Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 226

On June 10 2020 02:11 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2020 00:09 Loco wrote: Find better heroes. “In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.” - Engels. "It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product." - Karl Marx Find better heroes

I don't think there is anyone on this site who would cite Marx or Engels as a hero. Similar to the anarcho-syndicalists there is some level of respect there but at this point they are outdated to anyone outside of a small number of academics. Of course, Marxists-Leninists are still a thing as well as anarcho-syndialists but they are mostly misguided and out of touch. Autonomous zones and direct action are where the heroes are today.

Many established "heroes" including Churchill are entirely romanticism and rhetoric conjured by whoever. Even a character like Che Guevara coldly executed many and wished for the annihilation of the U.S.A. Ghandi was a racist and a sexist. Martin Luther King would have secret orgies and had 40+ extra marital affairs.

And I would actually take back what I said earlier. Marx is a hero for being one of the great masters of suspicion of the 19th century. His scrutiny of capital at the time is legendary. Finding a rather banal quote does very little to taint that.

I doubt the churchill movies include his rascist comments on indians or his opinion on using chemical warfare on iraqi people to squash uprisings. A balanced view of history makes churchill look like a pretty terrible person overall. The bengal famine alone would get him hanged at the nuremberg trials probably, if he was on the other side of the war. (Not that im ever in favour of using the death penalty, im just saying by his own sense of justice he would hang himself).

But ah yeah, it's not like anyone here that respects these left-liberal philosophers in ye old days doesn't recognize that some of them were extreme racsists, making adolf hitler look mild by comparison in some cases. You can recognize the remarkable acheivements in science/philosophy by aristotle without rejecting him just because he made bad arguments in favour of slavery.

On June 09 2020 23:06 Spitfiree wrote: First, his argument isn't that blacks are stupid, he s trying to say that since the majority of elite highschool are filled with asians, it would make much more sense to have more than 20% asians in Harvard as well, which is a fair point if high school acceptance had anything to do with Ivy league acceptance, which it doesn't. Second, Asians are much more likely to be introverted due to cultural factors. Almost all Asian cultures are focused on the family and the good of the group, leaving the individualism on the side, which tends to create much more introverts. That's not a prejudice, those are facts that you can easily google. Third, I cba responding to you and hiems anymore tbh, its a complete waste of time. One would think you're generally much more aware of things like that since you're actually from the US ...

His entire post was "Yeah they have to take certain percentage of dindus so they discriminate against aryans and asians."

Dindu is a pejorative term for blacks. In the context of admitting blacks with lower test scores than whites/asians it doesn't take a big city detective to determine that anyone that uses the word dindu thinks the blacks have lower tests scores because they are less intelligent.

Keep in mind that the Marx quote dates back to 1861. The concept of racism didn't exist yet. It would take some 50 years or so after he wrote that that it first appeared as 'racialism' in the Oxford dictionary. It's anachronistic to say that this was racism. It is certainly a nasty attack on Lassalle, and he was indeed a nasty man in a lot of his private letters. It's part of his legacy.

No one at this time really believed in full equality between the races though, including Lincoln. They recognized they ought to be treated as equals under the law, which is what mattered. In those days you had to look at people's actions and whether they favored the interests of Black people or not, rather than their private prejudices. Marx clearly did. Churchill on the other hand wanted them to suffer and die, and his behavior directly led to that. And that was some 80 years later.

Lol @ thinking anarchists worship Marx when they are by definition anti-Marxist.

On June 10 2020 09:38 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2020 23:06 Spitfiree wrote: First, his argument isn't that blacks are stupid, he s trying to say that since the majority of elite highschool are filled with asians, it would make much more sense to have more than 20% asians in Harvard as well, which is a fair point if high school acceptance had anything to do with Ivy league acceptance, which it doesn't. Second, Asians are much more likely to be introverted due to cultural factors. Almost all Asian cultures are focused on the family and the good of the group, leaving the individualism on the side, which tends to create much more introverts. That's not a prejudice, those are facts that you can easily google. Third, I cba responding to you and hiems anymore tbh, its a complete waste of time. One would think you're generally much more aware of things like that since you're actually from the US ... His entire post was "Yeah they have to take certain percentage of dindus so they discriminate against aryans and asians." Dindu is a pejorative term for blacks. In the context of admitting blacks with lower test scores than whites/asians it doesn't take a big city detective to determine that anyone that uses the word dindu thinks the blacks have lower tests scores because they are less intelligent.

Shitfiree is refering to me in this response, not curbstomp if you are confused.

First, his argument isn't that blacks are stupid, he s trying to say that since the majority of elite highschool are filled with asians, it would make much more sense to have more than 20% asians in Harvard as well, which is a fair point if high school acceptance had anything to do with Ivy league acceptance, which it doesn't.

Your an idiot. I'm not saying that at all. The only saving grace in making the case that you are not retarded is that I was on my phone and its annoying properly quoting people through typing on your cell phone so maybe you got confused (despite the fact that I wrote I was referring to Loco's prior post). Mainly though, you are just an idiot, which I have told you multiple times already.

Anyway I am using the Stuyvesant as an example that Loco arbitrarily saying that since asians make up <10% of the population that having a 25% population at Harvard somehow this proves that discrimination is not taking place is an obvious fallacy . That is to say, I'm not saying the number at Harvard should be 73%, but rather the impossibility of Loco knowing whether or not 25% being Asian signifies proof that discrimination is not occuring.

On June 08 2020 02:33 Loco wrote: If you're talking about groups and use Asian Americans as an example then it's not discrimination, properly understood. If Asian American representation at, say, Harvard, has only been steadily growing over the years (it has) and they currently account for 25.4% of Harvard admissions, while representing only 5.5% of the population, they are clearly not being discriminated against as a group. You could make a case that individuals are being discriminated against, but again, this is a misunderstanding of what we mean by discrimination and it misses all of the nuance of what it means to have been a victim of systematic oppression for centuries. And if you are going to issue blame somewhere for the current way in which applicants are chosen, it should be towards legacy systems first, not African Americans.

Again, this is an obvious fallacy. Why shouldn't it be 30% 35% 40% .... 70% etc? How do you know at which point of % Asian Students in Harvard proves non-discrimination. Loco just arbitrarily decides OK since Asians in Harvard =25% and Asians in population = 5.5% I guess I'm going to enter it in my magic "discrimination-or-not equation" and poof , calculate the results!! wow. What? It happens to agree with Loco's prior viewpoints???. ... I mean I don't understand what kind of logic is that. He does this thing very often where he just decides he has "proven" "debunked" or that "things clearly show xyz" all by himself despite there being no factual evidence.

Second, Asians are much more likely to be introverted due to cultural factors. Almost all Asian cultures are focused on the family and the good of the group, leaving the individualism on the side, which tends to create much more introverts. That's not a prejudice, those are facts that you can easily google.

Please just read this over and think about how stupid this entire statement is. What are we some sort of race from Star-Trek? Wtf are you talking about. "Those are the facts that you can easily google". You sound like a below-average intelligence 6th-grader.

edi just want to add this gem:

And if you are going to issue blame somewhere for the current way in which applicants are chosen, it should be towards legacy systems first, not African Americans.

Why can't it be both? I mean idk I dont get it.

You calling anyone dumb when you literally believe you shouldn't listen to anyone and listening to your ideas makes you original is kind of bold.

And if you could follow simple logic you would realize your argument against Loco is completely useless. I don't even necessarily agree with Loco, its just that your argument is so terrible this entire thread makes me cringe when reading your shit.

Oh by the way, I know you hate to read and prefer to follow your intuition but we are actually terrible statistician "by nature", You sound like one of those people that create the "Ben Shapiro destroys [INSERT RANDOM SHIT HERE]" people. Its silly

Just remember, your ignorance is by choice.

edit:
Just saw your retarded statement about the introvert portion playing part there, if you did a simple google search you would find this chick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Cain

Who is a Harvard graduate and wrote this book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8520610-quiet

Where she explains that in-depth, after speaking to Harvard members including those that are a part of the application approval process.

Of course, that would require very minimum effort by you to educate yourself. Instead you prefer to boost your ego by self-validation by being delusional. Taking your time to reply on an internet forum through a forum, cause you need that self-validation that badly. Is that an explanation basic enough for you or is my English too incomprehensible for you?

On June 10 2020 19:08 Spitfiree wrote: You calling anyone dumb when you literally believe you shouldn't listen to anyone and listening to your ideas makes you original is kind of bold. And if you could follow simple logic you would realize your argument against Loco is completely useless. I don't even necessarily agree with Loco, its just that your argument is so terrible this entire thread makes me cringe when reading your shit. Oh by the way, I know you hate to read and prefer to follow your intuition but we are actually terrible statistician "by nature", You sound like one of those people that create the "Ben Shapiro destroys [INSERT RANDOM SHIT HERE]" people. Its silly Just remember, your ignorance is by choice. edit: Just saw your retarded statement about the introvert portion playing part there, if you did a simple google search you would find this chick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Cain Who is a Harvard graduate and wrote this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8520610-quiet Where she explains that in-depth, after speaking to Harvard members including those that are a part of the application approval process. Of course, that would require very minimum effort by you to educate yourself. Instead you prefer to boost your ego by self-validation by being delusional. Taking your time to reply on an internet forum through a forum, cause you need that self-validation that badly. Is that an explanation basic enough for you or is my English too incomprehensible for you?

i love how you keep randomly referencing ben shapiro.

for the record he is much much much smarter than you. also he would wipe the floor with you in debate in any format you choose. also much more successful than you. also way richer than you. Please just tell me when to stop.

anyway im curious. so you actually read that book?

Good old hiems, out of words, outplayed in his own game, running over to random insults as a place of last resort. I'm glad that you think that highly of an extremely religious anti-abortion propaganda spreading dude. Perhaps he s right up there with Jordan Peterson for you.

I also highly doubt that my definition of success aligns with yours in any way... considering things. Of course, even thinking about that requires you to think about someone else's perspective and be critical of yourself

I don't see any problem with heims' argument. The NBA analogy is a good one. If the NBA was made up of 30% black players 70% players of other races you could just as easily say "The NBA is 30% black compared to the general population that is 13% black so blacks are clearly not being discriminated against as a group."

That's literally something a white supremacist would say to prove there isn't discrimination going on in a certain field. "Not having the qualities we see in a leader" is another thing a bigot would say about a minority or female for why a white man should be the next CEO. The fact that Loco and Spitfiree think it's okay to use these arguments as long as it's targeted at Asians is outright racist.

On June 10 2020 19:08 Spitfiree wrote: edit: Just saw your retarded statement about the introvert portion playing part there, if you did a simple google search you would find this chick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Cain Who is a Harvard graduate and wrote this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8520610-quiet Where she explains that in-depth, after speaking to Harvard members including those that are a part of the application approval process. Of course, that would require very minimum effort by you to educate yourself. Instead you prefer to boost your ego by self-validation by being delusional. Taking your time to reply on an internet forum through a forum, cause you need that self-validation that badly. Is that an explanation basic enough for you or is my English too incomprehensible for you?

Is this really what passes around here? Googling "show me why I'm right" and then linking the shit that pops up and chastising people for not "educating themselves."

On June 10 2020 12:44 hiems wrote: Your an idiot.

It's you're*. Both of you need to end the name-calling. We're all adults here.

On June 10 2020 05:23 RiKD wrote: I don't think there is anyone on this site who would cite Marx or Engels as a hero

Two seconds later:

[QUOTE]On June 10 2020 05:40 RiKD wrote: And I would actually take back what I said earlier. Marx is a hero

A few moments later:

Keep in mind that the Marx quote dates back to 1861. The concept of racism didn't exist yet.

So Marx gets a pass because of historical context of morality of the 1800s... on the other hand, fuck Columbus and any 1400 context of morality LOL, clowns.

On June 10 2020 06:43 Stroggoz wrote: But ah yeah, it's not like anyone here that respects these left-liberal philosophers in ye old days doesn't recognize that some of them were extreme racsists, making adolf hitler look mild by comparison in some cases. You can recognize the remarkable acheivements in science/philosophy by aristotle without rejecting him just because he made bad arguments in favour of slavery.

Precisely, thats why destroying these statues is moronic.


Welcome to the profundly racist club, you are now officially morally inferior to Loco, heres your card, we have continental breakfast at 9.

On June 11 2020 00:40 Baalim wrote: So Marx gets a pass because of historical context of morality of the 1800s... on the other hand, fuck Columbus and any 1400 context of morality LOL, clowns.

Columbus and his men were directly responsible for the rape, pillaging, enslavement and genocide of countless Natives. Marx wrote about racial prejudices in his private letters. His racial views were not expressed through his behavior. In fact he was pretty well aligned with those who were actively campaigning for black rights. Marx wrote the following for example:

"Mr Johnson’s policy is less and less to my liking, too. (N-word)-hatred is coming out more and more violently, and he is relinquishing all his power vis-à-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old secessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd."


You are a master of false equivalences. Marx doesn't get a pass, but it's obvious that things should be judged in historical context, and that words expressed in private aren't more important than words and actions that affect people's lives.

On June 11 2020 00:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2020 06:43 Stroggoz wrote: But ah yeah, it's not like anyone here that respects these left-liberal philosophers in ye old days doesn't recognize that some of them were extreme racsists, making adolf hitler look mild by comparison in some cases. You can recognize the remarkable acheivements in science/philosophy by aristotle without rejecting him just because he made bad arguments in favour of slavery. Precisely, thats why destroying these statues is moronic. Welcome to the profundly racist club, you are now officially morally inferior to Loco, heres your card, we have continental breakfast at 9.

"Precisely" ... lol! People aren't destroying the statues of people who have made remarkable achievements in science and philosophy and who simply made bad arguments for some oppressive thing. They are destroying the statues of people who were active oppressors because of the symbols they clearly represent, e.g. conquest/slavery. More false equivalence.

When you take your time to go to the internet to defend the statues of slave traders and genocidal tyrants, you make it known to all that you have officially failed at life.

On June 09 2020 05:15 MezmerizePLZ wrote: loco whats ur twitter handle i wanna follow you

this is his twitter:

On June 11 2020 00:40 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2020 05:23 RiKD wrote: I don't think there is anyone on this site who would cite Marx or Engels as a hero Two seconds later:   [QUOTE]On June 10 2020 05:40 RiKD wrote: And I would actually take back what I said earlier. Marx is a hero A few moments later:   Keep in mind that the Marx quote dates back to 1861. The concept of racism didn't exist yet. So Marx gets a pass because of historical context of morality of the 1800s... on the other hand, fuck Columbus and any 1400 context of morality LOL, clowns.

Columbus was a complete villain by 1400 standards, Marx somewhat ahead of the curve by 1860 standards. Not comparable.

On June 10 2020 23:04 blackjacki2 wrote: I don't see any problem with heims' argument. The NBA analogy is a good one. If the NBA was made up of 30% black players 70% players of other races you could just as easily say "The NBA is 30% black compared to the general population that is 13% black so blacks are clearly not being discriminated against as a group."

- Loco makes a conclusion based on limited stats, which could easily be wrong.
- Hiems comes and makes the opposite conclusion based on other stats that have very little correlation to Loco's point.... basically making the same mistake (high school one)
- Hiems adds to that correlation's argument by passing it as an argument for free competition, which again makes no sense whatsoever


Also, did you expect me to sum up an entire book here for someone who probably hasn't read one for 20 years? Cute

As I've said we're very bad statisticians by nature and making an argument based on 'common sense statistics' is going to make you look like a fool most of the time. It's a very common mistake, except its annoying when on top of doing the mistake you also feed your ego and try to trash talk people...


@Baal if you judge historical figures based on today's standards, you will not find a single moral one.

I guess we all agree that affirmative action isn't good enough. So let's just go with reparations instead, and then we can get rid of it. Right? Does the "model minority" agree?

On June 11 2020 00:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2020 06:43 Stroggoz wrote: But ah yeah, it's not like anyone here that respects these left-liberal philosophers in ye old days doesn't recognize that some of them were extreme racsists, making adolf hitler look mild by comparison in some cases. You can recognize the remarkable acheivements in science/philosophy by aristotle without rejecting him just because he made bad arguments in favour of slavery. Precisely, thats why destroying these statues is moronic. Welcome to the profundly racist club, you are now officially morally inferior to Loco, heres your card, we have continental breakfast at 9.

Marx didn't kill millions of people, Churchill did.

Targetting these statues isn't just because churchill made some rascist comment. He committed serious crimes against humanity. The powerful have control over culture, and for some reason its not ok to create statues of adolf hitler, but its fine to create statues of king leopold II, even though each person committed the two worst genocides in the 20th century (imo). So was denazification justifiable in the post ww2 period? Imo it was. Churchill is not as bad as the previous two but the bengal famine easily makes him a serious war criminal, so again, he's not even remotely comparable to marx.

But it goes beyond that, because they make movies about churchill idolizing him. I havn't seen them but my model i use predicts that they won't ever include his quotes like "indian people are a beastly people with a beastly religion", ect, or any documentation of his major crimes. Perhaps someone here has seen the movie that came out about him recently and they can falsify my model.

a relevant article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...t-to-fall-black-lives-matter-protests

Marx's lack of discussion on race in his kapital volumes was critiqued long ago by scholars that wanted to include race in marxian class analysis.

These 18th/19th century intellectuals, you have to judge them overall. I don't think marx is nearly as bad as the other 19th century economists. I mean Thomas malthus wanted to reintroduce the plague to wipe out all poor people, lol. Ricardo was a conman. John Stuart Mill was in favour of imperialism but light years ahead on most topics imo. I'd say he was pretty sincere and a hero overall.

I'm not really happy about how intellectuals are treated in culture either though. That's an interesting topic as well, i dont think those intellectuals that served power should get off that easily either.

I don't think you can use that line with right-wingers who believe that Marx is responsible for the death of over 100 million people.