The Rise of Trumpism

[Raver]

I agree with everything @Raver said. The closer you get to colleges in my area, the more liberals you’ll run in to.I would suggest watching the documentary Death of a Nation for another perspective in this.

Exactly, the mainstream media and colleges are predominately Liberal with a few exceptions. Judging by the trailer, the movie looks highly entertaining and worth watching even though it should be taken with a grain of salt:

1% Metacritic
83% liked this movie Google users

^that is pretty amazing lol. i've vaguely heard about him getting shat upon by "the left" for this movie but didn't know it was that huge of a disparity. def gunna watch it now .

Lol, 0% on RT and 89% from the RT audience:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/death_of_a_nation

Critics usually critique a movie's cinematic value and plot, but they tend to not critique entertainment and/or factual accuracy. So I tend to trust the audience's input far more than the critics if I want to watch an entertaining and/or informative movie.

[bgbg]

Exactly, the mainstream media and colleges are predominately Liberal with a few exceptions. Judging by the trailer, the movie looks highly entertaining and worth watching even though it should be taken with a grain of salt:





Lol, 0% on RT and 89% from the RT audience:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/death_of_a_nation

Critics usually critique a movie's cinematic value and plot, but they tend to not critique entertainment and/or factual accuracy. So I tend to trust the audience's input far more than the critics if I want to watch an entertaining and/or informative movie.

you should see Hoaxed, i think you'd appreciate it. i posted a youtube upload of it to the What are you Watching thread a few days ago, but it's been copyrighted off already (it was just released a few weeks ago). you can buy it on vimeo but i've found a few links on sketchy pirate video stream sites too, or wait for it to get reuploaded to youtube again (which i assume it will)

[Kill4Me]

[Kill4Me]

Democratic party not looking too sane these days with its inflation of commie cuckoos:





And here I thought fake Hillary was off her rocker.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't think Trump is all that smart. It's just he rules because he's so self confident and business man alpha and that resonates better with people than Hillary's illuminati reptilian medusa glare thing. People would just rather be ruled by a heartless psycho businessman than somebody in the 'deep state' or whatever. Myself included, although I don't think Trump is the best person for that and I don't really like him as a person because he's a bully, and casts a buff spell on every redneck str8 male jerk in 'murica. The DNC just kind of gaslighted/trolled themselves by thinking Hillary was a good person to run against him. Now they're eternally pissed at Trump, instead of being mad at themselves for not knowing how to strategize or game play effectively. And demonizing Trump and the media always being like 'ooh look at what an asshole he's being, pay attention to it and get upset about it!' they are just giving him more power imo.

[perpetuus]

Youtube is a joke. They engaged in some obvious count rigging for the number of likes on that Gillette PSA, then proceeded to remove similar response videos and criticisms. Here is a mirror of the one that was removed for being propaganda, despite propaganda being an accurate description of the original Gillette PSA which has remained.

[FDG]

Gimme a D
Gimme a O
Gimme a N
Gimme a A
Gimme a L
Gimme a D

[Adam Strange]

Gimme a D
Gimme a O
Gimme a N
Gimme a A
Gimme a L
Gimme a D

You can have him, if you promise to drop him naked into a hole in a glacier.

[FDG]

You can have him, if you promise to drop him naked into a hole in a glacier.

Why naked

[WinnieW]

Why naked

Don't waste valueable clothing.

[Adam Strange]

Why naked

He'd freeze to death faster.

Also, I think that this is Dante's description of the Ninth Circle of Hell, which was reserved for those who betrayed the trust that other people placed in them.

[perpetuus]

Cheessa neenjah mah wongee Pelosi

ppz2S.jpg

[Muddy]

If you want to criticize Trump, criticize him for being a zionist agent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJW5A7ruLM

[Muddy]

[Ave]

[Raver]

Yes, that is true, but it's a bad reaction because it's anti-intellectual at its core.

Just because the thing(s) being reacted against, in this case political correctness and post modernism are bad, doesn't make the reaction against those things automatically good.

Lots of people talk like Trump is somehow good simply because he opposes political correctness, well the sickness can kill you, but so can the antidote...better to find a better, safer antidote...

I agree with this. I consider him the lesser of the two evils though. A better alternative than these two extremes would be ideal of course.

On a side note, I don't think globalism (another thing you mention people rebelling against) is that bad. Being open towards the outside world is better than being closed off to it. It does have some negative consequences for some, yes, like the movement of capital leaving some areas penniless and the outsourcing of cheap labor but I think the consequences of rolling back free trade would leave people worse off. Countries should be able to control their borders, if only for the safety of their own citizens. I am mostly pro immigration but I do think government should be able to make harsh decisions if they have to, to protect their citizens. I do think that racialist theories about whites being replaced are bullshit though. It seems to me that international organzations iike the EU and the UN consist of career politicians oneupping each other, too, which is why any opposition to them labels you a heretic of sorts. You gotta be polished and right-thinking.

Globalism sounds nice in theory, but in practice I think it is largely detrimental. Clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work because human nature is naturally tribal like our ancestors from thousands of years ago. This won't be undone because of forced social policies. People like to stick with those similar to them in ethnicity, you can see this with ethnic enclaces in large cities. In addition to this, with the advent of AI, many of these economic migrants labor will become obsolete in addition to the original inhabitants competing with an increasing immigrant population for jobs to worsen this issue further. I am generally anti-immigration, but it varies widely depending on the nation. For instance, with countries in Europe, Asia and Africa I am an ardent nationalist.

I believe countries in those continents should be able to protect their ethnic identity and culture that have been around for thousands of years. It just so happens that only Europe is losing both due to mass immigration from largely economic migrants and only a small amount which are actual refugees from Syria. I am fine with Europe receiving actual refugees from Syria, but they are merely a small fraction of actual migrants to Europe. The vast majority are economic migrants from Africa and the middle east. They are not fleeing war, but rather poverty.

When it comes to countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand then my immigration stance is a lot more lax and less nationalistic given that these are European colonies that were originally Native American in origin. Their current ethnicity and culture only spans hundreds of years. They are largely populated by a mixture of European ethnicities and cultures that have largely become a melting pot at least with the US. I think immigration should be controlled in these nations, but not to the same extent as Europe. As for racialist theories of whites being displaced, I would not go as far to say that all whites will become extinct and that nearly everyone in Western countries will be of mixed race in the future. This is ignoring that almost anything can happen in the distant future.

However, when you look at the trends, a white minority is inevitable in almost every Western country and this is likely to occur in the near future within our lifetimes and only worsen in the distant future beyond that. You can argue that this is good, bad or neutral, but whether it is happening or not is not really debatable as it is clear that this is the future of Western countries. The only exception to this rule is Eastern Europe where nationalism is prominent there and maybe some other nations like Italy with an elected nationalist government, which is not even certain to last or be effective at curbing economic migrants with EU's influence at the helm.

[Ave]

Globalism sounds nice in theory, but in practice I think it is largely detrimental. Clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work because human nature is naturally tribal like our ancestors from thousands of years ago. This won't be undone because of forced social policies. People like to stick with those similar to them in ethnicity, you can see this with ethnic enclaces in large cities. In addition to this, with the advent of AI, many of these economic migrants labor will become obsolete in addition to the original inhabitants competing with an increasing immigrant population for jobs to worsen this issue further. I am generally anti-immigration, but it varies widely depending on the nation. For instance, with countries in Europe, Asia and Africa I am an ardent nationalist.

Humans can be tribal about many things, race being one of them. It doesn't mean everyone is like that, or that such a thing is normative.

Ancient Egypt was a society which combined two ethnic peoples, one Semitic and one African, into one nation, under the idea of Egypt. Later, others like the Greeks became "Egyptians" despite their foreign ethnicity; they adopted the culture. Certain peoples like the Hyksos and Hebrews didn't integrate so well; they rejected the culture.

I think it only really becomes about race when when race is associated with culture, otherwise race is irrelevant. In fact, race is irrelevant, but some people choose to keep it relevant.

I believe countries in those continents should be able to protect their ethnic identity and culture that have been around for thousands of years. It just so happens that only Europe is losing both due to mass immigration from largely economic migrants and only a small amount which are actual refugees from Syria. I am fine with Europe receiving actual refugees from Syria, but they are merely a small fraction of actual migrants to Europe. The vast majority are economic migrants from Africa and the middle east. They are not fleeing war, but rather poverty.

When it comes to countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand then my immigration stance is a lot more lax and less nationalistic given that these are European colonies that were originally Native American in origin. Their current ethnicity and culture only spans hundreds of years. They are largely populated by a mixture of European ethnicities and cultures that have largely become a melting pot at least with the US. I think immigration should be controlled in these nations, but not to the same extent as Europe. As for racialist theories of whites being displaced, I would not go as far to say that all whites will become extinct and that nearly everyone in Western countries will be of mixed race in the future. This is ignoring that almost anything can happen in the distant future.

However, when you look at the trends, a white minority is inevitable in almost every Western country and this is likely to occur in the near future within our lifetimes and only worsen in the distant future beyond that. You can argue that this is good, bad or neutral, but whether it is happening or not is not really debatable as it is clear that this is the future of Western countries. The only exception to this rule is Eastern Europe where nationalism is prominent there and maybe some other nations like Italy with an elected nationalist government, which is not even certain to last or be effective at curbing economic migrants with EU's influence at the helm.

Yeah, the fact that whites are being mixed with other races is neutral. I am critical of the term "white genocide" used to refer to this phenomenon because it is not a genocide, there is no violence. The definition of genocide implies violence against a group.

I do think immigration in Europe has largely resulted in negative consequences, but I think this is due more to the unwillingness of many to integrate into the culture. It's not the immigration in itself that's bad, or the mixing of ethnicities, we just don't have that many high-quality immigrants in Europe because many from Africa and the middle east come here with the intent of bumming off welfare. Get rid of the social safety net and the low-quality immigration will dissapear. The problem with Europe is that economically we are on the downturn. I suspect the main reason for this is a change in people's philosophy; we no longer believe in or have optimism towards the future. Also, post-colonial guilt, which makes us feel bad on an existensial level. Post-WW2 pessimism.

If European society doesn't believe in itself or its future, how can immigrants do so? I've nothing against immigrants per se, but I agree that Europe needs to reclaim its vision of the future before we can succesfully welcome them in large numbers.

I'm pro-immigration in the absolute sense, but there are of course cases where immigrants should be declined entry by government, mainly when they pose a potential threat to that country's citizens. There needs to be background checks on immigrants obviously, and when it comes to Syrian refugees, their backgrounds cannot be checked by any EU country since the EU is enemies with the Syrian government. That's not to say all Syrians are bad; I have met some and that's far being the case; but you have to draw a line somewhere.

The other issue in Europe is radical Islam, and that obviously needs to be dealt with firmly, by governments, that is. We need to be able to speak out about it, mock this religion if we want (just like we can mock any other religion) without the threat of getting killed, and governments need to protect their citizens from radical Islamists even if it's not a popular thing for them to do. Events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, are pure acts of barbary and savagery, and we should have zero tolernace and zero excuses for it.

So I've spoken about alot of different topics here...but that goes to show how complex this issue is, and how simplistic Trump's partisan's make it out to be (though we agree on this).

[Raver]

Humans can be tribal about many things, race being one of them. It doesn't mean everyone is like that, or that such a thing is normative.

Ancient Egypt was a society which combined two ethnic peoples, one Semitic and one African, into one nation, under the idea of Egypt. Later, others like the Greeks became "Egyptians" despite their foreign ethnicity; they adopted the culture. Certain peoples like the Hyksos and Hebrews didn't integrate so well; they rejected the culture.

I think it only really becomes about race when when race is associated with culture, otherwise race is irrelevant. In fact, race is irrelevant, but some people choose to keep it relevant.

I see your point, but I think it depends on the nation. In the Americas and Oceania, race is largely irrelevant as they were colonized by Europe in recent history. However, in Europe, race is a lot more relevant as ethnicity and culture are intertwined. Especially when you consider the kind of immigrants coming into Europe, it is clear that the mass muslim migration has little intention of integrating. Compare that to US or Canada where integration is a lot more likely at least in the 2nd or 3rd generation children of immigrants. So for a host of several reasons, I think Europe requires a nationalistic stance in terms of immigration, while outside of Europe a more lenient immigration stance can work.

Yeah, the fact that whites are being mixed with other races is neutral. I am critical of the term "white genocide" used to refer to this phenomenon because it is not a genocide, there is no violence. The definition of genocide implies violence against a group.

I do think immigration in Europe has largely resulted in negative consequences, but I think this is due more to the unwillingness of many to integrate into the culture. It's not the immigration in itself that's bad, or the mixing of ethnicities, we just don't have that many high-quality immigrants in Europe because many from Africa and the middle east come here with the intent of bumming off welfare. Get rid of the social safety net and the low-quality immigration will dissapear. The problem with Europe is that economically we are on the downturn. I suspect the main reason for this is a change in people's philosophy; we no longer believe in or have optimism towards the future. Also, post-colonial guilt, which makes us feel bad on an existensial level. Post-WW2 pessimism.

If European society doesn't believe in itself or its future, how can immigrants do so? I've nothing against immigrants per se, but I agree that Europe needs to reclaim its vision of the future before we can succesfully welcome them in large numbers.

I'm pro-immigration in the absolute sense, but there are of course cases where immigrants should be declined entry by government, mainly when they pose a potential threat to that country's citizens. There needs to be background checks on immigrants obviously, and when it comes to Syrian refugees, their backgrounds cannot be checked by any EU country since the EU is enemies with the Syrian government. That's not to say all Syrians are bad; I have met some and that's far being the case; but you have to draw a line somewhere.

The other issue in Europe is radical Islam, and that obviously needs to be dealt with firmly, by governments, that is. We need to be able to speak out about it, mock this religion if we want (just like we can mock any other religion) without the threat of getting killed, and governments need to protect their citizens from radical Islamists even if it's not a popular thing for them to do. Events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, are pure acts of barbary and savagery, and we should have zero tolernace and zero excuses for it.

So I've spoken about alot of different topics here...but that goes to show how complex this issue is, and how simplistic Trump's partisan's make it out to be (though we agree on this).

While white genocide may certainly be hyperbole, it is clear that white marginalization is occuring in Western nations and that they are destined to become minorities in the vast majority of Western nations. Whether this is a deliberate contrived plot or simply due to the incompetence and stupidity of European politicians is up for debate. At least we both agree that it is an issue that needs to be solved. Personally, in Europe a nationalist stance is the only route that I think will work without consequences. Anything else will be detrimental in the long run.

However, I am fine with your suggestion for Syrian refugees entering the EU as they are a tiny minority of migrants into Europe anyways. Where as in other Western countries like US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand, it might not be necessary to pursue a nationalist stance for a variety of different reasons that I have mentioned previously. However, ensuring that immigrants that enter a nation intend to integrate, work and benefit the country overall is a no brainer for all nations of the world.

[Ave]

At least we both agree that it is an issue that needs to be solved.

Wait, where did I say that I thought "white genocide" was an issue that needed to be solved? I'm fine with whites in my country being mixed with brown people, black people and so on. I do agree everyone should integrate into the culture, but to your point, as a European myself I don't see how our culture correlates to race.

However, I am fine with your suggestion for Syrian refugees entering the EU as they are a tiny minority of migrants into Europe anyways. Where as in other Western countries like US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand, it might not be necessary to pursue a nationalist stance for a variety of different reasons that I have mentioned previously.

I didn't suggest that Syrians enter the EU though? What I said was that checking their backgrounds is problematic, due to the fact that the Syrian government doesn't collaborate with Western countries. What the Syrian government considers a terrorist organization might not be considered one by the EU and vice versa, so it's basically impossible to do background checks on Syrian refugees.

What I am saying is that race is not issue when it comes to integrating immigrants. I do oppose bringing in immigrants who could potentially endanger a country's citizens and residents. As far as those who don't wanna integrate, well I don't know. I suppose my stance would be to let them in, if we do background checks, and the background checks show they aern't terrorists, but they shouldn't be entitled to welfare. The thing is that we don't know beforehand if someone wants to integrate or not, so I prefer giving folks the benefit of the doubt rather than build a wall.

However, ensuring that immigrants that enter a nation intend to integrate, work and benefit the country overall is a no brainer for all nations of the world.

Yes, I agree with you here.

[Muddy]

Immigration should be strictly limited to those who have something to offer the host nation and must go through a comprehensive process to prove they completely willing to assimilate with the nation's culture, laws and ideas. That's my take.

[Finaplex]

Immigration should be strictly limited to those who have something to offer the host nation and must go through a comprehensive process to prove they completely willing to assimilate with the nation's culture, laws and ideas. That's my take.

This is largely Canada's current immigration policy.

There are several channels, or streams people go through in order to be vetted and accepted. One of which is professional suitability.

After they are here, in order to become a Citizen one must also go through a rigorous process where one must learn some history, the Canadian Rights and Charter of Freedom, and one must also demonstrate English, or French, spoken and written language proficiency. I know this because a parent went through it about 5 years ago.

Something that is learned in this process is that this society is tolerant of differences and they are protected by law. You can participate in this society as long as you respect these differences. Its a multicultural nation that by and large is actual successful in this experiment.

This is a people that do not accept ethical blunders. For better or worse, that's how it is here. On the same token, compassion is a public value here. This classes the Nation as a whole as Delta imo, combined with the industrial pragmatically and a strong economy, which is where the Te comes in. The majority of adults of the 35 million hold college under graduate degrees. For example, to be a member of the National Police Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the guys and girls wearing Red Serge uniforms on horse back), one must hold a Bachelor degree. This means our police forces are college educated. The same is true for Commissioned Members of the armed Forces.

Immigration is also a hot topic here, but the systems currently in place are pretty robust, considering. Its not easy to come here and its even harder to become a citizen. To go undocumented virtually shuts you out from every publicly available service as its impossible to access these things without ID. Having said that, no one goes without medical treatment if they require it, as medical care is Socialized here (first country on Earth to do so).

[Ryan]

How is immigration an issue in the US? This is something I don't understand.

Immigrants are ineligible for most forms of federal aid. They also pay more into public benefit programs than they take out.

Source.

Taken from a relevant reddit post:

The flow of migrants has been largely reduced, but that doesn't stop the racist populist fringe from exploiting the issue for its own agenda. Basically, the instruments to reduce the flow are in place. Unfortunately, the polarized political debate hinders the intelligent management of migratory flows to the mutual benefit. The problem with nationalist populism is always that it damages the own nation in the end.

I live in a small village in one of the poorest parts of the Euro-zone. Ten years ago, we had never seen any Asians in our village. Today, there are an estimated 5,000 Asian guest workers from Thailand, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, etc., who are flown in two work in the surrounding farms because there are not enough locals willing to do hard manual labor. This country of 10 million has engaged to take in about 2,000 refugees, of which only about 700 have stayed. That number is insignificant if a small village can take in 5,000 guest workers from Asia without causing any social conflicts.

In Germany, despite of what Trump claims, crime rates have reached historic lows. Generally speaking, immigrants and refugees who have received permission to stay are on their best behavior with below average crime rates, while illegal immigrants from the Baltic or North Africa who have little hope of getting asylum have above average crime rates because without the means to work legally, they often live by crime or illegal activities. It is often difficult to deport immigrants whose asylum request has been turned down because of a lengthy legal process, lack of proper papers, or unwillingness of the countries of origin to take them back.

There is no doubt that the 2015 refugee crisis has left deep marks in the political landscape, but I think it was a good trial run that has prepared Europe for bigger migratory movements which are bound to hit the continent in the future due to increasing international inequality, climate change, etc. While I regret the rise of right-wing populism, it was a natural consequence of the inability of liberal-left politics to deal effectively with the refugee crisis. Thus, the rise of right-wing populism was a natural corrective in the EU democratic process which introduced a sense of reality into those who opposed all restrictions on immigration.

In Germany about 60% of the refugees from the Balkan wars in the 90s have returned. The rest has somehow put down roots in Germany. Once the situation in Syria stabilizes, it is expected that most Syrians will return. The problem is that the West has backed the wrong horse in Syria and even though Putin has asked Merkel to help rebuilding the country, having backed the wrong side, it is now hard to do a U-turn for creating the conditions that would allow the Syrian refugees to return.

Edit: It should be noted that the percentage of foreign born citizens in Europe is still below that of the US and that the perceived percentage of foreigners in a country is well below the real percentage:

Where Europe’s migrants are

I liked this one as well:

Spaniard here.

One thing to have in mind is that countries like Spain, Greece or Italy have high unemployment rates and run/have run on massive deficits. Therefore, a long-time unemployed person, let's say, 54 years old, lives a rough life: No job, no subsidies, no help from the administration. Then you have inmigrants that arrive to these countries and have subsidies: around €450/month for themselves, another ~€500 for each child, and another subsidy for the house rent. I have classmates that live better than me in a house with 4 people where none of them works.

Inmigrants should be helped, obviously, and that nobody should die in the sea. But Europe needs a sensible plan, opening the gates and let everybody in is going to be a massive disaster, both economically and sociologically.

Also, Spain (which is the case I know) has been crying for help in the EU since the 00's and Europe looked away. Now we have this huge problem we don't know how to solve. If we had tried to solve it 10 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in this position now. It really comes to show that the EU, sometimes, is a very selfish organisation.

[Ave]

Attack the arguments, not the person, even if the person is wrong.

[Alonzo]

I am actually really concerned about what will happen once I leave for university/conservatory because I've been living a heavily reclusive lifestyle for almost 2.5 years now since moving. My mom is mentally unstable and doesn't allow me to go outside for not entirely known reasons but based on some very tiresome arguments, I've concluded it's because she is afraid I will kill myself or something extreme along those lines. Her instability doesn't show up most of the time but anytime I try to impose my own will about how the household should be ran or what I should be able to do she breaks down...and I get scared she will lose her mind when that happens. None of the relatives I am in contact with are inclined to side with me and are more overprotective than she is.

So last year I tried going to public school to get away from the apartment which was one of the stupidest decisions ever, so I switched back to virtual school...but I am condemned to not leave the apartment unless I have a piano lesson or a doctor's appointment or whatever. I would just run away and do stuff during the day when she and my equally annoying and overprotective sister are gone but I am more productive when they are away from me so I use those hours to focus on piano and schoolwork (which I have lost the energy to do recently which I will explain later). She doesn't care that I have no irl friends or no exploring the world myself as long as I'm stuck in the apartment doing work and "being safe" and then occasionally I will get to go outside to some boring restaurant or park with them during the weekend.

Every day I am more and more tempted to just tell them to fuck off and stop treating me like a dog and then walk outside but then she would break down and call the cops on me and then take away my laptop and make me fail school as a punishment or something like that. Sure, this lifestyle is something I can handle for another year or so but even the internet has its limits on how long it can be used like a drug to soothe me in this infuriating, tightly leashed hikikomori-esque way of life and I think it might have negative after-effects once I say "Fuckity bye, I hope I never have to deal with you again" some time after turning 18. I don't know what they will really look like, though, which is what concerns me.

But for now, she is going to keep being an unbearably clueless retard and ask why I am so bitter and angry all the time when I'm not even allowed to go outside by myself unless it's for piano lessons, doctor's appointments, etc. and I can't tell her the real reason and do le epic confrontation or else she will break down and start spewing incoherent crap which the rest of my family will support like the dumbasses they are. I am not even allowed to talk to strangers online and if I ask why any of her rules are in place she just says "Because I said so, so stop asking or else I will ground you and you'll fail school".

So now I've been cursed with snow and I have to deal with their dissonant, depressingly fragile and unstable existence on a constant basis because this pussy-ass area doesn't have the balls to deal with a few inches of frozen rain. Every day with snow my energy gets more and more drained and my grades are doomed to take damage because I can't focus on anything with them here. They feel like evil leprechauns who smugly suck up all my energy like a black hole and taunt "Haha, you can't escape us for long or else we'll call the police and you're fucked!" I probably feel this way due to the reclusiveness getting to my head, but I can't catch a break from these cheesy, pathetic chucklefucks who cannot even handle envisioning the concept of what I want to do during my free time and can get away with it because muh custody and muh popo.

Even if I just flip off my mom behind her back my sister will scream that I committed blasphemy against the fucking dark overlord, so basically it is like I am living in my own personal Bongistan meme if what I just described wasn't already bad enough. I am not allowed to make fun of or criticize any music or TV shows they like because muh feefees and my mom is the only person allowed to talk to my sister about her weight problem (which, guess what, does nothing). Yes, I am aware that my life is a million times better than most people in the world, but thinking about that doesn't do anything, so fuck off if you're going to be like "Oh boo-hoo for you, what about le starving African children" meme. All I wanted to do was get this off my chest.

Attachment 15018

Damn, my intuition is ON POINT. Considering your life being the "We Need To Talk About Kevin" tragedy that it's shaping up to be, I'm done interactng with you. Good luck, kid. Hope your mom lets you go outside soon. Evidently, you need it!

[Cheebs]

Damn, my intuition is ON POINT. Considering your life being the "We Need To Talk About Kevin" tragedy that it's shaping up to be, I'm done interactng with you. Good luck, kid. Hope your mom lets you go outside soon. Evidently, you need it!

Shooting up a virtual school is unrealistic but I appreciate you oversimplifying my venting from another thread with a pop culture reference like the epic liberal you are. I was hoping to play with you some more but if you're going to give up just like that then so be it.
670.png

[Cybernetic]

@Alonzo, the funny thing is that I actually would have gotten behind what you were saying in your initial post, if you weren't telling people that they would have been better off dying in the womb. How can you expect to have an intelligent debate, or have others be sympathetic to your views, or maybe even see things from your point of view, if you're just telling people to go die or that they should be dead?

Just how I see things.

[Ave]

@Alonzo, the funny thing is that I actually would have gotten behind what you were saying in your initial post, if you weren't telling people that they would have been better off dying in the womb. How can you expect to have an intelligent debate, or have others be sympathetic to your views, or maybe even see things from your point of view, if you're just telling people to go die or that they should be dead?

Just how I see things.

I agree with alot of the arguments in his initial post too.

It's too bad he resorts to such antics to get his point across, that's definitely not something I can tolerate.

[Adam Strange]

"Trump cuts U.S. aid to 3 Mexican countries"

https://twitter.com/RealRBHJr?ref_sr...Fdoonesbury%2F

[Ave]

"Trump cuts U.S. aid to 3 Mexican countries"

https://twitter.com/RealRBHJr?ref_sr...Fdoonesbury%2F

Tha page is parody, though.

I mean, at least I think.

I hope.

[Adam Strange]

Tha page is parody, though.

I mean, at least I think.

I hope.

Lol. Yes, it is parody. And it's pretty funny. "Roland Hedly" is supposed to be a correspondent at Fox News.

[Adam Strange]

Discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or age is inefficient. It removes some of the best individuals from consideration, and in doing so, results in lower-performance organizations.

Performance capabilities are represented in a population as a bell curve. Some people are the tallest, some the shortest, some the smartest, and some the dumbest, etc. Populations which have the lowest diversity have very narrow bell curves, and populations which have high diversity have very broad bell curves.

The most genetically diverse local population of humans on the planet live in sub-Saharan Africa. This means that the smartest person in the world is likely to be African, as will be the dumbest person in the world. Same goes for the most ethical and the most evil. The tallest and the shortest. The fattest and the thinnest. The strongest and the weakest.

In any case, a smart organization is going to recruit the best individuals it can find for the job. If it doesn't, it will be left behind in the dust.

The Trump organization is a cautionary tale of this fact.

[WinnieW]

Discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or age is inefficient. It removes some of the best individuals from consideration, and in doing so, results in lower-performance organizations.

I see it as a proof that Donald Trump is not a -ego type.
He has the values of a cult leader. Member of my group or not member of my group, and that is based on ethical judgement.
To my perception. Trump is a closed minded, self-important and egoistic person.

My values and his values are rather different.

[Finaplex]

alonzo wins.

[Raver]

This is largely Canada's current immigration policy.

There are several channels, or streams people go through in order to be vetted and accepted. One of which is professional suitability.

After they are here, in order to become a Citizen one must also go through a rigorous process where one must learn some history, the Canadian Rights and Charter of Freedom, and one must also demonstrate English, or French, spoken and written language proficiency. I know this because a parent went through it about 5 years ago.

Something that is learned in this process is that this society is tolerant of differences and they are protected by law. You can participate in this society as long as you respect these differences. Its a multicultural nation that by and large is actual successful in this experiment.

This is a people that do not accept ethical blunders. For better or worse, that's how it is here. On the same token, compassion is a public value here. This classes the Nation as a whole as Delta imo, combined with the industrial pragmatically and a strong economy, which is where the Te comes in. The majority of adults of the 35 million hold college under graduate degrees. For example, to be a member of the National Police Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the guys and girls wearing Red Serge uniforms on horse back), one must hold a Bachelor degree. This means our police forces are college educated. The same is true for Commissioned Members of the armed Forces.

Immigration is also a hot topic here, but the systems currently in place are pretty robust, considering. Its not easy to come here and its even harder to become a citizen. To go undocumented virtually shuts you out from every publicly available service as its impossible to access these things without ID. Having said that, no one goes without medical treatment if they require it, as medical care is Socialized here (first country on Earth to do so).

As a fellow Canadian I think this is only partially true because Canada's immigration policy has gradually become a lot more lax over time. It was like this probably a decade or two ago, but nowadays Canada seems to be highly inclusive and open to allowing many people to immigrate here compared to the past. Personally, I'd prefer if they were a little more selective on who came here, but compared to Europe's open borders policy, I suppose Canada or almost any nation outside of Europe can be seen as heavily restrictive in comparison. I also prefer the melting pot that the US generally is compared to the multiculturalism of Canada.

Canada is among the world’s most generous nations for immigrants and has one of the highest per capita admission rates. It has, on average, offered residency to about 200,000 immigrants and refugees a year over the past decade, earning a global reputation for an "open arms" attitude.

Source: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/can...gration-policy

[Finaplex]

As a fellow Canadian I think this is only partially true because Canada's immigration policy has gradually become a lot more lax over time. It was like this probably a decade or two ago, but nowadays Canada seems to be highly inclusive and open to allowing many people to immigrate here compared to the past. Personally, I'd prefer if they were a little more selective on who came here, but compared to Europe's open borders policy, I suppose Canada or almost any nation outside of Europe can be seen as heavily restrictive in comparison. I also prefer the melting pot that the US generally is compared to the multiculturalism of Canada.



Source: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/can...gration-policy

To be honest I don't really care enough about this issue to have an opinion. Its like, whatever. My world view is beyond clipped wings.

[Ave]

1.) Again, AFIK, you don't have a history of people patronizingly telling you to "calm down" about very real (AGAIN, empirically proven) existential threats facing your communities, that we are overreacting to being disproportionately targeted for abuse, incarcerated, shot down, etc.... And this is why, AGAIN, I don't believe you are the right one to be telling ME to calm down OR defining what I find to be patronizing. My point is that it's a privilege to not be reactionary regarding certain things. I would be a fucking tool if, when a woman was telling me that she feels uncomfortable walking by a gang of men sneering/gesturing at her and so she dawns her rape whistle, due to her increased likelihood of being sexually victimized by virtue of her sex, I told her to "calm down."

I probably shouldn't respond, for my peace of mind that is, but the following needs to be said.

People expressing views over the internet does not directly put you in physical danger, unlike the woman in the example you describe.

I'm the type of guy that is perfectly willing to listen when people feel distressed, but I can't excuse victim mentality.

Someone expressing racist views online does not automatically mean they will go out and attack someone.

I do think such views carry great danger, because it is inevitable that some of the people who hold racist views will act on violence.

But since this is the internet, what dangerous situation are you describing? No offense but you sound like those college kids who claim they feel "unsafe" because of someone else's speech. How silly is that? Honestly.

Free speech is a thing in a free society. This type of behavior you demonstrate which attempts to shut down speech is dangerous in its own way. Now, speech in itself doesn't kill anyone. Ideas lead to actions, and actions can kill people. So it is the ideas we have to fight, not free speech. If you shut down someone else's speech, you are not fighting ideas which you oppose, you are fighting free speech.

So my whole point is that you should fight the ideas being spread in this thread with better ideas, not by shutting down speech and playing victim.

Think about it.

[Alonzo]

I probably shouldn't respond, for my peace of mind that is, but the following needs to be said.

People expressing views over the internet does not directly put you in physical danger, unlike the woman in the example you describe.

I'm the type of guy that is perfectly willing to listen when people feel distressed, but I can't excuse victim mentality.

Someone expressing racist views online does not automatically mean they will go out and attack someone.

I do think such views carry great danger, because it is inevitable that some of the people who hold racist views will act on violence.

But since this is the internet, what dangerous situation are you describing? No offense but you sound like those college kids who claim they feel "unsafe" because of someone else's speech. How silly is that? Honestly.

Free speech is a thing in a free society. This type of behavior you demonstrate which attempts to shut down speech is dangerous in its own way. Now, speech in itself doesn't kill anyone. Ideas lead to actions, and actions can kill people. So it is the ideas we have to fight, not free speech. If you shut down someone else's speech, you are not fighting ideas which you oppose, you are fighting free speech.

So my whole point is that you should fight the ideas being spread in this thread with better ideas, not by shutting down speech and playing victim.

Think about it.

Victim mentality? Fuck your existence.

So because you're a low empathy piece of shit that can't manage the extra mirror neurons to imagine being in someone else's shoes, which to a degree I could forgive because I can also be a bit empathy impaired (initially) to situations I can't wholeheartedly relate to at times (SEE, THAT'S COGNITIVE EMPATHY IN ACTION), you've decided to double down on an incomplete (if I were to be diplomatic) stance. That very act is what makes you a piece of shit, not the being unaware of someone's else experience/perception/vantage point and then learning when they attempt to school your evidently hard of learning ass, but doubling down because of your ego. Piss on you.

Not ONCE, have I claimed or conducted myself like a victim--that's not a part of my being, BITCH; if anything, I've been actively fighting, in my own debauched way, against what I perceive to be unjust and irrational, which drew the ire from people like YOU, people who had conveniently overlooked other more problematic things in the thread, and jumped straight down my throat; people who tried to hold me to a standard they were conveniently unwilling to hold others to, others that have mass murdering ****** in their fucking avatar. I was more than HAPPY to continue on as I was, never asking anyone to back me up, but standing in my own fucking truth.

The only reason why I replied to your comment about "not base T" is because I was already admittedly triggered by others taking issue with my bleach gif whilst they readily ignored WORSE shit, and you seemed to be piling on; based on your earlier comments (that I liked, as I have liked other comments of yours) in the thread, you seemed like a rational, reasonable person whom I not only agreed with but felt some appreciation for your openmindedness--you were one of few, if any, that spoke to another narrative not steeped in utter obtuseness, whether willful or otherwise. But your blind spot is the problem here.

I tried to convey my perspective to you, not from a standpoint of wanting pity, but imparting understanding why, for some people, due to a PTSD of sorts and an accumulation of societal stab wounds and paper cuts, it's harder to be dispassionate about certain phenomena that trigger "fight or flight" impulses. I know far too many people, who in real time, every day, feel the amplification of bigotry that MFers like you don't readily experience. And we see that the root of it is deeply embedded within the current toxic social climate that is pervasive everywhere, and especially on the internet. Hate crimes are steadily on the rise, thanks in part to these (anti)think chambers at the far reaches of the net. These types of ideas amplify and affect my communities, directly and indirectly, every fucking day. I'm constantly pissed OFF lately because I'm doing backflips trying to decide life-altering things like which country is the best for me to be based in right now because the "local" politics directly impact my work and overall life quality. This shit is NOT a game to me. I'm Gamma Quadra motherfucker, we don't like to have our "hands tied" and productivity stymied by outside forces--it makes us want to FIGHT, which is what I do, in my own ways, as evidenced by my responses on this thread.

I'm not saying that what I did was "right," necessarily, but it was DESERVED, and my disagreeable posturing was rooted in what I perceived to be unfair treatment and double standards--if you're going to condemn my act, condemn the other MFers as well. And if you don't condemn them, the shut the fuck up about what I say or do. Keep that same unbothered, apathetic energy. I never asked for any of you to hold my fucking hand so go choke on an unwashed bag of ISIS dick.

[Muddy]

Victim mentality? Fuck your existence.

So because you're a low empathy piece of shit that can't manage the extra mirror neurons to imagine being in someone else's shoes, which to a degree I could forgive because I can also be a bit empathy impaired (initially) to situations I can't wholeheartedly relate to at times (SEE, THAT'S COGNITIVE EMPATHY IN ACTION), you've decided to double down on an incomplete (if I were to be diplomatic) stance. That very act is what makes you a piece of shit, not the being unaware of someone's else experience/perception/vantage point and then learning when they attempt to school your evidently hard of learning ass, but doubling down because of your ego. Piss on you.

Not ONCE, have I claimed or conducted myself like a victim--that's not a part of my being, BITCH; if anything, I've been actively fighting, in my own debauched way, against what I perceive to be unjust and irrational, which drew the ire from people like YOU, people who had conveniently overlooked other more problematic things in the thread, and jumped straight down my throat; people who tried to hold me to a standard they were conveniently unwilling to hold others to, others that have mass murdering ****** in their fucking avatar. I was more than HAPPY to continue on as I was, never asking anyone to back me up, but standing in my own fucking truth.

The only reason why I replied to your comment about "not base T" is because I was already admittedly triggered by others taking issue with my bleach gif whilst they readily ignored WORSE shit, and you seemed to be piling on; based on your earlier comments (that I liked, as I have liked other comments of yours) in the thread, you seemed like a rational, reasonable person whom I not only agreed with but felt some appreciation for your openmindedness--you were one of few, if any, that spoke to another narrative not steeped in utter obtuseness, whether willful or otherwise. But your blind spot is the problem here.

I tried to convey my perspective to you, not from a standpoint of wanting pity, but imparting understanding why, for some people, due to a PTSD of sorts and an accumulation of societal stab wounds and paper cuts, it's harder to be dispassionate about certain phenomena that trigger "fight or flight" impulses. I know far too many people, who in real time, every day, feel the amplification of bigotry that MFers like you don't readily experience. And we see that the root of it is deeply embedded within the current toxic social climate that is pervasive everywhere, and especially on the internet. Hate crimes are steadily on the rise, thanks in part to these (anti)think chambers at the far reaches of the net. These types of ideas amplify and affect my communities, directly and indirectly, every fucking day. I'm constantly pissed OFF lately because I'm doing backflips trying to decide life-altering things like which country is the best for me to be based in right now because the "local" politics directly impact my work and overall life quality. This shit is NOT a game to me. I'm Gamma Quadra motherfucker, we don't like to have our "hands tied" and productivity stymied by outside forces--it makes us want to FIGHT, which is what I do, in my own ways, as evidenced by my responses on this thread.

I'm not saying that what I did was "right," necessarily, but it was DESERVED, and my disagreeable posturing was rooted in what I perceived to be unfair treatment and double standards--if you're going to condemn my act, condemn the other MFers as well. And if you don't condemn them, the shut the fuck up about what I say or do. Keep that same unbothered, apathetic energy. I never asked for any of you to hold my fucking hand so go choke on an unwashed bag of ISIS dick.

Dude if you dislike anti-semites, perhaps a better strategy then flailing your arms around and screaming at them would be delve deep into their own thoughts and conspiracy theories yourself so you can then be into a better position to debate them using logic. I got pretty far into thinking the jews controlled the world myself but have since then loosened up on that viewpoint as I continued learning and accepting information.

If you could lay down some of your own viewpoints in a calm, respectable and precise manner you might have a better chance of getting more people on board you. I'd be interested to hear what exactly those are.

[Alonzo]

Dude if you dislike anti-semites, perhaps a better strategy then flailing your arms around and screaming at them would be delve deep into their own thoughts and conspiracy theories yourself so you can then be into a better position to debate them using logic. I got pretty far into thinking the jews controlled the world myself but have since then loosened up on that viewpoint as I continued learning and accepting information.

If you could lay down some of your own viewpoints in a calm, respectable and precise manner you might have a better chance of getting more people on board you. I'd be interested to hear what exactly those are.

I appreciate the interest but I'm done with this thread and this discussion. Demographically, America continues to live up to its Latin based name, as Europe welcomes the latest advent of the "Moors"; Brazilians, Chinese, Indians and West Africans are spreading like cockroaches across the globe as their nations grow ever more in 1st world-ness, constantly creating "filthy mudbloods" like myself who will eventually dominate. Upon reflection, I should just calm down, continue my paternal line's tradition of impregnating phat assed white chicks and let the browning CONTINUE.

[perpetuus]

I appreciate the interest but I'm done with this thread and this discussion. Demographically, America continues to live up to its Latin based name, as Europe welcomes the latest advent of the "Moors"; Brazilians, Chinese, Indians and West Africans are spreading like cockroaches across the globe as their nations grow ever more in 1st world-ness, constantly creating "filthy mudbloods" like myself who will eventually dominate. Upon reflection, I should just calm down, continue my paternal line's tradition of impregnating phat assed white chicks and let the browning CONTINUE.

nothing wrong with enjoying phat assed cracker chicks.