Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 260

inglourious basterds was bigoted anti-aryanism for its caricature of hitler

On August 03 2020 14:44 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On August 03 2020 12:35 Spitfiree wrote: So let me get this clear.... Tarantino is racist towards Asians because he is making fun of patriarchy? Also Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was a caricature of the entire Hollywood, making fun of all those roles was the entire point of the movie. If they thought that "John Wayne" type of character was pointing towards virtues they have little to no clue what Tarantino is all about, he was continuously trashing the entire Hollywood industry via various references e.g. characters making fun of spaghetti western movies even though they were the most quality westerns ever made. All these comments leave me with the impression that these people had no idea what the movie was about at all... and they exposed themselves Edit: Also is it me or didn't we have this exact same conversation when the movie came out ' I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who is not going to try and make honest arguments. Being poor is no excuse for being a communist and a racist.

You're not making any conversation, you re just copy pasting someone else's thoughts and claim them as your own eventhough they have nothing in common with reality. It's actually funny considering you think your thoughts are super unique and impactful.

You clearly have no idea who Tarantino is or what his views are or what he is trying to represent in his movies, nor do you understand sarcasm and hyperbole.

On August 03 2020 17:43 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On August 03 2020 14:44 hiems wrote:   On August 03 2020 12:35 Spitfiree wrote: So let me get this clear.... Tarantino is racist towards Asians because he is making fun of patriarchy? Also Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was a caricature of the entire Hollywood, making fun of all those roles was the entire point of the movie. If they thought that "John Wayne" type of character was pointing towards virtues they have little to no clue what Tarantino is all about, he was continuously trashing the entire Hollywood industry via various references e.g. characters making fun of spaghetti western movies even though they were the most quality westerns ever made. All these comments leave me with the impression that these people had no idea what the movie was about at all... and they exposed themselves Edit: Also is it me or didn't we have this exact same conversation when the movie came out ' I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who is not going to try and make honest arguments. Being poor is no excuse for being a communist and a racist. You're not making any conversation, you re just copy pasting someone else's thoughts and claim them as your own eventhough they have nothing in common with reality. It's actually funny considering you think your thoughts are super unique and impactful. You clearly have no idea who Tarantino is or what his views are or what he is trying to represent in his movies, nor do you understand sarcasm and hyperbole.

Please go find me something on google that points out the racism against Asians in Kill Bill Vol. 1 and therefore this is not an isolated incident with Tarantino. Since you will not be able to find it, yes it makes it a unique opinion.

Again I'm sorry that you are very poor and that you were pissed off that the German kids didn't talk to you. But like I said you can't use this as your excuse for stealing other ppl's hard earned money by burning down the system/being a communist. You should have instead focused your energy on not failing in Germany.

Edit:
Actually nvm, I wrote a post explaining how wrong you are but its not worth. You don't make any sense whatsoever so it's waste of time.

On August 01 2020 08:46 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On August 01 2020 04:04 Baalim wrote: The point was that historically its pretty clear that the state has failed its task of stopping monopolitic practices, and not only that but it is involved in most of them, the action you put an example of state hampering monopolies, Roosevelt's emergency banking act bailed out big banks which bought thousands of small ones... how is this anti-monopoly or anti-finance sector?. The reason banks declared insolvency in the great depression was because they were allowed to leverage, this isn't a productivity-based economy, this is a finance based economy which system is better over the long run is a fascinating and complex topic but I figured you would be against these things, aren't you? I don't think the state controls finance, I've said it many times that through lobbying the power of the state is for sale, so corporations buy this power to keep growing, smaller businesses have no acces to this power, which again, is my main point, the state does not stop monopolies, it creates them, you believe that without the state wallstreet would swallo us all up, but that isn't true, without the state power that wallstreet weilds they would go bust. I don't beleive that without the state wallstreet would swallow us up, they get cheap credit ratings because of their too big to jail/fail policy, without this they would actually make no money, and likely would collapse. (according to one IMF study). Once again, i'm agreeing with you on this point. I was refering to policies like the glass steagal act and the many other regulations that stopped finance from rent seeking activities, which clearly worked in the post ww2 period. https://ilsr.org/number-banks-u-s-1966-2014/ finance based economy? I mean you need banks in any economy, you need at least some finance/banking to invest in whatever society wants from the future, to loan money, ect. But beyond that leads to rent seeking activities. The finance sector today is totally different from this though. So, overall. The state both creates and destroys monopolies. This is simply what history shows, and it's not inconsistent-once you understand that government policy is directed towards whatever powerful interest groups impose on it. Neoliberal 'state' policy has basically been entirely pro monopoly/oligopoly, the exact opposite of what it's advocates preached.

With finance based I mean that finance is the main driving force and not production/services, of course there is a need in the market for banks, but they shouldnt be able to leverage loans though.

The amounts of monopolies created and destroyed by the state isnt remotely balanced to the point its not fair to paint it as it does both things, it mainly just creates and when you take into consideration that one of its supposed functions is to stop monopolies then its just ironically laughable. Also I think this notion that historicallly the elite has controlled the state to its benefit just applies to a few countries in a short period of time, but in most of the world it's the other way around. Your solution to improve the state seems like a fools errand to me, but I suppose thats how you feel when I say the solution is to improve businesses.

Listening to Jason Calacanis on cnbc right now. Basically agree with everything he is saying about China. We need to wake the fuck up and stop this nonsense socialist agenda that is being pushed by covert communist agents such as Loco and Stroggoz. If we continue like this we will surely lose the economic war against China.

In my opinion if current trends do not change only option might be for the some right winger(s) in the US military leadership to do some sort of crackdown and bring the ban hammer on people like Loco.

if you really supported freedom you wouldn't try to interfere with communism's FREEDOM to take over the western world

All people support freedom as long as its their freedom and gain

On August 04 2020 07:58 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 01 2020 08:46 Stroggoz wrote:   On August 01 2020 04:04 Baalim wrote: The point was that historically its pretty clear that the state has failed its task of stopping monopolitic practices, and not only that but it is involved in most of them, the action you put an example of state hampering monopolies, Roosevelt's emergency banking act bailed out big banks which bought thousands of small ones... how is this anti-monopoly or anti-finance sector?. The reason banks declared insolvency in the great depression was because they were allowed to leverage, this isn't a productivity-based economy, this is a finance based economy which system is better over the long run is a fascinating and complex topic but I figured you would be against these things, aren't you? I don't think the state controls finance, I've said it many times that through lobbying the power of the state is for sale, so corporations buy this power to keep growing, smaller businesses have no acces to this power, which again, is my main point, the state does not stop monopolies, it creates them, you believe that without the state wallstreet would swallo us all up, but that isn't true, without the state power that wallstreet weilds they would go bust. I don't beleive that without the state wallstreet would swallow us up, they get cheap credit ratings because of their too big to jail/fail policy, without this they would actually make no money, and likely would collapse. (according to one IMF study). Once again, i'm agreeing with you on this point. I was refering to policies like the glass steagal act and the many other regulations that stopped finance from rent seeking activities, which clearly worked in the post ww2 period. https://ilsr.org/number-banks-u-s-1966-2014/ finance based economy? I mean you need banks in any economy, you need at least some finance/banking to invest in whatever society wants from the future, to loan money, ect. But beyond that leads to rent seeking activities. The finance sector today is totally different from this though. So, overall. The state both creates and destroys monopolies. This is simply what history shows, and it's not inconsistent-once you understand that government policy is directed towards whatever powerful interest groups impose on it. Neoliberal 'state' policy has basically been entirely pro monopoly/oligopoly, the exact opposite of what it's advocates preached. With finance based I mean that finance is the main driving force and not production/services, of course there is a need in the market for banks, but they shouldnt be able to leverage loans though. The amounts of monopolies created and destroyed by the state isnt remotely balanced to the point its not fair to paint it as it does both things, it mainly just creates and when you take into consideration that one of its supposed functions is to stop monopolies then its just ironically laughable. Also I think this notion that historicallly the elite has controlled the state to its benefit just applies to a few countries in a short period of time, but in most of the world it's the other way around. Your solution to improve the state seems like a fools errand to me, but I suppose thats how you feel when I say the solution is to improve businesses.

of course business can be improved. I don't get why people think social institutions are like stone. They are changing all the time. The way business was run in the 1950's was far different than today, as you well know-one of the main thing that changed was executives being paid massive stock-based bonuses as part of their pay.

By elite groups i was including those within states, and external to them. Like, for example the elite group that run uzbekistan are simply the people at the top of the state security complex, egypt is run by the military with a general as dictator. But ofc there is all sorts of power and control coming from different directions, including cultural and military influence from outside powers. (America, europe, china, ect, and the bargaining power of MNC's (sometimes called the virtual senate). I don't think i've found a country yet that doesn't have an elite group making most of the decisions. It even seems to be true of tiny pacific island nations-but they are completely dependent on outside powers.

Cultural influence is a very significant form of power where i live imo. There is a former Australian Prime minister Kevin Rudd who has described why politicians there are so conformist, and it's basically because they know rupert murdoch will write crazy things about them in the media if they deviate from the interests of the three main business groups: the mining industry, finance and the media.

On August 04 2020 18:23 Spitfiree wrote: All people support freedom as long as its their freedom and gain

To be clear I imagine a world in which I'd have more status and freedom than you as a pure Korean person under a new world order in which han chinese are the world's overlords. This of couse is not a certainty but its for sure possible. Its unclear whether leftist Moon-Jae-In's foreign policy of trying to improve relations with China over the U.S is actually a good idea or if China plans on betraying the South for their friends in North Korea eventually. Would it be such a bad thing for me to have fellow Asians rule the world tho??? Its really unclear but at least I have outs. But clearly I still value freedom and Im anti China. I support the "leftist" anti Chinese stance of Tsai-Ing-Wen over the conservative party in Taiwan. Its not a left/right thing necessarily. If I were Taiwanese I'd support the leftists there. Both sides should unite to fight against China. Leftists in America are too stupid to do that tho.

Its pretty simple. If you happen to be in an all-in fight to the death mma fight with an evenly matched opponent you know 100% is taking steroids, you'd be a fool to not consider it as an option. If some authoritarian measures are necessary to counter the Chinese machine, you'd have to consider doing it. If idiots like Loco and Stroggoz dont realize how harmful they are to competing with the Chinese then yes by all means consider bringing down the hammer on them lol. If there's anything you learned from this thread its that the two sides are deeply divided, there is no compromise, the left does not argue in good faith, and so likely we will never get along.

On the other side a major advantage the West has in this war is that people are not importing Chinese culture. Ppl dont want to watch their movies, most westerners dont learn Chinese, etc. I do understand this point of view...that freedom was what eventually won the cold war blah blah. I get it. But just as freedom has its uses, an emergncy dose of authoritarian measures need to considered as well IMO.

Wow... ^this guy is really out here openly advocating for fascism. Jesus fucking christ

On August 04 2020 21:23 blackjacki2 wrote: Wow... ^this guy is really out here openly advocating for fascism. Jesus fucking christ

It's what happens when you spend more time watching youtube and TV than reading

China should be dealt with, but don't get it wrong, they are a paper tiger, they don't pose an existencial threat to the west, economically nor militarily.

China's economical power comes from the outsourced manufacturing from the west, Japan is already pulling its production from China and if the US and Europe followed suit China would go back to the dark ages but hopefully theres no need to such drastic measures, but the world needs to start holding China accountable to allow it to participate in the market, banning TikTok and other chinese software unless they allow foreign social media plataforms in their country is great, also sanctions should be imposed until they respect intellectual property rights and patens. I think the most likely thing we see it's some kind of cold war where China's own advancement will create internal turnmoil, the more modernized China becomes the harder it will be for the CCP to remain in control.

I suppose there is one way that China declares war, and that is if hostilities rise and a war with China becomes a very real possiblity so the west pulls production and that would send China to civil war or they decide to suicide and declare war but good lucking luck waging a war through the pacific with Japan in the way lol, China would lose that war in 6 months and the old kingdoms like Manchuria, Tibet etc restored.

Simon Senek had a talk where he explains that the US is fucked simply because they are waging different types of wars e.g. ideological, economical etc. against different nations and different cultures while losing allies and if that continues they are bound to fail. Couldn't be more true. This is no longer the Cold War where they could throw everything against Russia.

I'd say US's worst enemy is themselves right now. China isn't nearly as big of a threat to the Western world as is the internal social polarization in the US. And whether we like it or not the US is leading the West, so a crisis there would impact everyone. Historically all empires fell either due to internal struggles or due to pissing off too many nations while having no allies and the US seems to be going strong on both fronts.

On August 05 2020 06:54 Baalim wrote: China should be dealt with, but don't get it wrong, they are a paper tiger, they don't pose an existencial threat to the west, economically nor militarily. China's economical power comes from the outsourced manufacturing from the west, Japan is already pulling its production from China and if the US and Europe followed suit China would go back to the dark ages but hopefully theres no need to such drastic measures, but the world needs to start holding China accountable to allow it to participate in the market, banning TikTok and other chinese software unless they allow foreign social media plataforms in their country is great, also sanctions should be imposed until they respect intellectual property rights and patens. I think the most likely thing we see it's some kind of cold war where China's own advancement will create internal turnmoil, the more modernized China becomes the harder it will be for the CCP to remain in control. I suppose there is one way that China declares war, and that is if hostilities rise and a war with China becomes a very real possiblity so the west pulls production and that would send China to civil war or they decide to suicide and declare war but good lucking luck waging a war through the pacific with Japan in the way lol, China would lose that war in 6 months and the old kingdoms like Manchuria, Tibet etc restored.

I'm not an expert on modern warfare so I don't know if I can comment, lol. Idk how you can say whether China will win or lose a war in 6 months with some knowledge that I am unaware of.

I think you are oversimplfying the China example. China's economic model is very similar to the development of South Korea from the 70s until now. Sure, their early success until now has been predicated on manufacturing for the West, but things have changed and will continue to change. China is no longer a poor country and it is inevitable that they will move beyond production as their main staple in their economy in the future anyway, as South Korea has. China is an established economic powerhouse with a ton of capital to deploy, a massive population which has a very high education level and competency. Furthermore they have an insane regime that combines the best aspects of capitalism and authoritarianism.

You are right it is very possible that as China becomes more modernized there is a chance that the people will demand more freedom cause internal turmoil, but how long it will take for that to happen and whether it will happen at all is unclear. Furthermore even without this internal turmoil, China for the most part does not have to face problems associated with a heterogeneous population, which clearly is causing all sorts of problems in the US.

Obviously they have their own problems as well. The world is not adopting their culture, they are heavily dependent on other countries for their energy sources (whether it is coal, petroleum, lithium, whatever else). However, to say China is not a serious threat I think is mistaken. Who is to say the Chinese won't become the #1 player in something like asteroid mining or nuclear fission or whatever else?

You're all talking about wars as if there is an existing risk of a war between China and the USA ... ever. Both countries are so dependent on each other it would be a practical suicide and none of them would emerge as a world leader from such thing.

China needs all the US businesses
US needs all the Chinese production


The situation happening right now is that China simply reached the threshold which the USA will tolerate in terms of malicious activity. They will adjust and life will move forward. If the USA felt really threatened by China the news wouldn't have been talking about TikTok right now but a bill that would disincentive american companies to do ANY business there.

the only type of war between major powers is nuclear warfare, so if china did declare war on a nato country, they'd be anhinilated within 60minutes, not 6months, since america has missles in Japan.

proxy wars in Africa are possible without nuclear war though, but most of China's way of controlling other nations is economicly supporting the elites within those countries.

On August 05 2020 16:12 Spitfiree wrote: You're all talking about wars as if there is an existing risk of a war between China and the USA ... ever. Both countries are so dependent on each other it would be a practical suicide and none of them would emerge as a world leader from such thing. China needs all the US businesses US needs all the Chinese production The situation happening right now is that China simply reached the threshold which the USA will tolerate in terms of malicious activity. They will adjust and life will move forward. If the USA felt really threatened by China the news wouldn't have been talking about TikTok right now but a bill that would disincentive american companies to do ANY business there.

An even better example of suicide is a country going to war with itself but civil wars happen all the time. That's not to say I think a war between China/USA is likely. I don't think that exists outside of heims' delusions

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssss


Tencent is huge.. it owns Riotgames, most of EpicGames (Fortnite) and has shares in a lot of gaming companies like Activision, Blizzard etc... I hope this spooks all these companies in bed with the CCP to start buying their shares back.

Edit: apparently it probably wont accept Tencent regarding payments with games, just with WeChat, but still its a scary thing for anybody asociated with them.