rights that exist in an even remotely just society would be stripped in a heartbeat without that document? It's something i've always wondered about. It strikes me like if the British constantly mentioned the magna carta in every discussion.

I mean, yes, a large government IS required to regulate and control the worst instincts of man. Why is that a problem if we do not rely on the constitution to explain?

Western politics and politics worldwide is currently dominated by special interest groups. IMO all parties should receive a fixed sum from the state to run an election and taking money from any third party should see you banned from public office & jailed. Politicians would actually work in the best interests of the people.

With or without that change, why would multinationals better respect and look after your rights and welfare?
 
Last edited:

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,003
750
895
USA
I think that those inalienable rights are being stripped now WITH the document, and all in the name of security. Read the constitution and see that it limits the reach of government, nowhere does it limit individual liberty.

In my hometown, there was a law passed over fifty years ago that banned dancing in public after a certain curfew. We were a small riverboat town that was a port of sorts for the traffic that passed up and down a major waterway. On weekends, the bars in town would host popular musicians and there was a major brawl in the town square; not unlike something out of a western movie. The fighting was so bad, the town got a reputation as "The City of Action". The dancing ban was designed by the local government to curtail the mayhem. It was effective. Eventually, the river was dammed and there was no longer any traffic or bars or musicians or barfights. The law became an unnecessary thing, but was still kept on the books.

Flash forward to the early 90s. A bar attempts to open up and wants to get the dancing ban lifted. This got national attention. I remember the news show clip referring to the bar owners as Kevin Bacon in "Footloose" and the town as the evil town fathers. No context. No both sides. Just mockery. At the time, I was writing for the local paper. I thought one good turn deserves another, so I started mocking the bar owners. They found me and, although I can't prove it, they slashed my car tires. I believe the law has since been removed.

I don't think my little story would have been possible if the Federal Government had banned dancing.

I'll address "healthcare" now, since I have to leave for work soon. The whole affordable healthcare debate could be ended tomorrow if doctors were allowed to compete on the open market for business. In my current job, we have to either lower our prices or justify them to potential customers in order to procure new business. Somehow it's beneath a doctor's dignity to do the same.
 

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215
I'm not sure I understand the dancing stuff. You're saying without the constitution the government would ban all dancing? Or that with smaller government they would not be able to appeal the dancing ban and your tires never would have been slashed? Sorry if I'm being slow but struggling with what point you're making.

What about the pharmaceutical companies and the renewable patent stuff - how much lower could prices be when drugs are so expensive? Even if prices were cheaper, some would not be able to afford them. Why are so many Americans morally against helping those in need? If one day you are in need and cannot afford healthcare, you would want someone to help you. Is it because for 80 years the idea of helping others has been linked to communism?

"Open competition" in things like the British energy sector has not led to a vibrant market, it's led to a cartel. The public is massively in favour of nationalisation.

How are Doctors prices restricted now? Have Doctors indicated they would like to make less money? If there are restrictions it most likely keeps prices down, not up. I didn't realise there were any restrictions though so I'd be happy to be elightened.

Rights are being stripped I agree - the constitution isn't what is needed to protect this though, it's a just society and a government that works for the people not multinationals and special interests.
 

bigedole

Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,348
1,504
340
Austin, TX
You're really misguided ar0s. Britains do not have "open competition" in teh energy sector, they have crony capitalism where regulations are used to artificially raise barriers to entry and the government passes laws that make it extremely difficult for anyone to compete. Pharmaceutical companies have done the same thing in the US. Whose fault do you think it is drugs are so expensive? The FDAs! The government! Not capitalism. It's so common over the last 10 years or so for people to point at things going on and blame capitalism and say the government should take over, when the fault of what's happening is squarely on the backs of the regulation the government has passed to corrupt the free market.

You tell me how free markets have failed and I'll tell you what a government did to cause that to happen.

EDIT: If you want to fight crony capitalism, the very first thing that needs to happen is the removal of all systems that enable lobbying. Government employees should have a salary, period. It should be illegal to accept any other perks, contributions to their campaign or anything that provides a quantifiable financial benefit. That is the number one source of problems in our country. Not racism, not wealth inequality, not corrupt police. It's lobbying, plain and simple.
 
Last edited: