/baw/ - General Discussion

Last thread: >>401860

>>402578
I think it comes from Christianity and Buddhism. In the former, "the world is ending SOON... ish, so you better give away all your stuff cause you will be given it all back in Heaven". In the latter, "material world is evil and wrong, including this planet, your body, and all your possessions".

Mad philosophies, if you ask me.

//youtube.com/watch?v=-yzGA_glnkM

WTF?

>>402578
>exclusive possession of valuable things by a small group by means of violence
IDK where you got that definition, it's not the alternate definition in my paper dictionaries or on the net ones.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wealth

>>402580

The anti-materialism is a bit daft, as are the apocalyptic predictions (still waiting, Jesus. Any time would be great) but, socially-speaking, discouraging greed is an important function of religion, as is "discouraging murder".

>>402582

White liberal feminism is dumb, what else is new.


>>402583

"Property" would be more apt for that definition. But yeah, I was trying to re-work a visual metaphor from a shitty political cartoon; not the best medium for precision or subtlety.

Threadly reminder that Gamergate is not the worst thing ever, or terrorism.

>>402584
>I'm a racist, what else is new.

FTFYTBH

>>402591
Tora dora is white lmao

you easily triggered moron

>>402592
Put your trip back on.

>>402593
As soon as tora tells me what it is, I will

>>402594
Nice inconsistencies.

>>402594

White.

"White feminism" isn't a racist term, genius. It means the class and race blind feminism espoused by many white (middle and upper class) feminists. It's the feminism that complains of the wage gap without mentioning that black men earn less than white women. It's the feminism that praises the suffragettes without acknowledging their strident racism (and how many openly stated that giving white women the vote would preserve white supremacy). It's the feminism that thinks pink breast cancer awareness handcuffs and women with bejeweled headphones launching drone strikes at the orders of the first female president is "progress". In short, feminism focused on minor annoyances (Emma Watson's cringetastic "bossy" speech) and feel-good moments.

>http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/flint-police-apologize-handcuffing-7-year-old-student-n455796

>http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/03/7-year-old-handcuffed-school-dnt.weyi/video/playlists/stories-that-shock/


Also, AGAIN, black school children treated as criminals, disciplinary and mental health issues treated as criminal offenses.

YESSSSS FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT!
//youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA

>>402596
>by many white (middle and upper class) feminists
>despite making the majority of poor people in america, there are no poor whites
But that's besides the point because most feminism comes from privilege regardless of color. Poor black people can't afford to travel around the world giving feminist speeches, they're too busy working their ass off for their next meal, so it's usually the rich black people that do it.

>>402598
Students have started clicking their fingers instead of applauding because applauding is triggering. University has been ruined by SJWs and now it's a completely worthless institution.

I really don't know why people keep attending.

>>402582
thanks, feminism.

>>402599
yawn

>>402596
Good post.

>>402601
This is a progressive safe space, please take your caveman displays of aggression somewhere else.

>>402606
Stop oppressing his culture.

>>402606
>>402607
I know you're just having fun, but remember: pretending to be retarded eventually attracts real retards.

>>402599

As far as I can tell, the rise of finger-snapping as applause during speeches is because it's less disruptive than clapping, nothing to do with triggers.

>>402609
Shh, you'll ruin the grumpy old man circlejerk.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html
>Europe's worst security nightmare appears to be coming true: At least one of the terrorists who attacked civilians in Paris on Friday entered the European Union hidden among the wave of refugees arriving on European shores.
Oh for fuck's sake. This is the worst case scenario, those assholes are basically feeding the FN so they can take advantage of the almost literal neo-Nazism to make it even easier to radicalize the vulnerable.

>>402618

Yeah, it’s a clear plan to make people hate refugees/Muslims so they’ll be shunned and pushed right into the arms of terrorists willing to take the shunned…and make them terrorists. They’ve even said as much.

>>402619
>>402618
More recent news from Europe indicates the perpetrators were European citizens. The Syrian passports were fake. In other words, a false fucking flag. Not that the right wing won't still be infernally stupid enough to eat it all up and play right into the Daesh's hands.

>saw a post by someone on my dash threatening to block anyone who reblogs stuff about the France bombing because it makes you an arbiter of white privilege

Well good, it's not like I would've wanted assholes like you following me anyway. There's a right way and a wrong way to bringing attention to things you don't think are getting enough attention because of double standards, but here's a hint: putting people down for feeling justifiably sad about something that was objectively awful is not how to do it. Empathy is not a fucking zero sum game. You can and should care about all of these things.

And before people complain about durrr libruhls it probably has more to do with the fact that they come from a part of South America where there aren't that many "proper" white people. Still doesn't justify their statement from a philosophical standpoint though.

>>402629
Forget it, now I'm seeing people on Tumblr respond to the news that France held airstrikes against by saying they deserved to get blown up for their actions in Syria and they hope more attacks happen if they continue to stay involved. What. The. Fuck.

Can't you get arrested for saying that shit? Promotion of violence or something?

>>402631
I think people of all beliefs need to realize the government of a country =/= the people who live in it.

>>402632
Ditto for both Russia and USA.

>>402633
>>402632

All this. Recognizing the role Western policy has played in the creation of Daesh/ISIL is good and proper; they, like Al-Qaeda and the Iranian Republic, exist because of Western policy decisions. But that doesn't mean that the civilians in Paris deserved to be murdered, any more than the people of NYC deserved murder fourteen years ago for U.S. foreign policy.

>>402634
Iran exists because of the Pahlavi regime's internal policies as much as any Western support for said regime. And in fact the primary "Western" backer Iran enjoyed at the time wasn't even the US or the UK who helped bring down Mossedegh, but Israel, who helped the Shah organize crackdowns.

>>402636


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

And why was Pahlavi in power? The UK and US (and the Russians). It all comes back to imperialism.

A man got arrested in Toronto for criticizing the attacks in France.
//youtube.com/watch?v=5TJYMvTTsSk
The excuse for six squad cars rushing to arrest this guy is "racism" but in the vid you can see he didn't say anything racist, and in fact got assaulted twice by Muslims.

>>402618
>>402619
>>402628
The Syrian passports were real, several terrorists have been confirmed by Greek authorities to have passed through Greece as migrants.

By the way your reaction is pre-programmed and not based on any rationality. These are the positions of even the worst nationalist in Europe:
Building infrastructure for new migrants before they arrive IS A GOOD IDEA
Allowing millions of migrants to enter without any basic infrastructure so they can all die of cholera IS IDIOTIC
Restricting immigration to educated people with work visas MAKES SENSE
Removing all restrictions so felons and terrorists can enter DOES NOT
Buffing German workforce with unemployed people in Schengen who already know German MAKES SENSE
Buffing German workforce with people who don't know how to read or do basic math IS RETARDED
It's a good test of whether someone is rational if they disagree or agree with this, and a good litmus test for people driven by agenda and biases.

>>402637
>It all comes back to imperialism.
>Iran and Saudis funding chechens, bosnians, albanians, multiple terrorist attacks across the world is not imperialism
It's frankly stunning that you don't consider what Muslim nations are doing right the fuck now to be imperialism. Islam is inherently imperialistic, it has been since Mohammed, read a fucking book.

>>402639

The west doesn't have a monopoly on imperialism and hegemony, but its the best at it. The Saudis and Iranians have nothing on the US, Britain, and their NATO patsies in global meddling. Compare the military budgets of Iran and Saudi Arabia (or hell, of every Muslim-majority nation combined) against the military budget of the US. Which is larger? Which nation has the most overseas military bases? Which nation has invaded more nations? Worrying about Islamic imperialism over American imperialism is like worrying about ebola over the flu; one is visibly horrific but kills comparatively few people, mostly in certain regions, and is only discussed when it affects westerners, while the other kills thousands yearly but those deaths are never given media attention because they're routine.

And, again, the situation comes back to Western Imperialism. Iran would not be ruled by a bunch of bearded reactionaries if Britain, the US, and the Soviets hadn't invaded (to "secure a supply route"), installed Pahlavi Jr., then orchestrated a coup when the democratically-elected government of Iran tried to hold British oil companies to account, and then let Ayatollah Khomenei leave the UK for Iran. The Arabian Peninsula wouldn't be ruled by the House of Saud, which funds Wahhabist theology and terrorism with petrodollars, if the British hadn't buddied up to them so they'd have a strongman in their pocket controlling the oil fields.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G6TCMCS?keywords=britain%20and%20the%20saudis&qid=1447698588&ref_=sr_1_4&sr=8-4
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0714632201?keywords=britain%20and%20the%20saudis&qid=1447698588&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
f

>x religion is inherently y

A religion is whatever it's adherents make it. Christianity can be pacifist (Quakers, Amish) or it can be violent and militaristic (the Crusades, modern apocalyptic evangelicals). It can be apolitical and anti-nationalism (Jehovah's Witnesses) or hyper-nationalistic (Catholicism Fascist Spain, the Anglican Church during the Empire, and, again, conservative Evangelicals).

While Muhammed is definitely a less pleasant character than Christ or the Buddha, the beliefs and customs the religion he founded are practiced by millions of decent human beings and incorporated in humane ideologies as readily as the teachings of the other great religions.

Ottoman Turkey was multiethnic and had a religious plurality which it took into account as part of its normal governance. It was certainly guilty of genocide, but not by any particularly unusual manner by the standards of any empire, and the reason was pretty typical for empires too, fear of fifth columnists (legitimate fears in the Ottoman experience, not that that justifies anything, but it's worth noting). In fact compared to the company the Ottomans found themselves in (France, Russia, Britain, Austria, Germany), the only ones with less of a rapsheet were the Germans, and that's just because they'd just started existing after the Franco-Prussian war. Everyone else, Ottomans included, spent the entire modern era piling corpses to the sky, but all told the Ottomans piled the least.

Having said all that, while you can certainly trace the causes of the situation in the ME back to Western Imperialism trumping Eastern Imperialism insofar as there is no longer a single, strong polity policing the East, you can't just heap all of the blame on Fucking White People and call it a day. That makes you as dangerous as saying every Muslim is a Jihadi warrior and oversimplifies an extremely complex situation. Did those people in Paris create Salafism? Did Obama crown a Caliph who lacks both the proper bloodlines and the approval of the Ulema?

>>402641

Jesus, man. Really? "Take up ye white man's burden?" "Missione civilatrice"? Western imperialism has never been about "lifting up" other nations. It's always been about control and power. Ask anyone in India, where millions starved while grain surpluses were shipped out the country (or hell, anyone in Ireland, where the same happened during the Potato Famine). Human Rights? Have you heard of the Belgian Congo? The Stolen Generations in Australia? LGBT rights? What about the buggery laws imposed by Britain from Jamaica to Zimbabwe to Hong Kong? The British declaring Hijra a criminal sect? Generally saying "fuck that" to every culture that in some way tolerated LGBT people in any form?

>Viet Cong
>Taliban

Asymmetric warfare vs conventional militaries, dude. The fact that the Roman's couldn't handle the Picts and Germans doesn't mean they weren't one of the most powerful empires in history. If they wanted to, they could have reduced Germania to a wasteland, just as the US could have wiped Vietnam off the face of the earth. But an irradiated desert doesn't have much economic value, and corpses can't pay tribute/taxes or buy/make you products.

Besides, the point was American Empire > Iranian/Saudi regional influence. They just fund Shiite/Sunni groups, mostly in the Mideast. We fund and arm everyone--commies, fascists, muslims, Catholics, drug lords--as long as we think they're beneficial to us, then turn around, declare them terrorists, and fund/arm whoever is fighting them.

>No they would be ruled by Ottoman Turkey

Seriously, bro, read the history of the region. Wahhab was a puritan Muslim, seeking to restore Islam to its supposed original purity. In his extreme formulation, Sufis, Shiites, pretty much any Muslim without a telephone pole sized stick up their ass was an apostate. Papa Saud liked this ideology, since it meant the rules of Islamic war didn't apply and he could just steal all the shit from his neighboring tribes since they weren't proper Muslim. Britain wanted a strongman in control of the whole peninsula so they could be guaranteed King Saud was happy to oblige.

>You're going to blame the west for creating that one too!

Gee! It's almost like invading and bombing nations tends to produce some sort of reactionary movement or something.,.

Tora you should really stop apologizing for Islamic Extremism.

Like, yes, the West is responsible for a lot of shit but you are essentially saying that modern civilians deserve to be murdered by jihadis for the crimes of their forbearers decades or even centuries beforehand.

You're also grading historical figures by modern standards which is a pointless exercise at best.

>>402648
>>402647

At no point did I say that modern civilians deserve to be killed by terrorists. People are not responsible for the actions of their governments or past generations. I'm saying that these terrorist movements and extremist governments in the Third World do not exist in a vacuum, but because of Western policy. Until we address that, we're going to keep repeating the cycle of imperialism, violent reaction justified by that imperialism, and further imperialism justified by the violent reaction, with the far right calling for outright crusades and genocide and the left saying "no, no, that's racist, these are totally random events, we just need kinder, gentler capitalism and to expand the all-seeing security state." The the proper response is not "bomb the savages back to the Stone Age" but acknowledge this as a horrific crime and stand in solidarity with the people of France, as well Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Kurdistan, who suffer the aggressions of Daesh, Assad, Russia, Turkey, and NATO daily. The proper response is to reject the reactionary nationalism and xenophobia Western governments cynically try to bolster with these tragedies to justify further militarism and surveillance. Both Daesh and the Imperial powers want such a reaction; Daesh because increased Islamophobia, xenophobia, and military intervention by the West will only drive more people to them, and the West because they can use it an excuse for further profiteering and hegemony.

Look at what stocks climbed after the weekend:

http://news.investors.com/investing-the-income-investor/111615-781018-defense-stocks-post-strong-dividend-stock-price-growth.htm

>>402649
OK look, much like /pol/-kun's rants your anti-establishment nonsense can be cute sometimes but for all your talk of solidarity you don't actually seem to suggest any actual solutions. And make no mistake, killing Salafists, and spending Allied soldiers to do it, is a required part of any solution, so if you actually do care about the citizens in Iraq and Syria, you shouldn't also be against military intervention (at least, so long as it is tied into rebuilding efforts in liberates territories).

>>402650

>>402650

If I knew that there was absolutely zero pecuniary or geopolitical interest on the part of the Western powers involved, that they were acting purely out of genuine humanitarian concern for the people brutalized by Daesh and Assad, then yes, I'd be all for Western intervention to remove them both. As it is, I know that it'll be another blood invasion that will offer a brief reprieve from their terror, followed by more sectarian bloodletting, and then one or more awful regimes back by Iran/the Saudis/the Russians/the US will take their place, and the cycle would start all over again.

Practically speaking, the best solution would be work out with all parties involved (sans the Islamists) a four-way partition of Iraq and Syria into Alawite, Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab and Kurdish states, and an alliance to defeat Daesh. But the Turks and Persians will never go for a Kurdistan, Iran et al will never go for a unified pan-Sunnistan, the Western powers and the Gulf Sunnis insist on Assad's removal while the Russians and Iran want him to stay in power, etc. So whatever happens will be a clusterfuck, lots of innocent people will get killed, and even if the Western "good guys" win, they'll just pull out in a few years, everything will go to hell again, and the only people benefitting will be a few leaders who'll get to claim they "defeated ISIS" (which, like Al-Qaeda before it, will linger on and metasticize in other groups) and the military contractors.

The ultimate solution is an end to imperialism, but that's not going to happen because capitalism demands it.

>>402653
Man you are so depressing because you are a clearly well read individual but then you always ruin your salient points by dropping in outmoded Communist rhetoric in at the end.

>>402665
A: /pol/-kun, don't pretend you care about the lives and religious conversions of Early Medieval peasants.
B: That's really less to do with Islam and more to do with the interactions between nomadic societies and settled ones. The Arabian peninsula was undergoing a population boom at the time, emigration and pressure on the settled societies was as inevitable, Islam just provided a unifying power for them to push out in force.

>>402673
A: muslims blew up europeans
B: they have the right to kill filthy europeans because all problems ever can be traced to white imperialism! dont blame poor muslims! it's out of their control, their fingers are literally pushing bomb buttons against their will!

A: actually islamic imperialism struck first
B: they have the right to invade and engage in imperialism because population pressure! dont blame poor muslims! it's out of their control, their arms are literally swinging swords against their will!

This is interesting. I wonder why a few posts ago you apologists didn't blame European imperialism on population growth as well... Instead you blame it on some inherent genetic flaw of white people and claim Europeans should be blown up because of their evil white blood. I guess only Muslims get a pass for blowing up people and engaging in imperialism because they're just brown enough to slip under your fucking radar.

>>402677
>Instead you blame it on some inherent genetic flaw of white people and claim Europeans should be blown up because of their evil white blood
I am not Tora, I'm not some selfhating white person. I also don't hold grudges from over a thousand years ago so the actions of the Rashidun are not relevant to me.

As for Jihadis: Again, I am not Tora, I don't make excuses for terrorists. What I am saying is not an excuse for Jihadis, but an explanation for their existence. They arose from the ashes of the destroyed authority of the Ottoman empire and the minority ruled, Western backed states that replaced it. Does that make it the Parisian citizen's fault? Of course not. But nor is it the fault of the average Syrian. Nobody deserves the Daesh.

>>402677

So, /pol/-kun, if 18th and 19th century European colonialism was *totaly just* a reaction to Islamic expansion (which had been stopped at the Siege of Vienna, 1521, and the Battle of Lepanto, 1571, and reversed in the subsequent Happsburg-Ottoman wars), then why'd the Europeans and Americans colonize non-Muslim countries? If it was purely reactive why did colonialism start in the Americas? Why, when Europe was colonizing African nation's which had neither invaded Europe in the Middle Ages not were majority-Muslim, was the Ottoman Empire, already the "sick man if Europe" for over a century, and the defunct medieval regimes such as the Mamluks of Egypt, to blame?

>>402655

No commie, but decidedly anticapitalist and definitely socialist at this point. If you have an idea for ending the exploitation of the third world for labor and resources and the destruction of the environment while leaving a system of profit for profit's sake in place, I'd be glad to hear it.

>>402679
>No commie, but decidedly anticapitalist and definitely socialist at this point. If you have an idea for ending the exploitation of the third world for labor and resources and the destruction of the environment while leaving a system of profit for profit's sake in place, I'd be glad to hear it.
No such system exists. Socialism only functions properly in the form of programs within a larger capitalist system. Not being a 19th century industrialist I obviously don't support laissez faire, whole hog capitalism but the fact that any large, organized society demands both stratification and work incentives in order to function properly. There will always be disparate classes once your group size tops about a hundred people, and if people don't have the threat of consequences like job loss then we just get the USSR in the 70s.

>>402677
Tora Dora is a hypocrite oikophobe, pure and simple. He finds fault only with his own people because he thinks that makes him the cool underdog.

>>402679
>why'd the Europeans and Americans colonize non-Muslim countries?
Like he said population pressure. Europeans couldn't help it, it was completely out of their control. :^)

>>402680

>No such system exists.

And I'm sure in feudal Europe liberal democracy and market capitalism was as inconceivable.

>Socialism only functions properly in the form of programs within a larger capitalist system.

Define "socialism". In its modern usage it means everything from "minimum wages and food stamps" to "Nordic social democracy" to "authoritarian state capitalism as practiced by the Soviets and Chinese" to "direct worker ownership and management of industry as seen in the Ukrainian Free Territory and Revolutionary Catalonia." The latter is what I'm thinking of when I use the term.

>any large, organized society demands both stratification

In industry and regional management, maybe, but not necessarily economic.

>work incentives

People will do lots of things for free if they find it engaging. Look at those people who recreate real cities in astounding detail in minecraft. "Work or starve" gets people to show up every day to jobs they hate, but it doesn't make them happy or as productive as they could be.

>There will always be disparate classes once your group size tops about a hundred people

Entirely a societal choice. Does Warren Buffet deserve $1.4 million an hour? Does he do thousands of times the labor of the minimum wage worker, or generate, daily, ideas of that value? Its purely a function of our society's priorities that people can starve and die from a lack of basic medical care (or go into debt paying for said care) while some people own more wealth than they can even spend.


>if people don't have the threat of consequences like job loss then we just get the USSR in the 70s.

The example of Dauphin, Manitoba, and it's Mincome experiment suggest otherwise. Few people will choose to do nothing but get high and play video games all day if the threat of homelessness and starvation is removed. People are social, and people do typically feel the need to "make something" of themselves.

And I'd counter that capitalism poses a greater threat than "people not working". Environmentally, short-term gain at any cost is imperiling lives and industry itself. Technologically, AI and automation threaten to erase good chunks of the current workforce, and the new jobs that will be created won't be sufficient to absorb the mass of newly-unemployed, let alone future workers. The elimination of the dangerous, dirty, and repetitive (as well as some higher-level jobs complex AI could replace, like accountants and *gulp* lawyers) would be great if the savings in labor cost translated to cheaper things and shared prosperity, but they won't. The already wealthy will be the ones able to afford automation, further concentrating power as they squeeze out their smaller, non-automated competitors, and most of the savings will go to profits and dividends, all while unemployment rises and more and more people fight for fewer jobs. Either the people will be placated with a guaranteed minimal income, housing, education and medical care funded by taxes of the capitalist class, or they'll be really fucking pissed and want to smash shit.

Capitalism is going to self-destruct, its just a question of whether its a deliberate, managed transition to another system or a chaotic and messy one brought about by a crisis of climate change, peak fossil fuels, social unrest, or all the above.

>>402682
So you're not a Marxist, you just believe everything a Marxist believes and also are a Luddite. You fall into all the typical stupid Marxist traps, like citing shitty little communes an example of how states with millions of people can TOTALLY run themselves as socialist paradises!

You're no better than racists like /pol/. In fact you're worse, because you're utopian decisions give some poor bastards false hopes.

Socialist policies can exist within the framework of capitalist democracies, see the Nords (though realistically few countries of significant size could really do something QUITE as insane as the Nordic countries), and those are really the only states that could ever accumulate that level of wealth. And they SHOULD exist, because you can't just let everyone drown in blood, but you can't realistically back, or expect others to back, mass wealth redistribution.

>>402682
>And I'm sure in feudal Europe liberal democracy and market capitalism was as inconceivable.
What the fuck.... Democracy was conceived by Plato, people knew about it all throughout the middle ages and before, the monarchs and churches just thought it would be a challenge to their power. They were right.
Also all the hallmarks of capitalist markets existed during the Roman empire, they only lacked a completely free labor class (although the same could be said of pre-Civil War America). You seem to think it didn't exist because it didn't have a name yet, or because people didn't have the math or international statistics to accurately describe it.

The reason for your mistakes seems to be conflating capitalism with corporatism (a type of socialism), and conflating the modern constitutional republic with democracy. In which case yes, corporatism and a constitutional republic might be inconceivable in the middle ages, at least the early middle ages.

The keystone of your argument is that because capitalism was inconceivable at one point you can mirror that to communism being inconceivable today. Even if your first premise is taken as correct it makes no fucking sense, because capitalism was inconceivable in that case simply because it hasn't been conceived of yet and for no other reason. Whereas the flipside of the analogy, communism, is inconceivable today precisely because it has been conceived of again, and again, and again with disastrous results each time.

Stop reading Marx it rots the readers brain and destroys the readers ability to reason.

>>402685

I don't believe in everything Marxists believe in, nor am I a Luddite. Technological advancement is essential to the betterment of the human condition, but its benefits will not be realized for all if all our scientific and engineering knowledge is deployed only for the accumulation of wealth by a few, or for expanding the power of the state to surveil, punish, and destroy.

You're right that socialist policies can and should exist within capitalist democracy, but that's insufficient. Wealth concentration is power concentration. What good is "one man, one vote" when elections are privately financed and political bribery is free speech? Who but the wealthy can participate in government when everyone else is working full time to pay rent and get only one mandated day off to vote? You establish a program, like the NHS, but then you have to vigilantly protect it or it gets butchered. You pass a minimum wage, but unless it's a living wage, and is periodically adjusted for inflation and cost of living, it soon becomes insufficient, then it's the same fight all over again. Constant vigilance is required to combat rolling back of economic reforms, and new ways of working around them, while the tendency in democratic politics is "one big push, pass this landmark legislation, then all will be well forever."

>>402688
Ok so you complain about the power of the state and corporations, yet fail to realize the state and corporations have more power as the level of socialism grows.
You complain about wealth concentration being bad, yet fail to recognize that the state concentrates tax revenue and that this concentration increases as the level of socialism grows.

And your answer to these two problems is to create more socialism..... Your arguments are not internally consistent.

>you have to vigilantly protect it
>Constant vigilance is required
That's the inherent flaw of socialism and it's "programs", "regulations" or "economic reforms". They have to be constantly adjusted and monitored to maintain them because the amount of power concentration is inherently susceptible to corruption.

The beauty of capitalism is that it is decentralized and self-correcting, it doesn't need to be monitored. The only flaw capitalism has is that the more its meddled into by non-market forces, the more unfair it becomes.

>>402687

Again, you misunderstand me, and perhaps my language was imprecise. I meant by "inconceivable" that a person in say, 13th century France, could not imagine a time when there would not be feudalism, when hereditary nobility and the Church hierarchy were not the political rulers and the industries controlled by guilds and trading families. Yes, democracy had, in a form, existed, and forms of it discussed by the classical philosophers. It had been "conceived", so it was not "inconceivable". What would not conceivable, to the people of that day, would be that one day all of Europe and a majority of the planet would be, ostensibly if not in practice, constitutional representative democracies, that there would be no serfdom and what few royal families remained would be largely living tourist attractions. The same sense of permanence exists for everything that is and has been. The fall of the USSR shocked many, it was assumed that it would chug along into the next millenium, maybe even eventually prevail against the West. That was my meaning, not "no one had thought of it".

You're also confusing corporatism. Corporatism is an organization of society by major interest groups based on presumed common interest. It too was conceived by Plato (both authoritarian and communal) was and still is promoted by the Catholic Church. It's not "socialism" except by the loosest of definitions; its either a form of organization within a capitalist society, or arguably a "third way" apart from both socialism and capitalism, with elements of both. Its more about the body politic and economic being a cohesive whole, everyone in their place, a place for everyone.

If instead you mean "crony capitalism", "big business" capitalism, then that's simply capitalism. Capitalism tends towards monopoly and integration. Its a matter of economy of scale and those already wealthy being best-positioned to acquire and implement new technologies. The "crony part" is again a feature, not a bug: wealth translates fairly directly into power. In a "big government" the wealth buy influence within the government. In a "small government" they fill the power vacuum and use their wealth to keep the government small and on their side in the areas it does have power. Absent a de jure or democratic government, wealthy are the government.

And I'm more a fan of Engels, thank you. Much more direct and practical than Marx's wild-eyed bluster. But Chardin is my real fave.

>>402690


>Ok so you complain about the power of the state and corporations, yet fail to realize the state and corporations have more power as the level of socialism grows.

Again, which socialism? Serious democratic socialism, there would not be a state as a separate entity from the people, just as there would not be private corporations, but collective ownership of natural resources and capital. All would be voting shareholders and reap dividends, just as all would be electors and all have a say in governance. Social Democracy? Depending on its form and regulations, there could either be a very large government, or a moderate one dedicated to social welfare, with little or nor overseas meddling and a limited law enforcement/security apartus; corporations may be large private internationals acting under varying degrees of regulation, large state-owned monopolies that remit profits to the people, small worker-owned collectives, heavily-protected private domestics, or any combination thereof.

>And your answer to these two problems is to create more socialism..... Your arguments are not internally consistent

You're thinking in overly-simple "right=economic freedom, left=more government" terms. The socialism I speak of is an entirely different economic system, not "what we have now, just more taxes and regulations" or "Soviet Russia".


>That's the inherent flaw of socialism and it's "programs", "regulations" or "economic reforms". They have to be constantly adjusted and monitored to maintain them because the amount of power concentration is inherently susceptible to corruption.

No, the problem is that as long as human labor is a commodity, no one will pay more for it than they have to. Just as you aren't going to pay $2,000 for a laptop when an entirely identical one costs $1,000, no corporation will pay $20.00 an hour for labor when they can get it at $8.50 (or $0.50 overseas). No matter what you do to counter than, profit maximization will try to find a way to get more done for less, whether its offshoring, cutting hours, hiring independent contractors, or automating.

>The beauty of capitalism is that it is decentralized and self-correcting, it doesn't need to be monitored. The only flaw capitalism has is that the more its meddled into by non-market forces, the more unfair it becomes.

An I'm the one with the utopian proposals? Capitalism is inherently centralizing, anti-accountability, and anti-democratic. If it exists, it must be kept on a short leash, or better yet, Gleipnir. It tends inherently towards monopolies, which then destroy all its purported benefits (competition, innovation, consumer choice, etc.). Only if there is an outside force periodically destroying the monopolies like a wildfire, and inhibiting their growth in between, can it hope to offer some of what it promises.

>the government can't even support our own people!! why should we take in more??
do you support welfare programs?
>NO WHY WOULD I DO THAT

every_facebook_post_about_refugees_ever.jpg

>>402693

And most are doubtless people who would consider themselves good Christians too.

>>402695
Probably!


Another highlight, I said to one guy who reasonably explained his opinion "hey, thanks for not resorting to name-calling and explaining how you feel"

and then in his next post he said "YEAH, WELL, FUCK ALL MUSLIMS AND ALSO IF AMERICANS WERE REFUGEES NO ONE WOULD LET US IN RIGHT GUYS"


Facebook is getting pretty far from the original point of sharing fun stuff/what time you pooped today and becoming more like a comment section for news articles...

>>402697

I liked it better when it was just for college and high school students. Which is to say, I didn't like it at all, and only used it because all the cool kids freshman year were jumping ship from myspace.

>>402692
>The socialism I speak of
Sounds more horrific than anything tried before, you're talking about corporatism raised to it's most absolutist levels.

>no one will pay more for it than they have to
So? Companies also won't charge $2000 dollars for laptops if the people who make them and buy them are being paid $0.50 per hour, because otherwise no one will buy their fucking laptop. You don't seem to have an understanding of the fluidity and self-correction in markets.

>Capitalism is inherently centralizing, anti-accountability, and anti-democratic.
You're acting like democracy is a valid ideal, read Platos Republic sometime. Pro-tip: all western nations are republics, we only use democracy to solve some basic disagreements.

>>402693
The purpose of welfare is to keep unemployed people from rebelling. Inviting more people in and paying them so they won't revolt makes no fucking sense, what's the endgame?

I seriously doubt he said "government can't even support", and if he did he likely meant the country as a whole.

>>402699
>Pro-tip: all western nations are republics, we only use democracy to solve some basic disagreements.
Pro-tip: People who use the word "republic" to distinguish something from democracy understands the meaning of neither the word "republic" nor the word "democracy." A democracy is a type of republic. The United States, for example, is a republic in the form of a representative democracy.

>>402699
>The purpose of welfare is to keep unemployed people from rebelling.
You may be surprised to learn this, but if you were to survey people other than yourself, you might find that there are actually a number of people in this country who genuinely care about the well-being of their fellow human beings and support programs to keep their standards of life good even when they get nothing from it. We're not all sociopaths like you.

>>402700
>to distinguish
Except I'm not doing that. Stop posting right now, go to piratebay, type "platos republic" in the search field, download an ebook and read it.

>>402701
>genuinely care about the well-being of their fellow human beings
Yeah you care so much you rob the poor to give to the unemployed, what a regular robin hood, a fucking superhero. Pat yourself on the back.

If you actually care you would donate YOUR OWN MONEY to charity instead of supporting government taxing everyone including people barely hanging in there, centralizing the vast collected funds, and distributing it at their leisure while skimming significant sums of the top.

>We're not all sociopaths like you.
Bwahahaha when I said pat yourself on the back I didn't want you to leave bruises!

No.... you're not a sociopath.... you're just a ignorant turd too stupid to realize you're doing more damage with your "good intentions" than any robber baron could if he put his mind to it.

>>402699

>Companies also won't charge $2000 dollars for laptops if the people who make them and buy them are being paid $0.50 per hour, because otherwise no one will buy their fucking laptop.

In America, yes, some people can afford $2,000 laptops. Some can afford to buy a new one and new $800 iPhone on a yearly basis. But the Chinese slaves (for all intents and purposes; being roomed in cramped quarters, worked 10-16 hours a day, six days a week for starvation wages is slavery) can't afford $2,000 laptops, or much else. Capitalism requires the cheapest labor possible. That's why we like our illegal immigrants-you can pay them less than legal wages, work them illegal hours, and who can they complain to? The cops?--and our prison labor (the 13th Amendment explicitly doesn't prohibit forced labor as punishment for a crime) and our outsourcing. And when the wages in the first country we outsourced to start rising, we outsource to another. In the early post-War days "made in Japan" was synonymous with "cheap shit". Then Japan developed, and we moved to Korea, then China, now we're looking at Vietnam, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, Africa...when we run out of countries to outsource to, we'll just replace the jobs with AIs or robots. Which will be great, because then, unless pacified with social programs, the people will then rebel, and after the dust has settled we'll be left with the infrastructure for a luxury, automated socialist utopia. It'll be like Star Trek, with fewer green alien chicks and pointy-eared dudes with killer eyeliner (until First Contact at least, I hope...)

>read Platos Republic sometime

I did back in high school, and again in college civics. He was a brilliant man, basically created western philosophy, but he was also an aristocrat and a snob. "Rule by enlightened philosopher kinds" is the sort of thing a philosopher of noble ancestry would propose. It's also like what some modern neckbeard would come up. "If only the smart people like me had all the power, I could fix everything, man!" Plato didn't trust the common people. He thought them governed by passion and easily swayed by demagogues. But wealthy, as modern America shows, are the most intemperate, the most governed by passion, swayed by charlatans (see: all the celebrity fad cults, diets, and beauty regimes).

>>402702

>Yeah you care so much you rob the poor to give to the unemployed

Why not rob the rich and give to the poor and unemployed? Does Romney need that many cars? Should the banks be allowed to sit on empty homes, or should they not be made to give them to the homeless?

>If you actually care you would donate YOUR OWN MONEY to charity

>charity

RELEVANT QUOTE TIME!

“We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.” --Oscar Wilde

The rich have more say in the government, therefore they should put more into the government relative to everyone else. If you're bringing in a net billion a year you can frankly loose 500 million of it for the sake of your country.

But if the rich have more say, then how will an increase in their taxes ever be able to pass a government they have influence over?

(I know it's possible, but it's still a big obstacle)

>>402709
It generally doesn't, I am simply speaking theoretically.

>>402704
The reason Chinese slaves exist is because their government keeps devaluing their currency. Again, you're arguing against yourself here.

>quote
That's why we have welfare, specifically to quell that disobedience and rebellion. This is why it's unethical.

>Why not rob the rich and give to the poor and unemployed?
That's a suggestion, but it's not what's happening. The Rich™ are busy paying for the running of the government, the military, the courts and so on. You know, the stuff the government actually has the duty to do.

The kind of dole we have today was started during the War on Poverty, and it has the lower class and lower-middle class bearing the brunt of the programs. This is the dole system at the moment, robbing the working poor to give to the unemployed.

Look into the War on Poverty, the only thing it did was stop the decrease of poverty. The War on Poverty institutionalized poverty. It's a horrible thing to see being done, to not be able to change it because a herd of well meaning ignoramuses is standing in the way.

>>402712
The Rich™ are taxed more than anyone else, it's always been this way, and they allow it because they're frankly okay with it, on average.
The people most against taxation are people one or two rungs of the ladder below The Rich™.

>>402715
>The kind of dole we have today was started during the War on Poverty, and it has the lower class and lower-middle class bearing the brunt of the programs. This is the dole system at the moment, robbing the working poor to give to the unemployed.
So take more from the upper classes.

>>402702
>Yeah you care so much you rob the poor to give to the unemployed
How so? The poor pay the lowest taxes, and below a certain point pay no taxes at all. And if you are suggesting reducing the tax rate to 0% for anyone who makes less than six figures and 90% of billionaires, I am totally fine with that.

>>402716
It's not that simple, these people are wizards with money. You don't go to a money wizard and start demanding money from him, he has entire departments dedicated to hiding that money, tricking you, or fucking you up in some way.

Historically we had 90% taxes on rich, but they only paid about 25% in reality because they know their shit.

>>402717
You're forgetting invisible taxes like inflation, or user end taxes like sales.
These types of taxes are a FLAT tax, meaning they should affect all social classes equally. Exacerbating the problem however is that everyone in upper-middle and upper class knows how to get around inflation and sales taxes, so these don't really affect therm.
Who gets hurt? The working poor.

>reducing the tax rate to 0%
Careful there, we only have the right to vote because there can't be taxation without representation. If there isn't taxation... we don't have any right to demand how the taxes are spent.

If us plebs aren't being taxed, and The Rich™ are the primary people funding the government, guess how fast they're going to start abusing that power.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

Interesting article, especially the official tax rate vs revenue graph.

>>402718
>Careful there, we only have the right to vote because there can't be taxation without representation. If there isn't taxation... we don't have any right to demand how the taxes are spent.
That is exactly the sort of twisted logic and complete misunderstanding of basic political science that I've come to expect of you, well done.

>>402718

>we only have the right to vote because there can't be taxation without representation.

Uh...no? The idea is that ours is a government by and of the people, that people are supposedly sovereign and the government rules by their assent. "Taxation without representation" was justification for colonial rebellion, but has no bearing on whether one has a right to say in government. Even if someone has zero income to tax, they have a right to a say in the government because they are subject to its authority, which it derives from their assent.

And that's not counting that "flat taxes" like sales and gas tax actually hurt the poor more than the rich; if you're making minimum wage and a third of your average spending is on food, then a 7% sales tax is taking a greater portion of your paycheck than it is from someone making $20 an hour who spends a tenth of their paycheck on food.

>If us plebs aren't being taxed, and The Rich™ are the primary people funding the government, guess how fast they're going to start abusing that power.

They've been abusing it from the beginning. Hell, the way electoral rights were initially structured, rich landowners were the only ones who could vote.

>>402719

Setting aside that Forbes is pro-neoliberal trash (its motto is literally "The Capitalist Tool"), that graph is missing information. What adjustments, if any, are made for inflation? Are we measuring the revenue year by year by 2012 dollars or 1945 dollars? Values for population and GDP growth, as well as income distribution would be necessary for this chart to have any meaning. If the economy is growing, of course more revenue will be coming in, whatever the top rate. If more people are crossing into the upper brackets and therefore paying higher tax rates, that would account for increasing revenue as well.

That's not to say that tax avoidance does not of course go up as rates climb, and that the ever-growing resource burden of enforcement as avoidance increases results in diminishing returns. At some point, the cost-benefit of a felony tax fraud conviction vs. having less money tilts in favor of paying for the accountants, lawyers, shell companies and offshore accounts necessary to avoid paying taxes, and if every rich person is doing it, its impossible to investigate, charge, and convict them all (even if you could, you'd lose your tax base by doing so). But "cut taxes and federal revenue will skyrocket because FREE MARKET!!!" seems like pure voodoo to me.

>>402720
If 100% of the presidents paycheck comes from a select group of people, this creates a fucking problem.

You may have a brain tumor, please get yourself checked out.

>>402722
That's only true if the people paying him have the option to not pay him. Just being required to give him money doesn't give anyone leverage over anyone. Campaign finance is dangerous, certainly, because it's voluntary and the people making the donations have the option to rescind their support if the person they're donating to doesn't fall in line. Mandatory payment doesn't have this feature.

>>402725
>That's only true if the people paying him have the option to not pay him.
They do, see>>402723 image and last line.

>>402734
You're misunderstanding. Probably intentionally.

They don't have the option not to pay him. They have the option to vote for people who will reduce their tax burden, which they do, and will no doubt continue to do because if there's one thing that unites the upper classes, it's greed. They can't just *choose* not to pay their taxes to punish the person in charge, and the fact that they will vote for the people who will reduce their taxes regardless of the person in charge's actions also means that they still have no leverage in this situation.

The majority of taxes coming from the rich in no way gives the rich additional leverage over the government. The current state of campaign finance law gives the rich additional leverage over government. The high cost of participating in politics gives the rich additional leverage over government. Capitalism in general gives the rich additional leverage over government, and is designed to. Taxes do not.

>>402735
>They don't have the option not to pay him.
>They can't just *choose* not to pay their taxes
Yes they can, it's happening right the fuck now, for fucks sake man at least look at the graph before replying.

>Capitalism in general gives the rich additional leverage over government, and is designed to.
Unlike communism, capitalism isn't designed, it has existed for centuries (maybe millennia) before it even had a name.

>>402736
>Yes they can, it's happening right the fuck now, for fucks sake man at least look at the graph before replying.
That graph shows government revenues based on tax rates, it doesn't say even the slightest thing about tax evasion. And even for talking about tax rates, it ignores things that don't suit Forbes's rhetoric because it's specifically designed to convince people to argue in favor of lower taxes on the rich because advancing the cause of the CEO class is Forbes's entire raison d'etre.

>>402736
>Unlike communism, capitalism isn't designed, it has existed for centuries (maybe millennia) before it even had a name.
Your intentional ignorance is exhausting. Capitalism may not have been designed from the ground up, but over the centuries and millennia it has existed, all of its evolution has been guided by those with power, and those with power in a capitalist system are always the rich. You can plug your ears and pretend that's not "designing the system," but when people are given the power to stack the odds in their favor and then do so, most reasonable human beings would see that as designing the systems that now exist.

>>402737
>it doesn't say even the slightest thing about tax evasion
It's implied in the fact that revenue is not meeting rates. At all.

Come on man don't play stupid, you're going to look twice as dumb.

>>402736

But they are still paying taxes, and still have to. There's tax avoidance, yes, largely by legal means (loopholes and exceptions and subsidies) but the reality is that the rich do pay taxes (largely). Your "pay taxes = influence on government" line of thought is incoherent.

>Unlike communism, capitalism isn't designed, it has existed for centuries (maybe millennia) before it even had a name.

Capitalism, as we know it, can hardly be said to be millennia. At most, it started during the post-Plague crisis of the 14th century; Marx sets it about the 16th century. The shortage in serfs led to a rise in freehold tenants, who in turn hired workers to help with their freeholds. Lords could buy them out or evict them, but with the drive towards consolidation of larger and larger estates you find more and more freehold estates. Modern production methods render obsolete many crafting professions, replacing self-training and regulating guild monopolies with factories, while modern agricultural methods and the enclosure of former common grazing plots for commercial production drove villagers into the cities to work in those factories. Merchants and freedholders accumulate the wealth and/or military service to acquire noble rank, and nobles, if they want to stay noble, increasingly turn to commercial ventures. Bada bing, bada boom, you go from "noble and serf" to "bourgeoisie and proletariat".

Prior to that, the medieval manor estates were largely self-sufficient, and the relationship of serf to landlord was not that of employer-employee (it was hereditary, extended beyond the serf's 9-5 production, was theoretically reciprocal, was not compensated with wages, etc.)

>>402741

And there are reasons for that beyond mere avoidance. Some of the "avoidance" is legitimate (or semi-legit). The tax code, especially now, is full of write-offs, exemptions, subsidies, deductions, and ambiguous language. With a good lawyer and accountant, you can pay zero half the time and 15% or less the rest of the time (such is inadvisible as it alerts the IRS to funny business; you're best off paying closing to what you "ought to pay" most the time, and take a zero or close year every now and then). Then there's the fact that top bracket is usually paid by a small minority. If 1% of all tax payers make enough to pay 50% of their income in taxes, and the majority is the bottom two brackets of 10% and 15%, then of course tax revenues will not be 50% of GDP.

That also plays into enforcement; if the top bracket covers 1% of all households, that's still over a million houses. If it covers only the top percent of a percent, that's little more than 100,000, a much easier population to audit. So have 18% or less for the rest of the population, 50% for that top 1%, and 90% for the top .01%, and focus most audits on the tippy-top. Combine with a simplified tax code (and corporate code too), add some exemplary public guillotining of tax cheats now and then, and I guarantee you'll get higher revenues.

There's also the issue of "is income tax the best tax?" A Georgist land value tax would be easier to assess and levy, hit the wealthy more selectively (since wealthy = owns land and owns land = wealthy in most cases) and would have less of a distorting effect.

After every terror attack, people seem to forget the fundamental rule of anti-social interaction: don't feed the troll.

Hey, /pol/ dude, I have a question: why do you bother? Like it's kind of obvious that most everyone on this site considers you, at best, disingenuous, and at worst delusional, so why do you even try to march out your typical tea party rhetoric where it has no audience?

>>402754
He's a troll. He's not doing it to win any battles, he's doing it because he wants attention because he's lonely and bored. And we give it to him.

>Roanoke Mayor uses internment camps to justify refugee policy

>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34864814

And this wasn't an off-the-cuff remark, but an official press release.

>http://m.roanoke.com/news/david-bowers-statement-on-syrian-refugees/pdf_54895fc2-dcfa-50a9-9e40-4c382ed7ab4e.html?mode=jqm

>>402756
>>402754
I have noticed a few douchebags ITT who discount photographic evidence, statistical evidence and really anything that runs contrary to their cultist narrative.
YOU ARE THOSE DOUCHEBAGS.
You think anyone with an opinion other than far far ultraleft is a fucking nazi. Likely no one posting here is from /pol/, I've never been there aside from a few minutes ago to check it, and it reads exactly like /b/ with a bit less porn.
I myself am a liberal of the empirical variety, and I absolutely detest assholes like you who PRETEND to be liberal but in fact are a bunch of collectivist nutjobs.

This is what collectivism brings you:
>"I'm reminded that President Franklin D Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and it appears that threat of harm to America from ISIS now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then,"
And this is what individualism brings you:
>"Comparing the prudent step of pausing to evaluate a vetting processes to the unconstitutional internment of American citizens proves that Democrats simply don't understand national security,"

You can choose to be collectivist
>Most of you know what it means when a hundred corpses are lying side by side, or five hundred, or a thousand. To have stuck it out, and at the same time (apart from exceptions caused by human weakness) to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history, which has never been written and is never to be written. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy these people which wanted to destroy us.
Or individualist
>I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner.2

Re-evaluate your fucking life before it's too late.

>>402762
lol

>>402762
Man I am honestly surprised the amount of work you put into this shit. It's impressive in a useless sort of way.

Sometimes I wonder if that's moe without his trip

>>402766
I've wondered that here or there. Moe was smart, though, so I doubt it.

And if it is him, stop trolling, you cunt, put your trip back on, and help this place be less dead.

>>402762
>I have noticed a few douchebags ITT who discount photographic evidence, statistical evidence and really anything that runs contrary to their cultist narrative.
So you proceeded to post quotes and references that these retards are never going to understand or glean any insight from?

>>402763
>>402764
>>402765
Aaaaaand the peanut gallery voices their opinion in the form of one-liners, shitposts and general trolling.

When someone asks penny for your thoughts do you ever feel like you're being overpaid?

>>402769
>When someone asks penny for your thoughts do you ever feel like you're being overpaid?

Has anyone ever actually asked you what your thoughts were, or were you too busy shouting about lizard men to notice what anyone else says in the first place?

>>402769
lmao

>>402762
>You think anyone with an opinion other than far far ultraleft is a fucking nazi.
Mostly I think Nazis are Nazis, you just post like one.

>>402774
lol that's not even me.

>>402778
Fuck everyone and their yellow journalism.
//youtube.com/watch?v=Ulq38GCnpjs

>>402779
>lol that's not even me.
If you want to be treated like an individual, feel free to namefag it up. Otherwise just deal with the fact that you are going to be treated as an amalgamation of any shitlords and trolls who post in this thread.

>>402786
Shut the fuck up Stone.

>>402786
>feel free to namefag it up
no

>>402787

LOLwut.

>>402787
>>402788
Please do not doublepost.

>>402790
Sick of this shit, sick of SJW braindamaged cultists ITT still insisting they're the majority. You're not even a majority on a majority liberal imageboard like this, because YOU DONT EVEN REPRESENT LIBERALS YOU FUCKING EXTREMIST!

Get a mod to check. If the IP of the posts you linked is the same it gets a permaban. If the IP of those posts is different, you get a permaban. Fair?

If you're worried about proxies mod can also permaban posts that don't have IPs traced to previous Politics threads. I want to see how many of you "diverse" mouthbreathing retards are caught in the net.

>>402792
K E K
E
K

>>402792
You should chill out son.

>>402792
Wow. Now I kind of hope you *aren't* a troll because if you are you're a really bad one if you get countertrolled this easily.

>>402792
They were both me

>>402800
Still at it, eh kid?

>>402801
>Clearly this is the same anon as the other in this thread!
>Surely nobody but one person can have a differing opinion!
>I won't read his post, he's so OBVIOUSLY trolling!

You're the kid here.

>>402803

If you don’t want to be confused for someone else, use a name and a tripcode. Don’t get pissy if you’re confused for other anons when you’re anon yourself.

>>402800
If you don't want to get downvoted, make better posts. :^)

>>402804
Please no. It's bad enough when you tripfag when you don't need to. Respect our anonymous culture a little bit more in the future and only use a name and trip when your identity needs to be considered.

>>402800
>far beyond what the Bible ever did
Which edition are you referring to?

>>402810
>Please no. It's bad enough when you tripfag when you don't need to. Respect our anonymous culture a little bit more in the future and only use a name and trip when your identity needs to be considered.

You're on plus4chan, not 4chan jackass.

>>402810
>muh anonymous culture

As with the other guy pointed out, this is plus4chan. And don't get me started on why "anon culture" is stupid in the first place.

Oh, and isn't a good use for a trip code to distinguish yourself from other users, especially in a single thread? If you don't want to get mistaken for another user, get a tripcode. If you're not going to get one, quit bitching about being mistaken for another user.

>>402812
>>402815
>>he wrote anonymously
Anonymity isn't a 4chan thing, by the way. moot wasn't the first to make anonymous imageboards, not the last.

And yes, posting in only one thread does not mean you need to single yourself out. That's called egotism, and has nothing to do with the thread. Now, if you are someone who has special political experience and state so, a temporary identity may be constructive to the community so they can single out "that guy with that experience".

Tripfag happen, but don't ask for more. otherwise we'll have proof only twenty people use the site

>>402817
>he wrote anonymously
I choose to post anonymously, but I'm not the one bitching about being mistaken for another, now am I? Swing and a miss, kiddo, swing and a miss.

So if you have a clear solution here and aren't going to do anything about it, there's no point in carrying on this conversation. Just don't get mad when we mistake you for right wing dipshit #1 instead of right wing dipshit #2.

>>402818
>right wing dipshit

I'm getting a little fucking pissed about this. You fucking idiots start a politics thread and claim it's for intelligent debate, just to shit on anything that's not totally liberal/progressive.

>>402819
You have a right to express your opinion, not to be respected for that opinion.

>>402819
Says the guy whose every post is about the inferiority of women and brown people.

The shitstain who faked making a clock is demanding fifteen million dollars as payoff for wrongful arrest.

IIRC he wasn't even arrested?

>>402812
>>402815
>>402821
>>402820
Stop doubleposting.

>the inferiority of women
I think you're confusing him with the average Muslim.

>I think you're confusing him with the average Muslim.
100% correct by the way.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
>most Muslims say a wife should always obey her husband

>>402824
>>402826
>>402827
Have you decided what your trip will be?

>>402828
Only after you tart putting yours on every post stone.

>>402829
I think the word you wanted was "start."

>>402820
Actually I do have the right to be respected for that opinion. You have the right not to respect ME, to YOURSELF, but in a public debate, you're kinda expected to be a civil human being and not call me things like "dipshit".

You act like Plus4 is so small a community, that anyone who has a legitimate opinion but who doesn't agree with liberalist views is just a troll. You don't respond to any arguments other than "Lol troll, show your trip."

Wanna how I know, you stupid fucking faggot? Because the last post I made was >>402819. That post, the rest you've been replying to, have absofuckinglutely nothing in common. You just assume that ANYONE conservative is an idiot. This thread is a fucking farce.

>>402821
The post I made was >>402800. I tried to express how Muslims deny any arguments about how their faith affects Islamic terrorism. I can back up my arguments all day, cite all kinds of quotes directly from the fucking Quran, have actual scientific data at my back, and you dismiss ALL of that as trolling. You call this Politics? Literally kill yourself.

>>402833
>Literally kill yourself.
lol, you're doing such a good job at coming off as a reasoned debater, anon. But yeah, keep on convincing yourself that you're being dismissed for not falling in lockstep with the zeitgeist and not because you are a horrible person with horrible opinions who thinks the fact that he can link to badly researched tabloids makes his arguments worthy of taking seriously.

>>402835
And keep convincing yourself that saying "You're just a horrible person" is an acceptable argument, in literally any situation.

Maybe try to debate with logic and reasoning instead of emotion for once? No, because you liberals are too busy being the top of the hierarchy of humanity or some shit.

>>402836

>Maybe try to debate with logic and reasoning instead of emotion for once?

When that comes from someone who doesn’t end a post with “literally kill yourself”, maybe we’ll start. :)

>>402837
Only after I got called a dipshit. Which isn't any better.

>>402837
Yo, check the thread name Stoner. What were you expecting?

>>402838
To paraphrase an old saying: “Slinging shit doesn’t solve problems, but you may have to deal with a dumb son of a bitch who thinks it does.” If you say things like “literally kill yourself” in response to being called names, that doesn’t exactly open up an avenue to the “logic and reasoning” debates for which you pine.

>>402839
Insert the appropriate Arrested Development GIF here.

>>402840
When logic and reasoning doesn't work anymore, the only thing left to do is call them a degenerate faggot and move on.

>>402843
>I'm a liberal myself
No you are not. You're also not gay, a lady, dating a translady, or whatever other go-to Free Debate Points claim you goobergaters like to make. You are a straight, ultraconservative white dude.

>>402844
>Lalalala I'm not listening, lalalala

>>402846
>>402847
We talked about you not doubleposting.

>>402844
>>402848
Holy fuck what even is this thread anymore?

>only straight white people are conservative
>only minorities can be liberal
>all straight white people are evil

If there were a picture of batshit insane feminazi tumblr poster, your post would be center stage. Also hey retard, if you knew how to use an imageboard at all, you'd know how to check IP addresses of posts.

>>402844
>All conservatives are straight white men.
>There's a black guy and a woman running for Tallest Republican.
You can't be fucking serious.

Also I wonder when you're going to do the math and realize most liberals are probably whites as well.... Or do we not count now because of privilege ladder.

>>402849
>>402850
No seriously, the doubleposting.

>>402854

Fun fact: nobody gives a shit if you're one sad troll or two sad trolls acting in tandem. Just like nobody actually cares whether you're a sad troll or just a person whose life is so sad that it has rendered you indistinguishable from a troll.

>>402856
So saying that only straight white men are conservative while only minorities can be liberals isn't trolling. Calling someone out on said statement isn't. lol ok

>>402858
*is. Damn phone.

>>402856
There's at least four different people here disagreeing with you if timezones are any indication. One of them is fucking french. You and your buttbuddy are a minority even here.

>>402863
I'm amused that you keep bitching about how this board is "so liberal" and "muh SJWs" and whatever, and now you're claiming that you're actually the majority. You really need to get your talking points in order.

>>402864
I'm sorry, do you have proof he's the Anon who said that? Or are you generalizing again like all liberals do?

>>402865
>like all liberals do

Meant to say "like liberals do." Saying all liberals would be generalizing myself.

>>402864
This board is 100% liberal, and the percentage of SJW here is significantly higher than in general society. But you're still a fucking minority even here. Try to wrap your head around what that means for you in the society at large.

No one fucking likes you.

>>402867
There is a delete function.

>>402869
Only if you have a password, which is removed if you leave the page.

>>402868
>This board is 100% liberal
You post here so plainly not.
>the percentage of SJW
What's SJW
> But you're still a fucking minority even here.
What do you imagine makes that person a minority? Sex? Gender? Ethnicity? Some specific belief?

>>402871
>implying im not liberal
kekkers tell me what else I am.

Bet I'm also a white man who wears a black coat, top hat, smokes cigars and abuses his wage slaves.

It's been over half a page since I could even follow what was being said other than "no u".

>>402871
About 18% of Americans identify as feminist, and only 12% see it as a compliment. Since all SJWs are feminists, it stands to reason they're some subset of that. Sadly we don't have exact stats on "intersectional feminism", that would give us a near complete picture of how many SJWs are.

Personally I think it's closer to NPD. The NIH puts narcissistic personality disorder at 6.2% of the US population, the proportion of SJWs is probably closer to that number.

>>402874
>>402876
Unless you are trying to say that you're a liberal based on Adam Smithesque classical liberalism, a definition that hasn't applied since the 20s, no, you are not a liberal. Modern liberals do not, generally speaking, see women and the browns as the downfall of society.

Actually the issue of your "liberalism" aside another thought occurs: you like to scream a lot about "extremists" but you fail to mention what, exactly, is so extreme about the people you make such accusations against. Do you perhaps imagine that if the progressive boogieman triumphs, the racists will be rounded up into camps?

>>402876
>The NIH puts narcissistic personality disorder at 6.2% of the US population, the proportion of SJWs is probably closer to that number.

But an actual diagnosis of narcissism requires a person to have no empathy for anyone other than themselves. So it sounds to me like you're more likely to be a narcissist than most feminists are.

>>402865
>I'm sorry, do you have proof he's the Anon who said that?
maybe you should get a tripcode bro

>>402885
It is the most common refrain to your posts.

>>402878
>Modern liberals do not, generally speaking, see women and the browns as the downfall of society.
But neither do I, my strawman manufacturing friend.

>>402880
Perhaps you're right. Also some SJWs seem to be motivated more by self pity and self hatred than narcissism.

So let's call it somewhere between 6% and 12% of the general population.

>>402891
>But neither do I
kek

>>402890
We've had the WebM threads up for a while, mate.

Like, about a year.

>>402893
Yeah, but you can't expect him to know that, he only got banned from /pol/ and started bothering us instead a week or two ago.

>>402893
I tried uploading Webm before but it never went through.