The Rise of Far Left Extremism

[mfckrz]

Who cares what "tribe" you belong to?

Because normal human identity is stratified, of which 'tribe' has been one of those strata for millions of years now; chimps are well-known to separate into recognizable tribes, and will wage war with one another over territory, etc.

You will not change millions of years of evolutionary history by decree.

If people hate each other and fractionalize anyway, then what's the difference between homogeneity and diversity?

The homogeneity you speak of would be inorganically contrived, rather than emerging via natural selection of free association & competition. That's the real difference.

More reason to move from local identities to universal identities.

Nature doesn't really tend towards monotypic equilibrium. We're always undergoing divergent speciation… accelerated in humans despite our lengthy lifespans because we have reproductive independence. Yet, you seem to want to arrest this process.

I would say that racial/ethnic homogeneity is almost completely illusory, because there's still diversity within the same race/ethnicity.

When even man's most basic psychological underpinnings show a high degree of heritability, race/ethnicity clearly becomes a vital consideration when living in social proximity. For instance, I just ran across this:



Doesn't require much extrapolative imagination to infer the consequences of what might happen if, say, two populations with contrasting biopsychological orientations in their reward processing were forced to live together. It would influence innumerable aspects of consumer behavior, contract law, normative expectations, and so on.

Incorrigible complexities adding incalculably costly social overhead to every interaction.

Only through dialogue and mingling that you can eliminate discrimination, because discrimination is based on ignorance. People discriminate against another when they think "those people are so different from me", when they aren't actually that much different.

Typical Western conceit. Nobody actually cares about 'dialogue'.

[Metamorph]

The main primary fear I have is not a mult-ethnic society, but 1st world nations devolving to 3rd world nations or somewhere in between 1st and 3rd world.

That's called a 2nd world country or communism and is exactly what people want to make the US into.

[Adam Strange]

That's called a 2nd world country or communism and is exactly what people want to make the US into.

Um, why would anyone want to make the US into a third world country?

[Raver]

Um, why would anyone want to make the US into a third world country?

The average well meaning person would not want that, at least not intentionally. However, the wealthy elite would prefer it because it means more for them and less for everyone else.

[Metamorph]

Um, why would anyone want to make the US into a third world country?

I said 2nd world, not 3rd world, but see @Raver's post. There are lots of people who would cut off their nose to spite their face in the world.

[perpetuus]

I said 2nd world, not 3rd world, but see @Raver's post. There are lots of people who would cut off their nose to spite their face in the world.

I don't think there's really some mass conspiracy of this sort. I think there's just a lot of ignorant, but well-intentioned people who really believe capitalism is the devil.

[Metamorph]

I don't think there's really some mass conspiracy of this sort. I think there's just a lot of ignorant, but well-intentioned people who really believe capitalism is the devil.

The masses are ignorant but the elites actually do feel insecure about causing growth even if they'd actually benefit infinitely more from it (which is also not a conspiracy.)

[perpetuus]

A question for the race realists: would you rather live in a neighborhood with Thomas Sowell as your next-door neighbor, or in one with Cletus the white meth addict as your next-door neighbor?

[Adam Strange]

A question for the race realists: would you rather live in a neighborhood with Thomas Sowell as your next-door neighbor, or in one with Cletus the white meth addict as your next-door neighbor?

Are those my only choices?

I haven't read Sowell for years, but I think I remember him as an idiot. Cletus the white meth addict also sounds unpleasant, but for different reasons.

[perpetuus]

Are those my only choices?

I haven't read Sowell for years, but I think I remember him as an idiot. Cletus the white meth addict also sounds unpleasant, but for different reasons.

Yeah, but Sowell probably won’t steal your TV to sell for drug money.

[Adam Strange]

Yeah, but Sowell probably won’t steal your TV to sell for drug money.

Sowell does something worse. He plants incorrect and misleading information in the minds of a great many people, to the eventual detriment of good solutions to problems. A TV I can replace (if I had one, which I don't), but it is much, much harder to change a sea of ignorance or, worse, the minds of people who think they are right but are not.

[perpetuus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1026561

"We are fast approaching the point where Congress exists as little more than a formality to legitimize outcomes dictated by the president, the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader," said Amash, the son of a Palestinian immigrant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0eb4da6a68a5

[Singu]

Trump: *Says something racist*.
Everyone: That's racist.
Right-wingers, Trump base: Identitarian politics! Far-left extremists! Playing the race card! America-hating Socialists!
Trump: *clap, clap, clap*

Trump knows what he's doing. Trump base are doing their thing, and gullible bystanders are eating it all up.

This is all just a distraction for the 2020 election, because Trump doesn't any have results or good policies.

[Adam Strange]

Trump: *Says something racist*.
Everyone: That's racist.
Right-wingers, Trump base: Identitarian politics! Far-left extremists! Playing the race card! America-hating Socialists!
Trump: *clap, clap, clap*

Trump knows what he's doing. Trump base are doing their thing, and gullible bystanders are eating it all up.

This is all just a distraction for the 2020 election, because Trump doesn't any have results or good policies.

I used to wonder who in the world voted for ****** in Nazi Germany. Turns out it was ordinary citizens who were also racists. Interesting that no society seems to be free of these people.

It's almost as if there is some evolutionary advantage to having a large portion of the population be racist. Just as there is some evolutionary advantage to having some part of the population be gay.

[Muddy]

I used to wonder who in the world voted for ****** in Nazi Germany. Turns out it was ordinary citizens who were also racists. Interesting that no society seems to be free of these people.

It's almost as if there is some evolutionary advantage to having a large portion of the population be racist. Just as there is some evolutionary advantage to having some part of the population be gay.

******'s rise to power is rather complex and nuanced. When Germany lost WW1 they lost the colonies they had previously under the German Empire, which mean't losing access to markets and thus falling rates of profit for big business. Capitalism drives nations towards aggressive expansion due to what's know as the "crisis of over-production". In capitalism productivity steadily increases, but wages do not. People end up not having enough money to buy all the extra goods being produced and prices fall. When prices fall, big business freaks out and seek to expand aboard to maintain demand for their goods. This is what drives colonization and most wars in the modern era.

****** was only one cog in the machine that made WW2 and the holocaust happen. He was financially backed by a ring of industrial conglomerates due to his expansionist views and being anti-communist (communism was very prevalent in Germany at that time and posed a real active threat to big business). The racism and anti-semitic conspiracy theories was a means to provide an alternative explanation for the conditions that plagued German workers and turn people against communism.

[Singu]

I used to wonder who in the world voted for ****** in Nazi Germany. Turns out it was ordinary citizens who were also racists. Interesting that no society seems to be free of these people.

It's almost as if there is some evolutionary advantage to having a large portion of the population be racist. Just as there is some evolutionary advantage to having some part of the population be gay.

I don't deny that almost anyone can potentially be a racist, because this is about deciding who the friends and who the enemies are. I bet most of the racists would stop being racists if they thought that those races were "friends". I think racists are just more sensitive to knowing who the friends and the enemies are. And they can't use their rationality to conclude that it's erroneous to attribute certain characteristics to an entire race.

But if they're supremacists, then that's a different matter and their idea on superiority needs to be attacked.

[Raver]

[sbbds]

Nothing to add, just shoutout to @Raver for being a boss on here as usual and good leader of controversial discussion.

[Kill4Me]

sometimes imitated but never duplicated: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1346370

[Raver]

I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but AOC clearly doesn't want mass immigration/open borders. However she does want to solve the current conditions of the detained immigrants in the US, and she's saying that climate change is responsible for creating more migrants and refugees seeking relief.

She wants to abolish ICE without any practical alternatives. That is basically saying open borders/mass immigration without saying it. Even if she is not for open borders/mass immigration, she has no real solutions to the border crisis regardless.

It is significant that 60% of Americans approve 'Allowing refugees from central American countries to seek asylum in the US', and 80% want 'Developing a plan to allow some people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal residents'.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...mmigration.pdf

Allowing refugees and some illegals to become legal is very different than allowing economic migrants and most illegals to become legal.

[Singu]

She wants to abolish ICE without any practical alternatives. That is basically saying open borders/mass immigration without saying it. Even if she is not for open borders/mass immigration, she has no real solutions to the border crisis regardless.

ICE is just an immigration agency that was created in 2003, that arrests and deports illegal immigrants that are already in the US. It has nothing to do with immigration in general. AOC is saying that this should be a matter of civil code and not a criminal code.

Allowing refugees and some illegals to become legal is very different than allowing economic migrants and most illegals to become legal.

That's exactly what AOC is doing.

[Raver]

ICE is just an immigration agency that was created in 2003, that arrests and deports illegal immigrants that are already in the US. It has nothing to do with immigration in general. AOC is saying that this should be a matter of civil code and not a criminal code.

In other words, good luck keeping illegal immigrants out if ICE is abolished.

That's exactly what AOC is doing.

If you abolish ICE, then how do you enforce that? The short answer is you don't.

[Deprecator]

I must say that your tactics are very childish.

Do you think there's an 'adult' way to respond to someone who is seemingly so desperate to "prove me wrong" that they literally fabricate fictional numbers? And then, instead of retracting when they’re called out for fabricating numbers (as any intellectually honest person surely would), they subsequently choose to respond by harping upon a singular definition of the word significant in yet another desperate attempt to tell me that I'm wrong?

Though speaking of the word significant, do you know what's not significant? The marginal increase of hate crimes is not remotely significant, at least in the sense that as an overall percentage of violent crime it's remained fairly steady at .005% over these past few years.

I even tried to emphasize this point by use of analogy; if annual flu deaths among healthy people went from 1,000 to 1,500, this 50% increase might look scary if you posted a graph along with a sensational narrative about the Spanish swine flu, and yet at the same time this increase would still not be all that significant when looking at the larger picture and factoring in the sheer number of deaths associated with heart disease and various forms of cancer.

As a response, in a most stunning display of mental gymnastics, you then took it upon yourself to characterize my apparent "logic" associated with a hypothetical visit to a foreign country and being discriminated against for being white (implying both that I'm white and that white discrimination doesn't already exist in the country I'm currently living in ), which merely suggests that analogies or other forms of non-literal speech simply might not be your strong suit.

So when you go to another country and face discrimination for being white, then that should be ignored because whites are a minority therefore it only comprises a small number of the total victims, therefore it should be ignored. Nice logic.

This genuinely makes me wonder…. are you not a native English speaker? Again, I don’t mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question. However, it would certainly help explain your verifiable history of both misreading your own sources as well as your apparent inability to understand the figurative nature of analogies, areas which I've personally struggled with in Spanish (my second language).

You said that there are more black-on-white hate crimes than white-on-black hate crimes, which is not true.

Black-on-white hate crime is 18%
White-on-black hate crime is 49%

What's really not true here are these numbers you went out of your way to post. Honestly, I’d have respect for you as an intellectually honest person if you decided to retract this comment after I went out of my way to inform you of your error, but nope…. as opposed to exercising this option you were again so desperate to tell me that I was wrong that you literally took it upon yourself to harp upon a singular definition of a singular word.

Now to me, your behavior seems far more indicative of someone blinded by a preconceived narrative than someone who's actually interested in honest discussion.

[Deprecator]

"IMMENSE mental gymnastics" lol Do you people do anything else besides project?

Do you have any particular view point of mine that you'd like to attribute to 'mental gymnastics', or do you merely respond with wild and unsubstantiated claims of 'projection' whenever you get super triggered by facts?

The laws discriminate against minority and younger voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates, because among other things, they’re less likely to have the money, transportation means, and flexible work hours needed to obtain a required ID.

Ah, so now that you've decided to elaborate with actual specifics, I'm now starting to understand the mental gymnastics that went into developing phrases such as "discriminatory Voter ID law". After all, just like you readily claim... some people are less likely to have the money.

Given this condition, would you also argue that the food/ agriculture industry 'discriminates' against minorities (i.e. minorities are less likely to have the money, transportation means and flexible work hours needed to obtain food), that the housing industry 'discriminates' against minorities (i.e. minorities are less likely to have the money, transportation means and flexible work hours needed to obtain housing), and that the clothing/ fashion industry also 'discriminates' against minorities (i.e. minorities less likely to have the money, transportation means and flexible work hours needed to obtain clothes)?

Given the set of parameters that you've provided, can you name a SINGLE commercial industry -- any commercial industry at all -- that doesn't 'discriminate' against people who are less likely to have money, or are you merely performing an IMMENSE set of mental gymnastics in order to single out and harp on voter ID laws, specifically?

Those countries you listed? You know what they all have in common?

They're all able to acknowledge that proving one's identify and eligibility to vote could be essential to the preservation and validity of any given election? That in practice voter ID laws wouldn't have to be any more 'discriminatory' than the food, housing or virtually any other commercial industry?

With recent wave of court decisions concerning Voter ID laws in the past few years, federal judges, at long last, have signaled a strong message to states: Seeking to target black and other minority voters for exclusion, regardless of motive, is unconstitutional and undemocratic. Suck on that, motherfucker.

Conveniently enough, you couldn't be bothered to provide any citation of any kind in regards to this comment, meaning that I honestly don't know what specific 'court decision' that you're referring to (which, probably for the best when considering your history of posting dead links). Though when I googled 'voter ID laws court decisions', literally the very first thing that pops up is: "rawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution."

Per this 2008 supreme court decision, voter ID laws aren't unconstitutional. They're also not inconsistent with the laws of progressive European countries and they also apply equally to all citizens regardless of background or affiliation. Yet somehow in an incredible display of mental gymnastics, the left still manages to cry out buzz words such as 'racist' and 'discriminatory' as a response. Personally, it's very tempting to speculate that all this pearl clutching outrage from the left is mostly stemming from verifiable instances which would theoretically threaten Cali's status as a blue state, as well as the striking correlation between voter ID laws and a state's tendency to vote republican. For an example:

"Many politicians are taking firm stances on issues affecting migrants, including amnesty, entitlements and sanctuary city policies. This gives noncitizens a significant incentive to register as voters and cast a ballot. For example, in East Chicago, Indiana, a city with 30,000 residents, voting fraud was so systemic in 2003 that the State Supreme Court ordered a new election with heightened verification. When unlawful voters were prohibited from casting a ballot the outcome of the election changed.

There is also enough evidence of noncitizen voting to indicate that it is an ongoing problem that may have a significant effect on American electoral politics. Due to the low risk of penalty, and the lack of effective controls, alien voting is easy. In states without ID requirements, the only check against noncitizens registering to vote is a box on the application form asking registrants to confirm they are U.S. citizens."

[Spermatozoa]

People ultimately act in their self interest and all arguments in this thread can be reduced to that imperative.

You're an illegal immigrant? Or a relation of one? Or maybe a recent immigrant of oriental descent? Naturally, you feel personally threatened and insulted by the actions of the government. You want to bring your family over with you to the U.S. You want the same slice of the pie Americans before you have had. I get that. We all have the same basic needs at the end of the day, but unfortunately, territory and resources are finite.

Anyone born in the day and age has had to come to terms with the fact that man's mind has advanced far more swiftly than his soul. We simply cannot allow constant growth (which a liberal immigration policy encourages) without sacrificing all of the qualities which make our countries so attractive to immigrants.

Allowing anyone who wants to come and live here in would just lead to a regression towards the mean. Everyone's standard of living would be reduced towards a third world average. Regardless of your personal feelings, Americans must understand what is at stake here. The Chinese are hoping to drive a wedge in your country by taking advantage of demographic change...if the U.S. becomes majority-minority, it will likely split into multiple states, and China will then align with California and use the chaos of population transfer to disrupt the alliance (they are already heavily investing in propaganda). They are waiting until your government is fragmented and unable to respond.

Just please don't vote for a Democrat in 2020, OK, because despite their good intentions they are the cause of the problem. Most of the Pacific is too ignorant or indoctrinated by the media to say it, but we rely on you down here more than you know.

[Raver]

I know these people are a very small fringe minority of the left. However, I am going to call a spade a spade and say these people are embarrassingly stupid and insane:

[Muddy]

I know these people are a very small fringe minority of the left. However, I am going to call a spade a spade and say these people are embarrassingly stupid and insane:

The problem with some leftist such as the guy here fussing about gendered language is that they go way overboard with adhering to certain individual ideological tenets and end up missing the big picture. Communism at the end of the day is fundamentally supposed to be about people being level and chill one another and policing people over things like language goes completely against that. When it comes to social interaction you just got to use you own brain and figure out what is acceptable to say to any given person instead of following rigidly following set some of ideas/rules about what people should say.

[Raver]

The problem with some leftist such as the guy here fussing about gendered language is that they go way overboard with adhering to certain individual ideological tenets and end up missing the big picture. Communism at the end of the day is fundamentally supposed to be about people being level and chill one another and policing people over things like language goes completely against that. When it comes to social interaction you just got to use you own brain and figure out what is acceptable to say to any given person instead of following rigidly following set some of ideas/rules about what people should say.

Yeah, it is a shame that a minority of inept and ignorant people end up buying into this drivel of extreme leftist idenitarian politics. It pretty much makes the entire left look bad by association. The right then use them as a way to ridicule the entire left unfortunately. Which is unfortunate because liberalism in general can be a force of positive change for society if it isn't hijacked by inane left leaning authoritarianism. At the end of the day, they are merely co-opted as useful idiots for the corporate elite's interests.

[Computer Loser]

Leftists stink

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Most American leftists are backwards in that they want to institutionalize everything, rather than liberate. A true liberal should want to unchain people from an unhealthy repressive system, instead of create more of them. The modern liberal you see on TV/twitter fights for social changes within establishments, but any organic social change for the better can only happen outside the confines of an establishment or hash tag. Jesus Christ was anti-establishment. It's quite ironic how its the conservatives fighting for free speech and the right to individually express themselves, those have traditionally been things liberals have fought for.

I could never be conservative or right wing though. Those ppl still seem too hateful & selfish for my tastes. And pretending like minorities are never discriminated against seems even more harmful to me in the long run than SJWs maximizing petty non-issues and playing thought police. I suppose there are exceptions to this, but those are negative qualities that conservatism has that it still needs to work on. Neither party is good to me. I guess my personal values I believe in are protection from the state/limiting state power (since unhealthy power hungry ppl tend to be drawn to it - and its a good thing to take away their power supply), but also socially progressive ideals and a general policy of 'If you want to govern others, then don't be a douchebag.' Mainstream liberalism in the US has been about repressing everybody socially, and using the evils of Big Brother to do it. So the opposite of what I think it should stand for lol.

The conservatives that I respect and listen to, that are not just being hateful trolls that lack compassion - I still think they are misguided and living too much in the past. They make good arguements, but its all about crap that happened way in the past and does not really serve us now in society. So while well-meaning, to me its more like 'just move on already. Life changes.'

[Raver]

Most American leftists are backwards in that they want to institutionalize everything, rather than liberate. A true liberal should want to unchain people from an unhealthy repressive system, instead of create more of them. The modern liberal you see on TV/twitter fights for social changes within establishments, but any organic social change for the better can only happen outside the confines of an establishment or hash tag. Jesus Christ was anti-establishment. It's quite ironic how its the conservatives fighting for free speech and the right to individually express themselves, those have traditionally been things liberals have fought for.

Very well said. This is basically the result of the Left or Liberals being hijacked by a non-sensical mainstream narrative pushing idenitarianism. It parades itself as anti-establishment, but it is as establishment as they come. If your beliefs fall in line with the mass media and corporations then it is safe to say you are unwittingly a part of the establishment.

I could never be conservative or right wing though. Those ppl still seem too hateful & selfish for my tastes. And pretending like minorities are never discriminated against seems even more harmful to me in the long run than SJWs maximizing petty non-issues and playing thought police. I suppose there are exceptions to this, but those are negative qualities that conservatism has that it still needs to work on. Neither party is good to me. I guess my personal values I believe in are protection from the state/limiting state power (since unhealthy power hungry ppl tend to be drawn to it - and its a good thing to take away their power supply), but also socially progressive ideals and a general policy of 'If you want to govern others, then don't be a douchebag.' Mainstream liberalism in the US has been about repressing everybody socially, and using the evils of Big Brother to do it. So the opposite of what I think it should stand for lol.

Your political beliefs are similar to mine in that you lean towards left libertarianism and you feel disenfranchised by both the mainstream left and mainstream right for different reasons. The mainstream left being a turn off with its authoritarian idenitarianism and mainstream right being a turn off with its lack of initiative to foster changes to the economic system to benefit the common man. That is my take at least and of course there are differences among you and I, but the general idea is similar.

Some hardcore leftists or rightists brush that off as milquetoast centrism where nothing fundamentally changes, which couldn't be further from the truth. It is about having the critical thinking required to identify positive changes and retain positive structures of society to allow society to progress in the best possible way. Rather than emotionally accepting the dogma that Liberals and Conservatives are both guilty of doing. Anyone can separate themselves from emotional political dogma in order to look at issues more objectively and still be a Liberal or Conservative overall.

The conservatives that I respect and listen to, that are not just being hateful trolls that lack compassion - I still think they are misguided and living too much in the past. They make good arguements, but its all about crap that happened way in the past and does not really serve us now in society. So while well-meaning, to me its more like 'just move on already. Life changes.'

Yeah, I do think we need to progress and allow change and not stand still. Unfortunately, liberals seem hellbent on pushing some negative changes and conservatives are hellbent on retaining some negative changes. Neither is interested in creating or retaining only positive changes overall as Liberals want to create positive and negative changes and Conservatives want to retain positive and negative changes. That is a major issue that needs to be dealt with sooner or later.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yea @Raver. I also think that when you are as privileged, pampered and protected as a Limousine Liberal that has the Illuminati's Protection (in exchange for their soul and True Free Will of course) - you must force yourself to get seriously emotionally offended over minor slights and non-issues in order to keep your overly structured life from being too boring. This divides the country in harmful ways, but to the people doing it- it offers them emotional entertainment from their lives that would feel even more like being trapped inside a narcissistic wine glass if they didn't do it. They can try to cover it up as they are just being good people doing the right thing, but instead the end result is putting humanity into even more of a prison and smart people know that. It's just a huge distraction from real problems.

[Raver]

Yea @Raver. I also think that when you are as privileged, pampered and protected as a Limousine Liberal that has the Illuminati's Protection (in exchange for their soul and True Free Will of course) - you must force yourself to get seriously emotionally offended over minor slights and non-issues in order to keep your overly structured life from being too boring. This divides the country in harmful ways, but to the people doing it- it offers them emotional entertainment from their lives that would feel even more like being trapped inside a narcissistic wine glass if they didn't do it. They can try to cover it up as they are just being good people doing the right thing, but instead the end result is putting humanity into even more of a prison and smart people know that. It's just a huge distraction from real problems.

Yes, it is just virtue signalling in the end. Wearing the veneer of caring about a variety of minorities in order to look good, but they are actually heavily narcissistic and don't really care. In actuality they want nothing to do with these minorities and live in these white gated communities detached from the harsh grim realities in major urban areas. At the end of the day, lower, working and middle class people are all in the same boat regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliation.

We are just pitted off against each other by the real ivory tower upper class wealthy elites sadistically laughing as we tear each other apart over non-issues. If we actually all woke up to the reality and united against them then they would have something to truly fear. Unfortunately, that doesn't look like it is happening any time soon as most of us are too busy fighting each other rather than them.

[Muddy]

*You* don't exist in communism.

Quoting here as to not derail the other thread.

You seem to have communism confused with ultra-nationalism. A communist society by definition is one which no power structures exist to limit you as individual. What is important to remember about the "communist" countries that have existed thus far is that communism for them is a stated goal and that none them have described themselves as communist countries. Lenin/Stalin had their own specific set of ideas about how to best reach communism, which involved implementing state-capitalism and imposing a strict collectivist mindset on the people in order to rapidly industrialize and gain an edge over foreign nations militarily. Many leftist detested this system Lenin and Stalin had set up in the USSR as it was quite far from functionally being communist, though the USSR did have some merits of its own. Eventually the USSR ended up collapsing due to opportunist seeping into communist party leadership and changing things for their own benefit instead of working to transition the USSR closer towards communism. The closest places we've had to accurately representing communism was Anarchist Catalonia Catalonia and Makhnovist Ukraine.