The Rise of Trumpism

[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.

[Ave]

See, that's the dreaded "P" word right there, in action > Privilege. It's more of a luxury for you to not get all "fanatical" about those you think are wrong. But for people whose lives are actually affected (and have been for centuries) by those who act/vote/demagogue based on the idiot beliefs expressed in this thread, especially considering the toxic political climate, there is a more urgent "call to arms" type of reactivity that should not be trivialized or chastized. That's why I found it to be extremely patronizing to be told to "calm down" as if I had been unreasonable up to that point, and I had not been. I had given a rational reason for my inquiries/opinions to the poster I was addressing.



1.) Funny you point out MY reactivity, but not the evident reactivity of the person telling me to "calm down" and take a chill pill based off of my comments. Was he/she/it/whatevertherfuckitis nobly "attacking" my argument and not my person? Furthermore, how are you the arbiter of what is "excessive?" It seems to me you were perfectly fine with someone trivializing my concerns (rooted in some of my in-groups' empirically proven, historically disproportionate, negative outcomes when it comes to the demonization of the other) and more immediately concerned about her/it's well being...when that person was obviously neglecting to consider MY wellbeing. Fuck outta here.

2.) So, in light of the reactivity of the poster telling me to chill out, I reacted as I saw fit. I don't take kindly to having my perspective patronized, especially within the confines of a thread where I'm outnumbered by skull fucked bigoted peons. Again, it's understandable for YOU to choose to normalize that kind of behavior and tolerate it, but I'm not you and as far as I know, we don't share the same experiences.

3.) DId you not see the anti-semitic comments? Comments by some POS with ****** in his avatar? Did you see baby Columbine talking about low IQ "Mestizos, Africans, Arabs" ruining the country? This is why your "intervention" pissed me off. I'm attacked for saying admittedly problematic things but you conveniently skipped by everything else.

You're right, I kinda skipped through this thread after reading @Raver's post. I know some users on here have some very fucked up racist, racialist, anti-semitic views, I don't really bother reading their content too much, anyways. I agree that such views are dangerous, if they ever gain legitimacy in the eyes of the pubic (not the case as of now) and/or get political power (this is happening in some parts of the West to an extent).

Patronizing, why? It wasn't patronizing, intepret it how you want though. If telling someone to chill out, when they frankly need to is "patronizing", then grow up, son.

Have you ever watched the movie Twelve Angry Men? It's fiction but goes to show, I think quite well, how one person using reason, and using it well, can win over other people even when outnumbered.

In any case, I agree that racilaist views like those expressed by some in this thread are a problem, but I don't see throwing tantrums as the solution. This is what bothers me, that it only worsens the toxic politcal climate you mention.

[Sisyphean]

3.) DId you not see the anti-semitic comments? Comments by some POS with ****** in his avatar?

rofl how did a sensitive little girl like you survive this long on the internet?

[Starvish]

2.) So, in light of the reactivity of the poster telling me to chill out, I reacted as I saw fit.

By telling this person to kill themself? That's not a fitting reaction, nor a mature one, to a comment as innocuous as that.

[Ave]

By telling this person to kill themself? That's not a fitting reaction, nor a mature one, to a comment as innocuous as that.

This too.

[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.

[Alonzo]

@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 see it like this: considering what passes for "acceptable" on this site, and on this thread even, I didn't think I was "crossing the line" by wishing death on mothers in utero (of vile bigots) or telling you to sip on some bleach. My rationale is that if it's OK for MFers to sublimate the extreme violence and terror of someone like Adolph ****** by using his likeness in an avatar, and the MFer in question still be a contributing member, then my words should mean nothing, in comparison. Therefore, I can't feel too bad.

Do I actually want you to die? No...that is, not if you don't want me to die--I'm very tit for tat, that way.

What you have to understand is that certain points of view are violent in their intentions; I'm sure you can understand that. If you had to walk through a group of men yelling misogynistic slurs at you, even if they didn't physically assault you, I'm sure you'd feel threatened. Being on a site that allows certain types of people to flaunt their marginality is off-putting, but I'm a big boy who can fight unbelievably dirty, if necessary. I just believe that if you don't censor them, I shouldn't be censored either.

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.
Attachment 15146

The fact that you walk around with perpetual rigor mortis of the face is nothing to bandy about, but I guess your esteem needs the boost, so have at it! And we're done "playing" because I can't seriously debate someone who can't even afford to pay for the paper that cleans (or doesn't) his narrow, non-existent ass. Don't be subject to mandatory curfews and the potentiality to lose internet privileges and then perhaps we can talk.

Patronizing, why? It wasn't patronizing, intepret it how you want though. If telling someone to chill out, when they frankly need to is "patronizing", then grow up, son.

...

Have you ever watched the movie Twelve Angry Men? It's fiction but goes to show, I think quite well, how one person using reason, and using it well, can win over other people even when outnumbered.

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."

2.) AGAIN, for the seats in the back, I'm MORE than capable of proving my points and articulating my views in a way that "wins over" others--I do that shit in my sleep but that's not what set me off. It was being told to "chill out" which I perceived as open hostility. And especially when her comment was being cosigned by far more problematic pieces of shit. Is it possible I overreacted? Of course. I just don't believe my overreaction demands what I think YOUR overreaction is considering the full context of the situation.

rofl how did a sensitive little girl like you survive this long on the internet?

Cave Bitch, I'm not "sensitive" in that way; I can more than handle MFers coming foul out of their mouths so long as it's OK for me to do the same. But we have the selective outrage police trying to single me out for "crossing the line" when, arguably, you having that shitty avatar is a most egregious "line cross," considering the millions of lives he took. How that compares to me offering somebody a bleach cocktail, I'll never know.

[Finaplex]

Hmmm your logic is flawed since the jug was already empty in your hands... To be fair though you do seem like you would know a lot about douching, since you are one.

BUUURRRNNN

[Finaplex]

alonzo wins.

[Raver]

There are some in this thread whose mothers’ (in utero) should’ve belly flopped down 249 flights of stairs, and spared us the subsequent social and intellectual drain. Unapologetically, I take a hostile stance to certain views–to those not directly/immediately affected by hatemongering idiocy masquerading as accuracy, it’s easier to hold a more dispassionate point of view–but my “interest groups” aren’t afforded that luxury because much of these views encompass an existential assault and not the imagined kind by those perpetuating the notion of some “white genocide.” And so I give subzero fucks about any bigots and their sympathizers whom I might offend.

But you, unlike the rest, don’t necessarily strike me as a completely hardened piece of fecal waste; I think that some of your thoughts and conclusions lack a certain rigor, but that can be remedied if you have the will–if not, off to the heap with you as well. But I say this to say the only reason why I’m critiquing your comment and not any of the others (that hardly amount to anything but compacted hot air and flatulence) is because you don’t seem morally submerged. For the sake of transparency, I'm approximately 3/4 ethnic Scandinavian (with a European passport) and the rest a mishmash of colonized "others," but I'm particularly interested in those who speak on affairs concerning "my people" and what's happening within our borders.

My immigration stance is nationalistic primarily towards Europe for a host of variety of reasons that I will get into later. Within my own country of Canada and other non-European countries like US/NZ/Australia, I am much more lenient towards immigration due to the fact that preserving ethnic identity in former European colonies is absurd due to being originally Native American. Personally within my own country, I'm more interested in immigrants being willing to integrate into Canada fully and adopt its culture so it can become a melting pot like the US instead of multicultural regardless of the ethnic groups that enter here.

So then how do the vast majority of the 87 European ethnicities, for example, live side by side in relative harmony and not routinely slaughter and murder each other? Granted, prior to WWII and in a few blips on the radar since then, that certainly wasn't the case. But for the most part, since WWII and particularly in Western Europe, the various ethnicities, while still having stark socio-cultural-political differences in some cases (Scandinavia vs the Mediterranean), all live in relative stability with each other. If what you say is true, that "clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work," how is this currently possible?

Would love to read your answer to that.

You just answered your own question, it's because those 87 ethnicities reside within different nations. If these 87 ethnicities were within the same nation then it would be significantly more problematic. I don't see how this even remotely compares to diffferent ethnicities residing within the same nation.

According to the latest and most up to date empirical data (If you'd care to see, I have the research to post), the fact of the matter is that a third of income inequality in the world today can be explained by the diversified impact of European colonialism on different societies, especially on the continent of Africa, where much of its economic growth was substantially smothered and stifled by way of removing opportunities for the vast majority of its population. Were there some benefits to colonialism? Yes, but the cons far outweigh the pros (e.g., by splitting ethnicities across countries, the colonial border design has systematically spurred political violence, unrest, and instability). That being the case, why should it be unreasonable and unacceptable for Africans to try and better their lot, particularly in the lands that reaped the most benefit from their disenfranchisement? Would that not, at the very least, amount to some degree of fairness? Or is that not a concern of yours?

If Africans or anyone else entering into Europe that is not an actual refugee that wants to migrate to Europe due to poor economic conditions then they this should be done through a proper immigration process. Prioritization should be given to families as opposed to young men, immigrants willing to integrate into Europe, those with careers or jobs that will benefit the economy in some form. Those that do not meet these requirements should not enter Europe, it's pretty simple. Other countries like the US and Canada follow this simple system of immigration to an extent, yet Europe ignores these basic immigration rules and just let in anyone in posing as a refugee when they're not.

The EU is single handedly ruining Europe with their abysmal immigration laws that don't screen anyone and just let them in because they want to come there and are masquerading as refugees. The fact that the EU enforces these laws upon all members of the EU rather than allowing EU nations to choose immigration laws that they believe will benefit them is autocratic and prohibitive of the power of nations to govern themselves independently. This is ignoring all the other economic issues the EU has brought upon the majority of nations with the introduction of the Euro and many other reasons on why the EU dictatorship is single handedly destroying Europe.

Sure, while you help yourself to a glass or 2 or 3 of that, my treat...

@Cybernetic is trying to tell you that you should be less hostile and less emotional when it comes to political debates. You have demonstrated on numerous cases that you are perfectly capable of being logical and rational so why you decide to add in hostility and emotion when it's not required is befuddling.

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.

I was referring to the fact that we agree that the mass influx of economic migrants that enter Europe without going through a proper immigration process and are posing as refugees should be controlled to an extent. I'm aware that our views on retaining ethnicity in Europe are different so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

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.

Fair enough, it seems like we do see eye to an eye on this issue though nonetheless.

[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.

[Muddy]

You just answered your own question, it's because those 87 ethnicities reside within different nations. If these 87 ethnicities were within the same nation then it would be significantly more problematic. I don't see how this even remotely compares to diffferent ethnicities residing within the same nation.

Austria-Hungary makes a good case study in regards to this.

[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.

[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.

[Singu]

Well like some people have been saying, Trump is a symptom and not the cause.

The reason why we have Trump and far-right movements is because of all the craziness with terrorism and refugees and immigrants, etc. And the reason why we have terrorism, is because the US aided Al-Qaeda back in the days with weapons and finance to provoke Russia, and now the Al-Qaeda has bitten back them in the ass via 9/11. And the reason why they're provoking Russia, is because after the collapse of the USSR, the NATO, which is a kind of a collective military organization of "the West", needed something to do when they no longer had the big, bad enemy of the Soviets.

The US officially has over 800 bases all over the world. This is no doubt a drain on the US economy, not to mention the trillions of dollars already wasted in the wars in Middle East and other places. Trump no doubt sees this as a waste and one of the reasons for the decline of the US economy, even though the military-industrial complex is part of what's fueling the US economy. Nonetheless, he correctly thought that NATO might had something to do with this, so he talked about dismantling NATO or leaving NATO or something. It's not clear how much he meant it or he just said some bullshit that he doesn't believe in to gain votes, but it's obvious that "the Establishment" did not take kindly to him even mentioning leaving NATO or getting along with Russia or something.

The US and the NATO need enemies to keep its machinery going. That's the entire reason why there's this whole craziness with Russiagate.

[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.

[Raver]

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 am genuinely curious on what your new views are because I have changed my views over time as well. Not in the same way you have of course, but I believe there is a parallel there nonetheless.

[Muddy]

I am genuinely curious on what your new views are because I have changed my views over time as well. Not in the same way you have of course, but I believe there is a parallel there nonetheless.

Hardcore communism/socialism. By that I don't mean anything relating to the so-called "left" american democratic party that wants to take away people's guns but true leftism, where people actually seize and abolish oppressive institutions.

[cR4z3dr4T]

Trump has been in office quite a while, but still, I think I know the explanation for the rise of Trumpism: the dumbing down of American universities. Since everyone and their dog now gets a university degree "to survive in the economy," universities have nothing to do with the development of intellect any more. So now there are very few smart people, and evil smart people like Trump (let's just call a spade a spade, OK?) lead around all the stupid people into doing their biddings. Evil thriving when everyone becomes stupid seems like a good explanation for Nazi Germany too, but doesn't mean we have to compare Trump's government to ****** to validate criticism of it. Isn't the fact that he pretty much looks and acts like a Disney villain enough to really, seriously criticize him on?

You see, there are the smart people, that agree. And then the stupids... are like dumb Nazis. And they're like bad people that are stupid. And I just don't understand.

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.

People that are purely interested in power are the last people that belong in such a position.

This super egoism is created by socially empowering people on the basis of their race. This person openly, vigilantly defines himself in racial terms in order to glean any possible empowerment from identifying as such. Clearly they have a need for racism to exist and be a widespread problem... without racism, who would this person be? A random nobody... without race, beneath it all, this person is nothing. This is why you hear endless cries of "white nationalism" but cannot seem to find any real instances of it. Such professional minorities are infact racists, oddly.

It is done out of desperation for meaning. Nietzsche predicted all these supremacist movements, ... white nationalists, communist revolutionaries, black panther people, Nazis (back when they still existed), etc. the underlying psychological mechanism is the same. Nihilism leads to the formation of the ubermench (superman, supreme man). Here it's just black or latin power, black or latin supremacy, etc.. It is basically an attempt to find meaning and fulfillment through attainment, via exerting superhuman effort. Which is what the thirst for power is all about.
But beneath all this, Alonzo... you're just a sad, empty man, aren't you? Yes you are...
Quite predictable and pathetic but what else is new

[perpetuus]

Hardcore communism/socialism. By that I don't mean anything relating to the so-called "left" american democratic party that wants to take away people's guns but true leftism, where people actually seize and abolish oppressive institutions.

Sounds a bit like you might lean more toward libertarian socialism than to statist socialism.

You should look into it. It's the only form of socialism that is remotely feasible, achievable, and sustainable.

[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.

[Kill4Me]

Raver is in charge

[Raver]

Sounds a bit like you might lean more toward libertarian socialism than to statist socialism.

You should look into it. It's the only form of socialism that is remotely feasible, achievable, and sustainable.

I am a left leaning libertarian or a left leaning centrist so I suppose this is similar to my world view politically not like I really care to classify myself. It is clear that mainstream leftism has become more extreme and has shifted towards left leaning authoritarianism over time. I will always be diametrically opposed to this kind of leftism as much as a right winger would be.

I hate the left/right dichotomy with a passion, it pushes people to accept idiotic ideas from either side of the spectrum instead of forming their own original ideas that are highly attuned to their belief and value system. This means obtaining an amalgamation of ideas from each side of the political spectrum is necessary. Whether they land on the left, center or right when it is all said and done is irrelevant.

Raver is in charge

?

[cR4z3dr4T]

I hate the left/right dichotomy with a passion, it pushes people to accept idiotic ideas from either side of the spectrum instead of forming their own original ideas that are highly attuned to their belief and value system. This means obtaining an amalgamation of ideas from each side of the political spectrum is necessary. Whether they land on the left, center or right when it is all said and done is irrelevant.

I can understand this line of thinking, but let's imagine for a moment you were living in Nazi Germany in the 1940s (I know it's cliche). The right had grown way out of control. Wouldn't it be incumbent on you to oppose the right wing at that time, and therefor join the left wing in Germany - their primary opposition? You may not statically identify with a particular side of the dichotomy, but you can see it from a practical standpoint as a way of balancing out imbalances in society in order to steer things in the necessary direction at a given time. Another example might be the radical, batshit left wing in America or in 1920s Russia. It is incumbent on you, in such conditions, to oppose those people, and if their primary opposition is the right wing than you must align yourself with the right wing at that time for practical purposes. So then the question you must ask yourself is... which party (if any) is reasonable? Which is more reasonable? Which group of people is most rabidly insane at the moment? etc.

[Kill4Me]

Oops, Raver is left leaning...he's no longer in charge of anything. I do like libertarianism, though...main thing I don't like about libertarianism is its resistance towards the initiation of force and making others do things they don't want to do. These things are often necessary and for me a source of enjoyment. Other than that, I like the fact it emphasizes competition, independence and survival of the fittest/natural selection....libertarianism is essentially social Darwinism minus the initiation of force, so congratulations Raver on embracing social Darwinism.

[Ave]

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 don't think this guy is worth responding to, I didn't bother reading through his latest tantrum in response to me, just a waste of time lol.

[Raver]

Oops, Raver is left leaning...he's no longer in charge of anything. I do like libertarianism, though...main thing I don't like about libertarianism is its resistance towards the initiation of force and making others do things they don't want to do. These things are often necessary and for me a source of enjoyment. Other than that, I like the fact it emphasizes competition, independence and survival of the fittest/natural selection....libertarianism is essentially social Darwinism minus the initiation of force, so congratulations Raver on embracing social Darwinism.

Haha! Well, I call myself a left leaning libertarian because I consistently score that on 4 axis political tests that measure left/right economics and up/down social issues. On 2 axis political tests, I end up scoring centrist usually because I got a mixture of left and right views. The thing about centrism is it means you have a mix of views that you lean fully left or fully right more often than not rather than the misconception of being in the middle of every issue. In terms of libertarianism, I do think some government is necessary for regulating certain aspects of society and economics, but only what is necessary.

[Ave]

Haha! Well, I call myself a left leaning libertarian because I consistently score that on 4 axis political tests that measure left/right economics and up/down social issues. On 2 axis political tests, I end up scoring centrist usually because I got a mixture of left and right views. The thing about centrism is it means you have a mix of views that you lean fully left or fully right more often than not rather than the misconception of being in the middle of every issue. In terms of libertarianism, I do think some government is necessary for regulating certain aspects of society and economics, but only what is necessary.

Raver, would you agree that the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism is in how each views ownership of land, water and natural resources?

Both believe in privatized means of production and markets, but left-libertarians tend to view ownership of land as problematic whereas right-libertarians do not. At least, that's how I understand the difference.

I know you don't like labels too much, which I get but they can sometimes be accurate so I wonder if you feel this describes your views.

[Muddy]

Haha! Well, I call myself a left leaning libertarian because I consistently score that on 4 axis political tests that measure left/right economics and up/down social issues. On 2 axis political tests, I end up scoring centrist usually because I got a mixture of left and right views. The thing about centrism is it means you have a mix of views that you lean fully left or fully right more often than not rather than the misconception of being in the middle of every issue. In terms of libertarianism, I do think some government is necessary for regulating certain aspects of society and economics, but only what is necessary.

Forgive me but I couldn't resist.

[Raver]

Raver, would you agree that the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism is in how each views ownership of land, water and natural resources?

Both believe in privatized means of production and markets, but left-libertarians tend to view ownership of land as problematic whereas right-libertarians do not. At least, that's how I understand the difference.

I know you don't like labels too much, which I get but they can sometimes be accurate so I wonder if you feel this describes your views.

To an extent. I think the main difference between the two is that left-libertarians don't mind if there's some government intervention in economics for a variety of reasons such as welfare, health care, etc... even with a privatized means of production and markets. So they would prefer a mixed market economy, but not in the sense of the mixed market economies of today that tend to be largely based on corporate welfare. Where as right-libertarians want the government to stay out of everything including economics so they would prefer the market take care of everything. What they both have in common is that they both want the government to stay out of social issues completely. I'm overgeneralizing a bit, but that's the gist of it roughly.

[perpetuus]

@Alonzo

How to deal with Nazis 101:




How not to deal with Nazis:

[Finaplex]

The cold winter really quieted things down there lately, eh? Amazing what -25 can do for tempers.

[Finaplex]

Can we talk about how many drug, medication, and health related advertisment is on a typical American TV station?

Every single commercial for 3 hours I watched last night was: Do you suffer from Diabetes? Colitus? Cancer? Herniated Disk? X,Y,Z?

Did you recieve treatment with Hernia grafts and now suffer from urinary tract infections? You might be entitled to compensation.

Now there is a new drug that causes these potential side effects. Talk to your Dr if this treatment is right for you.


Its actually unsettling how barraded you all are with medicine, law suits, health care. A pay for play system looks so neurotic.

You are used to it but, Im telling you it looks neurotic from the outside.

[Kill4Me]

Haha! Well, I call myself a left leaning libertarian because I consistently score that on 4 axis political tests that measure left/right economics and up/down social issues. On 2 axis political tests, I end up scoring centrist usually because I got a mixture of left and right views. The thing about centrism is it means you have a mix of views that you lean fully left or fully right more often than not rather than the misconception of being in the middle of every issue. In terms of libertarianism, I do think some government is necessary for regulating certain aspects of society and economics, but only what is necessary.

I'm more on right but often indulge in eating my own, because let's face it....left, right, up, down, fat, skinny...a douchebag is a douchebag and ought to be thrown through a window like one.

[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.

[Alonzo]

You just answered your own question, it's because those 87 ethnicities reside within different nations. If these 87 ethnicities were within the same nation then it would be significantly more problematic. I don't see how this even remotely compares to diffferent ethnicities residing within the same nation.

Wrong. And I’m going to be generous and just list the major European ethnic groups within various European countries.

UK (according to the 2011 census): English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish, British (including the Cornish)
Belgium: Flemish, Walloon
Spain: Andalusian, Aragonese, Asturian, Balearic, Basque, Canary Islanders, Galicians, Leonese, Valencian, Cantabrian, Castilian, Catalonian, Extremaduran
Switzerland: German-Swiss, French-Swiss, Italian Swiss, Romanch
France: Alemannic Germans, Arpitan, Basques, Bretons, Catalans, Corsicans, Flemings, Occitans.

That list is by no means exhaustive, but I just wanted to prove three points, that 1.) unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about; 2.) that you were disingenuously speaking in coded language meant to single out non-ethnic European people as somehow being incapable of integrating with ethnic Europeans without significant strife; 3.) that “social policies” rooted in unifying people through economic incentives, shared values, and laws that codify inalienable human rights can indeed bring peoples together. Don’t believe me? Take a gander:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration

The thing is this: reasonable people understand that it can take time (with a few bumps and bruises along the way) for different cultures to acclimate to each other and that's ok. Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time, hell, even when we look alike, speak the same language and come from a similar place (look at early Irish immigrants in the US). Some of you seem to be incapable of understanding that ALL cultures change and evolve over time and that's both normal and ok.

But you know what doesn't help the integration process along? Hatred and fear mongering.

If Africans or anyone else entering into Europe that is not an actual refugee that wants to migrate to Europe due to poor economic conditions then they this should be done through a proper immigration process. Prioritization should be given to families as opposed to young men, immigrants willing to integrate into Europe, those with careers or jobs that will benefit the economy in some form. Those that do not meet these requirements should not enter Europe, it's pretty simple. Other countries like the US and Canada follow this simple system of immigration to an extent, yet Europe ignores these basic immigration rules and just let in anyone in posing as a refugee when they're not.

The EU is single handedly ruining Europe with their abysmal immigration laws that don't screen anyone and just let them in because they want to come there and are masquerading as refugees. The fact that the EU enforces these laws upon all members of the EU rather than allowing EU nations to choose immigration laws that they believe will benefit them is autocratic and prohibitive of the power of nations to govern themselves independently. This is ignoring all the other economic issues the EU has brought upon the majority of nations with the introduction of the Euro and many other reasons on why the EU dictatorship is single handedly destroying Europe.

I just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine.

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help, especially when a certain group of humans has literally benefitted off the backs of those now knocking down their doors. It's quite simple really.

@Cybernetic is trying to tell you that you should be less hostile and less emotional when it comes to political debates. You have demonstrated on numerous cases that you are perfectly capable of being logical and rational so why you decide to add in hostility and emotion when it's not required is befuddling.

What’s befuddling to me is how we are on a personality typing forum and you can’t read under my avatar, at the very least, and see that I’m an enneagram 8w7. Lol And an ENTJ who had his primitive ass Fi values stepped on, which is never pretty. But I came back to the discussion because I’m just too petty to let you get away with being wrong.