Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 192

On January 08 2020 05:41 RiKD wrote: I don't really want to murder or poison the rich. I actually want to throw them into re-education camps.

GG Loco, no RE

On January 07 2020 23:24 Baalim wrote: Also stop pretending you give a shit about climate change, you don't, its your excuse to change the economial system.

the fuck is this supposed to be?

^ It's one of those enlightened centrist measured takes. Anyone who isn't flailing around singularly talking about how nuclear could solve the climate problem doesn't really care about climate change, they just want to oppress rich people/tip the power scale in their favor.

Don't even know what to say about his above comment. Making fun of someone with mental illness and somehow implying that I am responsible for his impulsive sentiments, just the usual petty Baal.

On January 08 2020 04:14 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 08 2020 00:46 Loco wrote: Why don't you provide an actual quote or screenshot of me saying that you pathetic liar? My position has always been that fascists are the only people whose freedoms have to be restricted in a democratic system because not doing so would imperil the system wherein those freedoms are made possible in the first place.

That screenshot says absolutely nothing remotely close to "let's round capitalists up and put them in a camp". I ask you a simple question in response to your paraphrasing of me. If I remember correctly it's also not even from the conversation on the NonCompete video. That quote was about direct action (opposing fascists on the streets), not putting "political dissidents" in prison. Your dishonesty is stunning. In fact it was one of the first things that I said on the topic of the video (prison/reformism), that I didn't agree with his throwing the word "capitalists" in there (page 171 of this thread).

Speaking of putting people in prison, remember when you said that more anti-fascists should have been shot in Berkeley for organizing against Milo? Well, the guy who was shot and severely injured didn't press charges. His justification was along normal anarchist lines: putting people in prison/getting revenge/using the force of the state isn't the way to go about things. He resolved the conflict with the guy who shot him outside of court:

"Two months later, Dukes still bears an oozing wound and a long, angry surgical scar. He has lost his gall bladder and half his colon. His liver was severely damaged; his diaphragm pierced. He spent the first month of the Trump presidency in the hospital, undergoing numerous surgeries, fighting off an infection, and high on pain medication that, he said, made the political upheaval of policies like the travel ban “a lot easier to deal with”.

But while Dukes’ ravaged body bears the scars of the country’s current political fissure – “Me getting shot is a manifestation of Trump’s and Milo’s violent ideology,” he says – he hopes to offer a path to stopping the violence and de-escalating the conflict. He and his partner Sasha, who uses gender neutral pronouns and asked not to be identified with a last name out of fear of harassment, are requesting that the shooter not be sent to prison, but instead join them in a restorative justice process."


https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...oulos-protest-seattle-trump-interview


You were wrong about Milo not being a Neo-Nazi/enabler, promoted his nonsense, and you are wrong about anarchists wanting to imprison people who disagree with anarchism. This guy isn't an exception, anarchists are notoriously anti-prison. (One of the most famous essays is Emma Goldman's "Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure''). You are also a massive hypocrite because you dropped your mask at the time and showed that you relish the idea of anti-fascists being hurt while claiming you are all for debate and peaceful resolutions.

Also everybody is a fascist to maniancs like you, you called me a fascist collaborator, so do I get sent to the camps or just Santafiry, what about Spets? , are you going to give armbands too.

Again you just comically reinforce the caricature of the unaware right-winger further sliding rightward until they become a Nazi. You just keep repeating the same debunked shit to trivialize actual fascism; I'm the maniac who thinks everyone is a Nazi, while I only ever called you an enabler when you literally posted/supported tweets of Neo-Nazis and supported their talking points and anti-antifa propaganda a number of times which I have proved. Santafairy said this insane bullshit about me saying that everyone is a Nazi when I recognized that one ecofascist mass murderer was a literal Neo-Nazi and left a fucking manifesto behind explicitly saying that he was. It was the single most disturbing thing anyone ever said on Liquidpoker and it just flew right above your head.

On January 07 2020 23:26 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 07 2020 17:08 Loco wrote: Maybe you should say what "this" is, instead of being so vague. I'm not going to watch a 34 minutes video from two random schmucks

+1

On January 08 2020 07:06 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 08 2020 05:41 RiKD wrote: I don't really want to murder or poison the rich. I actually want to throw them into re-education camps. GG Loco, no RE

smh

Those rich whackos could use some rehabilitation but I thought obv joke was obv

On January 08 2020 10:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On January 07 2020 23:24 Baalim wrote: Also stop pretending you give a shit about climate change, you don't, its your excuse to change the economial system. the fuck is this supposed to be?

Pretty simple, the left rants about climate change because they use it as a proxy to attack capitalism, Loco has said that the only way to stop climate change is to destroy capitalism.

Isn't it convenient when your belielf is not only the morally superior in any concievable way, but also it will literally save the world? That is precisely the same way he sees veganism and why he despises centrism, dogma requires denouncing complexity, compromise and nuance (ironically sincne he loves the word), he is among the truth bearers, the saviors of the world.

On January 08 2020 12:04 Loco wrote: ^ It's one of those enlightened centrist measured takes. Anyone who isn't flailing around singularly talking about how nuclear could solve the climate problem doesn't really care about climate change, they just want to oppress rich people/tip the power scale in their favor.

It doesn't have to be nuclear, but we have to be talking about $/watt production, viability of energy production for emerging economies with large populations etc, but you aren't talking about that because you don't care about CO2 production, you care about your retarded red revolution.

I've never used the words "destroy capitalism". It's utter nonsense to believe that you can destroy a persistent form of social organization and ideology. You don't "destroy" organizational processes nor ignorance and greed, they're not something that can be overpowered, you replace them with something better, something rational. Unfortunately capitalism is very good at preventing this from happening on a significant enough level to blunt climate change, through forms of violence that you refuse to acknowledge.

You talk about nuance and complexity yet the first thing you do here (as always) is refer to "the left" as if it were a monolith, and accuse anarchists of being Stalinists who want a "red revolution" where we guillotine the rich and police people's thoughts, lol. Very nuanced take indeed.

Isn't it convenient when you can reduce a logical conclusion to the state of a mere subjective belief. No one doubts that a system has to have balance. Nothing in nature just grows indefinitely. Yet people have this blind spot and desperate faith in technology when it comes to a human economy. There are planetary boundaries and if they are not respected, the human species won't have a home anymore. That is not my opinion, or a "belief", it is a fact. The internal logic of capitalism is growth above all, so it can't respect those boundaries; ergo, capitalism is incompatible with an ecological society.

This isn't about "me" saving the world. You're the one who has a boner for heroism. You grew up with a right-wing libertarian hero in Batman and you sincerely believe that the ultra rich are the rightful overlords of our world and all that's needed is that they devote more efforts to philanthropy. Centrists/libs also have a boner for heroism, that's why superhero movies are so popular. You think the anti-capitalist left are the ones financing Hollywood hero movies? lol.

On January 08 2020 12:04 Loco wrote: Don't even know what to say about his above comment. Making fun of someone with mental illness and somehow implying that I am responsible for his impulsive sentiments, just the usual petty Baal.

gaslighting RikD lol, how_dare_you.jpg

remember when you said that more anti-fascists should have been shot in Berkeley for organizing against Milo?

With organizing you mean beating up atendees, setting the venue on fire and hitting knocked out atendees with wooden pole in the back of their head then yes, I stand by my statement, absolutely fine if they get shot.

You were wrong about Milo not being a Neo-Nazi/enabler, promoted his nonsense ...

Milo debated feminists and mocked SJWs, things I agree with, is being anti-SJW promoting fascism? is supporting the ideas somebody publicly has means you support the ideas they also hold privately? if so you know I'm going to have a field day with that one don't you

You are also a massive hypocrite because you dropped your mask at the time and showed that you relish the idea of anti-fascists being hurt while claiming you are all for debate and peaceful resolutions.

I relish on the idea of people beating up strangers on the street for political reasons getting hurt, thats a difference between you and me I would never condone initiating violence against "commies", I would never condone the silencing of left-wing ideology no matter how dangnerous I think it is, that is what authoritarians and closet authoritarians like yourself would do.

How Ricky Gervais's speech has not made its way into this thread is beyond me

I wasn't gaslighting RiKD. Although he said it was a joke, it's true that in the past he's had violent fantasies in his blog and they didn't look like a joke, but this situation is analogous to the recent Joker movie. You are essentially Murray, making fun of Arthur with that .gif, like his anger exists to fuel your personal entertainment and feelings of superiority over those who are struggling and angry. "Oh so you're angry about the world, don't you think you should grow up and stop with the self-pity? Stop making excuses, stop having violent thoughts, your experiences aren't valid, there is something profoundly wrong with you, not the world we live in or the way we treat you" is exactly the kind of condescending and mocking attitude that you have towards him. That you thought you could utilize him to try to score some point against me is not simply petty, on second thought, it's twisted.

On January 08 2020 21:45 Spitfiree wrote: How Ricky Gervais's speech has not made its way into this thread is beyond me

he does that every year and they call him back, what's to discuss?

On January 08 2020 20:54 Baalim wrote: That is precisely the same way he sees veganism and why he despises centrism, dogma requires denouncing complexity, compromise

Compromise is only rational between two willing parties where there isn't an inequality of bargaining power or existential threat. I compromise with my partner when we want different things and we come to an agreement that might favor me most one time, and the next time it will favor her, or we both meet half way. Our lives, or our quality of life, isn't on the line. You don't "compromise" with people who want to literally exclude you from society, dehumanize you, or kill you. That's not a compromise, that's a naive and idiotic death wish. You don't ask a sheep to compromise with a wolf. What's the compromise that a non-white should be making with a Nazi? "Ok, you can only kill me in X years"? What's the compromise that we should make with capitalists who are plundering the world and driving us ever closer to runaway climate for their own selfish gain? And how do you imagine that capitalists will have any interest in compromising when they own everything including your life at the threat of a gun or starvation?

I have shared with you the story of "Those who Walk Away From Omelas" before. It's a simple short story that can be read within minutes about a utopian society where everyone is happy, but it has one single dark secret: the society depends on the daily persistent torture of a single girl in order to maintain itself. She is perpetually kept in a dark room, naked, barely fed, and with no human contact whatsoever, but people sometimes come to look at her with disgust.

In your world of "measured takes" and "compromises", this is not only acceptable, but ideal. Only one suffering girl for all of that happiness, now that's quite a good deal! Well, I think that's a load of horseshit. In my world, it's not justifiable to torture someone for my own benefit, and I would be among those who leave that society at the end of the story because my conscience wouldn't allow me to remain there.

Having principles and a moral baseline for action and trying to be morally consistent is not dogmatic and it's not a denial of complexity. If there is no rational reason or physiological necessity for me to exploit others, then I won't do it, and I won't condone others doing it. You can justify any form of cheating and harming of others by invoking "the necessity of compromise".

Veganism and animal rights is a great example. The mainstream view is the welfarist one, where animal rights activists actively work with organizations and industries that directly harm animals for profit. Their logic is that they have to start somewhere, and small reforms will eventually grow into significant ones and it's just going to keep going in a linear fashion until abolition. It's understandable but flawed. But when you look at the real world, this is not what happens. What happens instead is that the policies are not enforced well, and these groups are helping the exploiters improve their bottom line and social capital as they give the false confidence to the consumers that they are consuming "more ethical" products, encouraging them to buy more. They make people more comfortable with harming animals, not less, so there is no sense whatsoever in thinking that abolition will follow from that.

You don't compromise on your means if you want positive ends. The means and the ends have to be in alignment with one another. That is also why state capitalism (what you call Communism) has never worked to liberate the workers, and why it will never work, because oppressive means lead to oppressive ends, always, and using bureaucratic centralized power to shape society is inherently oppressive.


Edit: By the way, you know the suicide rate among Americans ages 10 to 24 jumped 56 percent between 2007 and 2017? It's the second leading cause of death for people 10 to 34. You think maintaining the status quo is what's going to help the next generations? And what do you think has happened between those years? Too much feminism? Young people eating too much soy? Not watching enough Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson videos? Or maybe Antifa is terrorizing them to death? This is supposed to be the best time to be alive in the whole of history according to your Religion of Progress, so pray tell, why do so many more young people kill themselves now in the Land of the Free? Oh wait, I know -- it's because there isn't enough Capitalism in America, isn't it?! (I predict that you won't answer my question and your first instinct will be to deflect with your usual very empathetic whataboutism and think "this is nothing in comparison to living in Venezuela, these Americans didn't know how good they had it before they killed themselves'')

I'm talking about compromise in regards to climate change, in regards of morality you've compromised many times as long as you get your objective (quite machiavellian) for example you became censorious and then it grew into initiating political violence.

All is allowed as long as the ultimate goal of the destruction of what you in your little mind see as the decantation of evil, capitalism.

We can stop climate change if we progressively switch to the most cost/efficient clean energy source, but you don't want that, you are willing to walk into the literal end of civilization (according to you) if you don't get what you want, the end of capitalism.

So to sum it up, you are willing to subject this world to suffering in scales never seen before if you don't get what you (justified in your mind by your dogma) want... Get out of the way Thanos we have a new marvel villian lol.

That story is just the "trolley problem" cool topic but it brings nothing new.

On January 08 2020 23:01 Loco wrote: Edit: By the way, you know the suicide rate among Americans ages 10 to 24 jumped 56 percent between 2007 and 2017? It's the second leading cause of death for people 10 to 34. You think maintaining the status quo is what's going to help the next generations? And what do you think has happened between those years? Too much feminism? Young people eating too much soy? Not watching enough Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson videos? Or maybe Antifa is terrorizing them to death? This is supposed to be the best time to be alive in the whole of history according to your Religion of Progress, so pray tell, why do so many more young people kill themselves now in the Land of the Free? Oh wait, I know -- it's because there isn't enough Capitalism in America, isn't it?! (I predict that you won't answer my question and your first instinct will be to deflect with your usual very empathetic whataboutism and think "this is nothing in comparison to living in Venezuela, these Americans didn't know how good they had it before they killed themselves'')

Yeah obviously the reason why people kill themselves is capitalism, the correlation is neaerly 1, Guayana, Lesotho, kazazhkstan, Zimbabwe etc are all known for their economic freedom... dumbass -_-

People kill themselves for many reasons, only fools would try to adjudicate it to one main factor, and it takes a special kind of fool to claim its the result of a factor with absolutely no statistical correlation whatsoever.

I'm not sure about those countries, although looking it up the 3 countries you cite were all subjected to market reforms (structural adjustment) from 1988-1991. but inequality is a global phenomenon and capitalism is just something that exists everywhere, except for countries like cuba and north korea, and a few otthers. It's manifested in different ways of course, the global south have been subjected to march harsher capitalism reform than the rest of the world. (could call it structural adjustment, or austerity which is what the austrian economists trumpet as a solution despite that it's never worked out of hundreds of examples and that it isn't supported in theory either). the World bank and IMF, to a large extent, have decided what economic policies have been in africa, latin america (up until 2002~) , and most of asia. (not south korea, taiwan, hong kong, singapore, china, or japan.) Greece were the recent targets of capitalism being rammed down their throat. They don't make top 34 on that list however studies show suicide rates did rampantly increase under austerity. It is misleading to cite wikipedia data entries without understanding global political economy beforehand, nor even citing the original research on 'deaths of despair'. It's very easy to see why russia is near the top of the list, the 1990's saw one of the greatest economic crisis in history for russia, bought on by the mass privitizations. They're still are suffering from the effects of that. There are of course other factors outside of economics. Japan and korea are both rich countries with an oppressive work/school culture.

Suicides have increased in new zealand and the UK as well.

this is the abstract from the original paper on this phenomenon:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/casetextsp17bpea.pdf

Abstract:

Building on our earlier research (Case and Deaton 2015), we
find that mortality and morbidity among white non-Hispanic Americans in
midlife since the turn of the century continued to climb through 2015. Additional
increases in drug overdoses, suicides, and alcohol-related liver mortality—
particularly among those with a high school degree or less—are responsible for
an overall increase in all-cause mortality among whites. We find marked differences in mortality by race and education, with mortality among white nonHispanics (males and females) rising for those without a college degree, and
falling for those with a college degree. In contrast, mortality rates among blacks
and Hispanics have continued to fall, irrespective of educational attainment.
Mortality rates in comparably rich countries have continued their premillennial
fall at the rates that used to characterize the United States. Contemporaneous
levels of resources—particularly slowly growing, stagnant, and even declining incomes—cannot provide a comprehensive explanation for poor mortality
outcomes. We propose a preliminary but plausible story in which cumulative
disadvantage from one birth cohort to the next—in the labor market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health—is triggered by progressively worsening labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of
education. This account, which fits much of the data, has the profoundly negative implication that policies—even ones that successfully improve earnings
and jobs, or redistribute income—will take many years to reverse the increase
in mortality and morbidity, and that those in midlife now are likely to do worse
in old age than the current elderly. This is in contrast to accounts in which
resources affect health contemporaneously, so that those in midlife now can
expect to do better in old age as they receive Social Security and Medicare.
None of this, however, implies that there are no policy levers to be pulled. For
instance, reducing the overprescription of opioids should be an obvious target
for policymakers.

i linked this a while ago but got ridiculed for it not having nuclear power near the top, lol.

looks like we have to change the economic system quite drastically although a plant rich diet is ranked as the #1 solution in terms of individual choice.

https://gyazo.com/f83ec8d65cb0042f2dcb0f76628f68bc

Loco wasn't gaslighting. There wasn't any manipulation there. He was stating facts. I have a mental illness. I don't think Loco fully understands my mental illness but that's ok.

Sending the rich elite to re-education camps was a joke but I do think those fuckers could use rehabilitation. I never see that happening considering they are the ones who have conceivably "won at life" and have status. We should be going to schools taught by them of course! Read all of their books and study their lives. I used to do this actually. This makes me sad.

Anyway, I remember posting that we should poison expensive filet mignon and wines. Again, that was a bit tongue in cheek. I was inspired by the troop of baboons that all of the high status assholes ate toxic food out of a contaminated dumpster and they all died. The troop went on to live a much better life. It is an idea. I don't think I was even manic for this one but I may have been.

I do have a reoccurring fantasy to murder Dick Cheney or even better capture him and recreate my own Guantanamo Bay. But even if I'm manic I don't particularly like guns and am no match for trained security. I don't actually want to murder anyone and I don't think I could go through with torturing someone. If I could I would send him to a prison in Sweden or Germany where the focus is on rehabilitation and not punitive measures. I have the same reoccurring fantasy for dictators and clit mutilators in Africa. But I mean just a blanket hate for the 1% I don't really have. My parents are in the 1%. My brother is in the 1%. I have friends in the 1%. It wouldn't be fair to poison all wines above $200 or whatever the number could be. I am not an arbiter of rich elite deaths and while sometimes I would like to be in reality I could not and would not partake. Throughout history, many times the brutal regime overtaken by brutality only ends up being more despotic than the last. It's arguable but I don't think we should be looking to "eat the rich" or bring the guillotines back.

When you have to clarify that you don't really want to murder everyone of a certain income level...

On January 09 2020 02:35 Stroggoz wrote: I'm not sure about those countries, although looking it up the 3 countries you cite were all subjected to market reforms (structural adjustment) from 1988-1991. but inequality is a global phenomenon and capitalism is just something that exists everywhere, except for countries like cuba and north korea, and a few otthers. It's manifested in different ways of course, the global south have been subjected to march harsher capitalism reform than the rest of the world. (could call it structural adjustment, or austerity which is what the austrian economists trumpet as a solution despite that it's never worked out of hundreds of examples and that it isn't supported in theory either). the World bank and IMF, to a large extent, have decided what economic policies have been in africa, latin america (up until 2002~) , and most of asia. (not south korea, taiwan, hong kong, singapore, china, or japan.) Greece were the recent targets of capitalism being rammed down their throat. They don't make top 34 on that list however studies show suicide rates did rampantly increase under austerity. It is misleading to cite wikipedia data entries without understanding global political economy beforehand, nor even citing the original research on 'deaths of despair'. It's very easy to see why russia is near the top of the list, the 1990's saw one of the greatest economic crisis in history for russia, bought on by the mass privitizations. They're still are suffering from the effects of that. There are of course other factors outside of economics. Japan and korea are both rich countries with an oppressive work/school culture.

So the rich countries that have high suicide rate is because of capitalism, poor countries that have high suicide rate is also because of capitalism lol.


This is a dishonest way to think, having a conclusion and trying to connect dots with a nearly 0 statistical corelation to try to prove it, you can even see Finland ranking higer than the US, and that isn't some exeption to a statistical trend in fact its quite consistent with no coorelation whatsoever.

If the premise were "income inequality is one of the many factors that drive suicide" then fine it looks reasonable but then we would have to evaluate it in comparison with overall not just relative income, then estabilsh a coorelation with capitalism and if all goes well then it would show up that things as simple as the weather have a greater impact on suicide rates.