Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Kongeriget Island wrote:They speak like retards

Ever been to America?

Auxorii wrote:Ever been to America?

No

Skaveria wrote:What are your opinions on AAVE? (African American Vernacular English) Some people on the extreme left are claiming it's an entirely separate language from English, citing that it has it's own words and consistent grammar structure, which it does. Calling it an entirely new language, however, is way too far. If that were the case then almost every American would be bilingual, because most of us have the ability speak that way, or can at least understand it.

On the other hand the least charitable characterization is that it's just "bad English." I don't like that either, because it DOES have consistent grammar, unlike broken English. The mistakes it makes are the same mistakes consistently. They seem intentional, and if that's the case, then they're not really mistakes at all.

I was leaning towards thinking it's an accent, trying to take a middle-route, but there's the problem, it's not region specific, it's population specific, AND the people that speak in that way ALSO retain a regional accent. AAVE is layered on top of it. So the best examples are southern AAVE and New York AAVE. You can hear the southernisms or the New Yorkisms in their speech, but they way AAVE is effecting it remains the same. So I'm thinking perhaps it's a dialect?

I find stuff like this interesting so maybe any of you interested in language can share your thoughts?

If you think about it, English is just "bad German." Hence why a language being "broken" is a rather weak point about AAVE. Nobody would say the same thing to say, Scots (and Scots arguably has more of a claim to being a "separate language" than AAVE does.)

Miencraft, Auxorii, Rateria

Narland wrote:Like any vernacular it is the speech and literature of a particular class, time, or place is useful for communication of a certain "in" group. That unlike standardized speech (as apposed to a specific jargon of vernacular needed by profession) it is subject to wide variance, ambiguity, and whimsy. Unlike dialects proper it changes drastically from one environment to another and one generation to the next. The AAVE of the 1960s and 1970s is hardly recognizable today as anything but Blacksploitation speech and considered "offensive" by the Academicians whose predecessors once advocated it. The more humorous aspects of it can be found in genre Hollywood movies of the time period and later.

I expect AAVE of the 2000s and 2010s to be viewed somewhat similarly 30 years from now. It will, like its 1970s counterpart be considered a slang and improvisation ridden form of a substandard English used by a particular subset of the English speaking population -- adequate in its day but hopelessly outmoded for the 2050s. I believe this is a part of the continuing attempt at Hegelian dialectics to divide and conquer anything that isn't following the religion of Marx.

I don't quite follow the last part. Why would the way people speak be a point of Marxist division? Or are you telling me that Karl Marx orchestrated all race/social/whatever differences in language instead of say, the people themselves?

The history of AAVE is known. It came from the speech of the slaves on southern plantations — often drawing on from African languages as well as adopting features from surrounding vernacular. Over time it became more like standard English except with a few quirks.

Miencraft, Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If you think about it, English is just "bad German." Hence why a language being "broken" is a rather weak point about AAVE. Nobody would say the same thing to say, Scots (and Scots arguably has more of a claim to being a "separate language" than AAVE does.)

From what I understand and can remember English is essentially the native Celtic languages that were injected with German, and then that Celtic-German combination was injected with French.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Modern English is descended from Old English (Anglo-Saxon, aka Anglo-German). Some Celtic stuff was put into the German, not the other way around.

Ah, that seems more right. It's also interesting because English has a tendency to adopt words from other languages, especially in science, Arabic and Latin come to mind.

Republic Of Minerva

Skaveria wrote:Ah, that seems more right. It's also interesting because English has a tendency to adopt words from other languages, especially in science, Arabic and Latin come to mind.

English is the most broken common language

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miri Islands wrote:English is the most broken common language

french still exists

The United States Of Patriots wrote:french still exists

*presenting a new word to French*

French: "Put way more O and I in there fam."

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:*presenting a new word to French*

French: "Put way more O and I in there fam."

“Also, put more silent letters and make pronunciation nothing like the spelling. Like Hors d’oeuvre, for example.”

Meme: exists

Bottom text: please stop using this template it's so cringey and overused

Meme: :O

https://qz.com/1705388/europeans-dont-trust-the-us-or-trump-poll-says/

Thoughts? Should we (Americans) give a rats ass about what Europe thinks?

Honestly at this point I don't care if Russia overruns Europe. With the way Europeans are treating the US, Brexit, etc. they don't deserve our foreign aid. Also the protectionist racket that is the EU can get fvcked.

The New United States

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/02/15/blaming-trump-for-their-problems-is-the-one-thing-europeans-can-agree-on/

this is actually a very good article

Republic Of Minerva wrote:https://qz.com/1705388/europeans-dont-trust-the-us-or-trump-poll-says/

Thoughts? Should we (Americans) give a rats ass about what Europe thinks?

Honestly at this point I don't care if Russia overruns Europe. With the way Europeans are treating the US, Brexit, etc. they don't deserve our foreign aid. Also the protectionist racket that is the EU can get fvcked.

I mean, I don’t think we should put our own interests aside for other countries (which you could make the case for plenty of intervention/foreign aid cases) but why would we allow them to get overrun? Not only is there the international law and precedent but we have an agreement in the NATO pact that we will support each other; while I agree with President Trump’s stance on NATO I completely hate this new vibe from the right of “if it’s not us we shouldn’t care”, or in economic crony-capitalist form, “if it’s not me I don’t care”. Part of being conservative is being a social conservative, which means standing for the values that this nation was built on. The same values that were the reasons we were heavily involved in WWII (even before Pearl Harbour). If there was an invasion of Europe by Russia, the U.S should certainly come to their aid just as European powers would come to ours.

Honestly, I’m a bit surprised it’s even a conversation of whether we’d defend our allies if invaded by one of (if not the) biggest foreign threat to the U.S today.

Pevvania

Republic Of Minerva wrote:https://qz.com/1705388/europeans-dont-trust-the-us-or-trump-poll-says/

Thoughts? Should we (Americans) give a rats ass about what Europe thinks?

Honestly at this point I don't care if Russia overruns Europe. With the way Europeans are treating the US, Brexit, etc. they don't deserve our foreign aid. Also the protectionist racket that is the EU can get fvcked.

As much as I'm against the European Union, from a geopolitical standpoint the Europeans are western, liberal, capitalist allies of the United States forged out of blood and brotherhood. Yes, they do rip us off, yes, they do rely on us quite a bit. But when you have a little brother you have to stand by your brother. And a Russia-dominated Europe would hardly be better for liberty...

Auxorii wrote:I mean, I don’t think we should put our own interests aside for other countries (which you could make the case for plenty of intervention/foreign aid cases) but why would we allow them to get overrun? Not only is there the international law and precedent but we have an agreement in the NATO pact that we will support each other; while I agree with President Trump’s stance on NATO I completely hate this new vibe from the right of “if it’s not us we shouldn’t care”, or in economic crony-capitalist form, “if it’s not me I don’t care”. Part of being conservative is being a social conservative, which means standing for the values that this nation was built on. The same values that were the reasons we were heavily involved in WWII (even before Pearl Harbour). If there was an invasion of Europe by Russia, the U.S should certainly come to their aid just as European powers would come to ours.

Honestly, I’m a bit surprised it’s even a conversation of whether we’d defend our allies if invaded by one of (if not the) biggest foreign threat to the U.S today.

I agree. I'm not a neoconservative by any means, and not much of a 'liberal internationalist' either, but taking a back seat in the interwar period led to the rise of fascism and communism, and then the most bloody conflict in human history. We should definitely defend our allies.

Auxorii

Pevvania wrote:I agree. I'm not a neoconservative by any means, and not much of a 'liberal internationalist' either, but taking a back seat in the interwar period led to the rise of fascism and communism, and then the most bloody conflict in human history. We should definitely defend our allies.

We should defend our allies and intervene in humanitarian crisis.

That being said, our relationship with NATO definitely needs to be reviewed domestically.

Pevvania wrote:But when you have a little brother you have to stand by your brother.

Well, from the US's perspective Europe is more like our infirm grandmother. Canada is our little brother. Canada is the best brother.

Pevvania

At least the Russians and eastern Europeans aren't radical globalists. They understand that if you want less terrorism, you can't import an entire class of people from a culture that spawns terrorism.

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Tupolite, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:At least the Russians and eastern Europeans aren't radical globalists. They understand that if you want less terrorism, you can't import an entire class of people from a culture that spawns terrorism.

Western Europeans are more antagonistic and a bigger threat to Western civilization than Putin ever could be.

The New United States wrote:Western Europeans are more antagonistic and a bigger threat to Western civilization than Putin ever could be.

The ethnic/cultural masochists of the U.S and Western Europe seem hellbent on destroying their own culture. You'll NEVER catch any other group of people hating themselves so viciously.

Narland, The New United States, Tupolite, Miri Islands

Pevvania wrote:Meme: exists

Bottom text: please stop using this template it's so cringey and overused

Meme: :O

Nobody:

Pevvania

>look at the current GA resolution

>it’s bad

I should get back into the WA.

Miencraft wrote:Well, from the US's perspective Europe is more like our infirm grandmother. Canada is our little brother. Canada is the best brother.

I see Britain as the infirm grandmother who has her moments of perkiness and lucidity.

I see continental western Europe as the crazy over-medicated increasingly decrepit Great-Uncle who has seen better days than his handsome but psychotic bomb-throwing know-it-all youth. He has let himself go mentally and physically, continues to wear the same old raggedy give-up-on-life sweats, and keeps in touch because of his welfare cheque comes via our address. He complains about our supposed lack of aesthetics while openly denying the black painted fingernail death-wish behaviour in which he is regularly engaged.

He also has our grandmother locked in his closet that he says is for her own good.

Pevvania, The New United States

blah blah blah muh culture waaaahhhhhh im scared of brown people but cant say that out loud anymore blah blah blah

Auxorii

Jadentopian Order wrote:blah blah blah muh culture waaaahhhhhh im scared of brown people but cant say that out loud anymore blah blah blah

this but unironically

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:blah blah blah muh culture waaaahhhhhh im scared of brown people but cant say that out loud anymore blah blah blah

What a ridiculous world you must live in. I don't think anyone here is "scared of brown people" - I was a missionary to "brown people" for two years and currently live in a country entirely of "brown people." I've probably done far more for "brown people" than you ever have, but keep virtue signalling. I'm sure it might get you some points with the radical left.

The fact of the matter is that Western liberty was not developed in a vacuum - it is a product of a particular time, place, and culture. To import millions and millions of foreigners from a different culture, arguably one that is incompatible with that of the West, is cultural suicide and will ultimately destroy the liberty that you supposedly love so much.

Pevvania, Skaveria, Miri Islands, Kongeriget Island

The New United States wrote: I'm sure it might get you some points with the radical left.

lol

Miencraft wrote:Well, from the US's perspective Europe is more like our infirm grandmother. Canada is our little brother. Canada is the best brother.

Yeah, but Australia has less francophones

Jadentopian Order wrote:blah blah blah muh culture waaaahhhhhh im scared of brown people but cant say that out loud anymore blah blah blah

You can't import people in mass who come from cultures that are inherently anti-liberal and expect liberalism to maintain itself.

That's why I'd be in favor of ideological tests for entry. I know that sounds scary, but the questions would be easy for a normal person to pass.

"Do you believe in democracy?"

"Do you get to just randomly sexually assault women on the street because they're haram?"

"Do you literally want to overthrow the government of the country you're about to enter?"

Pevvania, The New United States, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:You can't import people in mass who come from cultures that are inherently anti-liberal and expect liberalism to maintain itself.

That's why I'd be in favor of ideological tests for entry. I know that sounds scary, but the questions would be easy for a normal person to pass.

"Do you believe in democracy?"

"Do you get to just randomly sexually assault women on the street because they're haram?"

"Do you literally want to overthrow the government of the country you're about to enter?"

I'd absolutely be in favor of this questionare. "T/F socialism is a good idea". All the people who respond with true can be sent back to the hellhole in which they came

The New United States

Miri Islands wrote:I'd absolutely be in favor of this questionare. "T/F socialism is a good idea". All the people who respond with true can be sent back to the hellhole in which they came

The only exception I'd make is for native born radicals. You don't get your citizenship revoked for becoming a communist. We just aren't gonna import any new communists.

Where it'd get tricky is if a legal immigrant was radicalized AFTER they became a citizen. Perhaps there should be a waiting period, say, seven years, and if you're radicalized after that then you can stay.

This is what irritates me about claiming it's a race thing. No, it's entirely about beliefs. It just so happens that the enlightenment ideals I hold dear originated in the homeland of my ancestors, and seeing as they did, people from those places TEND to be more in line with them, but that doesn't mean it's BECAUSE my ancestors came from there.

If I ever have a child, I'd MUCH prefer they married a conservative black person than a whining socialist white.

The New United States, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:You can't import people in mass who come from cultures that are inherently anti-liberal and expect liberalism to maintain itself.

That's why I'd be in favor of ideological tests for entry. I know that sounds scary, but the questions would be easy for a normal person to pass.

"Do you believe in democracy?"

"Do you get to just randomly sexually assault women on the street because they're haram?"

"Do you literally want to overthrow the government of the country you're about to enter?"

Do you forswear all former allegiances to any and all foreign potentates, compacts, obligations, lands, governments, and states past and present?

Do you forswear all former allegiances that deny, deprive, or impede individuals of their God given right to life, liberty or property as exemplified in the Founding Documents of the US?

Do you swear allegiance to the Constitution and to the principles of Liberty and Equality it exemplifies?

The New United States

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Yeah, but Australia has less francophones

Australia is our weird ex-con cousin that isn't actually all that bad but he's just a little bit too obsessed with spiders.

South Africa is our cousin on the other side that's been to prison a few times, but now they've been out for a few years and have come to Jesus and are too extreme about it.

New Zealand is that all too quiet cousin that sits in the corner of the room looking all innocent, but has that cat-what-ate-the-canary smile on the face making one wonder the real goings on.

Miri Islands wrote:I'd absolutely be in favor of this questionare. "T/F socialism is a good idea". All the people who respond with true can be sent back to the hellhole in which they came

Skaveria wrote:The only exception I'd make is for native born radicals. You don't get your citizenship revoked for becoming a communist. We just aren't gonna import any new communists.

Where it'd get tricky is if a legal immigrant was radicalized AFTER they became a citizen. Perhaps there should be a waiting period, say, seven years, and if you're radicalized after that then you can stay.

This is what irritates me about claiming it's a race thing. No, it's entirely about beliefs. It just so happens that the enlightenment ideals I hold dear originated in the homeland of my ancestors, and seeing as they did, people from those places TEND to be more in line with them, but that doesn't mean it's BECAUSE my ancestors came from there.

If I ever have a child, I'd MUCH prefer they married a conservative black person than a whining socialist white.

I thought we were all about markets here? What happened to the market place of ideas? Won’t your own ideologies beat out the ones you don’t like?

Miencraft, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Jadentopian Order wrote:I thought we were all about markets here? What happened to the market place of ideas? Won’t your own ideologies beat out the ones you don’t like?

Socialism and Communism are objectively wrong though

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miri Islands wrote:Socialism and Communism are objectively wrong though

There’s a whole wing of political theory dedicated to Capitalism is wrong, it’s not really an argument to say they’re “objectively wrong”. Plus, if it’s wrong, will the market not fix it?

Jadentopian Order wrote:There’s a whole wing of political theory dedicated to Capitalism is wrong, it’s not really an argument to say they’re “objectively wrong”. Plus, if it’s wrong, will the market not fix it?

The problem is people being brainwashed into thinking socialism is right and people are suffering under the capitalist system despite the mass abundance it provides. Socialism leads to famine and failed states while capitalism leads to higher wages and higher standards of living. Nobody would look at socialism's track record and think it's a good idea except an ideologue that isn't interested in the conversation. (Edit): I should say that socialism is correct if your goal is abject misery

Pevvania, The New United States

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:All I'm going to say is that one cannot forswear an obligation.

As one is replacing the previous legal baggage (invalidated by Citizenship), and the positivist view (regarding obligation) is certainly alien to the American Common Law (upon which the Constitution rests), there can be no further obligation to former allegiances, the validity of former obligations regarding Citizenship being void. So I would assert that one must forswear the former obligation to their previous allegiances or they will be committing perjury.

Miri Islands wrote:The problem is people being brainwashed into thinking socialism is right and people are suffering under the capitalist system despite the mass abundance it provides. Socialism leads to famine and failed states while capitalism leads to higher wages and higher standards of living. Nobody would look at socialism's track record and think it's a good idea except an ideologue that isn't interested in the conversation. (Edit): I should say that socialism is correct if your goal is abject misery

But don't you want people to be social? ;)

The New United States, Miri Islands

Jadentopian Order wrote:I thought we were all about markets here? What happened to the market place of ideas? Won’t your own ideologies beat out the ones you don’t like?

Working to bring about a communist or fascist regime is an act of aggression in itself.

What you're saying is akin to: "Of course he should be able to shoot you, shoot him back, there's a market in guns right? Whoever invested in a better gun and more training will win the competition. You believe in competition right?"

Natural rights are inherent, whether one believes in them or not. There's no right for a competition to even be had. They're MY rights. You can't walk into someone's house and say "flip this coin, if it lands on tails I get you're T.V."

Like yeah, that's a fair competition, but it's a competition that has no right to be had.

Skaveria wrote:"Of course he should be able to shoot you, shoot him back, there's a market in guns right? Whoever invested in a better gun and more training will win the competition. You believe in competition right?"

Using this same logic your argument is "These people might consider shooting someone, so they shouldn't be allowed to come here."

Jadentopian Order wrote:blah blah blah muh roman culture waaaahhhhhh im scared of the visigoths and germanic tribes but cant say that out loud anymore blah blah blah

The New United States, Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:But how will we protect the children?

Change the definition of protect till whatever statistic you want to change looks good

Miencraft wrote:Using this same logic your argument is "These people might consider shooting someone, so they shouldn't be allowed to come here."

That's what the test is for. "Are you going to shoot people while you're here?"

Pevvania wrote:

Dear Gauls,

If you hate Rome so much, why don’t you move to Carthage?

Turning Point Rome

Pevvania, Auxorii

Skaveria wrote:That's what the test is for. "Are you going to shoot people while you're here?"

No, the test is for thought crime.

Normal people think about killing people all the time. That doesn't mean they're going to act on it.

Thought crime is no basis for anything in a free society. Thoughts aren't actions, and treating them like they are means we're surrendering everything that makes us a free western nation.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight

Miencraft wrote:No, the test is for thought crime.

Normal people think about killing people all the time. That doesn't mean they're going to act on it.

Thought crime is no basis for anything in a free society. Thoughts aren't actions, and treating them like they are means we're surrendering everything that makes us a free western nation.

I understand the basis of your concern. I'm only making the point that communism is hostile to natural rights, so any advancement of communism into power is also hostile. Electing a communist to the presidency is an act of aggression.

It'd be like if someone asked you to give them a gun so they could rob me. Just because it wasn't YOU who literally led the revolution and lined me up against the wall, doesn't absolve you of the culpability of making that happen.

"No officer, I didn't shoot that man, I hired a hitman to do it, arrest him, not me!"

Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:I understand the basis of your concern. I'm only making the point that communism is hostile to natural rights, so any advancement of communism into power is also hostile. Electing a communist to the presidency is an act of aggression.

It'd be like if someone asked you to give them a gun so they could rob me. Just because it wasn't YOU who literally led the revolution and lined me up against the wall, doesn't absolve you of the culpability of making that happen.

"No officer, I didn't shoot that man, I hired a hitman to do it, arrest him, not me!"

stop being stupid

Miencraft

Skaveria wrote:I understand the basis of your concern. I'm only making the point that communism is hostile to natural rights, so any advancement of communism into power is also hostile. Electing a communist to the presidency is an act of aggression.

It'd be like if someone asked you to give them a gun so they could rob me. Just because it wasn't YOU who literally led the revolution and lined me up against the wall, doesn't absolve you of the culpability of making that happen.

"No officer, I didn't shoot that man, I hired a hitman to do it, arrest him, not me!"

Hypothetically, if a Communist is willing to go through the electoral process, gathering the necessary votes and support of the people to win their election, are they not entitled to their office? What have they done to break the constitution? The people said, "I want this candidate", why should their voice suddenly not matter?

Besides, no real Communist is going to spend time running for office instead of organizing.

Miencraft, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Electing a conservative, a progressive, anyone who doesn't love freedom as much as I do... Those voters commit violence. Indeed, we should only elect my candidate. Anyone who votes for more taxes is a violent criminal. People who are not in agreement with myself are most assuredly enemies.

I mean, kinda this, but unironically. This is where we get into the pitfalls of moral relativism. You could make that same argument if someone was literally attempting to set up a fascist dictatorship. "Well, I can't male people agree with MY conception of freedom."

Yes, yes you can. You don't have to capitulate to authoritarians while they're authoritarianing just to maintain your liberal ideals. If you do, they'll literally end up killing you or enslaving you.

If the people voted to repeal the first ammendment, you get to resist that. You don't have to go: "whelp, it's the will of the people, who am I to impose MY morality onto them?"

Miri Islands

Jadentopian Order wrote:Hypothetically, if a Communist is willing to go through the electoral process, gathering the necessary votes and support of the people to win their election, are they not entitled to their office? What have they done to break the constitution? The people said, "I want this candidate", why should their voice suddenly not matter?

Besides, no real Communist is going to spend time running for office instead of organizing.

I respect the dedication to democracy, but it seems like you'd end up against the wall with a gun to your head going: "This is what the people wanted, this is fine."

Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:I respect the dedication to democracy, but it seems like you'd end up against the wall with a gun to your head going: "This is what the people wanted, this is fine."

I mean, that's why we have our 2nd amendment isn't it?

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I mean, that's why we have our 2nd amendment isn't it?

Now you're getting it

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miri Islands wrote:Now you're getting it

I present to you: https://socialistra.org/about/

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:This is why we have the whole constitution and a supreme court, and a divided government. So we can elected people and not have to worry about anyone having the power to just ending "up against the wall."

If it ever happened that such was possible, there's no way that any law against an idea would be able to stop it.

That's great and all, but it only works if there's a fundamental agreement amongst the participants that the separation of powers is to be respected. As it seems currently, the fundamental premises such as: seperation of power, republicanism, decentralization, and all those other great things, are what's being directly challenged. Those things can't save you if they're abolished. You can't invoke the first or second ammendment if they no longer exist. Even if the eradication of democracy is achieved democratically, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

It's perfectly fine to have a left and right wing, both are necessary, but there are fundamental assumptions and premises about our society that we can't afford to allow to be challenged and with the increasing radicalization of the left wing, it isn't only that the debate is being had within that framework, it's moved beyond that so that the framework itself is up for debate.

Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:That's great and all, but it only works if there's a fundamental agreement amongst the participants that the separation of powers is to be respected. As it seems currently, the fundamental premises such as: seperation of power, republicanism, decentralization, and all those other great things, are what's being directly challenged. Those things can't save you if they're abolished. You can't invoke the first or second ammendment if they no longer exist. Even if the eradication of democracy is achieved democratically, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

It's perfectly fine to have a left and right wing, both are necessary, but there are fundamental assumptions and premises about our society that we can't afford to allow to be challenged and with the increasing radicalization of the left wing, it isn't only that the debate is being had within that framework, it's moved beyond that so that the framework itself is up for debate.

I would argue that in a time when a real revolution needs to happen, following the law is the last thing you should be doing. If you are fighting a government you deem illegitimate, why follow their laws? Why let them disarm you?

Miencraft, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:That's great and all, but it only works if there's a fundamental agreement amongst the participants that the separation of powers is to be respected. As it seems currently, the fundamental premises such as: seperation of power, republicanism, decentralization, and all those other great things, are what's being directly challenged. Those things can't save you if they're abolished. You can't invoke the first or second ammendment if they no longer exist. Even if the eradication of democracy is achieved democratically, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

It's perfectly fine to have a left and right wing, both are necessary, but there are fundamental assumptions and premises about our society that we can't afford to allow to be challenged and with the increasing radicalization of the left wing, it isn't only that the debate is being had within that framework, it's moved beyond that so that the framework itself is up for debate.

this guy thinks his rights come from the constitution

Auxorii

The States Of Balloon wrote:this guy thinks his rights come from the constitution

I think this is the first time we've agreed on something since that time we talked about Shimoneta

Auxorii

The States Of Balloon wrote:this guy thinks his rights come from the constitution

My rights are inherent in my person, but I'd prefer that I lived in a state that respected them. What're your saying is akin to: "Just let them abolish the constitution, you're rights are inherent anyway."

Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

100% wholly unrelated. Where do we all stand on the Christmas Season debate? Does it start November 1st? After thanksgiving? December 1st? I am a firmly in the November 1st camp.

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:100% wholly unrelated. Where do we all stand on the Christmas Season debate? Does it start November 1st? After thanksgiving? December 1st? I am a firmly in the November 1st camp.

After Thanksgiving, anything before you are a corporatist, anything after you are a commie.

The New United States, Rateria

Suzi Island wrote:After Thanksgiving, anything before you are a corporatist, anything after you are a commie.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/abfc91e8c9f6771c083cae9ad033f1bb/tenor.gif?itemid=5205799

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The day before Christmas.

Anti-American liberal

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:100% wholly unrelated. Where do we all stand on the Christmas Season debate? Does it start November 1st? After thanksgiving? December 1st? I am a firmly in the November 1st camp.

Assuming one is following the Gregorian calendar and not the Julian (celebrate Christmas 2 weeks later and end it on their Feast of Epiphany.)

The night before Christmas (the closer to 0-hundred hrs the better) to the last day of Christmas, Epiphany (Janyuary 6th) commemorating the magi gifting the toddler Jesus of Nazareth gifts that were then used to support his families family's flight when they were refugees in Egypt. The evening of January 6th the decorations go down until the night before Christmas again. Celebrating fasts, feasts, and holidays outside of their time-frame is unfitting that tradition. The holiday is after all a tradition.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:100% wholly unrelated. Where do we all stand on the Christmas Season debate? Does it start November 1st? After thanksgiving? December 1st? I am a firmly in the November 1st camp.

The Yule festivities should begin on December 1st.

Jadentopian Order wrote:100% wholly unrelated. Where do we all stand on the Christmas Season debate? Does it start November 1st? After thanksgiving? December 1st? I am a firmly in the November 1st camp.

I don't like seeing christmas things in stores before thanksgiving, even less so before halloween. I understand people putting up christmas decorations before thanksgiving due to wanting to beat the weather. As for christmas music and the such, being that I spent every year in high school in a choir, I'm not as opposed to singing Christmas songs before thanksgiving. All that said christmas time is a wonderful time of the year and I wish more of the year could be spent with my family, and it is a wonderful time to reflect on how blessed we are.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I don't like seeing christmas things in stores before thanksgiving, even less so before halloween. I understand people putting up christmas decorations before thanksgiving due to wanting to beat the weather. As for christmas music and the such, being that I spent every year in high school in a choir, I'm not as opposed to singing Christmas songs before thanksgiving. All that said christmas time is a wonderful time of the year and I wish more of the year could be spent with my family, and it is a wonderful time to reflect on how blessed we are.

Well put. My christmas celebrations before thanksgiving are mostly limited to music anyways lol

Narland, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Christmas is a secular holiday, that was once pagan. If we are going to talk of tradition, we should be sacrificing to the Gods.

Christmas supplanted the pagan holidays by demographic shift more akin to Indigenous People's Day replacing Columbus day. Try telling a Neomarxists snowflake they might a well be paying homage to Columbus out of tradition. No one is buying that tired saw that Christians should celebrate Saturnalia. Especially the Churches of the East, (Syrian Orthodox et al), who traditionally celebrate Christmas and were never a part of the Roman Empire, East/Greek or West/Roman-Germanic.

The Demographic shift from the Christian converts of the slave class (95% of the Western Empire) vs the luxury class (Roman Citizens) who did instill their tradition of a failing Western Empire in decline (less than 1%) -- do the math. The once Luxury class impoverished themselves through their own decadence, unable to sustain themselves sold their infrastructure to or were overrun by the Germanic Tribes (who were Arian Christians) and went extinct. It was left for the former slaves and commoner Romans (who for the most part didn't believe in the old gods, but themselves were nominally Christian) to fend for themselves through what few institutions remained -- the Catholic Church, and the Tax Bureau (which unamusingly sowed the seeds for what became feudalism) which amusingly wasn't abolished by the Vatican until 2004 (a record 27 centuries) so it could be replaced by the EU taxing authority. It makes me wonder how many centuries the IRS will survive the fall of the U.S.

A second point is in not confusing Secularism with secular. Christmas is both secular and sacred. It is supposed to be -- God (Divine/Sacred) becoming one of us (human/secular). It is not however merely Secularist, nor is it supposed to be.

The New United States, Auxorii, Kongeriget Island

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I don't like seeing christmas things in stores before thanksgiving, even less so before halloween. I understand people putting up christmas decorations before thanksgiving due to wanting to beat the weather. As for christmas music and the such, being that I spent every year in high school in a choir, I'm not as opposed to singing Christmas songs before thanksgiving. All that said Christmas time is a wonderful time of the year and I wish more of the year could be spent with my family, and it is a wonderful time to reflect on how blessed we are.

Christmas Before Thanksgiving

Two weeks before Christmas for Commericalistic booger-heads is my general level of tolerance for music and decorations from public and private corporations/institutions. I do not care what, when, how, or if my neighbors or other individuals choose to do. They can have a Santa in their yard and play Rockin' Around the Christmas tree all year if they want.

I refuse to purchase from any corporation advertising Christmas before Thanksgiving. I will write, call, or e-mail them that my family is not going to purchase from them again until after Christmas. If I am in a store that does so, I ask for the manager and tell them in person that I am very disappointed and we are not shopping there again until after Christmas (January 6th).

The New United States

I have been a witness to stores placing Christmas items as early as mid-October, if not earlier. For me, the Christmas season should start closer to Thanksgiving or Black Friday than Halloween. The Christmas marketing seems to get earlier every year. By the time I die, it might start in January.

Narland, The New United States

Rateria wrote:I have been a witness to stores placing Christmas items as early as mid-October, if not earlier. For me, the Christmas season should start closer to Thanksgiving or Black Friday than Halloween. The Christmas marketing seems to get earlier every year. By the time I die, it might start in January.

All of the Charlie Brown specials when the kids are at a store there will be Christmas sale signs in the background. One of them (i think the Easter Special) reads "Only 246 shopping days till Christmas."

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:100% wholly unrelated. Where do we all stand on the Christmas Season debate? Does it start November 1st? After thanksgiving? December 1st? I am a firmly in the November 1st camp.

Beginning of Advent, of course

Narland

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Christmas is a secular holiday, that was once pagan. If we are going to talk of tradition, we should be sacrificing to the Gods.

EDIT: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which I was baptized into and went through confirmation and whatnot in, and remain a member of (though non-attending heretic I be), did teach those "Christian" seasons.

Jesus was most probably born in December though...

Auxorii

Kongeriget Island wrote:Beginning of Advent, of course

For liturgical faiths that is a no-brainer. Some of us more low-church types it takes some thinkering.

I have risen—again!

Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:I have risen—again!

Why did they shut you down

Miri Islands wrote:Why did they shut you down

Because he had grateful dead bears in the form if a swastika on his flag

Skaveria wrote:Because he had grateful dead bears in the form if a swastika on his flag

Can you post in discord?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

What does it mean to be “ too early to celebrate Christmas”? Should we not always be celebrating the birth and arrival of our Lord?

Never take down the Christmas decorations.

Christmas today, Christmas forever.

The New United States, Jadentopian Order, Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Okay but does your Lord and Savior have the largest pizza delivery sector in Libertatem?

I didn't think so.

Pizza today, pizza forever.

Auxorii, Rateria

Miencraft wrote:Pizza today, pizza forever.

Me, 3 months into university, wondering what I should have for lunch

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Auxorii, Rateria, Beance

Auxorii wrote:What does it mean to be “ too early to celebrate Christmas”? Should we not always be celebrating the birth and arrival of our Lord?

Never take down the Christmas decorations.

Christmas today, Christmas forever.

In one sense yes, for the Christian, the Incarnation (not to mention the subsequent death and burial that leads to the Resurrection) it is a breath to breath celebration all the year around.

In another sense, no. Rituals that:

*Sing of "Frosty", "Rudolph," and "Grandma" (Gotten ranover by a Raindeer) and whatever they've done to Nicholas of Myra;

*Drag a poor helpless defenseless evergreen kicking and screaming into one's house against its will and merrily bedecking it with tinsel and lights as it gasps its last only to later unceremoniously dump the decaying remains to the curb, (the trash or the wood chipper) while we drink to the New Year that the hapless dendron shall never see;

*Anually pull lost/stranded wassailers out of a snowy ditch with the tractor in the middle of the night because gps isn't so good when heading to and from the yuletide homestead; and

*Jab the elderly lady in the ribs over at the town mall to wrest the last limited edition Tickle-Me-Kylo action figure from the bargain bin to adorn some kid's Star Wars collection who doesn't appreciate you or it in the least

can go the way of shiverees (charivari) and outhouse tipping (tipping the outhouse over, not putting money in the outhouse tipping jar).

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Me, 3 months into university, wondering what I should have for lunch

(In the voice of Ben Stein from Ferris Bueller's Day Off) ramen, ramen, ramen, ramen ... (end clip)

The adventures of the scrounging up consistent sustenance as a undernourished college student are boundless. For me it was a slow cooker with egg drop soup and whatever noodles, veggies and game could be caught at the local grocers (minus their transaction fee of course). Fortunately one of my roommates usually drove for various pizza companies (or could be talked into doing so) and would bring home the unclaimed pizzas for the rest of us to break the monotony. It doesn't hurt to volunteer to tutor the offspring of a (good quality food) restaurant owner for a weekly meal if such an one can be found. Volunteering to game-master a regular biweekly rpg for all the munchies the party brings only lasts until one gets tired of Doritos, Ho-Hos and Mountian Dew. If one is totally shameless they can hang out at a street corner like Burnside and 10th holding out a hat and a sign that reads, "Struggling University Student Needs Books, Food and Extracurricular Activities."

Pevvania, Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Beance

I laugh at the fools who think their pizza is good when they live outside the Tri-State (NJ-NY-CT)

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.