Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 227

On June 10 2020 23:04 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

Oh damn. Thanks ratard.

On June 11 2020 08:04 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

lol stop embarrsing yourself

On June 11 2020 08:04 Spitfiree wrote: @Baal if you judge historical figures based on today's standards, you will not find a single moral one.

Which is exactly my point, Ghandi was a racist and a pervert and under historical context he was a great man, Marcus Aurelius led a slaver empire that waged war against "barbarians" and under historical context he was a great man.

Taking down statues of historical figures of over 500 years old is ridiculous victimhood complex, these people who live under an opressor/opressed lens must dig woes centurys old for a sip of the victimhood ambrosia.

On June 11 2020 15:08 Loco wrote: 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.

. Imagine bringing karl marx back from the dead and putting him on trial for crimes against humanity.

I guess adam smith would be the equivilent hero of the right in economics, but there's no way in hell that guy is responsible for crimes in capitalist societies. He was against british crimes in India too.

On June 11 2020 07:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: Columbus was a complete villain by 1400 standards, Marx somewhat ahead of the curve by 1860 standards. Not comparable.

So I assume you are also in favour of taking down monuments to vikings like Rollo or Harald right? or do viking warlords get a context pass but not spanish conquistadors?

The commies are at it again (memorial to the victims of communism)

On June 11 2020 20:54 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 11 2020 07:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: Columbus was a complete villain by 1400 standards, Marx somewhat ahead of the curve by 1860 standards. Not comparable. So I assume you are also in favour of taking down monuments to vikings like Rollo or Harald right? or do viking warlords get a context pass but not spanish conquistadors?

Who are asking for it? I don't really have a default position in terms of whether I want to tear down a monument or not (by which I generally mean 'move to a museum instead of put it on a pedestal in a park or public area', I don't want to erase history, I merely want us to collectively rethink what historical figures we want to celebrate), other than 'let's hear these people out, maybe it makes sense'. And then I'm thinking that if native americans think it's offensive that the US is celebrating the guy who started their genocide, then hey, maybe they have a point. Tbh I'm not sure to what degree native americans care, but I would be inclined to hear them out.

However, the only instance where I've ever heard of anybody raising the question you just did, has been in this very context that we right now are experiencing. Monuments to viking warlords aren't offensive to anybody. And if they were, I'd want to hear them out, hear their reasoning. Some parts of Europe have had a lot of this - I certainly don't object to Polish or people from other eastern european countries removing Soviet monuments after the cold war. In that case, I have the impression that you probably don't disagree, either. If Cuba becomes a capitalist democracy, I'd say it's fine if they now want to remove some of the monuments of Castro. Same with North Korea. Or Turkmenistan. I don't really think this is a question where asking gotcha hypotheticals has much validity, rather communities should come together and evaluate on a case to case basis whether this particular historical event or figure is one that should be celebrated / whether the current mode of commemoration is suitable for the figure or historical event.

Then, personally, I think monuments in the US celebrating southern civil war generals or whatever that were raised after 1910 where intimidating black people and 'reminding them of their place in society' was a clear intent behind raising the monuments are ones that should lose their position of prominence. Maybe find a better person than Columbus for Columbus day. Maybe don't have Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. But George Washington can stay even tho he also owned slaves.

On June 11 2020 20:54 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 11 2020 07:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: Columbus was a complete villain by 1400 standards, Marx somewhat ahead of the curve by 1860 standards. Not comparable. So I assume you are also in favour of taking down monuments to vikings like Rollo or Harald right? or do viking warlords get a context pass but not spanish conquistadors?

To be honest 99% of monuments are absolutely useless... put there for idolization purposes by a winner in some war and forced upon the people in that area. Either way that doesn't matter ... it's just a cycle, each new society running movement would take down the monuments of those that they'd see as 'villains' and the cycle will repeat.... it's just that we're somewhat more civil than people 500 years ago... If anyone looks rationally at that, no monuments apart from pure art should be left.

Most monuments are a direct product of wars, which is always morally grey, the winner gets to do whatever. Would you say Russian WW2 monuments should be up across Europe for example? They had the most major part in defeating Nazi Germany (even though Hollywood will push their UK/US propaganda lmao) yet they needlessly killed tons of people in the process and then enslaved half of Europe under communism where even more people died and development was basically non-existent for a few decades. You can see where I'm going with this.

In the case of Confederate monuments, I'm still to see someone giving a reasonable explanation of why would they be up in the USA at all? Obviously the war wasn't only about slavery but it was the biggest argument. All those monuments were up there specifically to validate racist dipshits and make black people feel unwanted. None of them have a place in today's USA. I'm open on hearing any sort of rational justification on those being up. This is also a very peculiar topic since it was a civil war as well.

TLDR would be - You should view the context of the situation, but generally monuments don't make much sense

The monuments are not useless, put yourself in the shoes of a dictator, you'll find that blatantly lying about how magnificent you are is actually an effective strategy, even though its quite unintuitive. They have an effect on how people perceive their surrounding culture. (The people in this thread). They are quite an effective way of oppressing people.

There are statues of british viceroys in musems in India, which idolize them. A lot of the rich people in India look up to their former masters because of this, it influences policy.

On June 11 2020 21:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On June 11 2020 20:54 Baalim wrote:   On June 11 2020 07:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: Columbus was a complete villain by 1400 standards, Marx somewhat ahead of the curve by 1860 standards. Not comparable. So I assume you are also in favour of taking down monuments to vikings like Rollo or Harald right? or do viking warlords get a context pass but not spanish conquistadors? Who are asking for it? I don't really have a default position in terms of whether I want to tear down a monument or not (by which I generally mean 'move to a museum instead of put it on a pedestal in a park or public area', I don't want to erase history, I merely want us to collectively rethink what historical figures we want to celebrate), other than 'let's hear these people out, maybe it makes sense'. And then I'm thinking that if native americans think it's offensive that the US is celebrating the guy who started their genocide, then hey, maybe they have a point. Tbh I'm not sure to what degree native americans care, but I would be inclined to hear them out. However, the only instance where I've ever heard of anybody raising the question you just did, has been in this very context that we right now are experiencing. Monuments to viking warlords aren't offensive to anybody. And if they were, I'd want to hear them out, hear their reasoning. Some parts of Europe have had a lot of this - I certainly don't object to Polish or people from other eastern european countries removing Soviet monuments after the cold war. In that case, I have the impression that you probably don't disagree, either. If Cuba becomes a capitalist democracy, I'd say it's fine if they now want to remove some of the monuments of Castro. Same with North Korea. Or Turkmenistan. I don't really think this is a question where asking gotcha hypotheticals has much validity, rather communities should come together and evaluate on a case to case basis whether this particular historical event or figure is one that should be celebrated / whether the current mode of commemoration is suitable for the figure or historical event. Then, personally, I think monuments in the US celebrating southern civil war generals or whatever that were raised after 1910 where intimidating black people and 'reminding them of their place in society' was a clear intent behind raising the monuments are ones that should lose their position of prominence. Maybe find a better person than Columbus for Columbus day. Maybe don't have Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. But George Washington can stay even tho he also owned slaves.

I am offended in the name of Northumbrians by the monuments to Rollo because he massacred them... yeah you'd rightfully tell me to go fuck off with my bullshit, which is what I'm doing to those morons beheading the statue of Columbus just to anti-colonial virtue signal.

Obviously I don't have a problem when they tear down Saddam Hussein's monument, he was alive at the time, people lived under their regime, that is very different from what I'm saying, Cortez slaughtered the indigenous tribes in Mexico 500 years ago, there are statues of him and guess what, nobody gives a shit because he is a historical figure.

If nobody in mexico gives a shit that's fine, nobody is trying to compel you to tear down statues of Cortez if you want them to stay. Obviously not the case with some american monuments, or we wouldn't have the discussion. I'm saying 'let the people decide', and you're saying 'if the people want to remove statues of abhorrent people of the past, they shouldn't be allowed to'..? That you don't believe that they genuinely care is on you. Native americans still live in the US. I also said that I didn't really care if people want to remove them on behalf of native americans, I stated that if native americans are opposed to columbus day or columbus monuments, then we should listen.

You guys would know how important this was if you ever tried to control the world with propaganda. He who controls the past controls the future. That's a basic lesson in propaganda.

it's not really fine if nobody in mexico gives a shit..that's slave mentality. People ought to take control over their own culture rather than having it in the hands of elites.

obviously no reason to be offended over viking crimes in northumbria but if society builds statues of viking murderers then that's a problem. So yes, viking statues should be bought down as well imo.

I could say the same thing about glorification of war in video games. These arguments extend beyond statues to essentially any aspect of culture.

On June 12 2020 00:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: If nobody in mexico gives a shit that's fine, nobody is trying to compel you to tear down statues of Cortez if you want them to stay. Obviously not the case with some american monuments, or we wouldn't have the discussion. I'm saying 'let the people decide', and you're saying 'if the people want to remove statues of abhorrent people of the past, they shouldn't be allowed to'..? That you don't believe that they genuinely care is on you. Native americans still live in the US. I also said that I didn't really care if people want to remove them on behalf of native americans, I stated that if native americans are opposed to columbus day or columbus monuments, then we should listen.

Oh no, I'm just saying I think they are retarded for drowning in victimhood of 500 years ago, not that they aren't allowed or something like that, I wouldn't mind some kind of council meeting deciding if a statue stays or not.

On June 12 2020 01:54 Stroggoz wrote: You guys would know how important this was if you ever tried to control the world with propaganda. He who controls the past controls the future. That's a basic lesson in propaganda. it's not really fine if nobody in mexico gives a shit..that's slave mentality. People ought to take control over their own culture rather than having it in the hands of elites. obviously no reason to be offended over viking crimes in northumbria but if society builds statues of viking murderers then that's a problem. So yes, viking statues should be bought down as well imo. I could say the same thing about glorification of war in video games. These arguments extend beyond statues to essentially any aspect of culture.

But Hernan Cortez is part of Mexican culture, the Aztecs were slavers that had the rest of the mesoamerican civilization under its brutal yoke through war, ironically the Spanish conquest liberated many civilizations from them, in fact some of them allied with the Spanyards to deat the Aztecs, and that's the past, complex, messy and devoid of any unsullied hero, and its very interesting and there are many lessons to be learned, but to sublimate your identity from it and inherit grievances from bones and dust is not what a sane person do.

On June 11 2020 23:09 Stroggoz wrote: The monuments are not useless, put yourself in the shoes of a dictator, you'll find that blatantly lying about how magnificent you are is actually an effective strategy, even though its quite unintuitive. They have an effect on how people perceive their surrounding culture. (The people in this thread). They are quite an effective way of oppressing people. There are statues of british viceroys in musems in India, which idolize them. A lot of the rich people in India look up to their former masters because of this, it influences policy.

Right, I didn't express myself correctly - by "the monuments are useless for the general public" what I mean is, they are not beneficial in any way to the majority, they're just a source of propaganda.

I'm not a fan of them either, altho I get that maybe after some decisive battle feel like building one to commemorate that day or something like that, but in general I hate the idolatry of some figures, I always mention the racist part when somebody is licking Ghandi's balls, because fuck the "mahatma" part, Ieave the heroes and the villians to children (and SJWs) history should be understood in all its complexity.

On June 12 2020 01:54 Stroggoz wrote: You guys would know how important this was if you ever tried to control the world with propaganda. He who controls the past controls the future. That's a basic lesson in propaganda. it's not really fine if nobody in mexico gives a shit..that's slave mentality. People ought to take control over their own culture rather than having it in the hands of elites. obviously no reason to be offended over viking crimes in northumbria but if society builds statues of viking murderers then that's a problem. So yes, viking statues should be bought down as well imo. I could say the same thing about glorification of war in video games. These arguments extend beyond statues to essentially any aspect of culture.

Hitch:

https://www.kulturemedia.org/gender/s...women-desexualized-asian-men/?iid=231

In Hitch (2005), a romantic comedy film directed by Andy Tennant, Will Smith starred as Alex “Hitch” Hitchens, a professional ‘date doctor’ who specializes in helping men without ‘game’ strike successful relationships with the women of their dreams. Most of the movie revolves around Hitch falling for workaholic gossip columnist Sara Melas (Eva Mendes), while attempting to help one of his clients, Albert Brennaman (Kevin James), establish a relationship with celebrity Allegra Cole (Amber Valletta).

The problem lies in the film’s opening sequence, which serves as an introduction to Smith’s character and his expertise as a modern relationship guru. The film’s opening shots establish three of Hitch’s clients and the respective women they are attracted to.

There is thus a Caucasian American pairing, an African-American pairing, and an interracial WMAF (white male – Asian female) pairing. Throughout the first 6-7 minutes of the movie, the three men each get coaching from Hitch. Hitch instructs them on what to wear, how to handle their first dates, and how to secure a kiss on the third date (all three clients reach this stage). He even sets up a scene where Neil (Kevin Sussman) can play the hero to Mika (Navia Nguyen) by pretending to save her dog from a road accident.

While viewers are left in the dark with regards to the further progress made by the Caucasian American and African American couples, Mika is depicted cosying up to Neil the next morning.

The film’s opening sequence thus subtly reinforces Hollywood’s gendered stereotyping of Asian men and women. As most casual Asian American media consumers undoubtedly already know, Asian women are often overtly sexualized and paired with white men on screen, while Asian men are typically omitted or desexualized, whenever represented at all.

Hitch’s basic principles (“no matter what, no matter when, no matter who. Any man has the chance to sweep any woman off her feet. Just needs the right broom”) are thus not visually represented as being inclusive of Asian men. The only Asian men that appear in the opening sequences merely appear in the background, without any lines or significant roles to play


















I love how you liberals are making some ridiculous virtue-signal nitpicking about propaganda, yet when I try to explain how Asians are massively discriminated against by the most effective propoganda machine on the planet (Hollywood) you just make fun of me about the whole thing. Racist Propaganda is never OK but if it is Racist Propaganda against Asians, its perfectly fine!

Seriously, do you think a "statue of Churchill" or "Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill" has more of an effect on the lives and minds of our population than the brainwashing by Hollywood? You have got to be joking. Obviously I created an illustration demonstrating how stupid your entire premise is. You are all acting high and mighty how you SJW idiots think you actually care about racism when you are the racist yourselves. I have told LiquidDrone numerous times about how Asians are discriminated against on Discord and he basically just laughed at my face, called me an idiot, and said I was just "angry because I can't get dates" or some bullshit. Loco obvious also is massively bigoted against Asian people by the posts he makes on here, all while being a weird Weaboo guy dating an Asian woman living in Japan. I just don't know what I have to do to explain myself further how racist/dismissive you guys are on pretty much every issue against Asian people (Stroggoz Included).

What is an Asian-American kid growing up in America or another Western country supposed to think when he sees all of these movies that supposedly "celebrate diversity and wokeness" yet either he is not portrayed at all or he is portrayed in a ridiculously negative way? How in the world does that compare to a statue of Churchill? What are you even talking about.

Im calling all of you out on your racism/bigotry. You are the true racists. You are the ones that need to change

Since Stroggoz mentioned "controlling the past" is key in propoganda, take a look at this screenshot. Basically if you search google images for "LA riots Koreatown" you will see how leftist media in combination with leftist google manipulate/revise history to tell a story that is decidedly Anti-Asian and even moreso Anti-Asian-Male.

Taking a look at the top results, ask yourself what is going on here? There are no images of Asians being hurt, and the only images similar are that of Asian-Women emotionally affected by the Riots. Asian men are depicted as the villains/oppressors, holding guns from roof-tops. The only image of physical violence is of a Black man that was hurt during the riots, despite there being photos of an Asian man that was murdered during the riots available on the internet. "let's just hide the image of the Asian man getting murdered and depict Asians as the villains/oppressors and Blacks as the victims! We will include Asian women as victims because weaboo guys like Loco/Stroggoz find them attractive! The racism against Asians and specifically Asian males in America is alarming, yet supposed "Warriors of Social Justice" like Loco, LiquidDrone, Stroggoz, and Spitfiree only seek to further discriminate against us.

Basically the only options the left gives in the SearchEngineResultPage as an Asian male is "supplicate to us". That is literally the only image that portrays Asian males as half-way acceptable in their world. "Do whatever we want" and we'll let you "exist" in our society.

Can't wait to hear what you guys have to say about this one.

On June 12 2020 01:54 Stroggoz wrote: You guys would know how important this was if you ever tried to control the world with propaganda. He who controls the past controls the future. That's a basic lesson in propaganda. it's not really fine if nobody in mexico gives a shit..that's slave mentality. People ought to take control over their own culture rather than having it in the hands of elites. obviously no reason to be offended over viking crimes in northumbria but if society builds statues of viking murderers then that's a problem. So yes, viking statues should be bought down as well imo. I could say the same thing about glorification of war in video games. These arguments extend beyond statues to essentially any aspect of culture.

Meh in the city square of Trondheim there's this statue (was built like 100 years ago)


It depicts the viking king Olav Tryggvason, guy who both started the christening of Norway and who founded Trondheim in 997 AD. He has a sword in one hand, a cross in the other, and the head of the Norse god Thor lies at his feet, indicating him defeating the heathens.

I really don't think this monument glorifies violence in any meaningfully influential way, even if it honors a violent man of the past. It's there because the guy founded Trondheim, that's what he's remembered for. I'd think it was pretty dumb if people argued that we need to tear down this statue because we shouldn't honor any violent man of the past, or if people wanted to remove his sword in favor of like, a heart or whatever. He did 'found' Trondheim, and the sword is a more historically accurate item to depict him with than less violent ones would be.