/baw/ - General Discussion

I'm gonna bump my politics thread for two reasons

1) It was here first
2) It doesn't have weaksauce trolling in the OP

>>403255
I always preferred gladiators to weak trolling.

Why does huffington post look like the drudge report?

>>403278
Because you're a /pol/tard.

>>403283
Trump has no real chance of getting the nomination, and even if he did, he would guarantee victory for Hillary Clinton if he did. Across all parties, Trump has the highest unfavorability ratings of any candidate by far. And he's not a second place choice for pretty much anyone among the GOP primary voters--he's first or last. No in between. If two of the top three drop out, the last one is going to pick up all the votes of the other two, and easily trounce Trump who won't really pick up anything when additional contenders back out.

Rubio is the favorite for GOP nomination right now. And also the only one who really stands any chance against Hillary. Also, even though Sanders isn't going to get the Democratic nomination, if he did Rubio is the only GOP candidate who wins against him according to current polls.

>>403283

He has all but forced the GOP between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, Trump is—as of this moment—the only person who could conceivably topple the Democrat nominee and take the White House. On the other hand, Trump is in that position because he’s exposed the GOP’s racist “Southern strategy” by openly saying racist bullshit that past GOP candidates have only ever dogwhistled; by doing that, he has forced all the other GOP candidates to say bullshit that is nearly as (or exactly as) racist as Trump’s just to keep their names in the news.

The GOP has relied so long on stoking the resentment of white people (especially white men) who were promised everything and received nothing—all while “other people” got government assistance and handouts and such—that a hefty chunk of the racial minority population in this country sees the party as a bunch of racist pricks. (That doesn’t even cover the whole “war on women” issue, which arguably makes it harder for women in those minority groups to think of the GOP on good terms.) Dogwhistled racial animosity has been a part of the platform of the GOP’s policies for so long that the party can’t just yank that plank out by denouncing Trump’s bullshit.

But the Democrats are kinda fucked, too. They have policies and plans and facts all this other good shit (and some of it even sounds good on paper!), but what they don’t have is a story. Peep this article from The Weekly Sift (WARNING: BLOG HAS A LIBERAL BIAS) to see what I mean: http://weeklysift.com/2014/11/10/republicans-have-a-story-to-tell-were-stuck-with-facts/

Trump has a narrative about the country and what he (thinks he) can do to fix its problems. Never mind that it’s empty on substance (even his anti-immigration rhetoric is bluster); it rings true to a bunch of people, and they’ll vote for Trump because he has the right narrative for them. For any other nominee from either party to win—especially in the actual national election—they need to offer a better narrative than Trump. What should frighten you is the idea that no one can do that…and God help us all if Trump’s narrative carries him into the White House.

>>403283
He has hispanics voting for him because they hate blacks.
He has blacks voting for him because they hate hispanics.

I don't think "worry" is a strong enough word.

>>403289
The number of hispanic and black voters in Republican primaries is negligible.

>>403290
This is why I don't understand why the GOP's strategy is to go balls off the rails with their racism and shit. That didn't work in 2012 and that was, from my memory, considerably tamer.

But now we somehow have a businessman turned "politician" speaking about bringing back concentration camps. In 2015.

>>403291

It's the Southern strategy come back to bite them. Now they're trapped by the contradiction of their base being vehemently racist and that base rapidly dying off. They've tried to toe the line, but Trump has ignored the rules and made blatant what's been subtext since Reagan's infamous "states rights" speech. It could pay off for him, at least in the primary. Or it could could splinter the party.

>>403293

The party splintering was going to happen sooner or later thanks to the Tea Party Republicans and their attempts to shut down the federal government from the inside. How can any moderate Republican in Congress reach across the aisle and get anything done so long as those Tea Party nutjobs calling all the shots?

But yes, the GOP has a “race issue”, and that problem is primarily of its own making. Too bad the narratives with all those racial dogwhistles have worked well enough to become common rhetoric, which means they’re too much a part of the GOP’s platform to merely yank out in one shot.

So effectively, we're on the way toward the Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Party, with the Tea Party effectively being the US's UKIP--they have almost no chance of winning any national elections or seats in the national legislature, but they sure make a lot of noise and make the rest of us look bad.

That really would be the best possible situation for the country. The Republican party, with the religious fundamentalists, white nationalists and general loonies, might actually become respectable again and be able to put forward legislation that isn't disgusting to thinking human beings. And either way they and the democrats would be able to come to much better compromises. Meanwhile USIP/Tea Party is relegated to the garbage bin of history where it belongs.

>>403298

This seems like a likely outcome. And yeah, probably for the best. Right now in the US, tbe Democrats pretty much have a monopoly on sanity, so if you're not a nut yourself you prett much have no choice but to vote for them, even if you find their current candidate distasteful. This has the effect of making the Democrats less responsive to their base than they should be.

Basically if we wind up with the Democrats on the center-left, the Republicans on the center right, and the Tea/USIP/Confederates on the far right, we have a functioning political system again.

The only kink in this plan is that American politics are set up to be a two-horse race, and there are a lot of institutional factors in place to support that. So unless there's some adjustment, the fringe right party will dissolve and then reemerge as part of one of the two major parties, and the whole race begins again.

Maximum wishful thinking.

Far right is progressing basically everywhere, except maybe canada. No matter how media and celebrities hammer on them, the refugee/islamist problem is sufficently in the minds of the common people for that the extremists to thrive. Expect them winning local elections for at least 5 years.

>>403302

>Dude is on TV and camera 24/7, find me one racist sound bite.

This is from a transcript of his initial campaign announcement: “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” He implied that Mexican immigrants—with the exception of “some” of them—are drug dealers, rapists, or otherwise some form of criminal (not taking the “illegal immigration” thing into account). A good chunk of his campaign so far has been about immigration and stopping it so he can “make America great again” for “you”; by “you”, he means “the real Americans”, and given the GOP’s Southern strategy, one can see how he might also mean “white Americans”.

>it's not like liberals have 0,25 fertility rate BEFORE the abortions

It’s not as if liberal women are the only women having abortions, legal or otherwise—they’re just the ones more willing to talk about it as both a legitimate choice and a medical procedure instead of as “baby murder”.

>Historically the only way you replenished your numbers was brainwashing kids in higher ed, but that's coming to a fast end.

Yeah, now we can do it with the Internet.

>The independent (not republican) Libertarian tea party was hijacked by the alt right to make a point and send a message to the GOP. The republican party has been completely out of touch with their constituency, which is why they picked McCant and R-money the last two times.

No, see, picking McCain and Romney were solid attempts at appealing to the GOP’s core constituency of older white people. The party had no idea that, in both of those elections, those candidates would sink themselves (McCain by picking Sarah fucking Palin as his running mate, Romney by making those “47%” remarks). Alienating women and racial minorities also helped worsen the defeat, at least on the Presidential level.

>the Democrat party has these same business power blocks and they're actually more powerful, but you fags don't care because you just put the checkmark next to who has the D beside their name. It's easier that way right? Who cares if Shillary is a puppet for the Kuck Brothers?

Y'know, you probably had a point there…but if you did, it's lost in the 4chan-esque delivery. Try making a point without sounding like someone who mentally (and possibly physically) masturbates himself over how funny he thinks he is for saying "cuck" and "fag" and "Shillary".

>>403298

No party in American politics can be respectable, but yeah. Dems will still be the wishy-washy "we care!" party that makes a few nice little changes now and then, but still ultimately serves big business and the MIC, and the new-GOP would be bland, somewhat right of center, and more blatantly a puppet of the rich. It's just be a question of "do you want your imperialism with breast cancer awareness ribbons on fighter jets and jobs programs or more social Darwinism, nationalism and slightly more xenophobia?" Which is still shit but better than having party run by apocalyptic loons and outright fascists.

>>403301

No, we are definitely in the midst of a reactionary movement. To expect otherwise after eight years of a black "Muslim" "socialist who oversaw the legalization of same sex marriage would ignore American history. The recent terror attacks just amplify it. Whether it translates to electoral changes on a national level in the US (and France, where the FN has swept local elections) remains to be seen. But from Japan to Venezuela to the US to Europe, there is definite right wing and even fascist sentiment on the rise.

>>403302
>Historically the only way you replenished your numbers was brainwashing kids in higher ed
DAMN THOSE COLLEGES FOR BRAINSWASHING KIDS WITH SCIENCE, STATISTICS, AND SOUND ARGUMENTS

>>403303
>When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
That's not racist. We have an actual problem with criminals crossing the border. How retarded are you that you don't know about the cartel wars in 2015? The Mexican government barely controls the few provinces around Mexico City, that's why it's so overpopulated, everyone is escaping either to Mexico City or to America because the rest of Mexico is run by unbelievably evil gangs.

Matter of fact the only way that comment could be racist is when CNN brings in expert "interpreters" to interpret racism into it, and then you eat that shit right up with a spoon.

>No, see, picking McCain and Romney were solid attempts at appealing to the GOP’s core constituency of older white people.
Hahahahaha is that why during those elections like half the conservatives voted independent or abstained? Romney attracted more Democrat voters than any other president since Bush 2nd term terrorism win.

>delivery
That's your real problem, you don't evaluate ideas based on merit but on what they sound like. Do you want me to rap it to you? Maybe if it has a nice beat you'll realize how retarded you're being.
You've let the international clique of bankers and special interest groups eat this country from the inside out for waaay too fucking long because what they have to say sounds good. News flash faggot, they have thousand-man departments specializing in making shit sound good to you, so you won't object to the collar being put around your neck.

>Yeah, now we can do it with the Internet.
lol are you talking about your Tumblerina production lines? Those people will suicide when someone questions their divinity, otherwise they're useless. You're getting blown the fuck out all over the internet being used by normal people.

The only things you still control is the established, entrenched, big media. You're "The Man" now, and we're coming to knock you down.

>>403310
>You've let the international clique of bankers and special interest groups eat this country from the inside out for waaay too fucking long because what they have to say sounds good. News flash faggot, they have thousand-man departments specializing in making shit sound good to you, so you won't object to the collar being put around your neck.

I love the idea that you're supporting Trump and actually trying to make it sound like you oppose big business controlling government.

>>403310

>That's not racist. We have an actual problem with criminals crossing the border.

But Trump painted damn near every undocumented Mexican immigrant as either a rapist, a drug dealer, or some other form of criminal. (Again, this is putting the “illegal immigration” thing aside.) He probably thought he’d covered his ass just enough with that “some good people” bit, but I doubt anyone listening to Trump’s narrative cares about that bit. The rise in traffic to white supremacist websites—all confirmed by their owners and all confirmed to be driven primarily by Trump—coupled with the endorsement of one of the most well-known racists in America (David Duke) proves that his rhetoric is capturing the attention of racists in a way that dogwhistled rhetoric from elections past couldn’t. You’re right about America having an issue with illegal immigration; that doesn’t mean we have to paint all undocumented immigrants as rapists and thugs.

>is that why during those elections like half the conservatives voted independent or abstained?

I said they were solid attempts at appealing to the core Republican voting base (Romney and McCain are both older white men, the Republican voting base is primarily older and white, and both men stuck by traditional GOP talking points). I never said those attempts were successful.

>you don't evaluate ideas based on merit but on what they sound like

I’d be more willing to evaluate your ideas if you didn’t deliver them as if this were /pol/. When you want a rational and reasoned debate, you can bring your ideas to the table without the 4chan-flavored rhetoric. The only time I ever bust that shit out during threads like this is to poke fun at people who use it (or poke fun at a certain idea in general), and by that point, it should be obvious that I’m doing so. I mean, what do I look like, a retarded furfag?

…wait don’t answer that

>You've let the international clique of bankers and special interest groups eat this country from the inside out for waaay too fucking long because what they have to say sounds good.

Uh, last I checked, I have not ever been, nor am I currently, a member of Congress.

>they have thousand-man departments specializing in making shit sound good to you, so you won't object to the collar being put around your neck.

Four words: “Make America Great Again”.

>The only things you still control is the established, entrenched, big media.

I have not ever been, nor am I currently, a member of the Illuminati. (Or is the Knights Templar? I can never keep those groups straight. Oh! Maybe it's CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB PEOPLE.)

>>403313
>I have not ever been, nor am I currently, a member of the Illuminati.
I am. We don't have direct control over the media, but we don't have to. It's easy to make them report on whatever you want. Just put a sufficiently amusing "reality" show on pretending it's real and they'll have to report it because there's too much money to be made from the audience tuning in to be entertained. Make a clown run for president and they'll all report on the clown. Make sure he gets the support of neo-nazis and white supremacists and the closet sympathizers will start making their own arguments about why "No, really, his arguments aren't racist and here's why" while supporting exactly the same methods as the hate groups.

And in the end we funnel billions of dollars into our own pockets and also get to laugh our asses off at you people thinking you have any say in your own government.

>>403309
u didn't actually quote anybody tho

step up ur troll game or dont troll at all /pol/-kun 1,2, or whatever number u r i don't care

There is a bit of justice in this world tonight. Daniel Holtzclaw, a now-former Oklahoma City police officer, was found guilty on 17 of the 30-something different charges he faced for raping, sexually assaulting, and in some cases stalking thirteen different women. (Read their testimonies here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/daniel-holtzclaw-women-in-their-ow)

He’ll be officially sentenced for all of his crimes in January; if the court gives him consecutive sentences instead of a concurrent sentence—which means 30 years, as that is the sentence for rape in the first degree, the highest count for which he was convicted—the total sum of his jail time would be 263 years.

May that rat bastard motherfucker rot in hell.

>>403320

>What do you guys think, did this 14/88 pure Aryan rape thirteen black women?

Well, he was found guilty, so…

>>403322
>>403323
>>403324
oh hey he's dumping worthless images again

>>403319

Nice. Now if we could only see this happen to every cop, and every DA and judge.

>>403325

oh hey he's ignoring facts again

>>403330
>facts = my cherry picked images

k fam

>>403329
>Nice. Now if we could only see this happen to every cop, and every DA and judge.
I know anarchism is your gimmick but we do actually need those.

That Trudeau guy seems alright.

>>403344
He's a big sweetie.

//youtube.com/watch?v=cqhMse--cLw

>>403344
He's mentally retarded. I don't mean that as a slur, his mental development just isn't up to adult levels. He's on some psych medication currently I think, and is almost definitely on the autism spectrum.

>>403345
>white people are the least racist demographic
What a surpris-OH WAIT I FORGOT THAT RACISM IS POWER+PREJUDICE SO IT'S OK IF BLACK PEOPLE WANT TO ROUND UP ALL THE MUSLIMS AND GAS THEM.

>>403348
Man, don't you ever get tired?

>>403349
He's not wrong. Btw, if you're not a retard you know how to check IPs on imageboards, and you will clearly see that this post has a different one.

Re: Current Political Climate:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a
mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

"To focus only on the educated carriers of intellect and culture in the search for fascist roots, furthermore, is to miss the most important register: subterranean passions and emotions...These “mobilizing passions,” mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism’s foundations:

•the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits,against its enemies,both internal and external;

•dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and <b>alien influences</b>;

•the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

•the need for authority by natural leaders...culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny..."

"We are not required to believe that fascist movements can only come to power in an exact replay of the scenario of Mussolini and Hitler. All that is required to fit our model is <b>polarization, deadlock, mass mobilization against internal and external enemies, and complicity by existing elites."</b>

- "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert O. Paxton


>>403345

Tap into popular resentment and assign blame to an external threat, and the people will ignore the inherent injustice of the system. Raise up national identity as the supreme value ("Make America great again"), and people will ally with their oppressors, blaming an "other"-ized threat for their conditions and not the system.

>>403345
Fucking A, this is exposing the stupidity of the American public in such a beautiful way. Literally nobody in the media and government likes Trump. It's the normal American public that's retarded.

If he becomes president, it will go down as the worst moment in U.S. history and I kinda want it to happen.

>>403351

Speaking of fascism: http://weeklysift.com/2015/11/30/the-political-f-word/

Good read, regardless of whatever your political affiliation.

>>403352
So we're only smart if we want to vote for media/business/bureaucrat establishment, but if we want to vote for anyone else we suddenly become subhumans right?

Dehumanizing those of us voting for Trump leads down this path:
>The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/11/facebook-post-attributed-to-aclu-board-member-says-donald-trump-voters-should-be-shot-but-alleged-author-tells-a-different-story/
This is coming from the same hypocrites who claim we live in a democracy, the same hypocrites who claim gun violence is bad, the hypocrites who threaten to shoot us for voting a certain way.

Well I can tell you for one that if you take a run at me or mine you're going to find yourself riddled with bullets before you open fire, and I'm going to take a piss on your fool head as you're bleeding out for good measure.

>>403356
>Well I can tell you for one that if you take a run at me or mine you're going to find yourself riddled with bullets before you open fire, and I'm going to take a piss on your fool head as you're bleeding out for good measure.

What is it with gun nuts and their persecution fantasies? It was practically sexual the way you described another human being dying by your hand.

>>403356
> if we want to vote for anyone else we suddenly become subhumans right?
Not anyone, just Trump mostly.

>>403358

It is sexual for gun nuts. The gun is a penis extender for the insecure.

>>403361
More like The State is a penis extender for liberals.

>>403350
>f you're not a retard you know how to check IPs on imageboards
You can't do that unless you have admin capabilities. You didn't fall for that troll "how to check IPs" image that was floating around on 4chan like 4 years ago, did you?

>>403352
>and I kinda want it to happen.
No you don't.

>>403365
It's Georgia. Blatant racism isn't something they would have a problem with in Georgia. It's a selling point.

>>403365
>Georgia

You can't be surprised by this.

Not to imply that the northern states can't be racist, but that if a place is going to be openly racist, it's probably the south.

>>403369
>I can't believe someone said something like that seriously.
It was the appropriate response.

>>403369
>I get that South generally is red states, but look at the other candidates though. None of the more moderate GOP are getting support.

It's not just that they're red states, it's that the three most racist states in the country are Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. It is genuinely, thoroughly unsurprising to see them flock to the racist candidate over the moderate ones, not in spite of his racism but because of it.

>>403372
>The primary reason for bathroom segregation is not due to the availability of urinals
What is it?

>>403370
The only time "It's 2015" is an appropriate response is if a wild eyed man steps out of a 70s car and asks you in a panicked tone of voice "WHAT YEAR IS IT!"

>>403379
Sex feels better if we repress images of the opposite sex in every way possible until we get to the bedroom. If we can just see naked women 24/7 suddenly it isn't special anymore.

>>403380
>The only time "It's 2015" is an appropriate response is if a wild eyed man steps out of a 70s car and asks you in a panicked tone of voice "WHAT YEAR IS IT!"
Or when the audience knows very well what the expectations of modern society are.

As they do. As YOU do, although plainly it infuriates you.

>>403379

Because the arbitrary division of human beings into two discrete categories with different social expectations based on certain anatomical traits is part of the whole system of oppression. A divided humanity is easier to rule.

>>403380

?????

>>403381
>bueler why didnt you do your homework
>because its 1986
>trump why must you put all the muslims in concentration camps?
>because its 2018
It's a dumb response. It doesn't infuriate me, it disappoints me. Stop excusing it.

>>403382
>??????
My answer is better than yours.

>>403383
Neither of those examples have a socially obvious connection to the expectations of the times, as Trudeau's answer did.

>>403385

>The agencies asserted that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations, tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the their civil liberties, according to Haney.

Ok, so you want the government tracking people's movements and monitoring their communications just because of their associations? Would you want your travels tracked because, say, your cousin deals weed and his supplier gets it from the cartels? It because you post on an image board that members from the shadowy hacktivist group Anonymous also visit?

And that's not even considering the politicized nature of Terrorist Organization designation. See: PKK, MEK, Mujahideen, Contras, etc.

>>403387
>Ok, so you want the government tracking people's movements and monitoring their communications just because of their associations?
You are retarded.

Civil liberties have already been shat on, this country already spies on 100% of American telephone calls, Obama approved assassination of american citizens based on who they associate with.

But you draw the line at keeping an eye on foreign organizations that fund terrorists, good job, you get the ethics medal.

By the way, these groups weren't on the list, but that doesn't mean they weren't terrorist. It just means they weren't on the list YET. They sure as fuck are now, after the attack.

>>403389
>Obama approved assassination of american citizens based on who they associate with
That's not new behavior for a president

>>403390
Exactly so why is suddenly just watching people who could be terrorists a breach of ethics? They're foreigners, not even covered by the constitution.

Nonsense.

>>403389

So erode them more? I don't want the government reading anyone's email, or tapping anyone's phone. I don't want it killing anyone, with cruise missiles, drones it lethal injection.


>>403392

The Constitution does apply to non-citizens, even illegal immigrants. That's why their children can't be prohibited from attending schools (Plyler v. Doe). Suspicionless surveillance based purely on association is unreasonable.

>>403393
It is unreasonable to expect a state to not kill people. Order is upheld through a monopoly of force in the first place.

>>403393
He has a point.

We're killing people for very little reason, watching them instead of bombing them seems like a step in the right direction.

>>403394

Which is a good argument against states in general, but that's another matter. If a state is to exist, it's power is to be minimized so as to reduce its harm. Minimize power, and its areas of lawful application, and increase oversight and penalties for misuse.

We don't need a death penalty; there are many nations without it. We don't need armed police; there are nations without those. We don't need a military larger than the five next-largest combined, and bases in almost every nation.

>>403385
>But the Department of Homeland Security deleted the records,
Oh, that sounds good. I don't know enough about intelligence agency operations to know how hard it is for an analyst to get a group specially designated, or what kind of things could be done to alleviate the problem without letting temporarily frozen data grow out of control. But barring that, I think deleting iinformation that can't be released to the public sounds better than just tracking anyone not specially designated as having privacy.

>then disciplined and retaliated against him when he blew the whistle, he says.
Maybe not the absolute best response possible, but I don't think it's the worst either, especially compared to how wistleblowers who thought there was too much survellance were responded to.

>>403392
>They're foreigners, not even covered by the constitution.
They certainly don't get every amenity of a citizen, but to limit the power of organizations like the Five Eyes to share intelligence in a way that goes against national regulations, I'd like the level of detail on kept on arbitrary foreign nationals to be fairly low in precision.

>>403394
>It is unreasonable to expect a state to not kill people. Order is upheld through a monopoly of force in the first place.
That doesn't mean I shouldn't discourage the state from using more force than is actually required.

>>403395
But does this tracking actually reduce the use of bombs or just designate more targets?

>>403396
More anarchist garbage
>Which is a good argument against states in general
Magic isn't real, hierarchical organization and rule of law is needed for humans to exist in large, hetergenous groups.
>If a state is to exist, it's power is to be minimized so as to reduce its harm.
No, it's powers have to be expanded (just judiciously). Big government is the only defense against far worse things like big business.
> We don't need a death penalty; there are many nations without it.
This, at least, is true. It's a waste of time and money to pass, isn't an effective deterrent to crime, and above all obviously can't be rescinded if later evidence proves the defendant innocent.
>We don't need armed police; there are nations without those.
Those states exist in the pockets of other, larger states and often lack the same kind of properly armed criminals. Lichtenstein isn't Austria, for example.
>We don't need a military larger than the five next-largest combined, and bases in almost every nation.
While I agree in theory that the US pulls to much weight versus the other allies, military spending's role in the US' social and economic woes is greatly exaggerated. I'd like to see the JSDF as the majority staff in Okinawa for example, not the USN, but the USN should still be there to aid our allies.

>>403397
You're being massively hypocritical here, just saying.

>>403399
About what, in particular?
The retaining of information? Treatment of whistleblowers? Generals stance toward authority?
I'm perfectly fine with a contradiction being pointed out, so feel free to be specific.

>>403400
For everything.

It's fine to treat some whistleblowers badly if others have been treated badly in the past.
It's fine to assassinate people, but watching them isn't fine.
It's fine to indiscriminately bomb people, but taking the time to make sure if they're the bad guys isn't fine.
It's fine to spy on american citizens, but it's not fine to spy on foreigners.

Your head must be bursting from the contradictions.

>>403398
>Magic isn't real,

Sez you.

>hierarchical organization and rule of law is needed for humans to exist in large, hetergenous groups.

For what reason?

>No, it's powers have to be expanded (just judiciously).

Again, for what reason? Which powers are currently insufficient for the state's goal of controlling human behavior for the benefit of the ruling class?

>Big government is the only defense against far worse things like big business.

That is assuming that "Big Business" is a separate entity from the government, when the two are in fact symbiotic.

>>403401
>It's fine to treat some whistleblowers badly if others have been treated badly in the past.
That's not hypocrasy, which requires self-contradiction. I'm just saying that I'm not sure how vital clearance was for his career but that I'm glad he isn't being run out of the country and instead simply lost his clearance, which might mean he needs to apply for a new job.
>It's fine to assassinate people, but watching them isn't fine.
I didn't say that, I asked "Does this really reduce assasinations?".
>It's fine to indiscriminately bomb people, but taking the time to make sure if they're the bad guys isn't fine.
See above.
>It's fine to spy on american citizens, but it's not fine to spy on foreigners.
No, I said spying on foreigners leads to our intelligence agengies making deals with the nations they spied on in exchange for information on american citizens as gathered by their agencies, stepping around prohibitions on domestic spying, and thus it makes sense to limit spying on foreigners as a way to limit the power of agencies to indirectly spy on Americans.

http://www.grammarbank.com/reading-comprehension-worksheets.html

>>403405
God damn you are as terrible as the /pol/tards

Actually I guess that makes sense considering you're the one who used to go on about Obama being Bush's third term and nonsensical shit like that.

Corproate personhood and its granting of the corproation's ability to sue does not take into account the fact that those represented by the corproation, the stockholders, are protected by limited liability, but those held liable to the corproation are not. This creates imbalance of power between a large corporation and a private individual, in that an individual does not need to display the degree of negligence required for a shareholder to be held liable. I beleive this part of why corproations hold so much influence, and that it might be compensated for by providing protection to a natural person when they are being sued by an organization of limited liability.

>>403408

One tiny little area to fix would be arbitration act. It was not intended to apply to every contract between corporations and their employees and customers. Limiting it to inter-corporate contracts and contracts with executives would tilt things ever so slightly more in favor of employees and consumers. Making veil-piercing easier (eliminating the necessity of showing alter ego/improper corporate formation) would help too, by making it easier to strike at executives' personal assets.

Bringing back the ultra vires doctrine may help too. It'd impede innovation, since it's lock corporations into one purpose, but by the same token inhibit the formation of all-encompassing zaibatsu-style omnicorps. Look at Amazon: started as a virtual marketplace, they moved to making their own products (Kindle, Fire, FireTV) then producing their own content. Then they stopped selling Apple TVs so that their customers only had the option of buying their product. Apple, luckily, has many other products and a devoted following, so Apple TV is in no danger, but if that was their only product, getting shut out if the largest online marketplace would have meant death. Confine Amazon to "providing a website and shipping service for the purchase of goods" online, and you've cut off that behavior before it happens.

>>403411
>Last four presidents are the same fucking guy.
The Bushes would certainly have vetoed many of the strides we've made in gay and minority rights during Obama's presidency, as well as environmental protections put in place during both Obama and Clinton. Clinton and Obama would most likely have not invaded Iraq after 9/11, as there was no real reason to go after Saddam after 9/11 other than the Bush family's special hatred for him.

The idea that "the last four presidents are the same guy," or that the two parties are the essentially the same, is an oversimplification that comes off as really juvenile and naive--and also as a somewhat self-serving complaint from people who aren't affected by things that are actually pretty big deals, like unnecessary wars and marginalization of minorities.

>>403412
>The idea that "the last four presidents are the same guy," or that the two parties are the essentially the same, is an oversimplification that comes off as really juvenile and naive--and also as a somewhat self-serving complaint from people who aren't affected by things that are actually pretty big deals, like unnecessary wars and marginalization of minorities.
It's also a favorite notion of The Tea Party, relatedly.

>>403412

Obama has been, overall, marginally better than Bush on some issues. A McCain or Romney win would have been worse in many areas (immigration, LGBT rights), no doubt. But the overall nature of U.S. policy remains the same. Obama has killed more people (most of them innocent) by drone than Bush did. Prior to Eric Holder throwing up his hands and saying that the Feds will defer to the states, the Obama admin conducted 270 raids on (state) legal marijuana dispensaries, more than the twelve previous years. Before deferred action on immigration, more people were deported in his tenure than under Bush's. And, despite the brouhaha over our withdrawal, we now have (special forces) boots on the ground in Iraq again. Guantanamo remains open, and the mass surveillance continues, etc.

Even in the areas Obama's been better than any Republican would have been, its been by having his arm twisted (Biden jumping the gun on gay marriage) or has been a matter of jumping on a wave of public opinion and legal action right as it crests (see: DADT, also gay marriage). He's not a *good* president, just better than what we could have had otherwise.

The point isn't that, from my present point of view, that the Obama Admin has been a continuation of Bush, or just as bad as Bush. Again, he's been marginally better, enough so that, especially given the present crop of GOP candidates, we could even get a third consecutive term of Democratic rule. In the upcoming presidential election, Hillary, while a despicable villain in absolute terms, would be better than any of the Republicans, and Sanders would be a little better than her. But they're all awful people (or, in Sanders case, ok but not good enough to be good). It's like comparing ebola to Hepatitus B. One is preferable to the other, but both will end in the same thing, and the ideal is none of the above. Without a political (and social and economic) paradigm shift, American policy will remain governed by the same interests and continue in the same destructive direction (See: our continued involvement in Iraq/Syria, continued and expanded drone campaigns, and TPP/TTIP).

And yes, I was very unreasonable in the past. I've learned since then and will continue to do so. I like to think I'm less of an awful person now (tbh, I'm still garbage)

>>403412
>Clinton and Obama would most likely have not invaded Iraq after 9/11, as there was no real reason to go after Saddam after 9/11 other than the Bush family's special hatred for him.
Clinton and Obama both bombed Iraq. They also started wars in a bunch of other places, from the Balkans to Libya, and were either on par or above of the Bushes. You must be a few plugs short of a dragon dildo set to think these guys were peaceful, in fact I get the sense you're saying that just because they're part of the party which you bought all the cool merchandise from.
I also notice you didn't tackle other issues because you know they're exactly the same. Like Obama sucking cocks of multinational execs like Monsanto, Clinton signing away the banking protections we've had since the great depression.
They're all dumb as a pocketful of pennies as well, couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the soles, all because the parties needed perfectly controllable figureheads.

>or that the two parties are the essentially the same
It really started with Bush Sr. whispering in Reagan's ear, then having his four years of hell and it's still happening today. Both major parties have realized they can start wars for economic purposes as long as they aren't called "wars", meaning the congress doesn't have to approve. Both major parties have realized they can get away with shitting on civil liberties, so they do. They've stopped listening to the people and started serving corporate multinational interests.
Americans alive today think that's normal but this wasn't happening just a few generations ago.

>gay and minority rights
What are, things that the president can't really influence, for 500 Alex. You know what the president CAN influence?
1. Budgets. Like the science budget. Which had a <1% increase under Obama, while inflation increased 11%. For all practical purposes the science budget has been severely slashed.
2. Civil liberties. Illegal search and seizure, breaches of constitution, smuggling guns to cartels, nigh fomenting a civil war between police and minorities....
3. Foreign policy. Don't make me fucking laugh. Actually you sound like one of the party loyalists who would vote for the Wicked Witch of the West too.

>>403411
>its not self contradictory to treat two people differently for the same act
I was specifically imlying that the reaction to whistleblowers who oppose surveliece should be ligthened to better match the treatment of whistleblowers who support survelience, not that they should remain different.

The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. [NOTE: article is behind a paywall until October 1.]

The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.

What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.

>>403419
Won't stop certain peoples from running campaigns on that.

>>403419
I don't think the debate is over. I mean, some people still think vaccines are bad.

>>403416
You are indeed still a terrible person because there's no such thing as a good anarchist.

Admittedly you don't want to initiate mass executions of black people so congrats on being better than /pol/-kun anyway.

>>403419
>>403420
>>403423

There's two strains of anti-GMO. One is anti GMO out a purely naturalistic sentiment; "eco-reactionaries" if you will. They will never be satisfied because GMOs are "unnatural" and therefore evil. They'll never be convinced, like anti-vaxxers.

The other strain is ok with GMOs in theory, provided they are safe and used in a manner that doesn't harm the environment, but opposed Big Industry control of 90% of our corn production, IP rights being asserted over neighboring farmer's crops if they get pollinated by accident, and the use of GM tech to allow farmers to dump more and more toxic chemicals onto their crops, which destroys soil microbiology and gives rise to resistant weeds. They're also critical of the economic imperialism of first world nations going to third world nations and saying "oh? Your kids are going blind from vitamin a deficiency? Plant vast monoculture a of this one GM crop we own the patents to!" They're the reasonable, but also doomed to dissatisfaction, because the big agri-chem/bio/pharma companies have a stranglehold on the industry and own the agencies meant to regulate them.

>>403424
I could smell that strawman from waaaay over here.

>>403425
>IP rights being asserted over neighboring farmer's crops if they get pollinated by accident
That's not what happened, stop peddling lies decades after being proven wrong. Random cross-pollination would not pollinate perfect squares on neighboring farmers fields, they were clearly test patches.
Also to solve the problem of theft and environmental transfer, Monsanto developed terminator seeds. You luddites still find excuses to criticize every solution, without offering alternatives.

>use of GM tech to allow farmers to dump more and more toxic chemicals onto their crops
Another lie. Roundup resistance allows farmers to use fewer chemicals to kill weeds, in fact only one chemical: roundup. And roundup is lower toxicity, lower chance of entering groundwater, and faster biodegradability than all other weed killers.
If you chance to reply to this comment without a better suggestion for a weed killer, I'm going to consider the argument conceded.

>economic imperialism of first world nations going to third world nations and saying "oh? Your kids are going blind from vitamin a deficiency? Plant vast monoculture a of this one GM crop we own the patents to!"
Wow so bringing medicine to third world is "imperialism"?

Yeah there are two strains of anti-GMO, but I think your comment shows very plainly that the strains are:
1. Naturalistic crazies.
2. Socialist crazies.
There are no people who are genuinely against GMO on grounds of safety or environmentalism, because the safety for individuals and the environment is already shown to be a top priority for GMO companies.

>>403429
>If you chance to reply to this comment without a better suggestion for a weed killer, I'm going to consider the argument conceded.
Mulch. Pulling them as they come up. Companion planting with ground cover crops that make it so there's no room for weeds.

>>403429

>That's not what happened, stop peddling lies decades after being proven wrong. Random cross-pollination would not pollinate perfect squares on neighboring farmers fields, they were clearly test patches

I stand corrected. They sued farmers for saving seeds from prior crops. Still shitty, and still ridiculous to assert ownership over all subsequent generations of an organism simply because you developed it.

>Also to solve the problem of theft and environmental transfer, Monsanto developed terminator seeds.

>http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

Monsanto has yet to use that tech by their own admission. Which is both good and bad. Good because their seeds could potentially get saved and re-planted, bad because terminator genes would address the issue of contamination (which has already happened, see: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6863/full/414541a.html; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6863/full/414541a.html)

>You luddites still find excuses to criticize every solution, without offering alternatives.

I would be 100% on-board with GMOs if they a) were safe for human and animal consumption, b) unlikely to cause environmental damage, c) offered a functional improvement over existing strains (more nutritious, higher years, pest-resistant, drought resistant, etc.) and d) were open-source and farmers could keep their seeds, replant, and cross-breed at will without being sued. It's the injustice of a company asserting ownership over a plant, because one farmer bought its great-great-great grandparent plant from that company, that I am opposed to.

>Another lie. Roundup resistance allows farmers to use fewer chemicals to kill weeds, in fact only one chemical: roundup.

I picked Forbes since they're a fairly conservative and pro-business source, lest you accuse me of recourse to green activist crazy websites.

>One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.

>But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.

>http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

>And roundup is lower toxicity

>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

>http://grist.org/article/usda-downplays-own-scientists-research-on-danger-of-roundup/

You also failed to address the issue of roundup over-use and its contribution to the emergence of resistant "superweeds", which require even more toxic chemicals to control (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/19/herbicide-resistant-super-weeds-increasingly-plaguing-farmers)

There are alternatives to roundup, both chemical (acetic acid) and practical (mechanical weeding, animal weeding, no-till practices, use of mulch and cover crops, and simply ignoring weeds if they're late-season and not water and nutrient-hungry varieties). Watering practices (flood and sprinklers vs. underground drip) also affect weed growth. Such practices result in lower yields in the short term, but maximize soil health, whereas heavy herbicide use maximizes short-term yields at the expense of long-term soil health.

>Wow so bringing medicine to third world is "imperialism"?

Marketing a patented organism as a cure for malnutrition, especially when that organism provides only 20% recommended Vitamin A of uncertain bioavailability (see https://www.grain.org/article/entries/10-grains-of-delusion-golden-rice-seen-from-the-ground) is imperialism. Encouraging monocultures of a patented plant while local activists are encouraging crop diversification to address malnutrition because it is good PR and gives you more of a stranglehold on food production is imperialism.

Again, if it was a matter of "we made rice better! Here you go world! You're welcome!" there'd be no problem.

>the safety for individuals and the environment is already shown to be a top priority for GMO companies.

You actually believe that, don't you?

>>403431
That's not weed killer though, I specifically said weed killer because we can't sustain seven billion people on manual weed removal.

If you're bringing up organic practices you're calling either for:
A) Murder of four billion people.
B) Enslavement of five billion people.

You do get points for being rational though, at least you're suggesting solutions instead of baseless attack. I may have been premature in my last sentence.

>>403433
Opinion rejected.

>Again, if it was a matter of "we made rice better! Here you go world! You're welcome!" there'd be no problem.
People need to be compensated for their work Tora. Like, yeah you can say, "we should all just share for freeeeeee!!!?!?!!!!1" but people don't actually work like that in the main. You can be mad all you like about corporate ownership of various developments but without said corporations (or governments) gathering the talent and resources those developments usually don't happen anyway. You can't ask that people, or groups of people, just devote years, decades even, to something for nothing.

>>403436
>You can't ask that people, or groups of people, just devote years, decades even, to something for nothing.
Why does everyone always act like working against corporate greed is asking people to work "for nothing?" Like these companies have incredible profit margins, and make profits off of their investments for decades after they've made them, getting ROIs hundreds or even thousands of times in excess of what they spend. And yet when people say things like "Hey, maybe copyright doesn't have to last for 75 years after the life of its inventor! Maybe that initial plan of twenty years is more than enough," suddenly they're asking people to work for nothing?

Student suspended for 6 months (appealed down from 12) and his friend expelled for not finding black women attractive.

>When someone wrote “#blackwomenmatter,” Pryor said he joined in, anonymously replying, “They matter, they’re just not hot.”
>The “entire situation” on Yik Yak Nov. 9 actually began with crass comments targeting white students, calling them “dirty hippies with small dicks” who are “always fucking their cousins,” then moving on to mocking Muslims and even “Smurfs,” Pryor wrote.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25501/

Don't use YikYak guys, it's a honeypot.

>>403437
Actually lately Monsanto profit margin is technically 0% because they're losing money, they're getting rid of 2,600 jobs because you faggots think you're morally superior. That's 2600 families that are fucked now.

During their height, Monsanto profits were 10-15%, about the same as the healthcare industry or the average farmer. Which is to be expected considering they're providing the same commodity to the customer: life.

Things with larger profit margins are services mostly, not producers. Things like accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, payroll, real estate, legal, banking....

>make profits off of their investments for decades after they've made them
Their "investments" are tens of billions of dollars in debt, all debt which has to be paid off. This is not a profit.

>copyright doesn't have to last for 75 years
It doesn't you ignorant turd, it lasts 30 years, Monsanto lost their Roundup patent in 2000s. Any old fuck can produce it now.

>>403441
>It doesn't you ignorant turd, it lasts 30 years, Monsanto lost their Roundup patent in 2000s. Any old fuck can produce it now.
Patents and Copyrights are different, numbnuts. Copyright is indeed life of the creator plus 75 years. Patents are shorter, but still too long in a lot of cases.

And Monsanto's profits aren't down because "faggots think they're morally superior," it's because they take the profits they make and reinvest them into growing the company because growth is all that matters in capitalist economies. A stable money making enterprise that doesn't grow is a failure to investors.

>>403442
>damn those guys for wanting to improve themselves!
lol@socialism

>>403441

>they're providing the same commodity to the customer: life

Are you on the Monsanto payroll, and, if so, what're they paying? I may have principles, but I got student loans too.

>>403446

>life is a commodity. Pay to live and thank us for it

lol@capitalism

>>403446
>
>Anonymous
>>403442
>>damn those guys for wanting to improve themselves!
>lol@socialism
>
More like "those guys are bad businessmen for not being able to live within their means." This isn't even about socialism, it's about you defending the "honor" of a company that isn't able to get its shit together well enough to be profitable.

>>403446
So, they're getting rid of 2,600 jobs for the sake of improving themselves?
That's perfectly fair of them, but has nothing to do with anyone else thinking they're morally superior.

>>403447
Is food not life? Let's get some facts straight:

18th century: before GMOs and evil chemicals the world could support about 1 billion people. This was thanks to massive irrigation and clear cutting of entire forests over and over, so more fertile land could be found. If we continued in this way, people today would not know what a tree is, outside the few trees we might decide to farm. By the way the world population was kept down by starvation, more than two thirds of the planet at this time was permanently starving. Children born into starvation, lived barely hand to mouth, and died young from nutritional deficiency.

19th century: Then the west introduced evil fertilizer chemicals, which allowed us to stop clear-cutting forests to find fertile land. Do remember to thank the west that you know what a fucking tree is. Say, say "thank you west for the trees". On far less land, fertilizers allowed the world population go above 1 billion, and effectively cut down starvation to below half the planet which allowed population to start growing gradually.

Early 20th century: In the early 20th century the despicable west introduced evil capitalist pesticide and weed killer chemicals, which meant the world no longer had to use slaves or very lowly paid workers to manually remove weeds and pests. This is a job no machine can do even today, the only option is raw human labor. Say "thank you capitalism for no more need for slavery". The world population also hit two billion, and starvation was brought down to less than a third of the world.

Mid 20th century: The despicable, selfish west invented something called the "green revolution". Which is bringing the entire world the advancements of Europe in agriculture. Irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, to everyone, for free. The world population jumped to 6 billion and starvation was lowered to around 15%. The west is currently still hated worldwide, so remember to say, "thank you europeans for feeding billions".

Late 20th century: Now we're introducing to ourselves and the world simultaneously GMOs, which are supporting another billion and a half people with less environmental damage of the previous fertilizers and pesticides. The world population is projected to hit 9-10 billion because of GMOs and starvation to be brought below 5%. Thankfully, we know to charge for it this time, because the last time we brought the rest of the fuckers on this planet free shit they decided to hate us. You don't need to thank us for this last one, we evil whites enjoy the environment too.

I understand fully what the other anon is feeling right now. If you want to roll back this development to before 18th century, you're essentially saying you want to murder 7 billion people by starvation, this is literally the worst way to die for a human being. The body eats itself from the inside out. So excuse me if I get emotional when actual murderers and torturers start justifying their depravity to me by essentially saying "hurrr we're too stupid to know any better" all the while ignoring facts.

>>403453
>So excuse me if I get emotional
Excusal denied. Also, it sounds like you giving credit of the entire history of the west to one business entity that wasn't even around until the 20th century?

>>403453

That is some of the most distorted history I've seen outside a Texas schoolbook. You don't get credit for saving a drowning child if you tossed them in the lake to begin with, especially if you then abandon them on the shore to freeze to death.

>>403453
Tone doesn't carry over the internet, so I have to ask: is this satire? Are you being satirical right now?

Meanwhile Canada is selling bottled air to China.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12051354/Chinese-buy-up-bottles-of-fresh-air-from-Canada.html
>“Our first shipment of 500 bottles of fresh air were sold in four days,” co-founder Moses Lam says in a telephone interview with the Telegraph.
>A crate containing 4,000 more bottles is making its way to China, but he says most of that shipment has been bought.
>A 7.7 Litre can of crisp air taken from Banff National Park in the majestic Rocky Mountains range sells for roughly 100 yuan (£10), which is 50 times more expensive than a bottle of mineral water in China.

What do you guys think their profit margin is?

>>403460
I imagine the majority of the price in both bottled water and bottled air is in shipping and packaging.

>also rape culture.
SAUDI MILLIONAIRE ACQUITTED OF RAPE CHARGE AFTER CLAIMING HE TRIPPED AND FELL INTO A TEENS VAGINA
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/saudi-millionaire-who-claimed-he-accidentally-fell-on-woman-acquitted-of-rape-charge-by-british-court
>The court heard Abdulaziz gave the two women vodka to drink before leading the 24-year-old woman to another room to have sex. When the 18-year-old awoke the next morning, she told the court Abdulaziz was on top of her and raping her.
>Abdulaziz said he accidentally fell on the 18-year-old woman after she seduced him. He said she pulled him toward her and placed his hand between her legs. He claimed he was only trying to offer her something to wear or a taxi ride home.
>“I’m fragile,” he said. “I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened.”
>His DNA was found inside the 18-year-old girl and he claims he could have had semen on his hands after having sex with her 24-year-old friend.

>>403465
Oh, someone beat me to it. >>403463
Good taste on that by the way. Also, nice job making not-quite-29 feel almost old.

>>403466
>successfully delete one post
>password changesd right after that so I can't delete the second one too.
I really need to manually set the password each post, but then I need to remember to press the +. Anyway, yeah, this does sound bad. At this rate maybe people will actually think to spread out away frm the coast a bit, or at least bottle their own air from further inland.

>>403384
>socially obvious connection
You should do stand up with that kind of material.

>>403471
Like I get what you're trying to do here, but it is kind of self-contradictory? You are implying that the connection he expects you to draw is not socially obvious in 2015, but for you to mock the connection that he's expecting you to draw, you have to know what that conclusion is--in other words, you have to have drawn the connection before you can dismiss it. Which means it *was* obvious to you, you just disagree with it.

Therefore, the comment you've made is entirely nonsensical.

>>403472
why are you wasting so much effort on a retard from /pol/

i mean i know that paragraph probably took you a minute to cook up, but it's more than he deserves for his lazy trolling

>Martin Shkreli arrested

WOO-HOO

>>403479
Not for raising pharmacy prices though.

>>403480

Don’t care. Hope he gets his face punched.

https://twitter.com/NewYorkFBI/status/677597263540191232

This is a verified account. And it posted this tweet. Fucking hilarious.

>>403483
Bill Murray can still save us.

>>403483
>>403484

My fucking sides. Sometimes, I love my country.

>>403472
> you have to have drawn the connection before you can dismiss it
What are you talking about? The 'connection" we're supposed to draw is in the question. That's what this >>403383 is all about. It's possible to make any statement tailor made for it.

>why is your mom a whore
>because its 2015
"See if your mom wasn't a whore you wouldn't have drawn that connection, you have to draw that connection before you can dismiss it. Which means it *was* obvious to you, you just disagree with it."
- You Being Stupid

>>403489
no one respond to this post so we can give up arguing on this stupid point

thx

>>403484
That clause turned out to not exist actually.
>>403483
I saw a FOIA claim filed earlier.

>>403489
I mean it is fairly obvious that your mother is a whore.

>>403493
>I am an adult and you're not
Unoriginal as fuck.

(different anon)

And this is why we made the /pol/ SYM a separate thread.

>>403493
When dealing with fellow adults, yes.

>>403496
Are you implying that /pol/-kun is a child?
Are you saying you'd call a child's mother a whore for the child having different sociopolitical views than you?
wew

>>403499
Sorry Poke, I will definitely strive to be more polite to the white supremacist in the future.

Also kind of misogynistic to use that as an insult you bigots

>>403505
>This is a common cult tactic, they use universally negative label words for outsiders who are against the cult, this makes it "ok" to hate them.
>It doesn't surprise me that SJWs do it, the entire movement is a cult.
Hmmmm

Oh Joy Government cramming Patriot Act Part 2 into a massive spending "must pass" bill. Because we've not been told by whistle blowers that their datamining is already a crapshoot, lets add more data to it.

Governments solution to problems "just get bigger" clearly isn't working.

>>403510
Works for those with money, Speaker gets a nice shiny fence around his mansion while the rest of the country gets the bill. Rich of the world seem to the fortifying. Perhaps they know something they aren't telling us.

>>403512
Probably that ponzi schemes don't last, not even when they're global scale.

>>403514
And then they get eaten.

>>403515
It's all the Eloi are good for anyway.

>>403510
>Notice how that doesn't label a person, but a philosophy/movement?
What philosophy/movement

>>403520

You have a hateful and twisted view of the idea of social justice.

>>403520
Oh I get it, you're a white guy, now it makes sense!

Speaking of, my life got immensely better when I installed the Chrome script that changes the word "SJW" to "Skeleton." It makes the people bitching about SJWs look even more hilariously crazy than they already are.

>>403524
See, like imagine how much more interesting and dare I say insightful >>403525 becomes when he's talking about "necromancy" rather than "social justice." If anything he looks slightly LESS insane.

>>403525
I think I would throw pennies at you irl.

>>403521
/pol/tards often do

>>403528
Truth can come from any mouth, it just isn't coming from yours.

>>403525

You are batshit crazy.

Well anyway, I hope I thinned the bubble somewhat, even if I didn't destroy it.

I'll leave you now in peace to think about what we discussed, or to choose not to think.

>>403532
>One thing in common, they define people by arbitrary labels, assign arbitrary sins to that group, and hurt the innocent for for looking like that group
Nothing like you, obviously.

>>403532
>Do you recall what I wrote about people who believe in necromancy standing shoulder to shoulder with evil?

Oh sure, everyone says that. Don't forget that healing spells are also necromancy though, my friend! At least in fifth edition. In earlier editions I think they might've been conjuration.

>>403532

>they define people by arbitrary labels

"Social Justice Warriors".

>assign arbitrary sins to that group

Wanting "offensive" or "hurtful" speech banned everywhere ever.

>and hurt the innocent for looking like that group.

Conflating people who maybe think Internet services should do more to combat hate speech/harassment with actual literal Nazis.

>>403496
>nuh uh, I'm not a kid, you are!
10/10

>>403499
Whoa don't breach the veneer that makes him think he's a good person!

Social Justice Warriors are pretty well defined. Stop pretending they don't exist, academia bullshit prove they do.

Also define hate speech/harassement. Cause for now , it seems to be conflated with mocking and disagreement.

>>403543
Yeah, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. Stone already typed a book trying to explain to you what harassment is, and I'm not about to waste time doing the same thing, given it hasn't stuck to you. And if you care to play that entire "but it's not MEEEEE. I'm the OTHER right wing moron" game that you /pol/tards love to play, go read through the last couple of politics threads, which should be easy to find given how slow this place is.

And to anyone reading this, don't respond to him until he comes up with some new "le ebin trole" material.

>>403543

Define them then, because in internet reactionary it means "anyone to the left of Francisco Franco" or "anyone remotely offended by racist or sexist language."

"Hate Speech" is a legal and social term. It has various definitions depending on jurisdiction; Canada defines it as "advocating genocide" or "inciting hatred against any "identifiable group", "communicating statements, other than in private conversation, "advocating genocide" or "willfully inciting hatred against any identifiable group." The American Bar Association defines it as speech that speech that "offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the protected status of hate speech that is not defamatory of individuals (races and religions are too large to be deemed affected by slander) or inciting immediate violence.

>>403525
>First the axiom: Justice is essentially morality and fairness with all the arbitrary parts excised and the remainder clearly defined. Because of this, all actions guided by philosophies other than justice are by definition unjust themselves, because they would have been one of the excluded parts that constitute "revenge" (or something similar).
If that was the case, then everyone would just call their phisosophy justice because that's what they think it is, and no one would be able to talk about philosophies because every philosophy would be called the same thing.

>Now the induction: Either social justice has the same meaning as justice, or it does not. If they mean the same thing, then why use the additional word?
To refer to a subset of the process of bringing about justice, or to distinguish it from an implicitly asocial justice adhered to by others who do not go out of their way to point out that their idea of justice involves less concern for the effects of societal structure than is involved by what a social justice proponant sees as justuce.

>If they do not mean the same thing, if social justice means something different from justice, then "something different from/other than justice" is by definition "injustice."
No, as in addition to the above social justice could simply have differences that are considered arbitrary for the purpose of acertaining justice.

>>403543
They're also an entirely derrogatory term, and treating them like a formally organized group makes about as much sense as presuming there's a League of That Guys who secretly conspire to ruin all of tabletop gaming, and not just a large number of people who all lack awareness of what they bring to a discussion.

>>403546
>Canada defines it as "advocating genocide" or "inciting hatred against any "identifiable group", "communicating statements, other than in private conversation, "advocating genocide" or "willfully inciting hatred against any identifiable group."
Eh, not the best definition. A Canadian dude got charged under that law for disagreeing with a feminist. He didn't call for all women to be killed or anything, he just disagreed.

Meanwhile Bahar Mustafa gets off scott free literally saying "kill all men".

Hate speech laws are objectively bad.

>>403537
see >>403510
Read thread before posting stupid I HAVE YOU NOW SKYWALKER posts.

>>403547
If something isn't justice then it's injustice.
If you append any political philosophy to justice, it becomes injustice.
I think you're confusing justice for "what I want". Your desires are not justice.

And learn English fucker that post was hard as hell to read.

>>403557
>Meanwhile Bahar Mustafa gets off scott free literally saying "kill all men".
>
That must be so triggering for you. Are you coping with it okay?

>>403558
>If you append any political philosophy to justice, it becomes injustice.
Justice itself is a concept varying depending on the social and political climate of the day. At one point, returning a runaway slave to the owner was justice because you were returning stolen property.

>>403559
>Hate speech laws are objectively bad.
Lol okay

>>403560
> At one point, returning a runaway slave to the owner was justice
Uh, no dude, that was never just.

Justice covers everyone equally, that slave wasn't covered, therefore that wasn't justice. Same thing for assuring women and men without property are not prevented from voting.

This is one of the main reason why the West fought a centuries long campaign to exterminate slavery and fight injustice around the world.

You're confusing interpretations of law with justice. Which is retarded because by that logic sharia law is just.

>>403562
>You're confusing interpretations of law with justice.
It's the Justice System, dude. You may not like to acknowledge it, but the legal system is absolutely and unquestionably one of the meanings of the term Justice. You're trying to redefine the term to fit your argument, because you've come up with some sort of inane philosophy you want to support. But you can't assume everyone else is going to accept your ideolect as meaningful.

>>403562

>by that logic sharia law is just

It is just—to people who absolutely believe in the precepts of Sharia law. "Justice” is a nebulous concept with a meaning that changes based on who you ask (and when you ask them). bin Laden likely thought 9/11 was “justice” for America’s “crimes”. Lots of people think state-sponsored executions of heinous criminals are “justice”. I’ll even bet on Christians in Texas thinking the defeat of HERO was “justice” for “those who hold traditional values”. You can come up with an idea of what you think justice means. You might even get some people to agree with it. But good fucking luck with getting all seven billion people in the world to agree on the same definition.

>>403563
OK we've come to rule 3, SJWs always project....

Let me ask you something. If all laws are already just, meaning perfectly equitable, then why is it that we need judges to interpret the fairness of laws? Why do we need lawyers or lawmakers to change laws anymore?
Talk to anyone concerned with law, dude. They will tell you interpretations of law aren't always correct. Their careers are based on that fact.

>>403564
"Sharia Law is Just"
Mr. Stone !zWb42fBPMM - 2015

>America's crimes
Justice isn't concerned with countries or groups of people fucktard, it is concerned with a single person as the most indivisible part of society.

>"Justice” is a nebulous concept
So are jet engine mechanics to someone who doesn't understand it. To those that understand it, it seems precisely defined. You clearly don't understand justice and have nothing to contribute on the subject.

>>403566
I agree anonymous, women SHOULD learn their place.

>>403566

>"Sharia Law is Just" - Mr. Stone !zWb42fBPMM - 2015

Removing the context of my quote doesn’t make your point for you.

>Justice isn't concerned with countries or groups of people fucktard, it is concerned with a single person as the most indivisible part of society.

Even so, “justice” is still a nebulous concept with a definition that changes from person to person. The individual family members and friends of, say, a murder victim might believe in different forms of “justice” vis-á-vis the fate of the murderer. The victim's parents might believe life in prison is “justice”. Another family member might want the murderer to die (“eye for an eye”). The victim's spouse might think a limited prison term with a focus on rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society is a proper punishment. And that definition might also depend on the circumstances of the murder itself. Beyond that, there’s the notion of who gets the final say in what “justice” for the victim truly is. If you’re going to talk about “justice” as a concrete idea with a single defintion that everyone can agree on, you need to address these flaws in your argument.

>>403566
>So are jet engine mechanics to someone who doesn't understand it. To those that understand it, it seems precisely defined. You clearly don't understand justice and have nothing to contribute on the subject.

Much like Quantum Physics, if you think aren't confused by the rules of justice, you haven't understood it. In your case, you're just a manichean who thinks that manichean philosophy applies to everyone, like any other religious bigot trying to write off infidels.

>>403568
>“justice” is still a nebulous co
Actually you're still showing just how illiterate you are.

>>403569
Don't use words you don't understand. Actually this applies to Stone as well.

>>403570

>nebulous [adjective; neb·u·lous \ ne-byə-ləs] — not clear; difficult to see, understand, describe, etc.

I am no illiterate. “Justice” is still a nebulous concept. Its definition changes from person to person and is informed in part by the individual’s lived experience.

>>403570
Well, since you're an idiot, I'll help you out with understanding how words work:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justice

>>403562
>>403570

The problem is, anon, you are a) assuming a universal concept of justice, b) assuming that it aligns perfectly with your sense of fairness, and c) assuming our current system of law aligns with it.

The latter two are decidedly false--every individual sense of fairness is the product of culture, upbringing, and personal experience, and every legal system is a compromise between moral absolutes and the vagaries of human behavior. The first is unknowable without access to God and His Magic Storeroom of Platonic Forms (along with, presumably, the perfect sandwich and a bluray of the perfect animu).

>>403573

>The state or characteristic of being just or fair.

Two different 20-year-olds—one in America, one in, oh, let’s say Iran¹—are caught stealing a candy bar from a store. The American thief is sentenced to a couple of days in county lockup and a fine. The Iranian thief is sentenced to have a finger cut off. Iranians might view the American thief’s punishment as too lenient. Americans might view the Iraninan thief’s punishment as too harsh. But under each country’s legal system, the punishments are considered just/fair. When I talk about “the nebulous concept of justice”, I refer to how “justice” means different things to different people in different parts of the world.

¹ — I have no knowledge of Iran’s legal system. I chose the country because of its authoritarian regime. My piss-poor assumptions are not meant to disparage the average Iranian. I am a white lower-middle-class American dumbass from the South; forgive me my trespasses.

>>403574

>a bluray of the perfect animu

Funimation already released Cowboy Bebop on BD, so we don't need God for that.

>>403574
Exactly. For starters, one of the main places where "SJWs" and anti-SJWs differ in their sense of Fairness is that Social Justice is based on the concept that Equality of Opportunity must be enforced and preserved, while anti-SJWs, operating under the assumption that Equality has already been achieved (racism is over, sexism is over, etc.) try to act as though you can treat society as though it were color-blind / gender-blind / sexuality-blind, etc. and achieve fairness even without society having those traits. They argue that defending the rights of white straight christian males is SUPER NECESSARY because (since they mostly ARE straight white christian males who want to look out for their own wellbeing) their starting point is "Everything is already equal--therefore it's discrimination to give others "special privileges."

People who are disagree with the idea that everything is already equal are much more likely to agree that special concessions have to be made to grant social minorities to ensure that they have Equality of Opportunity. If black people are less likely to get jobs than white people due to racism, proponents of Equality of Opportunity who agree that society doesn't naturally GRANT Equality of Opportunity would be in favor of scenarios like Affirmative Action even if they disagree with individual aspects of Affirmative Action--because Equality of Opportunity doesn't currently exist and therefore must be compensated for with social reforms. Meanwhile those who deny that unfairness is built into the system as is--or who acknowledge that unfairness is built into the system but who feel that the law shouldn't do anything about it--will consider it Unfair/Unjust to do anything to ensure Equality of Opportunity at the expense of the aspects of Equality that they prefer to focus on.

>>403578

>you're confusing justice and punishment

This is a definition listed on that Wikitionary link: “Judgment and punishment of a party who has allegedly wronged another.” Wanna try again?

>>403580
>If you want equality of opportunity you would be against affirmative action or diversity quotas, right? Social warriors want sameness of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

Nope. Sorry. Your inability to understand simple concepts is hurting your ability to keep up with the conversation again.

>>403580

>the CONTEXT you bitch about is colloquial usage where people substitute it for revenge

I listed several examples where people would think of “lesser” punishments for serious crimes as justice, then contrasted those with “harsher” punishments. Some people can easily conflate “justice” with revenge; that makes a single definition of “justice” (at least in terms of “fairness”) hard to reach.

>>403583
Study more. Take some actual classes on civics and sociology.

>>403585
Backbone and courage have very little (read: nothing) to do with not wanting to explain concepts that can be googled in the year of our lord, 2015.

Same reason (and don't derail with this comment) I don't talk gun control with gun nuts anymore. They don't understand the concepts and think that stricter background checks somehow mean taking everyone's guns away. After a certain point, you stop bothering, because the people you're speaking with are either too stupid to understand concepts or are being disingenuous.

>>403586
>think that stricter background checks somehow mean taking everyone's guns away.
Honest, good-faith question: in what way would you change the way the US's system of background checks to ensure tighter gun safety?

>>403588

Here’s a smarter idea: http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/12/08/missouri-gun-bill-echoes-abortion-limits.htm

>>403589

Cute. But I'm really weary of both sides of the gun mainstream debate. Liberals think that they're somehow protecting people when really, they're just further criminalizing the poor, minorities, and the mentally ill without addressing the underlying social causes of violence in general (firearm or otherwise) and leaving them at the mercy of a state that is not on their side. Conservatives want guns to bolster the pre-existing social dominance of their constituents and as props for their reactionary fantasies.