Obligatory reminder that it is not just "two parties going at each other" drama; all types of human organization is politics.
>"wealth is evil"
If defined as "valuable things", "useful resources", or "the means of production", then no, wealth is morally-neutral, as is any tool.
If defined as "exclusive possession of valuable things by a small group by means of violence", "pursuit of the material without regard for human or environmental cost", or "love of having abundance for its own sake" then yes, wealth is extremely evil.
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.
>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.
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".
White liberal feminism is dumb, what else is new.
"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.
>I'm a racist, what else is new.
Tora dora is white lmao
you easily triggered moron
As soon as tora tells me what it is, I will
"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.
Also, AGAIN, black school children treated as criminals, disciplinary and mental health issues treated as criminal offenses.
YESSSSS FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT!
>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.
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.
This is a progressive safe space, please take your caveman displays of aggression somewhere else.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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?
I think people of all beliefs need to realize the government of a country =/= the people who live in it.
Ditto for both Russia and USA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
West is the best at it because the west brings development where it makes empires. Western global meddling brings safety, medicine, development, civilization, human rights, lgbt rights, womens rights... and generally raises the amount of freedom and the living standards of the people experiencing western imperialism.
Islamic imperialism brings only genocide and destruction to the lands it invades. This is why islamic imperialism will never succeed.
This is not how military strength is measured, after all the Vietcong and Taliban kicked out America, after all the Saudis killed 3000 Americans in an unprovoked attack while America has yet to bomb them.
>Iran would not be ruled by a bunch of bearded reactionaries if
Oh that's fucking rich. Are Americans to blame for Khomeini fucking five year old girls as well? I don't remember guiding his micropenis into a child, or really forcing him to do anything.
>The Arabian Peninsula wouldn't be ruled by the House of Saud
No it would be ruled by Ottoman Turkey, which is an ISLAMIC IMPERIALIST STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTLESS GENOCIDES.
I BET WHEN WE DESTROY ISIS AND THEY'RE REPLACED BY YET ANOTHER ISLAMIC IMPERIALIST GROUP, YOURE GOING TO BLAME THE WEST FOR CREATING THAT ONE TOO!
arreter la desintegration de l'unite nationale sous le poids de l'immigration de masse
mais surtout de la islamisation du pays
pour l'unite française, les francais d'abord!
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?
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?
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
>you can certainly trace the causes of the situation in the ME back to Western Imperialism
What act of Christians upon Arabian tribes caused them to decimate Christendom in North Africa and the Levant? None, they weren't even in contact.
What act by Europeans caused the central Asian nomads or Africans to convert to Islam and lay waste to Christendom in Anatolia, Balkans and Iberia? Again none, those civilizations did not even trade with each other.
Muslim imperialism struck at Christianity first, without cause, and every interaction since has been colored by that fact. Or to put it in your words the causes of the situation in the Middle East trace back to Islamic Imperialism.
In short, eat shit and die, taqqiya.
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.
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.
>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.
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?
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 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.
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.
>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. :^)
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
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."
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.
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.
>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
And most are doubtless people who would consider themselves good Christians too.
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...
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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).
>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
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)
It generally doesn't, I am simply speaking theoretically.
The reason Chinese slaves exist is because their government keeps devaluing their currency. Again, you're arguing against yourself here.
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.
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™.
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
Interesting article, especially the official tax rate vs revenue graph.
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
>The idea is
The idea is connected to the reality only because the government depends on people for taxation, and because of a threat of armed revolt. Take these two things away and we've been rolled back to Ancient Rome.
>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.
Yeah we seem to agree on this, and this is where the tax money for welfare is coming from. The pockets of the lower classes.
>They've been abusing it from the beginning.
Oh you haven't seen tyranny until the upper classes become the only source of revenue for government.
>forbes is bad because capitalist
I don't immediately dismiss your opinions because you're a communist. Should I?
>What adjustments, if any, are made for inflation?
It's proportional dude, it doesn't matter what years equivalent they used as long as they didn't vary it from one data point to the next.
Here it is as a percentage of GDP, the increase here is almost invisible because both are forced to align to the same axis, which is why Forbes graphed the second line by amount to better show the change.
>That's not to say that tax avoidance does not of course go up as rates climb
Whenever government raises tax rate, the revenue dips, whenever it decreases it, the revenue jumps. Aside from that tax rates are largely disconnected from revenues. Again, see graph.
>"cut taxes and federal revenue will skyrocket because FREE MARKET!!!" seems like pure voodoo to me
It's counter-intuitive.... but only if you assume government is 100% effective in enforcing edicts. PROTIP: not even close
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
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.)
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.
Months before every terror attack, people seem to forget the fundamental rule of social interaction, don't be a PC cunt.
PC cunts all share the blame for every terrorist attack committed.
Because they keep insisting that profiling is racist, despite criminal profiling being used successfully since we (humanity) have had a concept of law enforcement.
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?
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
And this wasn't an off-the-cuff remark, but an official press release.
>guys, terrorists are bad!
>let's have even more government control to keep us safe from them!
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.
>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.
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
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.
>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?
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?
>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?
>When someone asks penny for your thoughts do you ever feel like you're being overpaid?
>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.
Fuck Yahoo and their yellow journalism.
lol that's not even me.
Fuck everyone and their yellow journalism.
>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.
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.
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.
>provide cited quotes from the Quran about how it teaches hate speech on levels far beyond what the Bible ever did, and that it's a fundamental issue of why Islamic terrorism is such a thing
>"You're just trying to make Muslims look bad! The Quran teaches that Christians and Jews are fellow people of the book and should be respected!"
>other Muslim: "Allah loves everyone!"
>ask them to back this up
>comment is downvoted to oblivion
>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.
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.
If you don't want to get downvoted, make better posts. :^)
>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.
>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.
>>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
>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.
>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.
You have a right to express your opinion, not to be respected for that opinion.
Says the guy whose every post is about the inferiority of women and brown people.
>I think you're confusing him with the average Muslim.
100% correct by the way.
>most Muslims say a wife should always obey her husband
Only after you tart putting yours on every post stone.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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. :)
Only after I got called a dipshit. Which isn't any better.
Yo, check the thread name Stoner. What were you expecting?
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.
Insert the appropriate Arrested Development GIF here.
When logic and reasoning doesn't work anymore, the only thing left to do is call them a degenerate faggot and move on.
>you're kinda expected to be a civil human being
This runs contrary to SJW philosophy. I've debated these people in real life, they will ignore actual facts you bring up and just make rude noises.
I'm a liberal myself, tone it down a bit. These retards aren't even the majority in the liberal branch of politics, they just like to pretend they are.
Coolfax: Only 18% of Americans are feminist, and most of those are old people who think feminism is still about the right to vote.
SJWs are a tiny minority, I'd be surprised if they're even one percent of the general population. Ever see one of their rallies? It's like 100 people who were ordered to be there by their SJW professor for extra credit. Media has to do pic related to prevent it from looking like a joke.
Furry conventions draw more people.
>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.
>straight, ultraconservative white dude
>he never learns
>Lalalala I'm not listening, lalalala
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.
>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.
My god, you really are retarded. Not only do you think only straight white people are conservative but you think that anyone who agrees with someone besides you is double posting.
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.
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
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.
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.
I'm sorry, do you have proof he's the Anon who said that? Or are you generalizing again like all liberals do?
>like all liberals do
Meant to say "like liberals do." Saying all liberals would be generalizing myself.
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.
Only if you have a password, which is removed if you leave the page.
>This board is 100% liberal
You post here so plainly not.
>the percentage of 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?
>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".
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.
And everyone here is an asshole, so we have that in common. Now let’s find a nit that’s worth picking at. :)
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?
>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.
>I'm sorry, do you have proof he's the Anon who said that?
maybe you should get a tripcode bro
Literally nowhere in any of this guy's post did he say, or imply, anything to that effect.
Oh jeez, someone on my Facebook newfeed (who apparently identifies as a cat now) posted some almost boasting comment about having to lie about his gender because there were only two options, and now he's doubleposting rants all while saying "im nitpicking, but..." and "im just rambling now, sorry" and making comments about mainstream media and typical stuff (Yes, they're a tumblr user. How did you guess?) while one of their friends posts TL;DR essays which I think are gently telling him to stop expecting everyone to understand.
At least I have the decency to vent anonymously on places like 4chan, but there are so many rebuttals I want to post right now just to start shit. I'm considering the 'hide' button.
Whatever, I'll just sleep instead.
Oh shit we can webmz now?
>Modern liberals do not, generally speaking, see women and the browns as the downfall of society.
But neither do I, my strawman manufacturing friend.
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.
We've had the WebM threads up for a while, mate.
Like, about a year.
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.
I tried uploading Webm before but it never went through.
If the file is too too large it can cause weird responses. Try testing with one under 1MB.
Oh ok, that's the problem. It seems my Webms are too fat.
I'll stick to gif for now.
Re: Russian plane
You've been ordered by your government to host a Syrian woman while they arrange for permanent housing for her.
One day you walk into your living room and see her like this, looking at the snow outside. What would you do?
Ask her how much snow has fallen.
...I assume you expected me—or someone else—to say, “I’d flip up her skirt and rape her on the spot, because nobody’s going to believe her if she says I raped her.”
Look, nod, move on with whatever I was doing.
You really kinda sounded like you were wearing a fedora while writing that, Stone.
I’ve seen enough of that bullshit to know what it sounds like.
>I assume you expected me—or someone else—to say, “I’d flip up her skirt and rape her on the spot, because nobody’s going to believe her if she says I raped her.”
This says more about you than about him, pretty sure he's just making a joke whereas you're posting rape fantasies.
I want to know where you saw that bullshit. Even retards in youtube comment shitfests below MGTOW videos don't unironically say shit like that.
Was it /b/?
I code a terrible indie game in which you must go on a perilous journey only to learn you shouldn't leave your underwear lying uon the couch.
>he thinks you have to go on /b/ to see /b/tier shitposting in 2015
If try to understand how it could possibly be snowing in coastal Australia when it's almost summer.
If its because of the refugees, I might get another one.
Sometimes I want to anonymously survey strangers (who aren't in a potentially biased group such as an online community) to find out the proportion of people with controversial beliefs/opinions who don't publicly express them due to potential social consequence.
aka. is PC censorship a widespread issue or just me being a bitch about a few small incidents?
>aka. is PC censorship a widespread issue or just me being a bitch about a few small incidents?
>the proportion of people with controversial beliefs/opinions who don't publicly express them due to potential social consequence
Numerous, that's how a society works, by policing itself for the purpose of cooperation.
And yes, the second thing.
>is PC censorship a widespread issue
What a stupid question, you should be fired for even asking it. In fact I'm emailing your boss to tell him that you're a Nazi.
No wait, you should be put in PRISON or KILLED for asking this question. I'm going to call the local police department to report you for kidnapping and rape.
kek people like this actually exist.
>that's how a society works, by policing itself for the purpose of cooperation
lol where have you been frozen since pre-renaissance Europe? Do you still think Galileo should shut up because his ideas threaten cooperation and social order inside Venice?
Ever since the seventeenth century we have held the idea that any opinion should be voiced, no matter how unpopular, and that this improves society. This idea happens to have quite a lot of evidence behind it.
It's also why the internet is such a shitfest. People completely ignore the basic rules of social interaction because all responsibility seems removed.
Sometimes, and sometimes it makes it unbelievably exhausting.
It's great even when it's exhausting, even when it pisses me off or makes me sad, it's still great.
Making me feel good is not a prerequisite for greatness in my book.
>Ever since the seventeenth century we have held the idea that any opinion should be voiced, no matter how unpopular,
No one has ever believed that except sperglords. The right to say whatever you want is in no way the responsibility to express everything you think.
Lots of 1A Fuckboys seem to forget that the freedom to speak one's mind is as much a responsibility as a right.
There are no responsibilities for natural rights. Natural rights aren't granted by government, or by the society, these things are parts of fundamental human nature. Natural rights aren't privileges either, contingent on a list of responsibilities I need to fulfill.
.Let me ask you, who gets to define the responsibilities?" Can a KKK member walk up to you and tell you that you have a responsibility not to talk to a nigger? No person or group of people have an objective moral superiority, so they really don't have ground to stand on when it comes to censoring expression.
And lets be honest here, by responsibilities you mean prerequisites. You want people to speak only if they agree with you beforehand.
Not to mention how stupid you are to even try to police it. You can fire me, put me in prison, torture and mutilate me, even punish others for listening to me. But you cannot stop me from holding an idea and working as hard as I can to spread it. In fact by even trying to stop me, you have lost the argument.
The only way to really stop me is to put a bullet in my brain. And even then you didn't so much as abridge the natural rights of a population as just made the point moot by removing the people those rights apply to. This sort of final solution really only works until you run out of people and are left all alone in the world with a gun in your hand and a lifetime to contemplate the fact that what you did not change anybody's mind.
This is the fundamental fact the PC police will never understand, because they inherently believe they only get to speak because someone lets them.
I blame too many shushes as a child.
Don't you have some skinhead meeting to go to?
Express all the heinous ideas you want. No, seriously, go right ahead; I won’t stop you. Just remember that I have every right to criticize/mock those ideas, attach your name to those ideas (if possible), and tell other people that you believe in those ideas. If you’re going to express yourself, you’re going to own your speech—and the consequences it creates—regardless of whether you want to own it. That is the responsibility attached to speech and expression.
If you think your mother's new haircut is ugly, you are not required to tell her so. Well adjusted humans wouldn't feel like their rights were being trod upon by being expected to maintain some semblance of being socially functional and empathetic human beings. If your first thought when told "think of other people before you say things" is "BUT WHAT ABOUT ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!" then you're a complete dick, and both society and you would be better off if you became a hermit and stopped participating entirely.
Harassment has a specific definition and is legally actionable.
Please don't use it to mean "that guy called me a liar!" because that is dumb.
Your right to disagree is perfectly fine as long as you aren't trying to hurt the guy, as long as you don't step beyond mocking and start into harassment (see above) or into lying about people you disagree with so you can SWAT them.
For example this guy >>402929 is lying about the post he's replying to, and lying in such a way as to try and cause a lynching of the red picture guy.
It's a classic lynch move.
By linking the red picture guy with a violent threat to the society, he's hoping that normal people will be tricked into seeing him as a violent threat, and prematurely fighting back.
It's the equivalent of the asshole arguing with someone in 1945 and when he realize he's losing, he points at his opponent and screams THIS FELLA IS WORKING WITH THE JAPS!!!
I'm actually going to screencap this because it's a perfect example.
>always consider others' feelings and do not deliberately attack them or say anything that could hurt them
>if you disagree you should probably just kill yourself
O i am laffin
i don't disagree with the first half of your post, but you probably could have tried harder to stay consistent
Can you just admit to being pro-gamergate already? Your fake fence sitting is actually somehow more annoying than the guy being openly racist and sexist.
Why do you use "gamergate" as a synonym for "all the things that i, anon, think are evil"? I'm assuming all the examples of that in these threads all come from you, anyway, it would be even weirder if multiple people kept bringing up GG in completely non-GG-based arguments. It's really strange.
>yeah, oranges are okay, but bananas are my favorite honestly
>holy crap why won't you just be open about supporting Clinton??
That's honestly what you sound like.
Becoming a hermit isn't a death sentence. I think you didn't understand the post you read because you were in too big a hurry to look down your nose at people again. I suggested he remove himself from society because he clearly doesn't want to be part of a society. He wants to be a rugged individualist who can do whatever he wants with no consequences.
>yeah, oranges are okay, but bananas are my favorite honestly
>holy crap why won't you just be open about supporting Clinton??
Dude he accused me of being a skinhead because I evinced the same exact ideals as Socrates.
I bet he thinks pic related is a skinhead meme.
>Dude he accused me of being a skinhead because I evinced the same exact ideals as Socrates.
>I evinced the same exact ideals as a guy who saw no problem living in a society where only white, male property owners were allowed to vote, and the gods they worshiped were universally rapists
So the owner of an Indian restaurant started talking to my group about how ISIS is really American and Israeli, created for the benefit of banks and land gain via false flagging.
I'm more of a "who cares" person, but as far as conspiracy theories go, it's got enough support to be reasonable. No, he did not say "Jews did 9/11".
Well property owning women and foreigners could vote. It was kind of like a collective of gangs, everyone with territory gets to vote.
Also you forgot he killed himself rather than live in that world.
Also you forgot his philosophy is what led to Europeans finally putting an end to slavery worldwide.
Instituting voting for everyone, not just property owners.
And worshiping a god that only has consensual sex with virgins.
You're being severely racist though, the ancient Greeks were just trying to copy 2015 Africa!
Americans, Saudis, Israelis and Turks.
Turks want to crush the Curds and want Turkmen in Syria to grab them a portion of the land.
Saudis want to counterbalance the Syria-Iran mutual defense pact because they're scared of Iran becoming a regional power.
Israelis want Syria and Iraq to fall to ISIS so they will have a clear line of attack towards Iran should anything happen.
America is just there because it's a puppet to foreign interests.
>tweets that every victim of sexual assault deserves to be heard
>every reply brings up all the women raped by Bill which were threatened and harassed by Hillary into silence.
She's a gaffe machine.
Eh. The two extremes literally see different things. The exact same situation is believed to be two radically different things. It's two people arguing over whether or not the same exact object is red or green, with no objective way to prove it except to try to collect all the people who think it's the same color they do into one place to try to force a majority rule.
It's fairly green to me, but it's fine to me if you see it as red. Neither of us has an objective viewpoint.
#GG is a vehicle of mass harassment designed to suppress women and minorities and basically just an arm of /pol/ and the like. If you are in support of that then then you "seeing green" is you saying, "yeah, doxxing and death threats are totes cool."
There's no "two sides," because that implies that both sides are legitimate as opposed to one being about treating humans AS humans and the other being against that.
And so to you sir I again say, go fuck yourself.
And to me, GG is made up of plenty of women and minorities (i only personally know one other white male GGer actually, the rest are women or racial minorities or, most commonly, both. I myself am a sexual minority fwiw), and I've seen MUCH more doxxing and threats from aGG than from GG. Once again, we're looking at the exact same thing and seeing radically different perspectives.
I'm sure you have plenty of screens of the bad things GG has done, and i can go find screens of the trashy things aGG has done, and we'll go back and forth about who casted the first doxx and whether they were sinless or not, and ultimately GG will still be red to you and green to me, because we both only see what we can see. There's no objectivity to it. There's nothing that can be proven to conclusively pin it one way or the other.
Name their leaders or meeting places, then.
Antitheists have no leaders and no real organised meetings, but exist.
GG also has no leaders, and there have been aGG (though not by that name) meetups and panels, which is all GG has had, so you aren't really making any points, i kind of feel like this is just an attempt to "win" without having to address anything.
>GG also has no leaders
Its founder was Zoe Quinn's ex boyfriend, Eron Gjoni. I think the founder could be considered the leader without causing too much controversy. It was founded for the purposes of harassing his ex because he was bitter about the breakup. So yes, GG does have a leader and an organized, central effort.
>#GG is a vehicle of mass harassment designed to suppress women and minorities and basically just an arm of /pol/ and the like.
/pol/ has been raiding GG since the start because GG is pro-minority, pro-women, pro-lgbt...
you're a fucking idiot.
watch him ignore this
>Its founder was Zoe Quinn's ex boyfriend, Eron Gjoni
No you retard, the "founder" was Adam Baldwin, in that he invented the hashtag. He hasn't been participating in it since ever though.
It's sad seeing people this misinformed.
inb4 he pretends Wikipedia is in on the "conspiracy" to badmouth Gamergate
>that entire post
...You know what, you win.
Congrats. I'm impressed.
is slowpoke in here trying to act intelligent by being contrarian again
yep looks like it
What's your definition of contrarian, friend?
>pro-minority, pro-women, pro-lgbt
It's not any of these things but sure
what's your definition on using google
See comrade, i asked because the actual definition of contrarian made no sense, so i was kind of wondering what you thought it meant.
The guys who trust the wiki talk page think the Gorilla Warfare copypasta are credible death threats and that GG is akin to a terrorist organization.
That isn't badmouth here, that pure demonization.
Also Eron did the breakup.
He also condemned the chan reaction to the Zoe Post and said it was misogynistic at first.
Really? This is the argument you're going with after the loads and loads of logs showing him in IRC with fellow /b/-tards planning all that shit against her? This sort of revisionist history is part of why no one outside of the /b/ bubble believes anything #GG says.
People take shit seriously these days on the internet. And they have every reason to. When dudes are posting on 4chan about killing people then actually going through with it, you really can't assume that anyone is joking anymore.
Those logs were doctored.
People were angry and hated her for sure, but there were no operation to ruin her. Except roguestar who wanted to be 1337 , but he was banned for the chat for that. People talked with Eron because they wanted information on the indie clique.
Also , reminder she falsely accused wizardchan of harassement, and faked dox of her twice before getting doxed
>Those logs were doctored.
Can you cite any sources for that other than members of Gamergate? Press agencies, published biographers, anything? Or is this one of those things where the conspiracy keeps that information from being published and prevents Wikipedia from having any information on that despite having plenty of information about the harassment campaigns that GG *did* perform?
>faked dox of her twice before getting doxed
Yeah, because faking someone doxxing her—even once—justifies her actually getting doxxed, amirite?
When you punch a beehive repeatdly, expect to get stung. I don't condone, but that was pretty previsible.
As for Wikipedia, every non anti-GG source is forbidden (Spiked,Frederalist, Kain, Auerbach, WAM study proving only 0,66% of GG accounts did harass) Everything Quinn/Wu/Harper/Sark claim is said as truth. Half of the article is Mary Sue/Salon fluff. It's basically an hit piece.
The logs are here. Compare with what you have with Ctrl-F.
>As for Wikipedia, every non anti-GG source is forbidden (Spiked,Frederalist, Kain, Auerbach, WAM study proving only 0,66% of GG accounts did harass) Everything Quinn/Wu/Harper/Sark claim is said as truth. Half of the article is Mary Sue/Salon fluff. It's basically an hit piece.
So then your argument is "conspiracy."
In Wikipedia? Yeah , it's a pretty known cabal of admins. Seriously , the one person who tried to keep the page neutral was forced to "voluntary" step away while the guy personaly attacking him got nothing.
Half of the article was written by Ghazi. Do a page who use tweets as source strike you as normal?
>Half of the article was written by Ghazi. Do a page who use tweets as source strike you as normal?
If it makes you feel any better, there have been hundreds of thousands of cases of vandalism by GGers who wanted to rewrite it to make it more in line with Gamergate's pretend lines before it got protected. The talk page is pretty informative about the tactics of Gamergate and the actions that have had to be taken to prevent #GG's misinformation campaign from taking over every page related to feminism or video games.
So mass bans, special rules to defend one point of view while ignoring actual truths and harassing everyone even neutral on the subject is a-ok for you. Duly noted.
Wikipedia requires the stuff reported on the article to actually be based on secondary sources. GamerGate has no sources supporting their view on things that aren't primary sources
because everything they believe is a lie. You're asking Wikipedia to make up new rules to meet some idea of "neutrality," but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be neutral, it's supposed to be objective. They aren't required to pretend that global warming or evolution is controversial just because there are people who disagree with them--they mention that the controversy exists, but they don't have to do like TV journalism and pretend there are two equally well-supported sides to every issue.
So that why you suppressed every secondary source who didn't go in your way. Kain and Auerbach are liars now? Spiked is a right wing fringe mag,too.
Oh and I suppose that the Society of professional Journalists backed what we said is insignificant. SJW are better in journalism than the SPJ, it's pretty known.
Or that you should hide the fact that the FTC changed their rules about affiliate journalism because of us. Oh I forgot, Adland are nazis too.
Also , lol at Game journalism is corrupt/SJW are bullies=Creationism.
>So that why you suppressed every secondary source who didn't go in your way.
If those secondary sources provided no independently verifiable evidence and facts, I can understand why they were “suppressed”.
>Also , lol at Game journalism is corrupt/SJW are bullies=Creationism.
You're right, it's more like "SJWs have infiltrated the media and are spending countless man hours and spending an insane amount of money on oppressing us, specifically, and make up all that stories about us bullying and harassing people even though anyone who's been to /b/ can not possibly say with a straight face that Anon doesn't make rape and death threats and harass people for the lulz on an almost constant basis"="9/11 was an inside job!"
Anon did for sure, no doubt about it. But when it deported to reddit and 8chan, the rules became way more strict. I never say "write: GG never did harassement" But:As the studies and the data analysis say , it was probably a minority with tenous link to GG"
Also , SJW are everywhere in the tech media , see gamejournopros. MSM don't do fact checking anymore, and bullshit feminist stories are endemic to media anyway (Rolling stone, matress girl). Probably less SJW that white women in distress syndrome. If Auerbach called it "the worst case of journalist malpratice he ever seen", I think "GG is basically harassement incarnated" is a little wierd in a NPOV article.
But eh, Holy Wars are Holy Wars. "Kill them all, God will recognize their own!".
>As the studies and the data analysis say, it was probably a minority with tenous link to GG
Yeah, a minority that just happened to participate in, use the label of, and associate with GamerGate probably had a tenuous link to the GamerGate group at best. Totally believable.
Well, it's like anonymous, there are the trolls and there is the moralfags. It's strange that you forget how anon works when your ideology is at stake.
Also, as I said 0,66% of the hashtag. "ISIS represents Muslims!"
I wish I could be as crazy as /pol/-kun, it sounds quite liberating.
Actually yeah wikipedia rejected our edits and let the corrupt journalists control the narrative because they fit some requirement wikipedia has for sources to be "from media". Which is fucking retarded.
But even that link proves you wrong:
>Twitter hashtag "Gamergate" after it was coined by actor Adam Baldwin
Gamergate wasn't even a thing before that, let alone a movement.
As for this dating drama no one really cared except the Wizards. And they only cared because Zoe was raiding them years before she even dated the guy.
Saying this was the reason for gamergate is pants on head retarded.
I guess SJWs can't see minorities if they disagree with them, but sure.
I think you're ignoring that people who were IN gamejournopros list were raiding people. One of them started a hashtag calling on people to assault "nerds".
This isn't some tenuous maybe-link, it's a direct fucking link to the corrupt journalists.
>use the label of,
Yeah like ISIS twitter bots used the gamegate hashtag. Because #gamergate was popular. And because Ghazi kept saying GG was ISIS so often the two hashtags were associated by a fucking bot lol.
Like a random Brazillian journalist used the gamergate hashtag and "harassed" poor Who, to push his shitty website. Because the hashtag was popular.
Like GNAA, Lizard Squad etc trolling people while "using the label of" gamergate, because the hashtag was popular.
None of these people had nothing to do with gamergate but are used as an example of gamergate being evil baby eaters. As far as I'm concerned this is fucking hilarious and people who actually think this are so braindead that I instaignore them.
Actually I think I'm (>>402995, >>402960) the guy you keep calling /pol/kun.
I have nothing to do with that board either lol.
The degradation of your own mental health is nothing to wish for.
>Actually yeah wikipedia rejected our edits and let the corrupt journalists control the narrative because they fit some requirement wikipedia has for sources to be "from media". Which is fucking retarded.
It's good that the world's #1 encyclopedia prefers credible sources to delusional weirdos.
I love how #GG uses "#notyourshield" as a shield.
LOL nothing happened at Mizzou! Literally every event they lost their shit over had nothing to do with racism. The Mizzou dean resigned for no reason whatsoever! I've been laughing for fifteen minutes straight.
Picture: Poop swastika. Which doesn't even look like a swastika. It looks like someone ran out of paper and had to clean up with a finger, then wiped that finger on a wall.
North Korea just threatened to nuke Turkey if they mess with Russia again.
It's a 90 degree angle.
90 degree angles are offensive.
Nah lad, if you look close it IS a badly drawn swastika. Gotta zoom in on my phone
This is it after noise reduction and color removal. I don't see anything vaguely resembling a Swastika shape, I think if you see one at this point it's 100% on you.
>post your face when the grout of every tile in that bathroom is technically a swastika
Color removal to try to make it easier to see colorful smears. Brilliant tactic Holmes.
Well go ahead, enhance it any way you like, just don't photoshop the remaining six lines of the swastika.
Here's the original.
Here's the saturation turned way up so we can see "colorful smears."
And you're seriously going to pretend that's not a swastika?
Lol do you get your news from that Sargon guy, that's amazing
m8 he's been on this tip for the last 3 posts
Just step back and laugh. It ain't worth the mental energy.
SWEDEN TO FIGHT RACISM WITH MULTICULTURAL SUMMER CAMPS
New anti-racism effort in Sweden - Swedish schoolgirls sent to camps with immigrant men. Swedish schools organize summercamps for older immigrant men and Swedish teenage girls.
The immigrants are mainly from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Congo and Somalia. The very purpose of the camp is to build bridges and create meeting points between them and the Swedish girls. In a larger perspective, it is about preventing xenophobia.
The girls from local schools ages between 15-25 have to take part in the camps as part of mandatory school curriculum. The immigrant men are between 17-38. Tennis, taekwondo, salsa, wrestling, light hiking, cuddling and film workshops are only a part of all the camp's programs. Reza Ahmadi, 29 year old from Afghanistan, is one of the campers.
I LOVE IT WHEN A JUDGE SMACKS DOWN A CENSORIOUS ASSHOLE. ❤
>scroll up a few posts
>stone acting as a censorious asshole
Could've called before he even posted it that some twelve year old would chime in with a profound misunderstanding of what censorship is.
hold on how could you have called before he posted it unless you knew he was going to post it?
put your trip back on stone.
Remember, everyone (this means you, Stone), don't respond seriously to /pol/-kun. Just laugh.
So basically she's saying literally everything people have been saying about Islam for years. Except only now we believe it because...minorities...?
That's how privilege ladders work.
Not really, progressives just ignore every contradictory fact. If a woman is against radical feminism she just have "internalized mysogyny", if a muslim is against radical islam they just have "internalized islamophobia". It's kind of like talking to a wall.
As opposed to regressives who think "If I can find one black person who agrees with my theory that slavery was good, it's proof that I'm not a racist!"
I am so goddamn sick of people bashing other countries' cultures just because they're not America. By which I mean calling them out on how they treat women and assorted minorities.
I just bash American culture instead.
There's nothing wrong with calling out places on their shit treatment of women and minorities.
Of course, America treats women and minorities like shit so...yeah.
You want every country to be a democracy and you want everyone on the entire planet to have equal rights and privileges?
>I am so goddamn sick of people bashing other countries' cultures just because they're not America. By which I mean calling them out on how they treat women and assorted minorities.
>America treats women and minorities like shit so...yeah.
>you want everyone on the entire planet to have equal rights and privileges?
Yeah I kind of do.
Why the fuck do people just add random arguments to someone else's rebuttal? No-one mentioned democracy.
I remember there was a women resisting arrest and fighting a cop, I said she made a stupid choice, and some retarded Americans start asking if I've "always hated the constitution or only just started".
That's a dystopian, boring future.
America is, internally at least, the most fun place to be in the world. The idea of heaven for many cultures is essentially Las Vegas.
Look at Japan. It has adopted similar freedoms and produced the same kind of powerfully intriguing culture, it is definitely not boring. I would like the whole world to be like that.
I want to see how the Indian culture would build Las Vegas if they had the same equality of rights and privileges. I want to see Ethiopia's take on Los Angeles. I want to see an Iranian TV show about six friends who have known each other since forever, and moved together to the big city.
What would Africa show us, if it had the same freedoms, the same standard of living, and no limit on expression?
It's incredibly fucking sad that I won't know the answer to that question in my lifetime.
>I want to see how the Indian culture would build Las Vegas if they had the same equality of rights and privileges. I want to see Ethiopia's take on Los Angeles. I want to see an Iranian TV show about six friends who have known each other since forever, and moved together to the big city. What would Africa show us, if it had the same freedoms, the same standard of living, and no limit on expression?
…goddamn, that’s a hell of a way of looking at things.
>America is, internally at least, the most fun place to be in the world.
For a very select few, maybe. For the rest of the population, life sucks just as much as it does for the majority of people in other countries. Worse, arguably, because few nations so loudly proclaim themselves the "richest, freest, best country in the world!"
>The idea of heaven for many cultures is essentially Las Vegas.
And to many others its an incandescent hell with a Sinatra soundtrack, Babylon.
>Look at Japan. It has adopted similar freedoms and produced the same kind of powerfully intriguing culture, it is definitely not boring. I would like the whole world to be like that.
For one, no, Japan has not adopted the same kind of freedoms, even on paper. While better, it theory and practice, than its authoritarian neighbors, Japan is hardly a free country on the level of the U.S. or even Britain. And I wouldn't wish the miserable life of a salaryman on anyone.
Two, I doubt we'd get to that capitalist liberal democratic utopia, ever. For one, China shows us that embrace of (state) capitalism, economic development, and the rise of private wealth does not translate into political or social freedom. Nigeria, the UAE, Qatar, rich in oil, have not been transmuted by wealth into nations with universal prosperity or human rights. And, even if wealth did lead to western liberal democracy, America is exhibit A in the case of how (exaggerated, incomplete) de jure liberty does not mean people are enjoying "equality of rights and privileges" in reality.
The West (and China) will continue to depredate the Third World. Imperialism, that "last stage of capitalism" will continue its plunder until it hits its limits. Be it a global war over dwindling fossil fuels and spheres of influence, climate catastrophe, mass unemployment due to automation combined with a crash from over-production, global capital will dig its own grave and ours (or our descendants') in due course.
Even if we did, I wouldn't want to see an Ethiopian Los Angeles if it had the same number of homeless people sleeping under the overpasses and drowning in the cement-lined river ever time it rains, the same violent cops and west-side snobs who think a $500 a plate charity dinner once every Christmas is sufficient. I don't want an Indian Vegas; what difference do the decorations and names of the performers make when under the whole enterprise would still be built on wringing cash from the masses, constructing a neon idol in a desert of need?
I want to see a truly free world. One where human ingenuity is unleashed to end disease and hunger, not increase market shares. Where creativity is unfettered and artists are free to produce without fear of the censor's sanction or the executive's meddling, and that "Iranian Friends" can not only get made, but where the artists who make it won't starve if no more than five people ever watch it. I want to see the entire whole of humanity enjoy its share of their rightful inheritance.
Truthfully, I find pol-kun's deranged ravings way more entertaining than Tora's sickening utopianism.
Low recruitment numbers.
That and patting ourselves on the back for having inclusive institutions of violent imperialism, see:
>Her name is ‘Sparkle.’ She operates a drone. She is sick of whiny boys. And she is perfectly OK with dealing out death.
Wow, such progress!
I aim to please.
Are we going to deny that America doesn't have a race problem with black men being incarcerated at disproportionate rates? Are we going to deny that people still view women as baby makers who should have no agency in regards to what they should do in a pregnancy?
I mean, I don't know what to say to you if you're not acknowledging those two facts of life here in America. And what's crazy is that those are just the tip of the iceberg of how racist/misogynistic America is.
>black men being incarcerated at disproportionate rates?
then they should stop committing crimes
That has fuck all to do with my point.
Hypothetically, if you have 10 white drug dealers and 10 black drug dealers, 8 out of 10 blacks shouldn't be getting arrested while only 3 out of 10 whites are. This also doesn't touch on how minor drug offenses (DUDE WEED LMAO) shouldn't be carrying heavy sentences.
This is all I'm really going to say on this issue, because that should be enough. And quite frankly, anyone who doesn't get why this is fucked up is either retarded or being willfully dense. Either of which I don't have the energy for, so just know that if this is the right wing retard that I won't be reading your lengthy response.
Oh, and "maybe they shouldn't commit crimes" is a ridiculous lack of critical thinking on your behalf. It used to be against the law for blacks and whites to marry, too. If you can't defend your law with any amount of reasoning beyond "it's the law!" then you are either too retarded to be arguing in favor for it or it's a shitty law. Pick either or.
That's in absolute terms though, not relative to the places Americans call out on.
What places are you talking about exactly?
Keep in mind here, that I criticize any and all countries that do shitty things (which I will admit comes out to...everyone in some way).
>do shitty things
According to your culture. That's the problem. You're intolerant.
I'm not going to sit back and pretend that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is anything close to being alright. Fuck yes, I am intolerant. Because examples like the one I just gave are fucking bullshit.
>Are we going to deny that America doesn't have a race problem with black men being incarcerated at disproportionate rates?
The cause is NOT racism, as the racebaiters claim.
The cause is NOT their genes, as the racists claim.
The cause there is that 56% of black men in America grow up without a father which across all races makes boys more likely to grow up into criminals. For Hispanics that number is 31%, and for white children that number is 22%.
Census Bureaou, 2005
Out of all juvenile criminals, 70% grew up in single parent homes and 87% in homes with unmarried parents.
Survey of Youth in Custody
Although it should be said out of 9.3 million boys without fathers in their homes only about 250,000 criminals exist. So unmarried parents doesn't automatically turn people into a criminal, it's just that criminals invariably come from a difficult home situation.
>Are we going to deny that people still view women as baby makers who should have no agency in regards to what they should do in a pregnancy?
There is a slight majority of women voting against abortion last time I checked.
Besides I don't see anyone advocating the right of men to have agency in regards to what they should do in a pregnancy. Men are being forced to drop out of college to support a child they’d accidentally fathered, even as the childs mother pursues an education with help from child support payments. How is that fair?
Black defendants are not released on their own recognizance, convicted, and receive longer sentences than white defendants. Black juvenile offenders are charged as adults at higher rates than white juveniles. Even with a higher crime rate in the black population, that demonstrates clear and systemic bias.
>Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found.
>There is a slight majority of women voting against abortion last time I checked.
Current polling has a slight "pro-choice" majority for women (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx). Even assuming that weren't the case, most people are not truly "pro-life", as in "no abortion any time for any reason". More granular polling shows most people are okay with the current situation: no restrictions pre-viability, reasonable restrictions thereafter, "partial birth abortion" outlawed. And even if that majority was completely "pro-life", being part of a minority group doesn't mean you're incapable of having views contrary to its interests.
>Besides I don't see anyone advocating the right of men to have agency in regards to what they should do in a pregnancy.
When they are subject to the health risks and economic strain of pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood, there'll be lots of support for them.
>Men are being forced to drop out of college to support a child they’d accidentally fathered, even as the childs mother pursues an education with help from child support payments. How is that fair?
A bloo bloo bloo
Bullshit according to your American culture.
You seem incapable of understanding this.
If apartheid is the hill you want to die on, okay.
Let's be honest here--this is probably a guy who is "anti-PC culture" and is trying to concern troll "liberals" by trying to make it seem hypocritical to preach tolerance while not tolerating other countries commiting genocide if it's part of their culture. In fact it's probably /pol/-kun.
>In fact it's probably /pol/-kun.
Yeah, I figured as much. It's why my response to him there was so brief.
>ITS JUST THEIR CULTURE YOU BIGOT! TRY BEING MORE TOLERANT!
Hmmm, well this is what that attitude gets you:
U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies
Why don't you read your own source friend,
>make sentencing decisions based on many legitimate considerations that are not or cannot be measured
>They've only got data on this final slice of the process, but they are still missing crucial parts of the criminal-justice process
How many of those guys have prior records before being convicted?
How many showed up dressed a certain way, or exhibiting certain attitudes in court?
Were they polite, contrite, apologetic etc or did they try to avoid responsibility?
How many committed minor crimes while out on bail?
In science we call this an incomplete experiment, because it isn't accounting for all of the variables. If someone has been on a first name basis with cops and judges all their life and commits an assault, he's going to get a longer sentence than someone who's never had a run in with the law until he committed a similar crime. Just as people who enter a not guilty plea or behaves improperly in court will get the book thrown at them after being convicted.
Stop the disingenuous charade.
The only problem that tracks equally across races is the lack of a formative family situation.
>When they are subject to the health risks and economic strain of pregnancy
Who do you think bears the strain for supporting mothers that take time off? I'll give you a hint: Non pregnant people, most of whom happen to not have uteruses.
>When they are subject to the strain of motherhood
Yeah because fatherhood doesn't matter... except when it comes to explaining crime statistics, which you're desperately trying to deny.
>A bloo bloo bloo
This isn't a laughing matter, there are lives at stake.
>If someone has been on a first name basis with cops and judges all their life and commits an assault, he's going to get a longer sentence than someone who's never had a run in with the law until he committed a similar crime.
All the same, you’re not accounting for the fact that black children in schools are routinely singled out for “behavioral problems” at higher percentages than white children, which means there’s a much higher chance of those children being given punishments that will hamper their education and stunt their ability to properly socialize with their peers. That’s to say nothing of the school-to-prison pipeline, which only makes things worse. If you’re going to trot out that “lack of fathers in the black community” cliché as an explanation for crime rates in re: the black population, you need to account for all the variables, too.
I need to find the studies but the "lack of black fathers" thing is a myth. Black fathers are actually really involved in their kids' lives.
>The only problem that tracks equally across races is the lack of a formative family situation.
Men are also more likely to commit violent crimes than women. Perhaps the problem isn't lack of masculine influence on their lives, but the fact that they get exposed to other men at all. Or perhaps men are just genetically predisposed toward violent, antisocial behavior.
>Or perhaps men are just genetically predisposed toward violent, antisocial behavior.
Violent yes, anti-social not exactly, humans are social animals but that society is hierarchical and thus prone to internal struggle, and anything outside the established unit is considered an enemy by default.
Of course, that's base instincts, the entire point of civilizational progress is taming those instincts as opposed to letting them run wild.
>Health risks from pregnancy: anemia, asthma, depression, diabetes, ectopic pregnancy, epilepsy, high blood pressure, migraine, placenta previa, preeclempsia, thyroid disease
>Health risk from knocking someone up: Zero
>Percentage of single-parent families headed by single mothers: 80 (https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/#footnote_2_13; http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2013FG.html)
Stop acting like men having to support the children they participated in creating is this horribly unjust burden. Women bear the burden of raising children. Its as disingenuous as your refusal to acknowledge that race and poverty are the most significant variables in how likely (and badly, and often) you'll get fucked by the criminal justice system.
>Of course, that's base instincts, the entire point of civilizational progress is taming those instincts as opposed to letting them run wild.
And yet men continue to do the crimes. Clearly civilization just doesn't work as well at taming men's instincts as women's because men are inferior.
Sorry, but women not having equal rights is nowhere near the same level as children being raped.
>And yet men continue to do the crimes. Clearly civilization just doesn't work as well at taming men's instincts as women's because men are inferior.
I know you're trying to run this weird false flag thing but you've got to be more subtle.
It's not so much a false flag as it is an exaggeration of my actual beliefs for the sake of making a rhetorical point.
>All the same, you’re not accounting for the fact that black children in schools are routinely singled out for “behavioral problems” at higher percentages than white children,
Again try and identify the cause here.
78% of the white kids and 44% of the black kids are in complete families. They have 7 hours of school per day, 6 hours of sleep, and 11 hours of a stay-at-home parent giving him some parenting. Then when their working parent gets home they get another 3 hours of parenting. Total fourteen hours.
56% of the black kids and 22% of the white kids are in incomplete families. They have 7 hours of school per day, 6 hours of sleep, and 3 hours of parenting when their mom gets home. That's three hours total of parenting, or almost five times less than the kids with intact families. Now how much that overworked single mom is capable of keeping that kid in school 7 hours a day.... that's a toss up.
So what is it:
A) Racism force field.
B) 1/5th of the parenting of other kids.
That's just parenting time by the way, we haven't gotten into other factors like the risks of abuse in such relations.
This is because men are more vulnerable to the absence of a father. Girls don't really give a fuck, they're mostly fine with authority from their mom. But what 18 year old man full of piss and vinegar has ever actually respected his moms authority?
Also testosterone, it exists and does a bunch of great things, and a bunch of really shitty things.
>Women bear the burden of raising children.
So do men, again, why are you pretending men don't exist in a family unit?
The justice of this burden has nothing to do with who contributes how much in it, because this isn't an affair of the law. The law is concerned with equal application, if a woman has the right to opt out of motherhood without even consulting the guy who contributed to the situation, there is zero reason why a man should be barred from having equal rights. A man has next to no agency or control over whether he becomes a dad, you seem to think this is a major issue if it happens to a woman.
No matter how infuriating it is to see someone making fun out of and downplaying life changing situations this is really a conversation you need to be having with someone in your private life who knows you, because honestly I'm not likely to untangle this with you over TCP/IP.
>A man has next to no agency or control over whether he becomes a dad
This is the most retarded thing anyone has ever said.
>78% of the white kids....are in complete families.
I don't understand political debates. Or why people like threads like this.
If you participate, the only thing that will happen in the end is you'll make enemies. And both of you will be some level of angry.
Political debates—in any form—are an attempt to bridge gaps in our understanding of each other and the political/social/economic systems under which we live. Even if we disagree, we can still (theoretically) walk away from a political debate feeling as if we’ve learned something that helps us understand the world a little better.
But instead we all just insult each other and use various slurs, thus invalidating ourselves in the eyes of others.
At least I know I’m an imbecile.
You DO have that going for you.
If only the same could be said of you.
Nah, i know Stone can be an imbecile too, it's all good.
>You're smarter than most people here.
LIES! LIES AND SLANDER!
We're all Anonymous (except tripfags), so I might be thanking you in one thread and simultaneously telling you to kill yourself in a different thread. If you hate someone here, it's only for a few minutes. That's why Anon imageboards are great for sharing opinions without social consequence.
And no, not all debates end with making enemies. I've had civil debates on 4chan (and even once or twice on /baw/) that ended with acknowledgement of both sides advantages. As long as both anons are civil, you can have a civilised discussion.
But you lot keep calling each other retards and getting offended, so I don't see it happening any time soon.
>Even if we disagree, we can still (theoretically) walk away from a political debate feeling as if we’ve learned something that helps us understand the world a little better.
Except you don't. You tell yourself you do, but you don't. Deep down, you hate that person and you feel like they are ruining society. You may have listened to their points, but not for one second do you actually consider them. Because you are dead-set and strong on your beliefs. Stop lying to yourself. You don't want to change, you want to cause each and every individual you can talk to that you are right. One at a time.
And if you had both just KEPT YOUR FUCKING MOUTHS SHUT then you might actually make a friend with them. You might actually learn to respect them and get to know them as a person before you start questioning their deep inner beliefs. But no, that'd be too hard for you. It's much easier to pick on people you don't know, on an Anonymous imageboard. And then try to justify every bit of shitslinging you do with "We're just having a mature conversation! We're learning about each other!"
Fuck you, and fuck this entire thread.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Also, I missed the reply button and accidentally reported the post. False alarm.
You'd think it was a personal problem wouldn't you? Because your head is so far up your ass, you don't dare to think for one FUCKING second that you might be wrong.
You would if you want literally anyone in the entirety of humanity to take you seriously and want to interact with you at all, even on the most basic level.
If this is your idea of a civil debate, then it's no wonder you aren't learning anything. The first step is realising that different people are different.
You act like I was trying to have a civil debate in the first place. I'm not putting on a face for you. I'm just calling you out on your hypocritical bullshit. Different people are different, and also stupid people are stupid. You need to realize that instead.
Well if you're not trying to have a debate, why the hell are you responding?
If you honestly disagree with someone but don't want to debate the point with them, just go to another thread or walk away from the fucking keyboard.
If this thread pisses you off so much, hide it and be on your way—and do the same for future politics threads. If you can’t even do something that basic, you deserve every response you get when you post in this thread.
You haven't done anything to tell me I'm wrong.
So far all I have out of you is an "Yeah, you're right, I'm a horrible person. I just don't care." Meaning I have every right to keep calling you a asshole.
why u so mad tho
Sure you can call out people for being an asshole, but no one gives a shit if you think Stone is an asshole. He doesn't care, I don't care, my cat doesn't care. If what goes on in this thread bugs you, go away. Hide it and never return.
You get mad at other people for being abrasive, AND IN THE VERY SAME POST, go on to be an abrasive asshole. The irony in that post is so thick you can slice off a piece and grill it for the neighborhood.
Which is kind of proof of the disingenuousness of your hand-wringing about "civil debate." You're only bitching about these things because you're running into more trouble than you thought you would getting everyone to dance to your tune and fight you and not getting the validation you crave.
You remember earlier on this week when he tried to bait people with that whole "tolerance" schtick then decided to go on posting strawmen about little boys being abused as if anyone in here said it was okay? He tries to nick people in these most obvious "traps" and when it doesn't work, he immediately tries to jump to something else because his trolling failed.
This time it just happens to be a derail because he's pretending to have hurt feelings over being called the asshole that he is.
What are you even talking about?
Great, now /pol/-kun's playing dumb(er).
I wonder how Ukraine's doing now. Apparently that whole thing isn't finished? Also, polio is bad.
Also, I'm thinking Bearnie Sanders might not be a bad candidate, and as such I want people to tell me why I should think otherwise in case there's something I don't know that'd make me not want to support him.
Yeah so far I can't find anything against Bernie. Probably a moot point anyway since Hillary is so likely to be the democratic candidate.
The only major hindrance for Sanders is that he leans hard left. Democrats and undecided/independent voters might think him a little too radical, even for a Democrat. But hey, Hillary was the sure-thing lock for the Democratic nomination at the tail end of 2007, and we all know how that turned out…
The only grief i have with The Burns is that he's so chummy-chummy with Clinton. I get that they share a party, but Christ.
Eh, I see that more as him doing the smart thing by making as few enemies as possible should he get the nomination. (The one thing I respect Sanders for doing, above all else, is generally refusing to attack his political opponents. Not that he doesn’t go for a swipe now and again, but his are more about voting records and policy positions than about personal lives and whatnot.)
Sorta, but not really. By international standards, he's a run of the mill social democrat. True, here in America anything to the left of Hillary conjures images of red flags and ominous Russian chorals in the popular imagination, but most of his individual policies have broad support.
His foreign policy record is an issue for his appeal to the hard left.
Granted, he's a pacifist compared to Hillary, but still a supporter of American militarism. It'll be a tough task to sell a foreign policy tha satisfies the general paranoia of the American public, especially after recent events, without alienating the left.
I'm happy Hilary is going to win. Now, more than ever, the West needs an iron fist to lead it.
I think USA is diseased, rotten to the core. There is no option but to start over.
Citizens are apathetic, they don't care who is in the government; they don't even care what the government does.
At this rate, we will have a dictatorship in 20 years.
We’re well on the way already, given the rhetoric of the GOP candidates this election cycle (and Trump’s still-rising popularity both because and in spite of his extreme rhetoric). If the current GOP gets hold of the Presidency and Congress—and the Presidency would also give them SCOTUS, since it’s likely at least one SCOTUS Justice will retire during the next President’s term—we’re pretty fucking fucked.
Actually I'm /pol/kun. I'm going to start wearing the name because you're too retarded to tell people you disagree with apart. I suggest others he insults or attempts to silence do the same.
The hinderance for Sanders is that he doesn't have a spine. If he can't stand up to two black girls how is he going to stand up to big business, a loaded congress, or Putin? Web is a retard, Clinton is an evil bitch.... who the fuck is O'Malley?
On the other side of the aisle we have Jeb the permaturd, Carson the stabber, Cruz who thinks Jesus created him out of clay to be president, Fiorina who ran two multinationals into the ground (but somehow a better woman candidate than Hillary wtf), Rand 'Bioshock' Paul, Santorum the anal sperm froth, and fucking Trump.
Honestly it feels like both parties brought out their B-team this election.
Do they just want 4 more years of Obama?
>I'm going to start wearing the name because you're too retarded to tell people you disagree with apart.
It's not easy to tell two retards spewing the same shit apart. If you can, congratulations, you've been blessed with a useless superpower.
Also I was about to respond to your post but then I saw this line
>Do they just want 4 more years of Obama?
Are you someone's retarded uncle on facebook?
>Are you someone's retarded uncle on facebook?
Can you finish a train of thought without self destructing?
What does me making fun of presidential candidates have to do with facebook, retardation, or my family?
>Women Stabbed at art Exhibit, Onlookers Thought it was Performance Art
Modern art is so bad it is officially indistinguishable from attempted murder. How do we fix this, or is it even fixable?
Well I kinda quoted the part of your post I found questionable. It's right there in the post. If you can't follow a simple conversation, I don't know what to tell you.
Then again, I think you're purposely ignoring things because you're a stupid troll.
I guess our only option is to stop attempting to murder people.
There's nothing to fix. Those people were stupid. If it was a performance art piece like that, their intervention would have been expected anyway.
What the fuck does this have to do with politics?
Better than the usual shit. This is pretty much the /news/ thread anyway.
We aren't doing it now though. Wait... are you trying to kill people?
It was meant to be a joke about how fixing modern art is futile. Also, yes.
Interpret this in essay form!
I go to /pol/, there's more than one person in /co/ who agrees with them.
Name 1 not joke way women or "minorities" are treated like shit.
Read the thread. I already did and I'm not having this discussion again. Wouldn't be surprised if you're /pol/-kun without his name trying to stir old shit up again.
Holy fucking shit, shut up. This is getting so old. You act like there can be only one troll, or one conservative opinion in the entire thread. You don't assume, for one second that maybe it could be more than one person. Doesn't cross your mind. It's just completely unthinkable to you. It's frankly hilarious how you think the (by my count) 5 different people in this thread that disagree with you are all the same guy.
You'll probably reply to this and say "Lol /pol/-kun quit double posting" or something. You come across literally like a 5 year old.
Saying “Name 1 not joke way women or "minorities" are treated like shit” as if you have literally no knowledge of the world outside of your personal space…well, that does sound similar to /pol/-kun’s brand of lazy insanity. (On the other hand, /pol/-kun would’ve said something racist on top of his request.)
I hope you now understand why staying anonymous in discussions such as this fucks you over.
I've known black people who sounded white, who had trouble getting leases, as they'd call over the phone, the landlord would tell them about the available house(s), and when they showed up, it would mysteriously just be taken. This happened multiple times.
Women definitely don't have it as bad as minorities, but yeah, there's a non-joke way.
I don't think art needs to be fixed, but in a way its perceived relationship with huge galleries does.
One time, I went to Pittsburg for Robot Week and toured The Mattress Factory with my brother. It was full of stuff like little hand cranked music boxes and books layed out on tabled to suppliment a video instalation that were clearly made to invite people to touch them and even pick things up, but by brother insisted that we take the cautious approach and presume that every detail is there for the sake of art and isn't to be disturbed in any way.
So I'm pretty sure art galleries need a reliable, clear way to communicate what's expected of visitors.
>I hope you now understand why staying anonymous in discussions such as this fucks you over.
Except I'm not anon, and that guy is still accusing people of being me.
That would be like me accusing him of being YOU.
>mods, ban person!
Ok you are definitely new here, /pol/-kun
>inb4 /pol/ starts tripfagging to stop imitators except an imitator is the one actually tripfagging or vice versa
I'm the guy he kept calling /pol/kun since a few threads ago, finally decided to get a name so he'd stop calling all opposition by that name.
The anonymous idiot and his buttbuddy Stone used to call all opposition hobos/bums and pretty much shat all over homeless people until everyone told them to STFU.
I like the notion that you are, of course, a vast army, but there is, again obviously, only one anon against you.
The only one who posts racist shit here is me and I'm not whoever you argued with. And I'll defend that at any time, I think minorities have it great in the west and definitely a hell of a lot better than any other part of the world deals with race issues. I won't apologize for the fact that whites built the greatest most diverse civillization in history.
>whites built the greatest most diverse civillization in history.
Said someone who has never even visited any other civilizations in his life.
Where can I find more diversity than America?
Where it's 99% black.
No... wait.... TURKEY!
Where it's 99% Muslim.
Why does huffington post look like the drudge report?
I notice that you're focusing only on one of the criteria, when you provided two initially.
Where are other criteria? From the quote
>whites built the greatest most diverse civillization in history
Diversity is the only one mentioned.
But if you want to talk shit go ahead....