Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 238

On July 01 2020 09:56 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2020 02:49 Loco wrote: Yeah, the guy who has been consistently posting fascist garbage, including a .gif at the top of this page where he superimposed your face on a Neo-Nazi crushing the jaw of a black man on the curb, which he took his username from, is definitely going to start behaving like a normal human being now. You show him, Baal! Must be nice to have people like this on your side cheering you on. CurbStomp appeared out of nowhere until just recently. He posted something worthy of warning exactly 2 days before warning was handed out. We don't know much at all about CurbStomp. He ramped it up with the gif 2 days ago but before that it was a wait and see type of thing. I do think the gif and subsequent post was too hardcore, and action was taken. Its funny tho how you refuse to feel any empathy for the guy or try to understand him at all and instead only want to see him as a boogeyman. So much for being a champion of mental health / being objective. This is unlike RiKD who should have been warned YEARS ago and yet you and team vagina continue to coddle him/cheer him on like a baby.

He literally said he got banned by Baal previously for "random shit"... since Baal's tolerance level is quite high I very much doubt it was "random shit" it was probably some small-minded, racist bigotry

On July 01 2020 18:04 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2020 09:56 hiems wrote:   On July 01 2020 02:49 Loco wrote: Yeah, the guy who has been consistently posting fascist garbage, including a .gif at the top of this page where he superimposed your face on a Neo-Nazi crushing the jaw of a black man on the curb, which he took his username from, is definitely going to start behaving like a normal human being now. You show him, Baal! Must be nice to have people like this on your side cheering you on. CurbStomp appeared out of nowhere until just recently. He posted something worthy of warning exactly 2 days before warning was handed out. We don't know much at all about CurbStomp. He ramped it up with the gif 2 days ago but before that it was a wait and see type of thing. I do think the gif and subsequent post was too hardcore, and action was taken. Its funny tho how you refuse to feel any empathy for the guy or try to understand him at all and instead only want to see him as a boogeyman. So much for being a champion of mental health / being objective. This is unlike RiKD who should have been warned YEARS ago and yet you and team vagina continue to coddle him/cheer him on like a baby. He literally said he got banned by Baal previously for "random shit"... since Baal's tolerance level is quite high I very much doubt it was "random shit" it was probably some small-minded, racist bigotry

Literally :

adverb
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

edit: Baal banned me for making a joke about him being white supremacist.

...

On July 01 2020 17:23 Loco wrote: Fatherlessness and violence have nothing to do with "black culture". They are symptoms of poverty, which has been created by the nature of disproportionate state violence and economic disfranchisement against Blacks for 400 years. The problems with affirmative action today have the same source in white supremacy. The US has meticulously crafted this image that they have imposed on Asian people which they are now using against them through the minority model myth. This harms them, and we should take it seriously, but it doesn't harm them inearly as much as Blacks --it was designed to hurt Blacks the most-- and pitting them against each other serves only the people who have engineered these myths and are benefiting the most from it with their legacy systems.

Fatherlessness/single motherhood exploded in the United States at exactly the same time LBJ started the "War on Poverty" which created a bunch of welfare programs. The qualifications for welfare programs are often based on income so it's massively beneficial to stay unmarried so the father's income is not included in the "household income." In the US our program for rent subsidy is called Section 8 and anyone could tell you that it's common practice for a single mother and her children to apply for section 8 housing but then sneak a man into the house. It's considered fraud because it's a requirement to report any changes to the family composition. Even Pavlov's dog could tell you that if you create financial disincentives for marriage it's going to increase more fatheressness, but that's too logical so let's just blame it on slavery and systemic racism instead.

On July 01 2020 16:29 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2020 16:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On July 01 2020 15:27 Loco wrote:   On July 01 2020 14:45 hiems wrote:   On July 01 2020 13:38 Loco wrote:   On July 01 2020 09:56 hiems wrote:   On July 01 2020 02:49 Loco wrote: Yeah, the guy who has been consistently posting fascist garbage, including a .gif at the top of this page where he superimposed your face on a Neo-Nazi crushing the jaw of a black man on the curb, which he took his username from, is definitely going to start behaving like a normal human being now. You show him, Baal! Must be nice to have people like this on your side cheering you on. CurbStomp appeared out of nowhere until just recently. He posted something worthy of warning exactly 2 days before warning was handed out. We don't know much at all about CurbStomp. He ramped it up with the gif 2 days ago but before that it was a wait and see type of thing. I do think the gif and subsequent post was too hardcore, and action was taken. Its funny tho how you refuse to feel any empathy for the guy or try to understand him at all and instead only want to see him as a boogeyman. So much for being a champion of mental health / being objective. This is unlike RiKD who should have been warned YEARS ago and yet you and team vagina continue to coddle him/cheer him on like a baby. You're confabulating. CurbStomp admitted at the very beginning of RiKD's Blog Thread (first page, second post) that he was evading a ban from Baal. His name and early posts alone should be telling enough to anyone who can use inductive reasoning. "A curb stomp, also called curbing, curb checking, curb painting, or making someone bite the curb is a form of assault in which a victim's mouth is forcefully placed on a curb and then stomped from behind, causing severe injuries and sometimes death." The most famous scene involving a curb stomp is the one that he posted and photoshopped from American History X, which involves a Neo-Nazi killing a black man in this fashion. These are not just dog whistles, these are explicit statements. Anyone who is not deliberately trying to avoid noticing what he stands for can see what he stands for. He posted a bunch of extremely racist and fascist talking points from the beginning. He admits to loving /pol/, which is one of the most visited website for extreme racists and fascists on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//pol/#Political_views Baal is just incompetent. He's also been coddling up to the alt-right for a good year now and spreading their Tweets, so of course he doesn't notice or care about these things. Ok u dumbfuck. Your the one that is confabulating. CurbStomp did not say "he was evading Baal's ban." He said that Baal banned him a long time ago (presumably) and for whatever reason CS decided to casually return on a different account. That is not exactly the same as evading a ban. Ppl change over time and we have no idea who the other account is. There are been posters in the history of forums that have casually returned as such and its not really a practice of insta-banning ppl again after a long period, even if they are named "CurbStomp". Baal warned the guy 2 days after the made that post. Idk what else you want from him. A ban is reasonble too, I agree with you but I'm not the mod so I have't thought it through that much tbh. You are definitely overexaggerating when you say that there wasn't a "wait and see" period with CurbStomp. Lastly, you are a hypocrite when it comes to CurbStomp vs RiKD. Edit : yes everything the supposed "alt-right" says is automatically bad. Way to keep an open mind you dumbfuck. Dude, this can't be the hill you choose to die on. Wtf. The guy is an overt fascist who comes from a place on the internet that is famous for praising mass-murdering racists and fascists and actively spawns them. He literally just told us about it. He literally just posted a .gif that tells us precisely why he has chosen this username. There is no ambiguity here. There is not something to be tolerant and open-minded about here. You are extremely naive and so is Drone. This guy never went on RiKD's blog to contribute something that is positive. He was bullying him from the start. His first statement was made to antagonize him and make him feel inferior and gaslight him into thinking that his central problem is a bad work ethic and a lack of appreciation for soul-crushing wage slavery. Calling disabled people and people who struggle with severe mental illness lazy and parasitic is also a very common and casual fascist dog whistle, and that is what he was engaging in, that was the extent of his "contribution". You've also engaged in these talking points, the idea of racial superiority and the idea that RiKD and I are degenerate scumbags who don't contribute to society and don't deserve to live, so it's no surprise that you sympathize with this guy. But I get that Liquidpoker is a space that normalizes hateful views and abusive behaviour, and in that sense, CurbStomp belongs here way more than I do, so I don't think he should be banned. I think there should just be an exodus of people who have no interest in pretending like this is a place worthy of engagement anymore. Me saying maybe he had something to contribute with regarding mental illness was not a compliment to his posting.. Consistently invalidating someone-- if not directly insulting them-- and implying or saying you know better than them how to treat or manage an illness (or multiple illnesses) that you don't suffer from is not something that we can reasonably consider to be a contribution. Saying "my work helped me with schizophrenia" is useful in the context of talking with someone about different forms of work and what kind of work is more suitable for you and someone in a similar situation as yours. If someone doesn't have schizophrenia, but also says that their job is making their life worse, you don't say "well it's because you don't work" or "it's because you don't work hard enough" or some other bullshit. This is not a contribution. contribution: "something that you contribute or do to help produce or achieve something together with other people, or to help make something successful." The precondition for a contribution is a shared experience, mutual goal, or mutual respect. If you're posting about an experience overcoming some challenge just in order to make yourself feel better and make another person feel inadequate it would be better if you said nothing.

My point was that I 'think he is crazy'

On July 01 2020 22:47 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2020 17:23 Loco wrote: Fatherlessness and violence have nothing to do with "black culture". They are symptoms of poverty, which has been created by the nature of disproportionate state violence and economic disfranchisement against Blacks for 400 years. The problems with affirmative action today have the same source in white supremacy. The US has meticulously crafted this image that they have imposed on Asian people which they are now using against them through the minority model myth. This harms them, and we should take it seriously, but it doesn't harm them inearly as much as Blacks --it was designed to hurt Blacks the most-- and pitting them against each other serves only the people who have engineered these myths and are benefiting the most from it with their legacy systems. Fatherlessness/single motherhood exploded in the United States at exactly the same time LBJ started the "War on Poverty" which created a bunch of welfare programs. The qualifications for welfare programs are often based on income so it's massively beneficial to stay unmarried so the father's income is not included in the "household income." In the US our program for rent subsidy is called Section 8 and anyone could tell you that it's common practice for a single mother and her children to apply for section 8 housing but then sneak a man into the house. It's considered fraud because it's a requirement to report any changes to the family composition. Even Pavlov's dog could tell you that if you create financial disincentives for marriage it's going to increase more fatheressness, but that's too logical so let's just blame it on slavery and systemic racism instead.

ding ding ding! give this man a cookie.


Its almost as if making half-assed social engineering attempts in complex issues results in hard to foresee results years or decades later... but do you know what is the solution? More programs, more engineering, engineer the market, engineer races and class, programs for everybody what could possibly go wrong?

On July 01 2020 17:23 Loco wrote: I still disagree about the notion of colourblindness being a better alternative, that "the cure is worse than the disease" currently.

Except you dont just disagree with color blindness, you claim everyone who thinks that is deeply racist... which is like 60% of the population and 30% of blacks... thats a lot of people lol.

Again, it's not a perfect analogy, but it's like saying that able-bodied individuals are discriminated against when you create parking spots for the disabled.

This isn't your average soft-bigotry of low expectations, this is its hardcore brother than compares black people with disabled people that need ramps lol.

Fatherlessness and violence have nothing to do with "black culture". They are symptoms of poverty, which has been created by the nature of disproportionate state violence and economic disfranchisement against Blacks for 400 years.

Inded there is a strong correlation with poverty, but it also has a correlation with culture even if you take class into account, blacks divorce at a higher rate than asians on every socioeconomic bracket, and obviously black american culture was greatly shaped by slavery and discrimination, I mean only someone "deeply racist" (lol) would claim that its genetic or something, you just think the state should create programs that give them advantages over others and I think that is an awful idea, I think that by giving them an even playing field they should and would raise themselves from the cultural trap they they fell into, and I'm just not talking about blacks I'm also talking about my own culture.

On July 01 2020 16:50 Santafairy wrote: the talented welders of detroit will get jobs in the upcoming car industry

Welders is a bad example of the point you tried to make.

but yes, in general it's the government's job to protect their own domestic companies not just kill boeing to let airbus corner the market... same way korea protects samsung... i don't get your worldview "there's a worldwide pandemic so the freemarket says to rape your own companies" the way you should have approached this was to treat me as a rational person and say "this boeing thing it's more of an excuse, any issues of boeing predate or aren't related to corona but they want to use it as cover to get the bailout bux" or make some grounded point you might hate government and think it shouldn't exist but given that it exists and collects taxes, obviously it has responsibilities and duties to the people I find it cowardly that you should need to wait for a global pandemic to give your doomed ideology its chance, and then blame companies for not predicting an act of god

It's not the government jobs to protect companies wtf, a pandemic isn't even a black swan event, which companies should hedge against, I mean, Wimbledon (the tennis tour) was insured 70:1 against a pandemic, bailing out financially irresponsible businesses is the same as bailing out financially irresponsible banks in 08 (to a less heinous degree tbh).

In these events if the state is to issue quantitive easing it should be delivered straight to the consumer so that the market decides what companies are deserving of that money in the new reality, not a bunch of corrupt bureocrats.

When a hurricane hits, you wouldn't blame a gas station for not having built concrete walls to stop nature, but you rebuild after katrina. You wouldn't blame the WTC for not having antiaircraft defenses. A pandemic is obviously outside the normal state of an economy and necessitates the government intervening to protect businesses, protect citizens, property, homes

There are disaster insurance, if you dont buy insurace then you run the risk for the extra profit, thats how life works, and it doesn't neccesasrely mean get specif insurance with an insurance company, it means having money in the bank, for example, Apple has a loooot of funds in the bank, that makes them very resilient, if a company is being run at the limit, with a burn rate with paper thin margins and something unexpected happens that company should pay the price of being run in such a way, you can't take risks and not expect to face the consequences.

if your specific ideology (anybody's) was viable, it would be viable on its own, and wouldn't need some opportunistic issue like a pandemic to suddenly go "hey can we try this anarcho capitalism?" or "hey can we try this CHAZ?" it should work in the normal case not just appear at an opportune time for revolution

You are saying that "what is" is the best system that can be at the time, but I believe "what is" is just what we gravitate towards, governments tend to grow and never scale down because thats how power works

if the government was so bad you wouldn't need a virus to show that

I dont need a virus to show how bad the government is, most people are very aware of this, but most haven't thought through how to solve it.

On July 01 2020 13:46 Loco wrote: You've also supported murderous dictators, for instance Pinochet, which you have indirectly praised by praising Milton Friedman

The government is there to ensure that the freedom of people is untouched. Naturally, the word 'freedom' and the enforcement of it is something too complex to define. Popper defines the restrictions that the government takes to ensure social freedom by those that if otherwise let unmonitored would cause more harm than good e.g. unregulated gun market. As long as the people have the choice to change a government through elections it's all good. Which brings me to the point....

You're all just making random bullcrap conclusions regarding the fatherlessness, obviously, both sides make completely legitimate points, however I somehow heavily doubt that there are more people taking advantage of the system than those that simply need it. Either way, none of this can be solved without hard data and even then you will probably both interpret it in a way that passes your world views.

Then again Loco actually talks about the system's imperfections, while the rest of you just try to pass your views as empirical truths with no evidence.

On July 02 2020 04:54 Spitfiree wrote: The government is there to ensure that the freedom of people is untouched. Naturally, the word 'freedom' and the enforcement of it is something too complex to define. Popper defines the restrictions that the government takes to ensure social freedom by those that if otherwise let unmonitored would cause more harm than good e.g. unregulated gun market. As long as the people have the choice to change a government through elections it's all good. Which brings me to the point.... You're all just making random bullcrap conclusions regarding the fatherlessness, obviously, both sides make completely legitimate points, however I somehow heavily doubt that there are more people taking advantage of the system than those that simply need it. Either way, none of this can be solved without hard data and even then you will probably both interpret it in a way that passes your world views. Then again Loco actually talks about the system's imperfections, while the rest of you just try to pass your views as empirical truths with no evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...s_in_the_United_States,_1940-2014.png

The hard data (from the CDC) shows single motherhood basically tripled in black households in just the 3 decades at exactly the time the "War on Poverty" was started. I'm assuming that nobody is going to dispute that the main qualifying factor for almost any welfare program is household income. Putting 2 and 2 together is just common sense.

Loco's argument was that fatherlessness is a symptom of poverty so it's terribly unfortunate that something that is a symptom of poverty would explode during the war on poverty. I guess that would make the war on poverty quite a bit of a failure.

black people take care of their kids, joggers don't. Imagine thinking that jogging is actually some complex social problem.

On July 02 2020 06:15 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 02 2020 04:54 Spitfiree wrote: The government is there to ensure that the freedom of people is untouched. Naturally, the word 'freedom' and the enforcement of it is something too complex to define. Popper defines the restrictions that the government takes to ensure social freedom by those that if otherwise let unmonitored would cause more harm than good e.g. unregulated gun market. As long as the people have the choice to change a government through elections it's all good. Which brings me to the point.... You're all just making random bullcrap conclusions regarding the fatherlessness, obviously, both sides make completely legitimate points, however I somehow heavily doubt that there are more people taking advantage of the system than those that simply need it. Either way, none of this can be solved without hard data and even then you will probably both interpret it in a way that passes your world views. Then again Loco actually talks about the system's imperfections, while the rest of you just try to pass your views as empirical truths with no evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...s_in_the_United_States,_1940-2014.png The hard data (from the CDC) shows single motherhood basically tripled in black households in just the 3 decades at exactly the time the "War on Poverty" was started. I'm assuming that nobody is going to dispute that the main qualifying factor for almost any welfare program is household income. Putting 2 and 2 together is just common sense. Loco's argument was that fatherlessness is a symptom of poverty so it's terribly unfortunate that something that is a symptom of poverty would explode during the war on poverty. I guess that would make the war on poverty quite a bit of a failure.

This statistics does not show anything. There are so many more factors to consider.

- Virtually all of those groups have a significant increase, if you look at it by 'X' amount of increase then the whites are 4x while the blacks are at about 2.3x -
- Development of society has made marriage kind of obsolete
- You would see the same trend in countries like mine, where people with the same circumstances would actually have less benefits overall

The claim of people generally abusing the system, especially blacks, because of the welfare program is just a drop in the ocean in the claims that could be made. It is certainly true, I'm even inclined to believe that they generally would do it more often than other groups. But tell me a perfect system that doesn't get abused? Is it Baal's hope for the "utopian" free market world? (hardcore dystopia if you ask me)

I'd say the topic of "fatherlessness" and the way data around it is gathered is simply outdated to match the way American society works.... if you are correct that simply the lack of marriage is the only condition to consider a child fatherless that is. I don't see how filling in papers, claiming that you're the father would still NOT put you in the opposite side though...

P.S. Considering the trend in the graph you showed, I don't see how it backs up your argument, rather than Loco's on a high level.

On July 02 2020 07:44 Spitfiree wrote: - Virtually all of those groups have a significant increase, if you look at it by 'X' amount of increase then the whites are 4x while the blacks are at about 2.3x -

LOL why would you use it in terms of X increase? yeah a jump from 1 to 3% is more significant than 50% to 100% -_- come on.

If we assume poverty is the main driver for fatherlessness then the "war on poverty" would have shown a slower growth in fatherlessness in the communities recipients of these benefits in relation to the national average, yet the opposite happened in a very statistically significant way.

I don't think any race in particular would exploit a system (wtf) most people who can would exploit a system if it benefits them, rich people exploit tax loopholes, illegal migrants exploit marriage laws, bureaucrats write shitty legislation not only not foreseeing the exploitation, but what is many magnitudes worse, they don't foresee the incentives they put in the population, that is very dangerous and can shape behavior that eventually becomes culture.

On July 02 2020 07:44 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 02 2020 06:15 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 02 2020 04:54 Spitfiree wrote: The government is there to ensure that the freedom of people is untouched. Naturally, the word 'freedom' and the enforcement of it is something too complex to define. Popper defines the restrictions that the government takes to ensure social freedom by those that if otherwise let unmonitored would cause more harm than good e.g. unregulated gun market. As long as the people have the choice to change a government through elections it's all good. Which brings me to the point.... You're all just making random bullcrap conclusions regarding the fatherlessness, obviously, both sides make completely legitimate points, however I somehow heavily doubt that there are more people taking advantage of the system than those that simply need it. Either way, none of this can be solved without hard data and even then you will probably both interpret it in a way that passes your world views. Then again Loco actually talks about the system's imperfections, while the rest of you just try to pass your views as empirical truths with no evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...s_in_the_United_States,_1940-2014.png The hard data (from the CDC) shows single motherhood basically tripled in black households in just the 3 decades at exactly the time the "War on Poverty" was started. I'm assuming that nobody is going to dispute that the main qualifying factor for almost any welfare program is household income. Putting 2 and 2 together is just common sense. Loco's argument was that fatherlessness is a symptom of poverty so it's terribly unfortunate that something that is a symptom of poverty would explode during the war on poverty. I guess that would make the war on poverty quite a bit of a failure. This statistics does not show anything. There are so many more factors to consider. - Virtually all of those groups have a significant increase, if you look at it by 'X' amount of increase then the whites are 4x while the blacks are at about 2.3x - - Development of society has made marriage kind of obsolete - You would see the same trend in countries like mine, where people with the same circumstances would actually have less benefits overall The claim of people generally abusing the system, especially blacks, because of the welfare program is just a drop in the ocean in the claims that could be made. It is certainly true, I'm even inclined to believe that they generally would do it more often than other groups. But tell me a perfect system that doesn't get abused? Is it Baal's hope for the "utopian" free market world? (hardcore dystopia if you ask me) I'd say the topic of "fatherlessness" and the way data around it is gathered is simply outdated to match the way American society works.... if you are correct that simply the lack of marriage is the only condition to consider a child fatherless that is. I don't see how filling in papers, claiming that you're the father would still NOT put you in the opposite side though... P.S. Considering the trend in the graph you showed, I don't see how it backs up your argument, rather than Loco's on a high level.

Of course you see it in all the races - it's not like only black people are on welfare. Asians are lowest on that graph and I would bet Asians are the least likely to be on any welfare programs. Another coincidence?

I'm not saying this is the only reason you have more single parenthood today. I think even higher earners that wouldn't even be on welfare would also have higher rates of single parenthood today than 50 years ago, although I have no statistics on that. I'm saying these social programs have great accelerated the rates of single motherhood, especially among the poor.

It used to be the norm that if you got pregnant you would get married. It takes a lot to raise a child. A single mother can't watch a child and work to provide for it at the same time. But now the government will give you food stamps to buy its food. The government will give you section 8 housing to put a roof over the baby's head. Now the need for 2 parents is obsolete since the government has supplanted itself as a second parent that can provide for a child. But not only did they enable single parenthood but as I've said they've discouraged 2 parent families since it's easier to qualify for welfare programs as a single mother.

edit: btw the point I made about people on section 8 sneaking a man into the house wasn't about pointing out how terrible some people are for trying to exploit the system. The big takeaway should be that an entire generation of men, especially black men, are being cuck'd out of their own family by big dick Uncle Sam

I get your point, but what would your solution to that be then.... remove the welfare programs to also remove the supposedly driving force for single parenthood households? Cause the way I see it, that would only hurt people that actually need such programs. Yes, welfare programs cause abuse and also disincentivizes people from getting married. Which brings me to another topic -> the government should stay away from people's business regarding marriage to begin with.
That being said, people that use the welfare don't necessarily raise their children alone as they abuse the system - sure
People, however that actually lack a partner to help them raise their kid do need their programs as they would virtually have to keep a house in order and work, while taking care of a child ....


Its basically a trade-off between people abusing the system and those that need help. Welfare programs such as this also have tons of implied benefits in the long run e.g. preventing children to fall into risk groups, possibly reducing long-run healthcare costs due to keeping higher standard of life - I'm not claiming that any of those are measurable at this time though

On July 01 2020 15:27 Loco wrote: [QUOTE]On July 01 2020 14:45 hiems wrote: [QUOTE]On July 01 2020 13:38 Loco wrote: [QUOTE]On July 01 2020 09:56 hiems wrote: [QUOTE]On July 01 2020 02:49 Loco wrote:

ok so seems like you edited some stuff after I responded to you that I did not see so I will address those.

You are extremely naive and so is Drone. This guy never went on RiKD's blog to contribute something that is positive. He was bullying him from the start. His first statement was made to antagonize him and make him feel inferior and gaslight him into thinking that his central problem is a bad work ethic and a lack of appreciation for soul-crushing wage slavery. Calling disabled people and people who struggle with severe mental illness lazy and parasitic is also a very common and casual fascist dog whistle, and that is what he was engaging in, that was the extent of his "contribution". You've also engaged in these talking points, the idea of racial superiority and the idea that RiKD and I are degenerate scumbags who don't contribute to society and don't deserve to live, so it's no surprise that you sympathize with this guy.

This is just utter bs. As far as I can tell, CurbStomp was actually serious when posting that in RiKD's blog. I agree with everything that he said. What you are trying to suggest CurbStomp was doing is just worthless opinion.

Also I never claimed any idea of racial superiority. Please go find the chat logs on Discord and tell me exactly what I said. I did exactly what other people on this forum are doing now by using a similar statistic. I just pointed out that comparatively higher per-capital income African nations such as Gabon and Tanzania have earlier Age_of_Mother_at_first_child_birth numbers than lower per-capital Asian nations such as Burma and Cambodia (and North Korean obv). I also would like to remind you that at the time of the end of the Korean War, South Korea was one the poorest nations in the world.

I also said that there is nothing inherently wrong about deciding to have a child early. That it is a life decision and that you have beneficial familial experiences from having children. I said however, that you cannot absolve yourself from personal responsibility from having a child when you are less prepared in life to do so, then complain when the child does worse in life, school, etc. I don't understand how you are conflating that with me talking about racial superiority. I recently talked about how Nigeria is on pace to surpass the United States as the third most populous country by 2050. Which is true. I laughed when I talked about it because it is really a mind-blowing statistic. I wasn't even "searching for race statistics" or anything I just happened to have the television on Bloomberg and there happened to be an interview. Is that what you are talking about? Please go find me the quote on Discord that I claimed my racial superiority. Otherwise, you need to apologize for making stuff up about me (Again).

LoCo YouR sO CLoSeD-MiNdeD, JuSt BeCauSe tHe aLt-RiGhT's GoaLs OvErWheLMiNGLy ALiGn wiTH LiTeRaL NaZis aNd TheY All WaNt to KiLL MiNoRitieS EiThER diReCtLy oR ThRouGh DePoRtAtiOn DoEsN't MaKe TheM aLL BaD ! ! ! !!!!

You can disagree with the general thesis of an alt-right extremist's views, but parts of the argument might be reasonable. For example I strongly disagree with a hardcore Marxist's views, but I might acknowledge that capitalism isn't perfect and that it can lead to xyz injustices.

In the case of "alt-right" people your statement that "they want to kill all minorities" is obviously untrue. Also I don't look at these types of things all day like I said unlike you my learning comes from life experience but as far as I can tell these Neo-Nazi types are not the same as Nazis in 1936. And not everyone labeled as in the "alt-right" is a Neo-Nazi. Maybe an extremist here and there thinks that way but to say that all of these people want to do that is obviously not true. You can disagree with their thesis that they should re segregate communities by race in America or in the extreme case deport people or worse violence. All of those would be unconsitutional, immoral, and unpractical. However you can agree with parts of their argument, such as pointing out stuff about personal responsibility, controlling immigration policy, or whatever else. I don't see what is wrong with point this out which is obviously a true statement.

I don't even know why this is even important. I told you multiple times I have no problem with CurbStomp's warning. And I think its ok to just ban him at the point of his first gif or second over-the-top post. This is why I told you to go read what I wrote before. Instead, I feel like you are more trying to use leftist "cancel culture" tactics against me because you have no other way of dealing with your recent massacres on the politics thread and have become desperate. It's also why you talk about your "exodus" despite you saying it's because "this is no longer a place for discussion" it is because you are getting owned every day on here. Lastly I thought it was important to bring up the point because it is very dangerous simply labeling someone as a "Nazi", attaching boogey-man qualities to anything associated with it, and feeling like it's ok to just disregard everything that they have to say and shame everyone that is within 5 feet of them (like you are doing now).

Oh, and, abusers are worthy of empathy and consolation only after they have expressed regret for their actions, not before. There are plenty of people willing to help them if they are ready to take responsibility for their behavior. Enabling abuse and violence is not empathetic, it's idiotic and dysfunctional.

Your statement about abusers are worth of empathy and consolation only after they have expressed regret for their actions is utter bs. You act as if CurbStomp committed voluntary-manslaughter or something like the character from American History X. As far as we know, he might be more like the character's little brother that ends up getting killed at the end of the film. Like I said earlier, we know very little about CurbStomp. The history teacher in the film tried to empathize with the younger brother and understand the guy and why he was so angry. Even the older brother had reasons he was angry to begin with. The black man in prison befriended the character BEFORE the older brother "expressed regret for their action" like you say.

On July 01 2020 17:23 Loco wrote: Actually, yeah, I think the distinction between race and cultural factors there is spurious and I shouldn't be making it. It hasn't been proven yet afaik, but if they are discriminating in this way, it is indeed racist. But it doesn't change my conclusion, I still disagree about the notion of colourblindness being a better alternative, that "the cure is worse than the disease" currently. Again, it's not a perfect analogy, but it's like saying that able-bodied individuals are discriminated against when you create parking spots for the disabled. Yeah, okay, it's not a perfect system, maybe you have a really good reason to want to use that parking spot when the parking lot is full, but maybe, just maybe, you can't actually have a perfect system. That doesn't mean that the opposite is better. And it doesn't mean you are a target of discrimination, or that this problem you have as an able-bodied person should have priority over that of non-able-bodied individuals. Fatherlessness and violence have nothing to do with "black culture". They are symptoms of poverty, which has been created by the nature of disproportionate state violence and economic disfranchisement against Blacks for 400 years. The problems with affirmative action today have the same source in white supremacy. The US has meticulously crafted this image that they have imposed on Asian people which they are now using against them through the minority model myth. This harms them, and we should take it seriously, but it doesn't harm them inearly as much as Blacks --it was designed to hurt Blacks the most-- and pitting them against each other serves only the people who have engineered these myths and are benefiting the most from it with their legacy systems.

i think comparing black people to the handicapped illustrates a lot of what's wrong with your starting point

white people didn't somehow trick asians into being a "model minority" and valuing hard work, education, cooperation and competitive, the family, and the not shooting of each other

go to asia

white americans didn't do that

On July 02 2020 04:30 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2020 16:50 Santafairy wrote: the talented welders of detroit will get jobs in the upcoming car industry Welders is a bad example of the point you tried to make.

would you elaborate why? americans drive japanese cars

On July 02 2020 04:30 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + but yes, in general it's the government's job to protect their own domestic companies not just kill boeing to let airbus corner the market... same way korea protects samsung... i don't get your worldview "there's a worldwide pandemic so the freemarket says to rape your own companies" the way you should have approached this was to treat me as a rational person and say "this boeing thing it's more of an excuse, any issues of boeing predate or aren't related to corona but they want to use it as cover to get the bailout bux" or make some grounded point you might hate government and think it shouldn't exist but given that it exists and collects taxes, obviously it has responsibilities and duties to the people I find it cowardly that you should need to wait for a global pandemic to give your doomed ideology its chance, and then blame companies for not predicting an act of god It's not the government jobs to protect companies wtf, a pandemic isn't even a black swan event, which companies should hedge against, I mean, Wimbledon (the tennis tour) was insured 70:1 against a pandemic, bailing out financially irresponsible businesses is the same as bailing out financially irresponsible banks in 08 (to a less heinous degree tbh). In these events if the state is to issue quantitive easing it should be delivered straight to the consumer so that the market decides what companies are deserving of that money in the new reality, not a bunch of corrupt bureocrats.   When a hurricane hits, you wouldn't blame a gas station for not having built concrete walls to stop nature, but you rebuild after katrina. You wouldn't blame the WTC for not having antiaircraft defenses. A pandemic is obviously outside the normal state of an economy and necessitates the government intervening to protect businesses, protect citizens, property, homes There are disaster insurance, if you dont buy insurace then you run the risk for the extra profit, thats how life works, and it doesn't neccesasrely mean get specif insurance with an insurance company, it means having money in the bank, for example, Apple has a loooot of funds in the bank, that makes them very resilient, if a company is being run at the limit, with a burn rate with paper thin margins and something unexpected happens that company should pay the price of being run in such a way, you can't take risks and not expect to face the consequences.

if you are to say the government is flawed then i don't think the oh so honorable insurance industry is a great thing to point out as a substitute, do they like to pay out claims? just looking at recent events

yes apple, one of the most powerful 3 companies in the world, can survive a random catastrophic event. we're not talking about that

those risks are related to people's livelihoods. is it financial irresponsibility that a small family owned restaurant paying people minimum wage and feeding people has trouble surviving months of mandatory closure while having to employ people and pay rent?

On July 02 2020 04:30 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + if your specific ideology (anybody's) was viable, it would be viable on its own, and wouldn't need some opportunistic issue like a pandemic to suddenly go "hey can we try this anarcho capitalism?" or "hey can we try this CHAZ?" it should work in the normal case not just appear at an opportune time for revolution You are saying that "what is" is the best system that can be at the time, but I believe "what is" is just what we gravitate towards, governments tend to grow and never scale down because thats how power works   if the government was so bad you wouldn't need a virus to show that I dont need a virus to show how bad the government is, most people are very aware of this, but most haven't thought through how to solve it.

I appreciate your misunderstanding because I see you thought it was a status quo fallacy

my view is rather that the society or economy or whatever you want to frame it as, there is a set of parameters which we are using right now as a solution to run the system. now as regards optimizing this solution, I believe if there's a better solution, you should be able to approach it incrementally. i don't believe there's stable, more optimal solutions that can ONLY be reached discontinuously by (what I see as) absurd revolutionary antics (which opportunistically happen only in vulnerable times)

kind of dogma i have, like when i look and this place is 80% communist and it's shit, this place is 90% communist and it's even worse, this place is 95% communist and it's absolute hell, but the problem really is that we haven't reached 100% communism because that's when everything suddenly fits together and becomes perfect. or like gender equality. the more freedom you give the sexes the more their choices bifurcate, it's not going to switch and jump suddenly in the perfect ideally free and feminist society then women and men will be exactly 50% of everything.

On July 02 2020 12:50 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2020 17:23 Loco wrote: Actually, yeah, I think the distinction between race and cultural factors there is spurious and I shouldn't be making it. It hasn't been proven yet afaik, but if they are discriminating in this way, it is indeed racist. But it doesn't change my conclusion, I still disagree about the notion of colourblindness being a better alternative, that "the cure is worse than the disease" currently. Again, it's not a perfect analogy, but it's like saying that able-bodied individuals are discriminated against when you create parking spots for the disabled. Yeah, okay, it's not a perfect system, maybe you have a really good reason to want to use that parking spot when the parking lot is full, but maybe, just maybe, you can't actually have a perfect system. That doesn't mean that the opposite is better. And it doesn't mean you are a target of discrimination, or that this problem you have as an able-bodied person should have priority over that of non-able-bodied individuals. Fatherlessness and violence have nothing to do with "black culture". They are symptoms of poverty, which has been created by the nature of disproportionate state violence and economic disfranchisement against Blacks for 400 years. The problems with affirmative action today have the same source in white supremacy. The US has meticulously crafted this image that they have imposed on Asian people which they are now using against them through the minority model myth. This harms them, and we should take it seriously, but it doesn't harm them inearly as much as Blacks --it was designed to hurt Blacks the most-- and pitting them against each other serves only the people who have engineered these myths and are benefiting the most from it with their legacy systems. i think comparing black people to the handicapped illustrates a lot of what's wrong with your starting point white people didn't somehow trick asians into being a "model minority" and valuing hard work, education, cooperation and competitive, the family, and the not shooting of each other go to asia white americans didn't do that

This is a great point. I also want to add:

American History X Plot...

"Derek leads a violent attack on a supermarket owned by a Korean man employing illegal Mexican immigrants, which Danny records on a camcorder."

If anything it is leftist propaganda like I said earlier HOLLYWOOD that is trying to manipulate races against each other.

edit: my bad I'm going to get another lecture from Loco and Stroggoz how im not using the proper term as if that is the most important thing in the world. PROGRESSIVE PROPAGANDA. Sorry about that.