Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

My second suggestion is far more radical. Please hear me out. There are very important matters at stake. True, the highway fatality rates have been declining in recent years.[3] But 41,480, the number of people who perished as a result of improper automobile use in 1998, for example, is still far too high. Desperate circumstances require radical solutions.

The radical suggestion I offer is that MADD adopt as one of its major policy planks the proposal that our nation's roadways be privatized. And this includes not only the federal interstate highway system but every byway, country road, city street, and even sidewalk — wherever vehicle-related deaths have occurred. Why? There are several reasons.

First, it is not at all true that speed, alcohol, drugs, etc., are ultimately responsible for vehicular death. Rather, they are only the proximate causes. The underlying explanation is that the managers of the roads, those in charge of them, have failed to deal with these problems. The reason Chrysler went broke is only indirectly related to car size, changing styles, competition, imports, the price of oil and gas, etc. This company was bankrupted because its managers failed to meet these challenges. When a restaurant shuts down, it is not due to such proximate causes as poorly cooked food, poor service, bad location, unclean premises, etc. Rather, this circumstance is due to the fact that the owners, operators, managers of the restaurant failed to address these problems.

Second, with a system of private highways and streets, the various owners would compete with one another to provide service for their customers (including, preeminently, safety). Those who failed (e.g., pursued policies detrimental to the "health of children and other living things") would be forced either to change the error of their ways or go belly up. Those who saved lives by better dealing with drunkards, speeders, etc., would earn profits and thus be enabled to expand the base of their operations.

Third, this is precisely the system — privatization — that vastly outstripped that of the U.S.S.R. in providing computers, cars, clothes, and a plethora of other products and services. Yet, instead of borrowing a leaf from our own success and applying it to highways, we have instead copied the discredited Soviet economic system and applied it to our network of roadways. That is, our highway network is governmentally owned and managed. This is why people die like flies on these roads and suffer from traffic congestion serious enough to try the patience of a saint (which also exacerbates casualties through road rage).

Fourth, the rules of the road that would minimize automobile accidents (this goes for most other valuable economic recipes) do not come to us from on high, imprinted on stone tablets. Rather, they have to be learned, ofttimes by hard and difficult experience. The time-honored and traditional capitalist way of learning is by allowing all entrepreneurs, willing to risk their own money, free rein to do exactly as they please. The ones who hit upon the best way of proceeding earn profits; those who do not either have to copy the successful or fall by the wayside. It is precisely this, the magic of the marketplace, that has brought us our world-class standard of living. But this learning process cannot possibly take place when politicians, bureaucrats, and other members of the nomenklatura class determine the rules of the road, and do not lose an iota of their personal fortunes when they err in this way, or, indeed, are guilty of any other sort of highway mismanagement.

https://mises.org/library/open-letter-mothers-against-drunk-driving

Miri Islands, Wyattish

The War on the American West was been going on my entire life, and my grandfather's life since returning from WW2.

Teddy Roosevelt represented the enterprising and entrepreneurial rugged individual who

>>>with courage and conviction;

>>>a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears;

>>>who owns a chunk of land,

>>>develops a skill set, and

>>>dreams big,

could raise himself up by his bootstraps; leave his mark on the world; and make the world a better place for others.

These Western (Western as in American Western States) ideals have been disdained and ridiculed by the East Coast political establishment, and academicians for nearly a Century. Statists hate the can do attitude because it is backed up by deed not just empty talk.

If I own the land and means of production to be self-sufficient and in my abundance be able to feed a fraction of the population; and if I should think (like a great preponderance of Ranchers, Cowboys, and Entrepreneurs of other means), that people do not need external governance, we are a threat to any extraneous government establishment, their academicians and special interest sycophants -- especially if they espouse even the mildest forms of authoritarianism that needs a dependency constituency. Because it is and has been (until Trump with a small reprieve during Reagan) going on my whole live and has been happening around me in real-time, it is hard to just grab a book on it. Internet searching "War on Ranchers" or the "War on the West" could bring up some relevant data as well.

The New United States, Wheaton Leaks

The New United States wrote:Not in the sense that, in a private property-based order, trade is an exchange of ownership of one thing for another. In a "left-wing market" system, there is no transfer of ownership, and thus no free price system and no possibility of economic calculation. "Left-wing market anarchism" is just as doomed to failure as any other system that rejects private property.

Do you always look at economic phenomena through a Marxian lense, comrade?

All [I]property[/I], or all land un-owned by a private actor? Are you suggesting that the state owns everything in Singapore?

I think you are perhaps a little too baked, my potato friend. Lay off the drugs for a bit, king.

Yes, there is- there’s personal property. Learn the distinction between private and personal property is in Marxism.

I was just pointing out that markets do exist outside of the right wing; I try to look at things objectively. I’m a free market capitalist.

All property. Chapter 29 Section 3(1) of the Land Law in Singapore. All land ultimately belongs to the state and you can only own an estate or some lesser interest in the land (this is why nobody pays ground tax). So under the State Lands Act 5 types of grants of land may be made by the state, namely:

estates in fee simple

estates in perpetuity

leases

temporary occupation licences

tenancy agreements

Why are you denying something that is literally written into their law code?

Skaveria wrote:Libertatem is looking more vibrant with debate than I've seen it in a while. Good on y'all.

You’re welcome ;)

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Auxorii wrote:Yes, there is- there’s personal property. Learn the distinction between private and personal property is in Marxism

I've never understood the logic behind separating private and personal property. In my understanding, the theory is that the owning of a means of production by an individual is private property, whereas everything else that can't be used to produce something else is considered personal property.

The disconnect for me is that personal property could easily become private property depending on how I use it. If an apple is my personal property, but I remove the seeds to plant an apple tree and start selling apples, that apple tree is now private property. The essence of what the object is hasn't changed, only my use of it. My house is personal property until I start renting out rooms, then it's private. Again, the object hasn't changed, just my use of it.

It seems completely arbitrary and philosophically inconsistent. It seems like the only reason the distinction is even made is to validate the higher order Marxist ideal. It doesn't seem to stand on it's own merit to me.

And thanks btw, it was definitely you in part who started the dialogue.

The New United States, Rateria, Wheaton Leaks

Skaveria wrote:I've never understood the logic behind separating private and personal property. In my understanding, the theory is that the owning of a means of production by an individual is private property, whereas everything else that can't be used to produce something else is considered personal property.

The disconnect for me is that personal property could easily become private property depending on how I use it. If an apple is my personal property, but I remove the seeds to plant an apple tree and start selling apples, that apple tree is now private property. The essence of what the object is hasn't changed, only my use of it. My house is personal property until I start renting out rooms, then it's private. Again, the object hasn't changed, just my use of it.

It seems completely arbitrary and philosophically inconsistent. It seems like the only reason the distinction is even made is to validate the higher order Marxist ideal. It doesn't seem to stand on it's own merit to me.

And thanks btw, it was definitely you in part who started the dialogue.

Don’t get me wrong-I agree with you. I’m just pointing out what they believe.

The New United States, Rateria

Wheaton Leaks wrote:What do you think about trump? I like how he’s cutting Obamacare and reducing taxes, but I don’t like how he’s strengthening the Gestapo, weaponizing arbitrary statist borders, and generally interfering in the free market with his China trade war and subsidies

I'm perfectly fine with what he's doing to China, I don't believe you can have free trade if most of your workforce is literally enslaved

The New United States, Auxorii

Skaveria wrote:I've never understood the logic behind separating private and personal property. In my understanding, the theory is that the owning of a means of production by an individual is private property, whereas everything else that can't be used to produce something else is considered personal property.

The disconnect for me is that personal property could easily become private property depending on how I use it. If an apple is my personal property, but I remove the seeds to plant an apple tree and start selling apples, that apple tree is now private property. The essence of what the object is hasn't changed, only my use of it. My house is personal property until I start renting out rooms, then it's private. Again, the object hasn't changed, just my use of it.

It seems completely arbitrary and philosophically inconsistent. It seems like the only reason the distinction is even made is to validate the higher order Marxist ideal. It doesn't seem to stand on it's own merit to me.

And thanks btw, it was definitely you in part who started the dialogue.

It's so that the Commies get to keep their body pillows after the revolution

The New United States, Auxorii, Rateria, Wheaton Leaks

Miri Islands wrote:I'm perfectly fine with what he's doing to China, I don't believe you can have free trade if most of your workforce is literally enslaved

I suppose that’s true, but I don’t know if the answer to that is to go more in there direction by having the government interfere more in the free market

Auxorii wrote:Don’t get me wrong-I agree with you. I’m just pointing out what they believe.

But weren’t you using the Marxist definition to try and say they didn’t have private property in Singapore?

Wheaton Leaks wrote:But weren’t you using the Marxist definition to try and say they didn’t have private property in Singapore?

I wasn’t using any Marxist definition when talking about Singapore. I used their law code:

Auxorii wrote:Chapter 29 Section 3(1) of the Land Law in Singapore. All land ultimately belongs to the state and you can only own an estate or some lesser interest in the land (this is why nobody pays ground tax). So under the State Lands Act 5 types of grants of land may be made by the state, namely:

estates in fee simple

estates in perpetuity

leases

temporary occupation licences

tenancy agreements

Rateria

Wheaton Leaks wrote:I suppose that’s true, but I don’t know if the answer to that is to go more in there direction by having the government interfere more in the free market

Government regulation is by no means a moral equivalent to slavery. By not having free trade with China we are actively sending a message that we do not support their system. Ideally we wouldn't trade with them at all

Pevvania, Auxorii, Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:Government regulation is by no means a moral equivalent to slavery. By not having free trade with China we are actively sending a message that we do not support their system. Ideally we wouldn't trade with them at all

I’d say there’s a lot of equivalents, there’s people who have a monopoly on violence over you, they steal what you make, and it’s all completely nonconseual

China is a moral evil, but we must be careful not to become the very thing we sought to destroy, and by giving the state more and more control we move closer and closer to the system that China has, totalitarian communism

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Wheaton Leaks wrote:I’d say there’s a lot of equivalents, there’s people who have a monopoly on violence over you, they steal what you make, and it’s all completely nonconseual

China is a moral evil, but we must be careful not to become the very thing we sought to destroy, and by giving the state more and more control we move closer and closer to the system that China has, totalitarian communism

The 1950s called...

Wheaton Leaks wrote:I’d say there’s a lot of equivalents, there’s people who have a monopoly on violence over you, they steal what you make, and it’s all completely nonconseual

China is a moral evil, but we must be careful not to become the very thing we sought to destroy, and by giving the state more and more control we move closer and closer to the system that China has, totalitarian communism

By doing business with China we perpetuate it's immoral system. The country is being propped up by it's "capitalist" facade. Anti suicide nets outside of slave labor factories doesn't scream consent to me

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Wheaton Leaks wrote:I’d say there’s a lot of equivalents, there’s people who have a monopoly on violence over you, they steal what you make, and it’s all completely nonconseual

What’s the difference if it’s a private company doing this?

Jadentopian Order wrote:What’s the difference if it’s a private company doing this?

What private entity "steal[s] what you make?"

Wheaton Leaks

The New United States wrote:What private entity "steal[s] what you make?"

It depends how you’re defining it. In effect, workers not being justly compensated for their work.

Auxorii wrote:It depends how you’re defining it. In effect, workers not being justly compensated for their work.

"Justly compensated"? What does that mean? "Just compensation" is the compensation agreed to by both parties. The labor theory of value is thoroughly debunked.

Miencraft, The New United States, Wheaton Leaks

Pevvania wrote:"Justly compensated"? What does that mean? "Just compensation" is the compensation agreed to by both parties. The labor theory of value is thoroughly debunked.

Dude. It’s not just about LTV. Most socialists would include the high levels of wealth inequality while some workers can’t afford to pay for necessities even though they entered into a “compensation agreed upon by two parties”; you know it’s more than that and that not all (and not the majority even- only 19%) workers in the U.S are happy with their pay. This is now where you get into the whole theory of class consciousness- that’s where the unjust compensation comes from.

Auxorii wrote:It depends how you’re defining it. In effect, workers not being justly compensated for their work.

How do you define it?

The New United States wrote:How do you define it?

Well, in the U.S, I do believe that because of the high levels of wealth inequality that the system doesn’t compensate our workers enough. I think that the wealthy or corporations have been able to exploit tax loopholes and buy the upper leg in the economy in a way to monopolize it in a lot of cases, basically crushing competition and essentially ending a free market; I think that there are a lot of problems concerning social services in the U.S and so many issues with healthcare, education and etcetera where being a worker is hard, and it’s easy to understand why a lot of people turn to socialism. Only 19% of workers in the U.S are comfortable with their pay, and I believe because of the intermingling of the government in the economy, allowing certain corporations to get the upperhand, the “bourgeoisie” are able to in effect keep the “proletariat” as wage slaves in most instances. It’s hard for a lot of people to rise up as well because of the crippling debt and high standard of living in the country that their salaries simply don’t pay them enough to afford.

I however, don’t see this as the fault of the free market and instead see it as an issue of over regulation. I think that if you took the government out of the economy (in most cases) and instead allow workers to properly unionize and empower themselves, without relying on government services and instead bargaining and setting industry standards through contracts and agreements with their employers themselves. This is actually how the economy operates in Sweden; it’s actually a highly liberalized free market but with a highly unionized workforce (as well as a massive welfare state that I don’t believe the U.S has the capability of supporting).

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

i love the diversity of thought in this region it would make that old wooden ship from the civil war era proud

Miencraft, Auxorii, Jadentopian Order

Hello Wheaton Leaks

Have we met before?

Skaveria wrote:I've never understood the logic behind separating private and personal property. In my understanding, the theory is that the owning of a means of production by an individual is private property, whereas everything else that can't be used to produce something else is considered personal property.

The disconnect for me is that personal property could easily become private property depending on how I use it. If an apple is my personal property, but I remove the seeds to plant an apple tree and start selling apples, that apple tree is now private property. The essence of what the object is hasn't changed, only my use of it. My house is personal property until I start renting out rooms, then it's private. Again, the object hasn't changed, just my use of it.

It seems completely arbitrary and philosophically inconsistent. It seems like the only reason the distinction is even made is to validate the higher order Marxist ideal. It doesn't seem to stand on it's own merit to me.

And thanks btw, it was definitely you in part who started the dialogue.

As a general oversimplification, it is a relic of feudalism and sovereignty. The Crown (or Throne) owned the Realm and the realm was the land given to lieges, itself a relic of the dying gasps of the (western) Roman Empire. The Common Law and the invading Germanic Tribes had other ideas. The fight within Christendom between Plato (property bad in general and horrible when in common hands) and Aristotle (property neither good or bad, it is how it is used) also played a large part. Over the centuries, the Common Law played a large role in expanding the ability of commoners to own land as we in the Anglo-sphere are today.

The US was heading toward the direction of alodial title but Statists will be Statists, and the tide turned by the end of the Civil War. Today it is a shunned topic in State Legislatures nationwide.

Auxorii wrote:The 1950s called...

Give me the 50s over the Cultural Revolution of the 60s/70s led by the red diaper doper babies and their Symbionese, lsd tripping yippie parents that took over Academia, Journalism, and the Democrat Party any day.

The New United States

Narland wrote:Give me the 50s over the Cultural Revolution of the 60s/70s led by the red diaper doper babies and their Symbionese, lsd tripping yippie parents that took over Academia, Journalism, and the Democrat Party any day.

I like now

Narland wrote:Give me the 50s over the Cultural Revolution of the 60s/70s led by the red diaper doper babies and their Symbionese, lsd tripping yippie parents that took over Academia, Journalism, and the Democrat Party any day.

Yeah, to hell with the civil rights movement and one of the most important decades in american history. All those people just did drugs, take me back to when black people had to use separate water fountains and interracial marriage was illegal.

Auxorii, Rateria, Nich-Land

Jadentopian Order wrote:Yeah, to hell with the civil rights movement and one of the most important decades in american history. All those people just did drugs, take me back to when black people had to use separate water fountains and interracial marriage was illegal.

Apart from the Civil Rights Movement, and rights for women and gays, and maybe some of the music, it was a pretty terrible decade for the United States. Vietnam destroyed American morale and international credibility, along with causing societal damage that took decades to repair; the profligate spending and cheap money policies of the Johnson administration crashed the world economy and plunged the west into a decades-long decline; the so-called Great Society happened which not only trapped millions in poverty, created a new form of slavery for African-Americans and the working poor, and damaged the American family, it has entrapped the American public in a debt bomb that has been draining the treasury for decades and will inevitably implode. Not to mention the deaths of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, gun control laws, etc etc etc.

I can count on one hand the number of good things that happened in the 60s. But hey, if you were a young, wealthy college student, I'm sure it was pretty fun.

Narland, Rateria, Kongeriget Island

Pevvania wrote:Apart from the Civil Rights Movement, and rights for women and gays, and maybe some of the music, it was a pretty terrible decade for the United States.

To be fair, those are insanely significant.

Rateria, Nich-Land

Auxorii wrote:To be fair, those are insanely significant.

Equal to or less so than the other things I mentioned. The excesses of the 60s almost ended US global hegemony. If it weren't for the Reagan presidency, the US would be nowhere as prosperous or powerful as it is today.

Narland

Pevvania wrote:Apart from the Civil Rights Movement, and rights for women and gays, and maybe some of the music, it was a pretty terrible decade for the United States.

So... the most important parts of the decade?

Pevvania wrote: Vietnam destroyed American morale and international credibility, along with causing societal damage that took decades to repair; the profligate spending and cheap money policies of the Johnson administration crashed the world economy and plunged the west into a decades-long decline; the so-called Great Society happened which not only trapped millions in poverty, created a new form of slavery for African-Americans and the working poor, and damaged the American family, it has entrapped the American public in a debt bomb that has been draining the treasury for decades and will inevitably implode. Not to mention the deaths of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, gun control laws, etc etc etc.

I would take any of these over bringing back segregation and lynchings in a heartbeat.

Pevvania wrote:

I can count on one hand the number of good things that happened in the 60s. But hey, if you were a young, wealthy college student, I'm sure it was pretty fun.

I am pretty sure it would have been a little more than "pretty fun" for the millions who were finally able to make significant progress towards being treated as more than 2nd class citizens for the first time in American history.

Auxorii, Rateria, Nich-Land

The 20th century was the period of America's transformation from free, federal republic into hellish, authoritarian nightmare. The 60's was a time of open rebellion against the moral foundation of the country and a time of ever-expanding welfare programs that irreparably destroyed traditional community bonds, especially among the now-dependant African American community. My hope is that expressed by based, paleo-Rothbard:

"We shall repeal the 20th century."

Narland, Kongeriget Island

Jadentopian Order wrote:So... the most important parts of the decade?

I would take any of these over bringing back segregation and lynchings in a heartbeat.

I am pretty sure it would have been a little more than "pretty fun" for the millions who were finally able to make significant progress towards being treated as more than 2nd class citizens for the first time in American history.

Yeah but what you're overlooking is that those developments were inevitable, and just as, if not more likely, to occur had Nixon won the White House in 1960. I'm sure I don't need to give you the spiel about how the GOP at the time was more for civil rights than the Dems, because the GOP had no southern faction to contend with. We could have done without all the other terrible things that happened.

Condemning the decade doesn't mean I wish it were all undone. I just think the cons outweighed the pros.

Narland

Pevvania wrote:Equal to or less so than the other things I mentioned. The excesses of the 60s almost ended US global hegemony. If it weren't for the Reagan presidency, the US would be nowhere as prosperous or powerful as it is today.

No. None of those are equal or more of value than the Civil Rights Movement, brother.

Rateria, Nich-Land

The New United States wrote:The 20th century was the period of America's transformation from free, federal republic into hellish, authoritarian nightmare. The 60's was a time of open rebellion against the moral foundation of the country and a time of ever-expanding welfare programs that irreparably destroyed traditional community bonds, especially among the now-dependant African American community. My hope is that expressed by based, paleo-Rothbard:

"We shall repeal the 20th century."

Moral foundation? Like, you know, being openly racist among many other things?

Pevvania wrote:

Condemning the decade doesn't mean I wish it were all undone. I just think the cons outweighed the pros.

Inevitable or not, they happened.

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:No. None of those are equal or more of value than the Civil Rights Movement, brother.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Moral foundation? Like, you know, being openly racist among many other things?

Inevitable or not, they happened.

I'd still say, on balance, a bad decade. Women and African-Americans had civil rights in the 2000s; doesn't excuse the fact it was a bad decade for the US, and it doesn't mean the whole thing should've been erased.

Kongeriget Island

Jadentopian Order wrote:Yeah, to hell with the civil rights movement and one of the most important decades in american history. All those people just did drugs, take me back to when black people had to use separate water fountains and interracial marriage was illegal.

What the Southern Democrats did in their States was reprehensible and unamerican. But whose fault is that? It was the fault of Democrats who failed to accept that they LOST the Civil War. Do not forget that this happened in places that the bigots of the Democrat Party held power (Southern States and city enclaves like Washington, DC). Notice it did not happen in GOP held States, (or States where both Parties outside of the South -- the North and West) were egalitarian.

In other words it was only eventful in Democrat held Southern States (and Democrat Cities, such as Washington, DC) that refused to accede so passed Jim Crow Laws to spite the 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments to the Federal Constitution and to deride the Civil Rights Acts -- especially the Civil Rights Act of 1876. It was frustrating to the rest of the country that was already following the Constitution, the previous Civil Rights Acts, and were already recognizing People's rights. Once the Democrat Party conceded, it was eventful indeed.

Over half of this Nation has always fought for Liberty and Equality. To the point, a State like Oregon or Idaho in the 1950s afforded anyone their civil rights regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. In Idaho, it has always been a part of our Constitution. The fight to end racism was slow because of familial ties in the South, but it was done quickly in egalitarian States. It can be said that the South lagged 100 years behind. Remember, the Confederate soldiers did not die away until the 1950s, and neither did those who fought them.

To insinuate the the whole of the Country was a racist and bigoted hell-hole like Selma, Alabama is disingenuous and insulting, if not outright ignorant. It is especially insulting to those of us whose parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents, ect., paid heavy cost to fight the bigots, Democrats, Social Darwinists, and Statists in our midst who would decry that we are ALL brothers one of another made in the image and likeness of God – a God who requires that each individual treat everyone else as well as he treats himself. A God from whence our inalienable rights derive. Something the South has been hypocritical in practicing.

The United States Of Patriots

I went to the gay club at my campus and during the meeting someone mentioned that trans women should see gynecologists. I said "i think that's terrible advice, gynecologists aren't trained to deal with neo-vaginas". A transwoman responded saying "if gynecologists won't reaffirm your gender then they don't deserve to be a doctor." I was stunned at the entitlement especially as the room clapped in support of her statement. It was an unironic "wax the balls bigot" moment. Seriously though, don't they have doctor's specifically for trans

Pevvania, Narland, Skaveria, Kongeriget Island

Pevvania wrote:I'd still say, on balance, a bad decade. Women and African-Americans had civil rights in the 2000s; doesn't excuse the fact it was a bad decade for the US, and it doesn't mean the whole thing should've been erased.

Yeah... because of what happened in the 60s

Auxorii wrote:I like now

There's no time like the present.

Auxorii, Rateria

The New United States wrote:The 20th century was the period of America's transformation from free, federal republic into hellish, authoritarian nightmare. The 60's was a time of open rebellion against the moral foundation of the country and a time of ever-expanding welfare programs that irreparably destroyed traditional community bonds, especially among the now-dependant African American community. My hope is that expressed by based, paleo-Rothbard:

"We shall repeal the 20th century."

But I like sliced bread...

The New United States, Auxorii, Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:I went to the gay club at my campus and during the meeting someone mentioned that trans women should see gynecologists. I said "i think that's terrible advice, gynecologists aren't trained to deal with neo-vaginas". A transwoman responded saying "if gynecologists won't reaffirm your gender then they don't deserve to be a doctor." I was stunned at the entitlement especially as the room clapped in support of her statement. It was an unironic "wax the balls bigot" moment. Seriously though, don't they have doctor's specifically for trans

Like the Anti-Shapiro would say, "Feelings don't care about your facts." =)

Auxorii, Miri Islands

Miri Islands wrote:I went to the gay club at my campus and during the meeting someone mentioned that trans women should see gynecologists. I said "i think that's terrible advice, gynecologists aren't trained to deal with neo-vaginas". A transwoman responded saying "if gynecologists won't reaffirm your gender then they don't deserve to be a doctor." I was stunned at the entitlement especially as the room clapped in support of her statement. It was an unironic "wax the balls bigot" moment. Seriously though, don't they have doctor's specifically for trans

What's ironic is that gynecologists aren't "doctors for women" They're doctors for vaginas. The person you spoke to inadvertently admitted that they accept that vaginas are female. Why else would they seek to reaffirm their womanhood by seeing one?

These people don't believe what they purport to believe. They hate body shaming until they call Chris Christie a fat whale. They claim that men reducing masculinity to penis size and sexual success is part of the evil patriarchy, yet almost default to insulting men who challenge them by calling them micro-penised incels. They claim there's no biological difference between the sexes and that every gendered behavior is a social construct, yet defend the body mutilation that is gender reassignment and claim women should usually get automatic custody because women are better at raising kids.

They're weak-backed, rich, platinum white brats. They're the epitome of honkey. They feel oh so very bad because they had good lives so they become ethnic masochists. They carry that same idea onto anyone they deem an oppressor. Some of us actually experienced very adult situations from a young age, heroin, poverty, suicide, and actual trauma.

I want to grab them and say to them: "You don't get to talk your way into being interesting. You had a great life. Be thankful for it. I know you hate that you don't have a sordid, traumatic, past, but it's ok. Just be white bread. It's fine."

Pevvania, Narland

Skaveria wrote:What's ironic is that gynecologists aren't "doctors for women" They're doctors for vaginas. The person you spoke to inadvertently admitted that they accept that vaginas are female. Why else would they seek to reaffirm their womanhood by seeing one?

These people don't believe what they purport to believe. They hate body shaming until they call Chris Christie a fat whale. They claim that men reducing masculinity to penis size and sexual success is part of the evil patriarchy, yet almost default to insulting men who challenge them by calling them micro-penised incels. They claim there's no biological difference between the sexes and that every gendered behavior is a social construct, yet defend the body mutilation that is gender reassignment and claim women should usually get automatic custody because women are better at raising kids.

They're weak-backed, rich, platinum white brats. They're the epitome of honkey. They feel oh so very bad because they had good lives so they become ethnic masochists. They carry that same idea onto anyone they deem an oppressor. Some of us actually experienced very adult situations from a young age, heroin, poverty, suicide, and actual trauma.

I want to grab them and say to them: "You don't get to talk your way into being interesting. You had a great life. Be thankful for it. I know you hate that you don't have a sordid, traumatic, past, but it's ok. Just be white bread. It's fine."

This reminds me of yesterdays leftist hypocrisy. A rape crisis center speaker spoke about rape and how we shouldnt victim blame and such. She then said only 10% of rapes are committed against men. I asked "do you believe that statistic comes from the fact that men are less likely to report rape due to fears of not being taken seriously?" She responded "absolutely, we need to do everything we can to deconstruct toxic masculinity so they are more open to reporting these events". I got extremely angry because she basically victim blamed men

Narland

Miri Islands wrote:This reminds me of yesterdays leftist hypocrisy. A rape crisis center speaker spoke about rape and how we shouldnt victim blame and such. She then said only 10% of rapes are committed against men. I asked "do you believe that statistic comes from the fact that men are less likely to report rape due to fears of not being taken seriously?" She responded "absolutely, we need to do everything we can to deconstruct toxic masculinity so they are more open to reporting these events". I got extremely angry because she basically victim blamed men

It's all power games for them. Makes me wanna boogaloo real hard tbh

Narland

Skaveria wrote:It's all power games for them. Makes me wanna boogaloo real hard tbh

No joke man. They're out there genuinely wondering why white men are voting for trump

Narland

Miri Islands wrote:I went to the gay club at my campus and during the meeting someone mentioned that trans women should see gynecologists. I said "i think that's terrible advice, gynecologists aren't trained to deal with neo-vaginas". A transwoman responded saying "if gynecologists won't reaffirm your gender then they don't deserve to be a doctor." I was stunned at the entitlement especially as the room clapped in support of her statement. It was an unironic "wax the balls bigot" moment. Seriously though, don't they have doctor's specifically for trans

Post-modernism and neo-Marxism are destroying our society. A lot of this nonsense seems to come from our educational institutions; perhaps the only way to fight this is a top-to-bottom reconstruction of higher education. Defund all universities that defy the Constitution and protect illegal immigrants, enact strict reporting requirements on diversity of thought and free speech, and possibly introduce ideological quotas for professors. The latter sounds extreme but I don't know how else to fix the faculty problem. These professors take advantage of their positions to poison the minds of our youth.

Narland, Miri Islands, Kongeriget Island

Auxorii wrote:Dude. It’s not just about LTV. Most socialists would include the high levels of wealth inequality while some workers can’t afford to pay for necessities even though they entered into a “compensation agreed upon by two parties”; you know it’s more than that and that not all (and not the majority even- only 19%) workers in the U.S are happy with their pay. This is now where you get into the whole theory of class consciousness- that’s where the unjust compensation comes from.

So "wealth" is actually quite volatile in capitalist America, considering less than 25% of wealth is inherited (and most is made in that person's lifetime by that person), and you're more likely to be born in the bottom income quintile and rise to the top one than you are to be born in the top one and stay in the top. That's a good statistic - it shows we're an aspirational society. 91% of America's poor are already wealthier and healthier than the rest of the world's population. The best way to help the working man is to gut the regulations that stymie his success, slash taxes and abolish the government programs standing in his way.

Most socialist assumptions collapse after you do some digging into the statistics.

Narland

Auxorii wrote:The 1950s called...

What about what he said sounds paranoid? China is on a long marathon to replace the US as the world superpower. It has spies all throughout the western world and is on record for buying NZ and Aussie politicians - kind of a big deal, since they're our most significant military and naval allies in the South Pacific.

Narland

Miri Islands wrote:Government regulation is by no means a moral equivalent to slavery. By not having free trade with China we are actively sending a message that we do not support their system. Ideally we wouldn't trade with them at all

I mean there are too many authoritarian states in the world for us to cut them all off, but China's specific pattern of abuses threatens world peace as well as its own people. Ideally we could economically isolate them, but I don't think that's possible, and it's become far too integrated in the world economy to not trade with them anymore.

Economically the priority should be fair and reciprocal trade with an end to their forced tech transfers, currency manipulation and state subsidies, which hopefully will come soon anyway. Expanding free trade networks with their neighbors would also help this effort, as well as building up countries like Brazil and India to compete.

Geopolitically and militarily, however, I think there's a lot more that can be done to prevent Chinese power from growing.

Narland

Pevvania wrote:So "wealth" is actually quite volatile in capitalist America, considering less than 25% of wealth is inherited (and most is made in that person's lifetime by that person), and you're more likely to be born in the bottom income quintile and rise to the top one than you are to be born in the top one and stay in the top. That's a good statistic - it shows we're an aspirational society. 91% of America's poor are already wealthier and healthier than the rest of the world's population. The best way to help the working man is to gut the regulations that stymie his success, slash taxes and abolish the government programs standing in his way.

Most socialist assumptions collapse after you do some digging into the statistics.

You literally didn’t even respond to my point lol. I agree that that’s the best way to help the working man; you can talk about how great the U.S economy works for the poor yet 19% of workers are dissatisfied with their pay?

You know, since starting college I think I've got more interventionist on foreign policy. I still of course believe that we need to get out of the Middle East and the endless wars, but China represents a great threat to freedom all over the world. Today, they're putting Muslims in camps, tomorrow, it may be an American employee who tweeted negatively about Xi. They are bullies that are attempting neo-colonialism in Africa as well as much of the developing world.

The US should do whatever it takes to counter their malign influence.

Narland

Auxorii wrote:You literally didn’t even respond to my point lol. I agree that that’s the best way to help the working man; you can talk about how great the U.S economy works for the poor yet 19% of workers are dissatisfied with their pay?

No, I addressed that... aspiration and frustration is a good thing. It pushes us to better ourselves.

Narland

Pevvania wrote:No, I addressed that... aspiration and frustration is a good thing. It pushes us to better ourselves.

19% of workers being dissatisfied with their pay does not mean they are aspiring for more; and no, frustration is not a good thing for workers. If you actually look at the statistics of how workers feel, which I’m sure you never have once, you’ll see that the productivity of workers here is worse than it is in other countries.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

wait is it 19% satisified.with their pay or disatisfied cause if its the latter that can be attributed to entitled people who think flipping a burger is worth 15 an hour.

Pevvania, Narland, Miri Islands

>allow child labor

>authoritarianism goes up

bro this game sucks

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Miri Islands, Wyattish, Liberveritas

Suzi Island wrote:wait is it 19% satisified.with their pay or disatisfied cause if its the latter that can be attributed to entitled people who think flipping a burger is worth 15 an hour.

Americans: I grew up with an education and clean drinking water, binge Netflix and smoke weed daily, but I don't know what to do with my life! I have no opportunities, capitalism is the problem!

Congolese man working <$3 a day for a warlord in the Savannah: tell me about it

Narland

Suzi Island wrote:wait is it 19% satisified.with their pay or disatisfied cause if its the latter that can be attributed to entitled people who think flipping a burger is worth 15 an hour.

19% are satisfied with their pay

You can be a capitalist and say the working man is getting a raw deal. But it's important to recognize where the problems lie. And in 9/10 cases, those can be traced to failed government policies.

Narland, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:What's ironic is that gynecologists aren't "doctors for women" They're doctors for vaginas. The person you spoke to inadvertently admitted that they accept that vaginas are female. Why else would they seek to reaffirm their womanhood by seeing one?

It is the nature of dialectic propaganda. It seeks a political goal wherever it leads (destroying people and their personal happiness in the process) whereof truth is the first casualty in their war against reality. This over following the truth where ever it leads (benefiting people and their general happiness in the process forging a sound education). The wise sees a self-contradictory argument and recognizes fatal error (whether unrealistic unreasonable, illogical or irrational). The fool sees a self-contradictory argument and takes it as proof of its own legitimacy. One leads to right thinking, right conduct, and correctly foreseen consequences -- hence good governance. The other to fallaciously cutting itself off from all reason and reality to produce incredible folly and willingly so.

Skaveria wrote:These people don't believe what they purport to believe. They're weak-backed, rich, platinum white brats. They're the epitome of honkey. They feel oh so very bad because they had good lives so they become ethnic masochists. They carry that same idea onto anyone they deem an oppressor.

I think they believe they are right without understanding what it means to be right; without learning how to determine right; and without reckoning what is the right. This makes them dangerous to themselves and others. What is the more dangerous is they believe that everyone else does the same thing/are the same way. In such a scenario, it is offensive for any quarter to be asked and wrong for any quarter to be given. They are the Barbarians at the gate and they intend to sack what everyone else has built.

Skaveria wrote:Some of us actually experienced very adult situations from a young age, heroin, poverty, suicide, and actual trauma.

I want to grab them and say to them: "You don't get to talk your way into being interesting. You had a great life. Be thankful for it. I know you hate that you don't have a sordid, traumatic, past, but it's ok. Just be white bread. It's fine."

You and me both. Reality can be so devastating to one's narcissism and destructive self-indulgent narratives. The meme of Greta and "How dare you?" comes to mind. In a time of unprecedented increasing prosperity and technological comfort worldwide, an attitude of gratitude should be the norm -- especially for those who are raised at ease in opulence. But historically, unless properly tendered, opulence gives way to decadence and turpitude.

***anecdote alert***

My grandfather (rancher and cowboy) made sure I understood how good I had it compared to the rest of the world (despite dysfunctional wayward parents). Because of his loving sacrifice growing up, I never lacked a roof, clothes (even though some years it was patched hand-me-downs), food, or work to do. I am eternally grateful for his efforts. The most rewarding experience was to return the favor forward as a Big Brother, 4-H volunteer, and foster parent.

***End anecdote alert***

I understand people who rage against the darkness and the pain, but I truly do not understand ingrates that have never had it so good. They (the ingrates) have the world in the palm of their hand (literally), and blame everyone and everything else for their lack of satisfaction but the person looking back in the mirror.

Pevvania wrote:Post-modernism and neo-Marxism are destroying our society. A lot of this nonsense seems to come from our educational institutions; perhaps the only way to fight this is a top-to-bottom reconstruction of higher education. Defund all universities that defy the Constitution and protect illegal immigrants, enact strict reporting requirements on diversity of thought and free speech, and possibly introduce ideological quotas for professors. The latter sounds extreme but I don't know how else to fix the faculty problem. These professors take advantage of their positions to poison the minds of our youth.

Agreed and how.

Re: Education reconstructon. Top down, bottom up, side to side, inside out and outside in, soup to nuts, and horseshoes to hand grenades.

To our Framers, the proper role of government was to provide the land, the needful buildings, plant management, and school supplies (chemistry labs etc.). The public, viz., the parents and students most affected, provided the school (pupils, students, teachers, professors, faculty, and curricula). The parents and the students had control through the local vote, pillowcases full of feathers and buckets of tar. That was destroyed by unions, bureaucrats, and Fabian Socialists who turned our public schools into government schools controlled by state (little s -- and their bureaucrats and government unionists. Most of the US's colleges and universities were founded by local communities, Churches and Charitable Organizations (as were our hospitals). Things got proportionally worse the more progressively the States got involved in micromanaging the people's business, one of which is education. We are one of the countries where literacy dropped with the adoption of state run public schools.

Remove the so-called rational administrative state and their lunatic view that Progressive Modern Education (PME) Model and its derivatives (OBE, CORE, etc) as the ONLY model of education to be recognized for accreditation. Harvard and Yale are self-accredited, who would thunk?

Get the state out of education and the government back to mere provision (and I would even argue against that). Restore public access, interaction, and management, they are public schools after all.

Get rid of regulations (and tax burdens) that hinder the public (the parents and students themselves) from starting schools, academies, colleges and university for themselves -- like it used to be.

Remove taxation for education where the parents and students are not in total control of the proceeds.

Require every student to master logic, reason, and cogency before graduating grammar school instead of leaving it as an elective at university.

Pevvania wrote:So "wealth" is actually quite volatile in capitalist America, considering less than 25% of wealth is inherited (and most is made in that person's lifetime by that person), and you're more likely to be born in the bottom income quintile and rise to the top one than you are to be born in the top one and stay in the top. That's a good statistic - it shows we're an aspirational society. 91% of America's poor are already wealthier and healthier than the rest of the world's population. The best way to help the working man is to gut the regulations that stymie his success, slash taxes and abolish the government programs standing in his way.

Most socialist assumptions collapse after you do some digging into the statistics.

Caveat Mercator: Past results are no guarantee of future returns. Nothing is too big to fail not even government -- the people will survive. I want Congress to stop reimbursing/subsidizing bad financial decisions, it only leads to worse decisions. The plutocracy remains on top, and bad ideas cannot be overthrown by new blood with better ideas financially rewarded for their service.

Pevvania wrote:... Geopolitically and militarily, however, I think there's a lot more that can be done to prevent Chinese power from growing.

Send over Progressives trained in the Frankfurt School of social reconstruction -- that will destroy them but good.

Auxorii wrote:19% of workers being dissatisfied with their pay does not mean they are aspiring for more; and no, frustration is not a good thing for workers. If you actually look at the statistics of how workers feel, which I’m sure you never have once, you’ll see that the productivity of workers here is worse than it is in other countries.

Suzi Island wrote:wait is it 19% satisified.with their pay or disatisfied cause if its the latter that can be attributed to entitled people who think flipping a burger is worth 15 an hour.

Pevvania wrote:Americans: I grew up with an education and clean drinking water, binge Netflix and smoke weed daily, but I don't know what to do with my life! I have no opportunities, capitalism is the problem!

Congolese man working <$3 a day for a warlord in the Savannah: tell me about it

Auxorii wrote:19% are satisfied with their pay

Pevvania wrote:You can be a capitalist and say the working man is getting a raw deal. But it's important to recognize where the problems lie. And in 9/10 cases, those can be traced to failed government policies.

Dissatisfaction is good in a free market. It prods people to go out and start their own businesses, find an employer who will pay better, allow the person to move to a better place etc. Why work for somebody else's dream when you can work for your own? Admittedly about 5% of the working population are incapable of being self-productive, but that doesn't mean we should teach everyone to be dependent on someone else (e.g., to be mere employees). In free enterprise everyone is a worker, some work with their brains, some with their brawn, and most with a mix of both; but everyone has the right to be and to own their own means of production.

Dissatisfaction is bad in command economies where people are stunted in their enterprise and wholly dependent on the will of the political despots in charge. Production drops, managers lie about their quotas, some refuseniks are shot; the newspapers report that morale has improved, and the cycle continues.

Miri Islands

Bumpersticker: In the empire of lies, the truth is treason.

Another: The truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

And from literature: Where the truth is despised ... ignorance is bliss.

Narland wrote:Dissatisfaction is good in a free market. It prods people to go out and start their own businesses, find an employer who will pay better, allow the person to move to a better place etc. Why work for somebody else's dream when you can work for your own? Admittedly about 5% of the working population are incapable of being self-productive, but that doesn't mean we should teach everyone to be dependent on someone else (e.g., to be mere employees). In free enterprise everyone is a worker, some work with their brains, some with their brawn, and most with a mix of both; but everyone has the right to be and to own their own means of production.

Dissatisfaction is bad in command economies where people are stunted in their enterprise and wholly dependent on the will of the political despots in charge. Production drops, managers lie about their quotas, some refuseniks are shot; the newspapers report that morale has improved, and the cycle continues.

Except dissatisfaction doesn't do that – It makes people pissed the hell off at the system

Tupolite

Hard times bring strong men, strong men bring good times, good times bring weak men, and weak men bring hard times.

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Skaveria

Kongeriget Island wrote:Except dissatisfaction doesn't do that – It makes people pissed the hell off at the system

It makes weak betas pissed off at the system. People who are strong enough to do self reflection will better themselves

Pevvania, Narland

Miri Islands wrote:It makes weak betas pissed off at the system. People who are strong enough to do self reflection will better themselves

Oh yeah man what a cool alpha attitude you got there

Auxorii, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Narland wrote:Dissatisfaction is good in a free market. It prods people to go out and start their own businesses, find an employer who will pay better, allow the person to move to a better place etc. Why work for somebody else's dream when you can work for your own? Admittedly about 5% of the working population are incapable of being self-productive, but that doesn't mean we should teach everyone to be dependent on someone else (e.g., to be mere employees). In free enterprise everyone is a worker, some work with their brains, some with their brawn, and most with a mix of both; but everyone has the right to be and to own their own means of production.

Dissatisfaction is bad in command economies where people are stunted in their enterprise and wholly dependent on the will of the political despots in charge. Production drops, managers lie about their quotas, some refuseniks are shot; the newspapers report that morale has improved, and the cycle continues.

This dream of rugged self-reliance and brave industrial pioneering has nipped itself in the bud through natural mechanisms of the market. Dynamic capitalism has given way to static capitalism. Bold, thrusting entrepreneurial independence has given way to bloodsucking parasitism of multinational conglomerates that are too big to fail and have compelled states to prop them up for the sake of preventing an economic collapse. It was inevitable that the uncontrolled upward accumulation of capital. Behold the era of supercapitalism, the inevitable degeneration of your noble dream, for it is upon you and "liberty and equality" are what brought you here.

Hello! This is Aglonia's puppet. Also known as The Time Alliance.

Pevvania, The New United States, Muh Roads, Auxorii, Rateria

Kongeriget Island wrote:Oh yeah man what a cool alpha attitude you got there

Am I wrong though? Normally it's whinny weak people who are the antifa types

Kongeriget Island wrote:Except dissatisfaction doesn't do that – It makes people pissed the hell off at the system

I am going to get all "unassuming American" in this post. :) It depends on if they are wise or fools. If they are wise they will speak their peace, and then efficaciously correct, amend, and reform themselves, and hence their system to be more free and equitable to the best of their ability, if not for themselves at least for their posterity. If they are fools, they will grumble, complain, and moan about how unfair life is (as if anyone who says that life is fair is being honest) and do all the wrong things bringing deleterious unintended consequences upon themselves and "the system," making their posterity the worse for it.

Miri Islands wrote:It makes weak betas pissed off at the system. People who are strong enough to do self reflection will better themselves

Historically, I’m pretty sure it’s the people most disadvantaged by the system are the first ones to take action

Rateria

Tupolite wrote:This dream of rugged self-reliance and brave industrial pioneering has nipped itself in the bud through natural mechanisms of the market. Dynamic capitalism has given way to static capitalism. Bold, thrusting entrepreneurial independence has given way to bloodsucking parasitism of multinational conglomerates that are too big to fail and have compelled states to prop them up for the sake of preventing an economic collapse. It was inevitable that the uncontrolled upward accumulation of capital. Behold the era of supercapitalism, the inevitable degeneration of your noble dream, for it is upon you and "liberty and equality" are what brought you here.

Natural market, my horse's patootie. It was the direct interference of Leftists (Fabian Socialists, Progessivists) etc.), Keynesian "Economists" in bed with Congress, and malfeasance of the unconstitutional administrative state, over-regulating power grabs in taxing the free market to death. Their arbitrarily decree's that the future of America was no longer in families running their own means of production (FDR, and Johnson in particular); and that the wealth had to be transferred to government bureaucracies and government backed Corporatist shills like ADM, Montsanto, across the rural landscape. Corps are easier to control and regulate than self-sufficient families that self-govern themselves and not dependent on the will of the State, all in defiance of the Freedom and Equality. I haven't even gotten to the unnatural GATT and NAFTA yet.

The New United States

Narland wrote:Natural market, my horse's patootie. It was the direct interference of Leftists (Fabian Socialists, Progessivists) etc.), Keynesian "Economists" in bed with Congress, and malfeasance of the unconstitutional administrative state, over-regulating power grabs in taxing the free market to death. Their arbitrarily decree's that the future of America was no longer in families running their own means of production (FDR, and Johnson in particular); and that the wealth had to be transferred to government bureaucracies and government backed Corporatist shills like ADM, Montsanto, across the rural landscape. Corps are easier to control and regulate than self-sufficient families that self-govern themselves and not dependent on the will of the State, all in defiance of the Freedom and Equality. I haven't even gotten to the unnatural GATT and NAFTA yet.

You keep on using this term "corporatist" with a lack of understanding. It is corporatism that will level the playing field between labor and capital and resolve the same phenomena in capitalism that lead into the same abyss as socialism: of a self-interested cabal strangling the economic life of the nation with a petty tyranny.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Historically, I’m pretty sure it’s the people most disadvantaged by the system are the first ones to take action

I don't appreciate this abstraction of "historically disadvantaged groups." How many "historically disadvantaged groups" have made no great contribution to civilization or on their own behalf, only to be granted some nominal recognition for their incessant self-pity. The will to shake the heavens is not something that happens spotaneously because someone's been kicked into the gutter enough times. It's something that has to be mythologized and channeled.

Tupolite wrote:You keep on using this term "corporatist" with a lack of understanding. It is corporatism that will level the playing field between labor and capital and resolve the same phenomena in capitalism that lead into the same abyss as socialism: of a self-interested cabal strangling the economic life of the nation with a petty tyranny.

Corporations were formed by Progressives who felt that the transfer of wealth from individuals to the state could be better accomplished by the intermediary institution. Whereas a business concern is the creature of the entrepreneur and hence no concern of the state, the Corporation is both a creature of the state, and holder of the property, divesting the individual, or group of individuals of its ownership and creating a cruft (the shareholders). The plan was to use legislation to further divest businessmen of their business by forcing all corporate shares to either the state directly to be distributed equitably among the people (Progressive Democrats), or the shares to be distributed directly to the employees of the business (of which the business owner was a mere employee as well (Progressive GOP)). The nature of 20th Century American politics (and the World Wars) made this unfeasible as a mass movement, although it was done in some European Countries and in specific cases the United States, (most recently with Obama with General Motors).

Corporatism forces the free market into the straitjacket of becoming a Corporation -- a creature of the state -- in order to do business. It turns the individual into a mere employee of his own own person, instead of recognizing that a man's person belongs to the individual. It is a form of involuntary subscription and technically unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped Statists from being despots in their incremental steps to fundamentally transform America since the Jingoist Era (1890s).

I am typing swiftly and only have a short time (dinner). So hopefully this is succinct and informative. I will be back on in the evening.

The New United States, Auxorii

Tupolite wrote:I don't appreciate this abstraction of "historically disadvantaged groups."

How many "historically disadvantaged groups" have made no great contribution to civilization or on their own behalf, only to be granted some nominal recognition for their incessant self-pity.

The will to shake the heavens is not something that happens spotaneously because someone's been kicked into the gutter enough times. It's something that has to be mythologized and channeled.

I don’t know- how many? What groups that you consider historically disadvantaged do you think have contributed nothing to “civilization”. Also, what are you referring to as civilization? The West? You seem to care a lot about these historically disadvantaged societies contributing to your civilization while expecting them to ignore their own, because you’re the “civilized” one (hey, your word- not mine).

This is just arguing semantics at that point. The will to shake the Heavens, meaning to rebel or reform their system, does happen because they feel as if they have been kicked to the gutter, so they then get together and organize (mythologize/channel).

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Jadentopian Order wrote:Historically, I’m pretty sure it’s the people most disadvantaged by the system are the first ones to take action

Nah, it's the privledged intellectual types who first take action, then they go and recruit the legitimately disadvantaged. You can see this with antifa, a buch of professor's sons bolstering their numbers with the disenfranchised street tough types.

What they don't realize is that those people eventually take over the movement and will put them right up against the wall next to the dirty capitalists.

There was a 4chan post I found very amusing once and it was from a former Soviet citizen. It was making the same point I am. It said that people often put aside their ethnic differences for class solidarity, so pretty soon Commissar Cleatus and Commissar Jamal will show up to their giant, gated, house, that their sociology professor daddy paid for, trying to move in fifteen families, and if you refuse, or even show a hint of resentment, it's the bullet for you comrade.

Narland

Skaveria wrote:Nah, it's the privledged intellectual types who first take action, then they go and recruit the legitimately disadvantaged. You can see this with antifa, a buch of professor's sons bolstering their numbers with the disenfranchised street tough types.

Your example of legitimately disadvantaged people being persuaded by elite intellectuals is ANTIFA?

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:Your example of legitimately disadvantaged people being persuaded by elite intellectuals is ANTIFA?

They aren't elite intellectuals, I figured I'd implied that well enough by calling them professor's sons. They're faux-intellectual. It's not that they're really deep thinkers. It's that they have a barely sophisticated political philosophy that appeals to disenfranchised people.

However inaccurate or downright malicious it may be, they have answers for the question: "Who should I blame for all this?" They can cobble together counterpoints and counterarguments that can satisfy the apolitical, which most people who are actually suffering are. That base level of sophistication coupled with the inherent appeal of "helping the poor" to poor people, has allowed them to take to the streets and recruit "soldiers."

You can kinda tell if they're located in a poor area or not by who they choose to be the enforcers. If they're in a rich, white, area. The front line people are literally just people who're taller than average or fat.

If they're in an area that has an actual, struggling class, like Portland or Los Angeles, they promptly shove anyone who's a minority, has face tattoos, scars, ect, to the front of the march, because they consider those people more "scary and intimidating." It's really quite racist and classist ironically.

Skaveria wrote:

You can kinda tell if they're located in a poor area or not by who they choose to be the enforcers. If they're in a rich, white, area. The front line people are literally just people who're taller than average or fat.

If they're in an area that has an actual, struggling class, like Portland or Los Angeles, they promptly shove anyone who's a minority, has face tattoos, scars, ect, to the front of the march, because they consider those people more "scary and intimidating." It's really quite racist and classist ironically.

This really just sounds like an excuse for why minorities and workers join left wing movements

Skaveria wrote:They aren't elite intellectuals, I figured I'd implied that well enough by calling them professor's sons. They're faux-intellectual. It's not that they're really deep thinkers. It's that they have a barely sophisticated political philosophy that appeals to disenfranchised people.

However inaccurate or downright malicious it may be, they have answers for the question: "Who should I blame for all this?" They can cobble together counterpoints and counterarguments that can satisfy the apolitical, which most people who are actually suffering are. That base level of sophistication coupled with the inherent appeal of "helping the poor" to poor people, has allowed them to take to the streets and recruit "soldiers."

You can kinda tell if they're located in a poor area or not by who they choose to be the enforcers. If they're in a rich, white, area. The front line people are literally just people who're taller than average or fat.

If they're in an area that has an actual, struggling class, like Portland or Los Angeles, they promptly shove anyone who's a minority, has face tattoos, scars, ect, to the front of the march, because they consider those people more "scary and intimidating." It's really quite racist and classist ironically.

Your generalizations provide literally nothing.

Jadentopian Order wrote:This really just sounds like an excuse for why minorities and workers join left wing movements

I mean, it's not even really an excuse... "We're for minorities and Workers!" *Minorities and workers have entered the chat*

Auxorii wrote:Your generalizations provide literally nothing.

This is more just me ruminating on my experience. I understand it's completely anecdotal. It's just my crackpot theory, kinda like bartalk.

I know I made some concrete claims there that I didn't back up, but I shouldn't have to preface all my thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me by the lack of sources and how I was saying all that, that it's more just a general feeling or vibe.

Narland, Miri Islands

The Best Girl Monika wrote:Hello! This is Aglonia's puppet. Also known as The Time Alliance.

I totally forgot about the traumatic experience of Doki Doki. Thanks for reminding me.

Auxorii wrote:I don’t know- how many? What groups that you consider historically disadvantaged do you think have contributed nothing to “civilization”. Also, what are you referring to as civilization? The West? You seem to care a lot about these historically disadvantaged societies contributing to your civilization while expecting them to ignore their own, because you’re the “civilized” one (hey, your word- not mine).

This is just arguing semantics at that point. The will to shake the Heavens, meaning to rebel or reform their system, does happen because they feel as if they have been kicked to the gutter, so they then get together and organize (mythologize/channel).

The inferior state of civilization among certain groups is largely due to their idleness and incapacity to organize. Really what I'm attacking in Jaden's argument is the implicit universality of principle in using an abstraction like "historically disadvantaged people."

Jadentopian Order wrote:This really just sounds like an excuse for why minorities and workers join left wing movements

It's very Leninist of you to even insinuate a relationship between "minorities" and "workers" is natural. The only reason for a culturally alien minority to inhabit the center of national life is to be pandered to in exchange for votes so that the same bunch of plutocrats can keep workers subject to financial slavery. Also, if you haven't noticed, the majority of leftist "movements" are not made up of minorities or workers, but geriatric college professors and effete latte-sipping hipsters.

Tupolite wrote:The inferior state of civilization among certain groups is largely due to their idleness and incapacity to organize. Really what I'm attacking in Jaden's argument is the implicit universality of principle in using an abstraction like "historically disadvantaged people."

It's very Leninist of you to even insinuate a relationship between "minorities" and "workers" is natural. The only reason for a culturally alien minority to inhabit the center of national life is to be pandered to in exchange for votes so that the same bunch of plutocrats can keep workers subject to financial slavery. Also, if you haven't noticed, the majority of leftist "movements" are not made up of minorities or workers, but geriatric college professors and effete latte-sipping hipsters.

No, honestly, I think you’re wrong. It’s purely anecdotal, but I know quite a few due-paying members of the DSA/YDSA and almost all of them are either middle class or below and a minority of some sort. I fully believed that left wing movements were just college intellectual types until I actually got involved and met the people

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:No, honestly, I think you’re wrong. It’s purely anecdotal, but I know quite a few due-paying members of the DSA/YDSA and almost all of them are either middle class or below and a minority of some sort. I fully believed that left wing movements were just college intellectual types until I actually got involved and met the people

It depends I guess. I went to an ISO meeting once and there seemed to be some genuine poor folks and minorites. In equal part there were your standard college stereotypes there too. There was also a highschool teacher, which really bugged me.

On the other hand, I went to a DSA meeting and it was quite literally JUST the stereotypes there, chocker necklaces and the like galore. The president was quite amusing because he wore really expensive clothes that looked like they were poor man's clothes from the 1910s, a flat cap, a beige, but clearly tailored long sleeve with the three buttons on top, brown "working man" boots, but they looked like Clarks, and suspenders. It almost looked like a cosplay of a poor dude from the turn of the century, except the total ensemble was probably worth north of 500$

Rateria

Tupolite wrote:The inferior state of civilization among certain groups is largely due to their idleness and incapacity to organize. Really what I'm attacking in Jaden's argument is the implicit universality of principle in using an abstraction like "historically disadvantaged people."

You missed my entire point. What is an “inferior state of civilization”? I asked for specific examples and you just continued rambling about how the way you think society should be organized rather than understanding cultural differences or histories.

So, I’ll ask again: What groups that you consider historically disadvantaged do you think have contributed nothing to “civilization”?

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:

What groups that you consider historically disadvantaged do you think have contributed nothing to “civilization”?

Crab people, the Sentinelese tribe, goats, and every neanderthal ever.

Narland, Auxorii

The Best Girl Monika wrote:Hello! This is Aglonia's puppet. Also known as The Time Alliance.

Never thought you'd come back here, this should be exciting

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I'm pretty sure goats have contributed much more than the Irish.

That is a conspiracy theory I refuse to acknowledge.

Auxorii

All the old folks are returning. All we are missing is Condealism to stick his head through and say something pithy.

Pevvania, Narland, Muh Roads, Auxorii, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

The Time Alliance, has returned, except it's with this account!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:All the old folks are returning. All we are missing is Condealism to stick his head through and say something pithy.

I remember in his farewell message he said that if he returned, it would be through a completely different identity or something so that no one would know it was him. I believe Hyder got control of Condy’s main nation and used a few of us to try and get a password or something. Ah, I miss Condy, we had some great times on here.

I remember we found his old blog or something and got his name and teased him with some old pictures we found of him.

If you think about it, he’s probably online somewhere.

Narland, Rateria, Sikh Federation

Republic Of Minerva wrote:All the old folks are returning. All we are missing is Condealism to stick his head through and say something pithy.

***Narland prepares the "OK, Boomer" banner and confetti cannons***

Rateria

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