This is why I hate liberals

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Gloominary » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:42 am

This:

Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:Who honestly treats guests better than their own women?
If that seems normal or even good to you, you're already dead. You weren't even ever alive.

Look at him settling into the saddle atop his high horse in condemnation of the considerate.

Yep, beating the ole lady will have to wait until the guests are fed and in bed.

You have a habit of delineating the world into good and bad: people who do X are good and people who do Y aren't human and the presumption that you're worthy to judge who is alive and dead makes you a monster ignorant of his own idol's proclamation: Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. :lol:

Kind of contradicts this:

Serendipper: I don't believe that. Politics is a dualism: Do you assert moral absolutes or do you not? Do you believe adversity engenders prosperity or do you not? Are you an individualist or collectivist?

Are you in favor of moral absolutism or not?
Or are you only in favor of your moral absolutism?

And why can't adversity say in some circumstances engender prosperity, and in others poverty, why does it have to be all or nothing?
A lot of political policies and positions need context.
And can't you have too much, or too little of most things, if not all things?
I would say we ought to find the right amount of adversity, for the right person or people at the right place and time. Extreme adversity can break you, but extreme comfort can atrophy you.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby gib » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:00 pm

Serendipper wrote:In the video, the older kids didn't get philanthropic, but realized what a camera means (realized being generous is another form of social comparison).


This is what I get when I try to watch the video:

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 7.58.00 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 7.58.00 AM.png (41.14 KiB) Viewed 1227 times
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:23 pm

Or, is it that the whole the whole 'this should belong to rant' thing is just another case of a confusion , which produces the symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau, of the seeming insoluability of living in a post modern world.

At one time all those nice bible thumping Southern sprawling hypocrites were solid Democrats. What made them turn 180 degrees to the right?

That is not a case of a hypothetical situation , and it certainly needs no rocket science to figure out: it is a case of the resilience of facto wrath against somebody, or someone who represents ancient dualities coming back as if from some bastion of power.

The 20 th century's provocative , and social political revision, of creating new meanings out of diminished ones
by may be signaling the opportunities for closure in terms of compensation for educational and health care preference, as part of a general backlash.

The question of where this is going , in aiming further then simply further political success, has no substance as of now for a definitive conclusion to be drawn.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby gib » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:11 pm

I've always wondered, Meno, whether this split between left and right is universal--that we see it across all political systems--or if it's a myth we invented in the West that became real because we believed in it.

As I understand it, left means those who think it's the government's job to make life better for everyone. Right means those who think it's the government's job to ensure everyone's freedom so that individuals can make their own lives better (or whatever they want to do with their lives).

Right means "stay out of my affairs"... but still, do your job in Washington... fight wars to preserve my freedom... uphold the law (as stipulated in the Constitution, don't change it)... go ahead and collect tax if you have to. The right says that the government should be nothing more than a referee, not a baby sitter.

Left means "regulate everything I do"... keep everyone in line... make sure no one breaks the status quo as defined by today's political correctness. We're making a perfect world and everyone must fall in line. It's not uncommon for lefties to be pitted against each other because while they agree on the point of making the world a perfect place, they're often shocked to find they can't agree on a common definition of "perfection".

And don't get me started on the leaches. 90% of self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives are just leaches. They don't truly believe in, or understand, the principles underlying liberalism or conservatism. They only know which party is more likely to support their personal agenda. For example, it's no shock that most right-wingers against gay marriage are uneducated religious fundamentalists; their homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with the principles of conservatism--of minimizing government and maximizing freedom--but because it's God's way. They're motivated by their religious convictions, not their political convictions. They just leach off their political affiliations, whichever one seems most likely to support them, in order to force their hand on others.

Where was I going with this? Oh yes, myth or reality? Why are these the only two stances to take on government? There are plenty of other countries whose major political contentions revolve around religion--perhaps in India, left means Muslim and right mean Hindu (I mean, it doesn't, I don't think, but what if?)--and the struggle between more government intervention and less government intervention is seen as just a minor issue fought over by just a small handful of weirdos.

But what is the "symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau"? I'm not sure I see you're point.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby MagsJ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:02 pm

Gloominary wrote:Sure...she's free to express her view, but I don't want my government giving minorities any kind of special treatment.

I agree, we should treat everyone irrespective of race and religion with respect, but that includes white people.
I'm sick of the one way racism.
Don't be racist, except against whitey, they deserve it cause slavery, etcetera, as if whites invented slavery.
No we didn't invent slavery, but we did more than any other race to outlaw it.
White people aren't perfect, some of us can be hateful, some times, but so can every race, we shouldn't be held to ridiculously high standards, and we shouldn't show other races special treatment in our homeland.
And if we want to eliminate immigration so we can keep this country majority white, that's okay too.
Or say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays, etcetera, little things like that, this is our homeland.
It's absolutely ludicrous we've gotten to the point where wishing people merry Christmas is a subversive act.

There's nothing like a bit of civil unrest to keep the masses busy with..

I don't have a problem with Caribbean people, or any people, so long as they don't have a problem with me.

So winning attitudes all round.. or my interpretation of it ^^^ , anyway.

..countries fail their own too.. are those failed nationals not allowed to express their view? and knowing why she felt failed by her host country would have given less room for insult to be felt, but the reasons why were not asked.

Sure...she's free to express her view, but again, I don't want my government giving minorities any kind of special treatment.

Perhaps the failed Nationals and the minorities who feel failed should be given special treatment, to enable them to have a decent footing in life.. at the very least.

I guess her sass didn't go down as well as she thought it would.. don't you know who she is? she never revealed.. though she revealed a hint of a prior exchange. Perhaps she had an ulterior motive in making her documented presence an assured one.

I have no idea who she is.

I wonder if he did.. when she mentioned prior mention of his suit. :o
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17628
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby MagsJ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:45 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:@Mags
I meant racial slurs/abuse in the public arena.. regardless of the agitator's background, as such scenes became an everyday occurrence on public transport and in public places.. sometimes leading to the agitators turning to physical attacks when their racial abuse was ignored like they didn't exist - the public complained.. the Government listened.. new policing policy was made, and a public nuisance act disappeared over night.
I agree, people shouldn't be able to use racial slurs in public.
Why not? There goes rap music and all the Polish jokes. Pejoratives aren't a problem and you guys are getting carried away imo. Calling someone names has intent and that will manifest in all sorts of ways to skirt the law. We need to address the underlying problem so that people will stop intending to hurt other people rather than banning the ways that intent can manifest.

..and whilst waiting for the underlying problem to be addressed, the public continue to suffer at the end of someone's abusive ramblings and rants? Or is the initial responsibility of the government, to protect the public.. you obviously haven't been on a tram in Croydon/seen the footage of what can occur on a tram in Croydon? :shock:
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17628
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Meno_ » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:01 am

But what is the "symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau"? I'm not sure I see you're point.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Meno_ » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:04 am

Meno_ wrote:But what is the "symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau"? I'm not sure I see you're point.



To collude is to make secret agreements, and in this present political milieu it reminds of behind the door type of bargaining, trading favors.

In business practice, this is not much of a eye-raiser, but in terms of commingling of political and business
interests, it is strictly a matter of potential criminal illegality.

The trend of late, at least from the 1960's onward, for the legal system, generally, is to liberalize interpretation of the black-letter of the law, by using what they call policy consideration, so as to account for the changing public sentiments which have changed.

This is at the bottom of the Kavanough Supreme Court nomination fiascal, he is a presumed ultra conservative, and there are people in Congress, Republicans for the most part, who don't care a bit about a Democratic take over, because they know, if there is an earth shaking issue between the parties, and it reaches the Supreme Court, the matter will be disposed favorable to the Republicans. This is a mileau, which cares more about interpretation then tacit, under lying agreement.

I think that's the tactical workings of it.
But it's a lot more to this tactic, it presumes a centered position, which folds back to an initial position of a middle , centrist ground, to which the reactionary republicans want to steer the U.S. back, which ostensibly would create a collusion between an internationally tacit agreement, looking like a present international consensus, and if it succeeds, the present administration can view this as a successfully presenting an Independent form of governance, which has changed the meaning and scope of Judicial and Executive governance.

Congress , sandwiched between the two, would be demeened to the role of a kind of institutionalized rubber stamp.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Gloominary » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:29 am

@Serendipper

True, but so what? We have the right to steal property because the owners are not developing it to our liking?

To reiterate: wilderness sparsely populated by nomads, does not a country make.
If it's not a country, it's no man's land, if it's no man's land, anybody can settle, and do as they please with it, including make their own country.

1) A nomad can occupy land, but he can't own land, because he hasn't mixed his labor with it.
Mixing land with labor is kind of how humans mark their territory.
It's a way of letting everyone know it's yours, like putting your signature on it.
You're also investing something in the land, and you should be able to make a return on your investment, not someone else, even if you temporarily leave it.
Property doesn't make much sense without labor.
If they can't own land individually, they can't own land collectively, so it's up for grabs.

2) Nomads without a government aren't a collective capable of thinking and acting as a unit, therefore they can't claim anything as a unit, including land, the way settlers with a government can.

You don't see that as hypocritical as hell? "We had no right to take it, but we have the right to keep it!"

People shouldn't be punished for what their ancestors did.
If my ancestors murdered some of your ancestors, should I be murdered?
Or if my ancestors took something from your ancestors, should I return it to you?
After generations of it being in our possession, we're far more familiar with and invested in it than you.

Contemporary demographics include brown people. Antiquated demographics included white people.

But brown people are still a minority, white people are the majority, so our happiness matters more, because there's more of us.
All other things being equal, hundreds of millions of heads are better than millions, so our insight into and say in things matters more.
Our ancestors built this country for us, so we're far more acquainted with and adapted to it, so again, our insight into and say in things matters more.
Also, our countries are kind of admittedly better than yours (that's why you're coming here), so you need us more than we need you.
White people are selling their countries short, if anything, minorities should go way, out of their way to accommodate us, not the other way round.

Change is the only thing that stays the same.

In that case, why defend and maintain yourself and your property at all?

Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool.

If more men like Trump come to power, pretty soon it'll be arrogant minorities and progressives who'll be punished.

Whatever you say. Genetics doesn't mean that much to me. People are people.

Genetics play a major role in determining human variability.
People with common genetics, are more likely to share other things in common, as well as care for one another.
Race is extended family, just as we often prioritize our families interests ahead of other families, we often prioritize our races interests ahead of other races, even unbeknownst to ourselves.
Or just as we prioritize our species over others, or other sentient mammals over unsentient unmammals.

If you're illegal, then you should be deported, but brown people who are born here shouldn't be treated as if they are illegals nor told to go home when they are home; that's an egregious insult and especially because of the hypocrisy that the whites are also not indigenous.

Indigenous is a spectrum.
Whites have been here for many centuries now.
We may be a little less indigenous than so called 'native Americans' (Euramerican hybrids, mestizos), but we're far more numerous than mestizos, and we're far more numerous, and indigenous than Asian immigrants, so if anything, we should be entitled to more privileges over both mestizos, and Asian immigrants.

Ah... protection of the oppressed (weak), so you do it too. Nothing wrong with that!

On the contrary, it's a form of weakness to forbid yourself from verbally attacking people who verbally attack you, because we're essentially saying your life and opinions matter more than ours.
I say either we can all verbally attack each others race, or none of us can.
That's fairness, fairness is strength.

Laws against hate speech scare me. I think the people issuing the hate speech should knock it off, but we don't need a law lest hate speech become a slippery slope to any speech.

I'm not saying we should have laws against hate speech, necessarily, just if we're to have any, they should protect whites just as much, at least, if not more.

Idk, I honestly think a brown woman would represent my interests and the interests of people I care about better than an old white dude in government.. unless that old white dude is Bernie, but there aren't many of them. Who is more likely to focus on the poor? Who will resolve the healthcare situation? Who will address wealth disparity better? Who will have more empathy? Yeah, a white man may correlate to those attributes, but if we have nothing else to go on, then voting for the brown woman is a better play on the odds.

A brown person is going to put brown peoples interests over my peoples.
I'd rather have a white person with from a working class background represent me.

How do I make MY life better? My life is better if people in general aren't sick and deep in debt and slaving for low wages in the spirit of capitalism. I have to worry about people I love because some bumpkins are more worried about how much money the rich get to keep because they can't stand the fact that someone might get something for nothing unless that someone is already rich and doesn't need it; then rooms get comped, banks do favors, cops let them go, they find tax shelters, live in coddled nests in protected neighborhoods, but giving them a tax cut is preferable to giving to the poor because the poor are lazy brats who don't deserve to live.

I would like to see what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth.
That being said, if you can work, but won't, you're not entitled to room and board.
And if you can't support kids yourself, than you shouldn't bring them into this world.

Slavery used to not be criminal, so in those days if one were to complain about slavery, he would be demonized for criticizing the system that was legal. What is legal now is not necessarily a yard stick to determine what is right and I'm assuming that the ones complaining are complaining about something that is not right, but legal.

Murdering, raping or stealing from a brown person is a crime to me, but a small business only hiring WASPs, because he feels more comfortable with WASPs, or a cop predominantly scoping out Mulatto and Latino neighborhoods, because they're more likely to commit crime, is not a crime.

The problem is if you allow that discrimination, then crime results and it becomes a self-sustaining problem: discrimination causes poverty which forces people into crime which causes discrimination. Where on the circle do we break the cycle?

Yes but a lot of bad behavior committed by Mulattos and Latinos is probably due to their biology and culture, and they're responsible for their culture.
You're thinking it's because we expect (or is it because they expect themselves to be bad?) them to be bad, but I'm thinking it's probably mostly, or wholly because more of them are bad...which's not to say all, most or even many of them are bad, just a larger small minority of them than the small minority of us.
I will say this in Mulatto and Latino peoples defense, Jews, whites and Asians may commit more white collar crimes than the them, but white collar crimes are so much more difficult to ascertain, of course.

Blacks commit more crime than whites, but whites more than asians.

Depends on the Asians, I don't think white people commit more crimes than west Asian or south Asian immigrants, I would imagine west Asians and South Asian immigrants commit more crime.
As for east Asian immigrants, I'm not entirely sure about them, I heard white women for instance commit less crime than any other demographic.

However, whites are more inventive, for good and bad, than other races, for whatever combination of reasons, east Asians may score a little higher in iQ, overall (whites are better with linguistic iQ), but they're not a very creative people.

I don't think we need laws. It's hard to imagine that in 50 years anyone will give a hoot about color.

Reducing race to color makes it sound superficial, it's not.
Virtually every cell in my body has more in common with an Irishman or Italian than it does an African or Asian.

So you're pro-slavery? Forcing people who can work to work is slavery. We live in a world that can bestow upon everyone the right not to work without facing impoverishment thanks to the army of machines toiling away, yet incentivize those who want to work to be better than the Joneses. Why should the fruits of the machinery be hoarded by the few? A person has a right to a minimum standard of living and to deny that is to punish the poor in order to reward the rich.

While we have come a long way sociotechnologically in some regards, and there is less work to be done to feed and take care of everyone, there's still is work to be done, and there probably always will be.
I don't see us progressing towards some sort of star trek communist utopia anytime soon, in fact I'm expecting the opposite.
With high sociotechnology, you take a few steps forward in the short term, and often a few steps back in the long (global warming, nuclear warfare, etcetera).

While I support what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth, and less frivolous productivity, so we can spare the environment, If we allow people who don't work to prosper as much as people who do, they will pollute us with their inferiority, which will be a few steps back.

Hatred of the poor is deeply indoctrinated and subtle; you may not know you harbor it.

If you're white, self hate can also be deeply indoctrinated, you may not know you harbor it, but you do.

Blacks are 84/8 democrat. Hispanics are 63/28 democrat. So if almost no blacks and very few hispanics are republican, then who are the republicans? (Whites)

And here we can see they are old people http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 52/2_8.png

And here we can see they are uneducated http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 48/2_6.png

So old + white + uneducated = republican.

As the great Max Planck, himself the originator of the quantum theory in physics, has said, science makes progress funeral by funeral: the old are never converted by the new doctrines, they simply are replaced by a new generation. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/25/progress/

There is no way to convince old people who are set in their ways.
There is no way to convince uneducated people they are wrong (see Dunning-Kruger).
As long as those people have the right to vote, then death is the only solution... and according to Pew, nature is taking care of that for us (though some leftists appear to be in a violent hurry).

There's almost no difference between democrats and republicans.
Both are corporatists, globalists and imperialists.
Both are anti-white and anti-male.
At least Trump, who is not a traditional republican, isn't anti-white and anti-male, and more of a pacifist and protectionist.
He's also pro-gun, which's of utmost importance in a democracy.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:24 am

Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:Who honestly treats guests better than their own women?
If that seems normal or even good to you, you're already dead. You weren't even ever alive.

Look at him settling into the saddle atop his high horse in condemnation of the considerate.

Yep, beating the ole lady will have to wait until the guests are fed and in bed.

"Beating the old lady"? That is your idea of family love?
I can see what culture you're definitely not part of.

You have a habit of delineating the world into good and bad: people who do X are good and people who do Y aren't human and the presumption that you're worthy to judge who is alive and dead makes you a monster ignorant of his own idol's proclamation: Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. :lol

Since there is no logic or reference to my own in your rambling so I only learned you think some one who prefers his woman over his guests is by inference a monster. A predictable enough socialist/muslim morality. You claim conservatism but you were always transparent as an invertebrate. Slither back under your rock.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:50 pm

"Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool."

No, be nice and your daughter gets raped. Sorry.
What arrogance you see is just intelligence. We won't be punished for it.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the cupboard by your kn knees

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:04 pm

Why I hate liberals is cause they adapt to the stupidest persons because otherwise it is unfair. They never learned that to make things okay you have to honour the smart.

Immigrants from dumb countries are actually abused by people respecting their level of intelligence. They came here so they could learn to think. But as soon as they came the liberals said learning science is fascistic. Some teachers literally said that! So "brown" people never got the chance. And now they make sure unsecure women talk like them to be immune to the virus of intelligence.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the cupboard by your kn knees

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Gloominary » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:59 pm

@Serendipper

Oh I get your point now: she should be grateful to exist in this country and should take indignity with stride. That would be ok if someone were presented with that option at the border so they could have the choice to agree. "Hello Mr. Brownperson! Here's the deal: you can come in and enjoy the fruits, but you have to eat our shit too. Do you accept these terms?" I guess it's even worse if you're born here because then you don't get a choice; you're born into indignity and expected to be grateful. "I may be eating shit, but at least I'm eating high-quality american shit and I'm grateful for that!" All this because why?

We have to eat a lot of shit from minorities too.
We have to eat their racism.
Many of them are less educated, intelligent, more crime and terror prone.
Some of some of them are trying to undermine and destroy us.
Some of them have strange, unusual and disturbing customs, like forcing their women to wear burkas, and treating them like big children, or property.
Some don't speak our language well, or at all.
Some have no comprehension of our laws, history and customs.
Many of them have five-ten kids per family, forcing us to overdevelop ourselves (I don't want more pollution and population density), putting a strain on our environment and resources.
The illegals especially take some of our jobs from us.
And don't say we won't do them, Europeans built and maintained their countries without (illegal) immigration.

How do you know their plight is exaggerated?

She has more rights than I do, so how can she say she doesn't feel like a part of this country?
Because she's been subjected to a little racism now and then, likely mostly because she and her ilk can't stop blabbing about how much more she's entitled to from us because she's brown?
Because she's heard mulattos with a 'fuck da police' attitude wind up being shot dead?

And racism goes both ways.
Nowadays whites are probably the least racist race.
And races ought to look out for their own more anyway, so long as they don't take it to extremes.

Maybe she is exaggerating her speech, but I'm not sure she's exaggerating her plight. Obviously something is bugging her that she is having difficultly conveying to anyone who can resonate, so she may be (understandably) dramatizing.

Her speech is describing her plight.

Her feelings are disproportionate to the facts.

We all do that.

And on college campuses, universities and philosophy forums, where facts and reason ought to count for more than fiction and feelings, she should be exposed for it.

Spoiled by what measurement? Just existing in the US is being spoiled? When I think of spoiled, I think Trump who was born with a silver spoon up his butt; not some brown woman ranting on youtube.

I probably can't become a citizen of her country, and I probably wouldn't want to, because it's arguably inferior.
We have more to offer than them, and yet they still complain.

I agree they should learn our language and ways, but they shouldn't have to kiss our butts. There is a difference.

*Gasp* you fascist pig!
How dare you force them to learn our language and customs when we should be learning theirs!

Citing other evil doesn't justify evil. That's a Tu Quoque argument. We do X, but Japan and China does X too, therefore it must be ok.

True, but it's unfair to treat other peoples better than they treat us.

A lot of immigrants are smarter because the smarter ones come here for school. In engineering school they were all asian or indian, including professors who I couldn't understand.

Right, other races, with the exception of Jews and east Asians (not including south east Asians) appear (of course iQ tests are limited, but that doesn't mean they're arbitrary either) to be less intelligent than us, but we tend to select the cream from the crop (smart, wealthy, educated...), so some (but not all) west, south, south east Asian and even some African migrant populations like Nigerians end up outperforming whites.

We need to focus on one issue rather than these vague generalities. The correlation of IQ to success is about 16%, which is not a correlation.

From my research, iQ is somewhat correlated with education and wealth.

Jews are white. Many, if not most, have blue eyes!

Ashkenazi Jews appear to be as much or more white than west Asian.
I'll accept them as white, so long as they genuinely think of themselves as white, and fight for, or at least refrain from opposing our interests.
Jews who've been caught opposing us, need to be exposed, and have their power stripped from them.

I don't know why you're not more pissed at old white dudes then.

You seem to be pissed at whites in general, not just the white overclass.
Many or most of my threads in SG&E have been economically oriented, but other issues like race and gender need to be addressed as well.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Gloominary » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:10 am

@Serendipper

I have no problem with people wanting to preserve their heritage and I encourage them to do so if they want, but also there is no problem if people want to intermarry. Just like I can't impose egalitarianism on you, you cannot impose your genetic purity on me. Why can't all-white families live next to all-brown families who live next to zebra families? You don't have to share dna you know.

For me, preserving our biological heritage is more important than preserving our cultural heritage.
There's some things about our culture I'd prefer to do away with, like its current emphasis on materialism.

In a republic, we try to balance individual rights with majority rule (democracy).
I'm not telling whites or anyone else who they can/can't elope with, but I want to restrict future immigration to whites only, or eliminate it.

Some of those whites in that majority do not like the situation. It's not like the brownies are sneaking in and quietly taking over like roach bugs, but some whites are inviting them in and letting them take over because that's what they want or what they feel is right.

Fair enough, I'm just expressing my viewpoint, other whites are free to accept, or reject what I have to say.

Populism is the division of "us" from "them". Why would you do that if "us" is not better than "them"? So it's a manifestation of arrogance. "We are better than you because we're white, we're smart, and we're here first." And it's not a meritocracy because none of that is anything that you did; it's all genetic and luck.

Just because birds of a feather flock together, doesn't mean they hate, fear or have contempt for other birds.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with being proud of your race and its achievements, so long as you don't take it to the extreme of regarding others as subhuman.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Gloominary » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:32 am

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:@Mags

I meant racial slurs/abuse in the public arena.. regardless of the agitator's background, as such scenes became an everyday occurrence on public transport and in public places.. sometimes leading to the agitators turning to physical attacks when their racial abuse was ignored like they didn't exist - the public complained.. the Government listened.. new policing policy was made, and a public nuisance act disappeared over night.

I agree, people shouldn't be able to use racial slurs in public.

Why not? There goes rap music and all the Polish jokes. Pejoratives aren't a problem and you guys are getting carried away imo. Calling someone names has intent and that will manifest in all sorts of ways to skirt the law. We need to address the underlying problem so that people will stop intending to hurt other people rather than banning the ways that intent can manifest.

Agreed, I was just trying to be nice.
Felt bad for telling that brown lady to go home...just wish she'd quit her bitching.

We should be able to use racial slurs in pubic, but we should be careful not to seriously offend.
I'm very much in favor of free speech, really I am, I just got triggered by that brown lady.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Gloominary » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:24 am

Not only does mass immigration hurt us in some, or many ways, but it hurts the 3rd world, because all the bright lights are going to be extracted from it, leaving it with nothing but dims.
And dims are going to cause trouble, and then we'll have to spend trillions of dollars trying to clean up their mess.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:20 am

Gloominary wrote:This:

Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:Who honestly treats guests better than their own women?
If that seems normal or even good to you, you're already dead. You weren't even ever alive.

Look at him settling into the saddle atop his high horse in condemnation of the considerate.

Yep, beating the ole lady will have to wait until the guests are fed and in bed.

You have a habit of delineating the world into good and bad: people who do X are good and people who do Y aren't human and the presumption that you're worthy to judge who is alive and dead makes you a monster ignorant of his own idol's proclamation: Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. :lol:

Kind of contradicts this:

Serendipper: I don't believe that. Politics is a dualism: Do you assert moral absolutes or do you not? Do you believe adversity engenders prosperity or do you not? Are you an individualist or collectivist?

Are you in favor of moral absolutism or not?

No, I'm not in favor of moral absolutes and I don't see a contradiction, though I am a hypocrite and have no qualms with the admission. Nevertheless, my hypocrisy has no bearing on truth. That would be a tu quoque argument.

Or are you only in favor of your moral absolutism?

Moral relativism. What's good for me might not be good for you, so each case is judged independently instead of generalized absolute rules applying robotically/mindlessly/mechanistically to everyone.

The proof is here:



and I want to suggest you first of all
00:02
that a person who believes in absolute
00:12
laws is liable to be quite dangerous
00:20
because he puts rigid structures in a
00:27
place of higher honor.

the Chinese have a word which has to be
00:59
the gift and the essential virtue of a
01:03
good judge; good judge in the law courts
01:06
in this word like this you know this
01:15
pronounced Li there are several kinds of
01:17
Li in Chinese but this one means an
01:20
innate sense of fair play of equity
01:24
which can't be written down in laws; it
01:27
can't be formulated. They also have a
01:33
word for laws that can be formulated
01:35
which is Zhu: it looks like that

and that's a picture of a bronze
02:02
cauldron with a knife beside it because
02:07
in very ancient times when people
02:10
brought sacrifices to the sacrificial
02:12
cauldrons, the rulers caused the laws
02:16
to be engraved on the cauldron so that
02:18
they would read them, and the sages said
02:22
that is a bad idea because the moment
02:25
the people know what the laws are in
02:27
literal terms, they will develop a
02:29
liturgist spirit: they will start
02:31
haggling over words, so although there
02:39
has to be the Zhu, the formulated law, a
02:43
good judge must know a lot more than the
02:46
written law; he must have a sense of
02:47
equity because every case that comes to
02:51
his attention is really different.
02:52
There's no way of describing
02:54
exhaustively all the possible
02:56
relationships between man and man and so
03:00
a judge has to have this sort of rule of
03:04
thumb like a good gardener has to have a
03:06
green thumb which is something beyond
03:07
anything you can read in a book so Li
03:15
is the sense of justice. Zhu would be
03:21
belief in absolutes, in that you must
03:25
never do so-and-so or you must always do
03:28
so-and-so: thou shalt, thou shalt not, so a
03:33
person who holds to absolute rules will
03:37
be an inflexible fool when it comes to
03:40
the test. He is reliable up to a point,
03:43
but this is what you get in bureaucracy.
03:47
I'm sorry to say it, but there is a
03:49
specially offensive kind of usually
03:53
female secretary of some government
03:56
department
03:57
who is utterly unreasonable; totally goes
04:01
by the book and will not under any
04:03
circumstances do anything one way or the
04:05
other beyond the letter. Well people like
04:09
that have a certain use, but they have
04:12
the same sort of use as machinery;
04:14
machinery which is foolproof, which does
04:16
the same everything every time and it
04:18
can't be changed, but there must always
04:20
be some boss over this kind of person
04:22
who can consider the case from a
04:25
different point of view and say "well
04:27
obviously in this case the rules are
04:28
unreasonable and they have to be altered."
04:32
So you see a person who takes the laws
04:36
absolutely seriously becomes inflexible
04:39
and therefore mechanical and therefore
04:42
inhuman. Now it's like the Roman
04:45
Catholics when they get on this bit
04:48
about birth control or divorce or
04:50
something like that, they get utterly
04:52
inflexible and they seem to enjoy being
04:54
inflexible because they think it's a
04:57
mark of tough mindedness.

People who follow absolutes are machines who must always have a boss over them who can consider situations from another point of view... and who himself cannot have moral absolutes lest he also be a machine.

And why can't adversity say in some circumstances engender prosperity, and in others poverty, why does it have to be all or nothing?

Sure there are times when adversity engenders strength, like lifting weights to build muscle, but the lifting takes minutes while sleeping and eating account for far more time invested in growing muscle. The coddling is more important than the challenge and that's what Charles Atlas noticed upon looking at animals piled-up in the shade at the zoo, doing nothing, never lifting weights, yet being really strong. https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles ... les-atlas/

If it were true that adversity engendered prosperity, then the poorest neighborhoods would be churning out successes while the rich neighborhoods would be dens of crack dealers; poor schools would be academic and athletic champions because of the abundance of adversity; and never watering your garden would land you on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. Simply being lazy and neglectful would cause the necessary adversity required to raise well-adjusted children. That's just a nonsensical philosophy! If anything is correlated to success, it's coddling. The very fact that humans exist is testament to the coddling of the universe by being uncharacteristically nice to us the last few hundred thousand years with such stable weather. Look around... isn't it odd that earth is so even-keel?

It's true that we can't just sit in the nest being nurtured forever and we need some stimulation, but that's something entirely different than the attribution of success to the challenge when recovery is far more important. Conservatives have made a main point from a minor aspect while trimming away entirely the most important part.

Conservatism is indeed the religion of hate. Not only have they set adversity on a pedestal, but they champion complete lack of management in favor of the invisible hand of "the market", as if an ungoverned garden were more fruitful. It's funny how there is no situation in nature where if we take a laissez-faire lazy attitude do we get results on par with our expectations, but somehow it's a "common sense" notion concerning economics.

I would say we ought to find the right amount of adversity, for the right person or people at the right place and time. Extreme adversity can break you, but extreme comfort can atrophy you.

Yep, and that's why I don't agree with "What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger." Before I heard of Nietzsche, I knew whoever said that was an idiot because what doesn't kill me, leaves me half-dead. I can think of no situation upon being brought to the brink of death that I could somehow emerge stronger because of it. More calloused, yes, but not stronger. Just like lack of fear is not bravery, so is lack of feeling not strength.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:52 am

gib wrote:
Serendipper wrote:In the video, the older kids didn't get philanthropic, but realized what a camera means (realized being generous is another form of social comparison).


This is what I get when I try to watch the video:

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 7.58.00 AM.png


Oh goodness... it's a CBS News 60 Minutes video about babies. How much more innocent could a video be???

Essentially it's an experiment with young children where they are given a choice, like:

6 tokens for you and 6 for the other child coming in later or
3 tokens for you and none for the other child.

They always pick the 3 tokens and none for the other child. Kids are willing to take less for themselves if it means the other kid gets even less.

Image

But when the kids get older, they stop doing that and instead pick the more fair option and when they get even older, they deliberately take less for themselves so the other child gets more. What's happened is they realize the tokens aren't worth anything and there is a camera in the room, so it's still about social comparison.

With republicans it's not about a rising tide lifting all boats, but sinking some boats to make theirs look higher. Instead of having a healthy and rich population that benefits everyone, including themselves, they're more worried about who earns and deserves what and are willing to live in a crime-ridden and uneducated society in order to preserve disparity. So it's like cutting off your own hand just to be able to cut off someone else's arm.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:00 am

Meno_ wrote:At one time all those nice bible thumping Southern sprawling hypocrites were solid Democrats. What made them turn 180 degrees to the right?

That is a puzzler. I can't imagine someone having a philosophy of disparity (good people vs evil people, rich people vs poor people, free vs slave) who wouldn't consistently manifest that philosophy in all aspects of their life.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:43 am

gib wrote:I've always wondered, Meno, whether this split between left and right is universal--that we see it across all political systems--or if it's a myth we invented in the West that became real because we believed in it.

As I understand it, left means those who think it's the government's job to make life better for everyone. Right means those who think it's the government's job to ensure everyone's freedom so that individuals can make their own lives better (or whatever they want to do with their lives).

I think the duality of it is universal, but the labels may change.

Absolutism vs relativism. Dogma vs open mind. Religion vs science.

The belief that things must be actively managed vs things left to the whims of nature. The left wants regulations for the good of society while the right wants to get rid of regulations for the good of profits.

Right means "stay out of my affairs"... but still, do your job in Washington... fight wars to preserve my freedom... uphold the law (as stipulated in the Constitution, don't change it)... go ahead and collect tax if you have to. The right says that the government should be nothing more than a referee, not a baby sitter.

Left means "regulate everything I do"... keep everyone in line... make sure no one breaks the status quo as defined by today's political correctness. We're making a perfect world and everyone must fall in line. It's not uncommon for lefties to be pitted against each other because while they agree on the point of making the world a perfect place, they're often shocked to find they can't agree on a common definition of "perfection".

I can see that, but over-regulation is itself a thing to be regulated against. A good manager doesn't micromanage every minutia. I think again this is boiling down to a man vs woman thing instead of a republican vs democrat: men want freedom without protection and women want protection at the cost of freedom. It's less about what is good for society and more an artifact of biological differences in the sexes.

I wouldn't say the left is 100% regulation (like I would say women are) and I actually consider that a consolidation of power more aligned with republican views (disparity), but the left is more the proper amount of regulation (not too much or little) while the right is the absence of regulation for the purpose of total regulation through consolidation of power (profits). If there are no laws whatsoever, then someone will form a monopoly to amass all the capital and become king and dictator (100% regulation). You see? Only a government can stop that eventuality, but care must be exercised that the government doesn't also become the dictator (power consolidation). Be careful when fighting monsters that you yourself do not become a monster.

Power consolidation can arise through political power or financial power and come to the same end of total control. The ONLY thing that can stop dictatorial rule is a government for and by the people, which is a dispersal of power among the people and what I'd describe as democratic. Consolidations of power, whether political or financial, I'd describe as right wing (fascism, communism, capitalism = systems of disparity).

And don't get me started on the leaches. 90% of self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives are just leaches. They don't truly believe in, or understand, the principles underlying liberalism or conservatism. They only know which party is more likely to support their personal agenda. For example, it's no shock that most right-wingers against gay marriage are uneducated religious fundamentalists; their homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with the principles of conservatism--of minimizing government and maximizing freedom--but because it's God's way. They're motivated by their religious convictions, not their political convictions. They just leach off their political affiliations, whichever one seems most likely to support them, in order to force their hand on others.

That's true, but the underlying philosophy is consistent. You're plenty smart and insightful to converse in this thread. I knew you were ;)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:52 am

Serendipper wrote:Absolutism vs relativism. Dogma vs open mind. Religion vs science.
If these are meant to be Right vs. left characteristics, that is the left is relativistic, open minded and scientific, I don't think it's accurate.

One thing I see is the left is very christian in attitude, if less in terms of literal belief, and the right is more pagan, again not in literal belief. IOW the left is not more CHRISTIAN, but they want to be more Christlike, for good and for ill. The Right is more pagan in values, something that might bother the Christian right. The right is willing to have winners and losers and be more honest about this than liberals. Liberals live like this is fine, but makes noises that it is not. Progressives are more consistent. I don't see either side as being particularly open minded. Nor do I see the left as relativists except in certain contexts. Though, that holds for the right also. There will always be situations where the right is much more openly happy to say, in this situation we can ignore Commandment X, and be the flexibel realist. The left certainly tends to be more secular, but not necessarily more scientific.

And the neo-con elements are not religious, don't care about absolutism vs. relativism, are openminded about tactics, completely openminded, but not about much else.

While the left and right slap each other around the people who do not give a damn at all about sincerity or being any form of good are guiding the show.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:10 pm

Serensipper, did you follow any world news the past 5 year?
There's no way you can't have deduced that the Democrats aren't a political party but a criminal syndicate. Youre really too smart I think to miss that. So I guess you don't watch news.

Did you follow the Libya thing? I guess not. I guess you have no idea about the record unemoyment now given your meme. I respect you're reading mostly scientific talks and stuff and politics is too ugly to deal with... you like the good old categories that you can vote for without thinking or re- search. .. most folks never look beyond. But you should. I think.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the cupboard by your kn knees

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:13 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

True, but so what? We have the right to steal property because the owners are not developing it to our liking?

To reiterate: wilderness sparsely populated by nomads, does not a country make.

So it boils down to whether the people can defend the country in order for it to be called a country. So might makes right. IOW, if we can take it from them, then it is right. Right?

Or else you're saying that because the nomads didn't do _________ with the land, then they lose ownership. Anything can fill the blank.

If it's not a country, it's no man's land, if it's no man's land, anybody can settle, and do as they please with it, including make their own country.

People were here, but they weren't able to defend the land.

1) A nomad can occupy land, but he can't own land, because he hasn't mixed his labor with it.
Mixing land with labor is kind of how humans mark their territory.
It's a way of letting everyone know it's yours, like putting your signature on it.
You're also investing something in the land, and you should be able to make a return on your investment, not someone else, even if you temporarily leave it.
Property doesn't make much sense without labor.
If they can't own land individually, they can't own land collectively, so it's up for grabs.

This is just arbitrary rules you made up to justify might making right. You can say "Your land doesn't fit the profile I designed, so your land becomes mine." The judge and advocate is the same person.

You don't see that as hypocritical as hell? "We had no right to take it, but we have the right to keep it!"

People shouldn't be punished for what their ancestors did.
If my ancestors murdered some of your ancestors, should I be murdered?

You're taking the position that whoever inhabits the land is the owner, but denying ownership to someone else who used to inhabit the land. I'm just pointing out that if habitation didn't matter before, then it doesn't matter now. What matters is who is stronger.



Will : My father was not a pirate. [takes out his sword]

Jack : Put it away, son. It’s not worth you getting beat again.

Will : You didn’t beat me. you ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I’d killed you.

Jack : Then that's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it? [moves one of the sails so that the yard catches Will and swings him out over the sea] Now, as long as you’re just hanging there, pay attention. The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do.


Or if my ancestors took something from your ancestors, should I return it to you?
After generations of it being in our possession, we're far more familiar with and invested in it than you.

So if dad steals something from you, then I get to keep it? A guy once stole a motorcycle from me and pawned it. The sheriff and I drove to the pawn shop and I rode home on my bike. The pawn shop was out of luck. Stolen property is stolen property and I don't think that designation changes just because the property changes hands.

Luckily for us though, the owners of the land have died and their descendants arose in a different situation which I don't think grants them claim to the land to return it to wilderness. Ethics is a can of worms, but I'm just pointing out all your justifications are beside the point of might making right.

Contemporary demographics include brown people. Antiquated demographics included white people.

But brown people are still a minority, white people are the majority, so our happiness matters more, because there's more of us.

That's true, but lots of whites are happy with browns. The racist whites (unhappy ones) are the minority.

Also, our countries are kind of admittedly better than yours (that's why you're coming here), so you need us more than we need you.


I think Michio blows a hole in that argument:




00:28
The educational system the United States has the worst educational system known to science. Our graduates compete regularly at the level of third world countries. How come the scientific establishment of the United States doesn't collapse if we're producing a generation of dummies?

00:58
America has a secret weapon, that secret weapon is the h-1b, without the h-1b, the scientific establishment of this country would collapse. Forget about Google; forget about Silicon Valley, there would be no Silicon Valley. You know what the h-1b is? It's the "genius visa" okay. You realize that in the United States 50% of all PhD candidates are foreign-born? At my system, one of the biggest in the United States, 100% of the PhD candidates are foreign-born. United States is the magnet sucking up all the brains of the world.


Maybe we need them more than they need us.

Change is the only thing that stays the same.

In that case, why defend and maintain yourself and your property at all?

My private property? Because I can, I guess. Even though I paid money for it and take care of it, the state can still seize it anytime they want. They probably won't though and it's the state keeping other people from seizing my property. So as long as my guardian doesn't turn on me, I should be ok.

Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool.

If more men like Trump come to power, pretty soon it'll be arrogant minorities and progressives who'll be punished.

I can't see it. All Trump can do is usher in a new FDR. Conservatism is like the darwin award: it's self-limiting and causes its own extinction by blowing up.

If Biden runs, I'm voting for Trump because Biden is not a solution. Trump will cause catastrophic collapse which will bring the reform we need, but Biden will be more compromise that will acclimate us to mediocrity. A centrist like Biden is infinitely worse than Trump.

Whatever you say. Genetics doesn't mean that much to me. People are people.

Genetics play a major role in determining human variability.
People with common genetics, are more likely to share other things in common, as well as care for one another.
Race is extended family, just as we often prioritize our families interests ahead of other families, we often prioritize our races interests ahead of other races, even unbeknownst to ourselves.
Or just as we prioritize our species over others, or other sentient mammals over unsentient unmammals.

All I know is if you're wanting to go extinct, breed yourself down to one perfect genotype. Genetic variability should be our prime initiative.

If you're illegal, then you should be deported, but brown people who are born here shouldn't be treated as if they are illegals nor told to go home when they are home; that's an egregious insult and especially because of the hypocrisy that the whites are also not indigenous.

Indigenous is a spectrum.
Whites have been here for many centuries now.
We may be a little less indigenous than so called 'native Americans' (Euramerican hybrids, mestizos), but we're far more numerous than mestizos, and we're far more numerous, and indigenous than Asian immigrants, so if anything, we should be entitled to more privileges over both mestizos, and Asian immigrants.

Another arbitrary contrivance. We should be entitled because _________. Insert anything because the judge and advocate are the same.

Ah... protection of the oppressed (weak), so you do it too. Nothing wrong with that!

On the contrary, it's a form of weakness to forbid yourself from verbally attacking people who verbally attack you, because we're essentially saying your life and opinions matter more than ours.
I say either we can all verbally attack each others race, or none of us can.
That's fairness, fairness is strength.

I vote we all verbally attack each other and laugh about it because we can't forbid speech since it's a slippery slope.

Laws against hate speech scare me. I think the people issuing the hate speech should knock it off, but we don't need a law lest hate speech become a slippery slope to any speech.

I'm not saying we should have laws against hate speech, necessarily, just if we're to have any, they should protect whites just as much, at least, if not more.

I guess so, but then again it's like the weak vs the strong because being white does have some privilege. Think of the bias like a handicap in a game against a better opponent.

Idk, I honestly think a brown woman would represent my interests and the interests of people I care about better than an old white dude in government.. unless that old white dude is Bernie, but there aren't many of them. Who is more likely to focus on the poor? Who will resolve the healthcare situation? Who will address wealth disparity better? Who will have more empathy? Yeah, a white man may correlate to those attributes, but if we have nothing else to go on, then voting for the brown woman is a better play on the odds.

A brown person is going to put brown peoples interests over my peoples.

Such as? I can't imagine.

I'd rather have a white person with from a working class background represent me.

I think a black woman would be more likely to keep her campaign promises than a white man on average and in general. I think the white man would be saying whatever to get elected then rest on his laurels while the black woman would be fighting for something she deeply believes in. I think this sentiment is the principle reason minorities like Ocassio are clobbering old white dudes at the polls.

That being said, if you can work, but won't, you're not entitled to room and board.

Why not?

What am I entitled to? And why is that different than room n board?

And if you can't support kids yourself, than you shouldn't bring them into this world.

I agree, but too many women get shafted lol. They agree to a certain arrangement then the guy splits leaving her to her own minimum wage devices.

Slavery used to not be criminal, so in those days if one were to complain about slavery, he would be demonized for criticizing the system that was legal. What is legal now is not necessarily a yard stick to determine what is right and I'm assuming that the ones complaining are complaining about something that is not right, but legal.

Murdering, raping or stealing from a brown person is a crime to me, but a small business only hiring WASPs, because he feels more comfortable with WASPs, or a cop predominantly scoping out Mulatto and Latino neighborhoods, because they're more likely to commit crime, is not a crime.

It should be a crime because it's causing crime. If businesses reject brown people, then brown people have no jobs, so they cause crime. If cops target brown people, then brown people see white people as enemies. Racism is akin to shitting where you eat as it can only mess up your own life. Either exterminate the brownies or learn to live with them, but making criminals of them isn't a solution.

The problem is if you allow that discrimination, then crime results and it becomes a self-sustaining problem: discrimination causes poverty which forces people into crime which causes discrimination. Where on the circle do we break the cycle?

Yes but a lot of bad behavior committed by Mulattos and Latinos is probably due to their biology and culture, and they're responsible for their culture.

Maybe, but giving them addition environmental challenges is not helping, especially if they're genetically ill-equipped in the first place.

You're thinking it's because we expect (or is it because they expect themselves to be bad?) them to be bad, but I'm thinking it's probably mostly, or wholly because more of them are bad...which's not to say all, most or even many of them are bad, just a larger small minority of them than the small minority of us.

Reminds me of a black man's answer to why whites commit more suicide: blacks know the game is rigged from birth, but the white man has expectations and doesn't realize until later in life what the black man has always accepted. I thought that was pretty insightful.

I will say this in Mulatto and Latino peoples defense, Jews, whites and Asians may commit more white collar crimes than the them, but white collar crimes are so much more difficult to ascertain, of course.

They work more white collar jobs don't they?

Blacks commit more crime than whites, but whites more than asians.

Depends on the Asians, I don't think white people commit more crimes than west Asian or south Asian immigrants, I would imagine west Asians and South Asian immigrants commit more crime.
As for east Asian immigrants, I'm not entirely sure about them, I heard white women for instance commit less crime than any other demographic.

I'm just going on Stefan Moylneux's study of crime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBJ5m3sGfk

However, whites are more inventive, for good and bad, than other races, for whatever combination of reasons, east Asians may score a little higher in iQ, overall (whites are better with linguistic iQ), but they're not a very creative people.

I've heard that, but never really verified it. The most creative people tend to be those with well-connected corpus callosums, which are women and gay men usually. Do white men have a larger propensity for homosexuality? So it would seem, but I don't have any data.

It's hard to compare apples to apples since the Europeans had domesticated animals, horses, good climate and soil making it tough to tell the role of genetics when compared to peoples who didn't have those advantages.

I don't think we need laws. It's hard to imagine that in 50 years anyone will give a hoot about color.

Reducing race to color makes it sound superficial, it's not.
Virtually every cell in my body has more in common with an Irishman or Italian than it does an African or Asian.

So... is similarity a reason you should like or dislike Italians? You have more in common with men, so does that mean you want to have sex with one? Or do you want something different? Would you date a family member? You have more in common with them.

So you're pro-slavery? Forcing people who can work to work is slavery. We live in a world that can bestow upon everyone the right not to work without facing impoverishment thanks to the army of machines toiling away, yet incentivize those who want to work to be better than the Joneses. Why should the fruits of the machinery be hoarded by the few? A person has a right to a minimum standard of living and to deny that is to punish the poor in order to reward the rich.

While we have come a long way sociotechnologically in some regards, and there is less work to be done to feed and take care of everyone, there's still is work to be done, and there probably always will be.

What needs to be done? We've gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions, at what point can we sit down and enjoy what we've built? Or do we have to eternally work just because?

I don't see us progressing towards some sort of star trek communist utopia anytime soon, in fact I'm expecting the opposite.

I'm expecting the kids to wake up and notice it's a stupid formality. The only ones holding us back are the ones who say we "should" work and those sorts are dying off.

With high sociotechnology, you take a few steps forward in the short term, and often a few steps back in the long (global warming, nuclear warfare, etcetera).

Another ice age is more likely and even then it's a long way off. I don't see nuclear war happening. All this bickering is just too silly for that.

While I support what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth, and less frivolous productivity, so we can spare the environment, If we allow people who don't work to prosper as much as people who do, they will pollute us with their inferiority, which will be a few steps back.

What do you mean "pollute with inferiority?" Genes?

Work is slavery. If you do not want to work, but you have to work to live, then you are a slave, pure and simple. I don't call that prosperity nor do I value the genes of people who can't see it. A lot of our genetics is already polluted by yes-men due to extermination of dissidents by kings and rulers throughout history.

Why are you typing this? How much are you being paid? Who has a gun to your head? So you see people would be productive without being compelled. You probably couldn't pay researchers to stop their work. I'm confident that if everyone received $20k annually that most would continue working because they either want to get ahead or they love what they do. The ones who don't fit will be paid to stay out of the way and they would also have less sexual market value due to it.

Some congressman said we should raise taxes on poor people with kids as a way of deincentivizing having kids, but I think it would have the opposite effect because anywhere there is data, prosperity is associated with less reproduction; not more. So if you want poor people to stop reproducing, give them money. You also kill two birds with one stone because then the poor people go away too. People get smarter, healthier, happier, and society moves up a notch.

You just can't stand the thought of someone getting something for nothing because you had to work, so that's why it's the next generation who doesn't have your burden who will see more clearly how silly this is becoming. Generations to come will thank you for your service, but we ain't gotta do this shit no more; you were just unlucky to have been born too early.

Hatred of the poor is deeply indoctrinated and subtle; you may not know you harbor it.

If you're white, self hate can also be deeply indoctrinated, you may not know you harbor it, but you do.

I don't see why I have to hate myself to feel sorry for someone else. I just have too many knives in my back and if I list something on craigslist and the buyer doesn't speak in broken english with latin overtones, then I'm not even gonna waste my time, er, I mean, let the inconsiderate bullshitters waste my time with more broken promises. The only way a white man can keep his word is via tattoo. Ok, I know one guy who goes out of his way to be reliable, but we agree that most are worthless and I blame social media for that: people are cheap and easily replaceable. Why bother keeping your word when it's easier to replace anyone who is bothered by it. It's pretty much the pinnacle of pretentiousness and, for whatever reason, social media is almost exclusively white men.

There's almost no difference between democrats and republicans.
Both are corporatists, globalists and imperialists.

I can see that.

Both are anti-white and anti-male.

I don't see the anti-white, but pro-nonwhite. Maybe a little anti-white, but mostly pro-nonwhite. Who can we trust the most: the rich or the poor people?

At least Trump, who is not a traditional republican, isn't anti-white and anti-male, and more of a pacifist and protectionist.

I have no idea what he is other than being sure he's an imbecile. I thought he was genius for a while, but you know how those can be confused.

He's also pro-gun, which's of utmost importance in a democracy.




Seriously, he's an imbecile.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:20 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Serensipper, did you follow any world news the past 5 year?
There's no way you can't have deduced that the Democrats aren't a political party but a criminal syndicate.

Well, there are two kinds of democrats: the centrists or neoliberals and the progressives. The progressives (democratic socialists as opposed to the dictatorial socialists) are not involved in the underground pizza business, etc. They haven't been tainted yet because they haven't been in power yet.

Did you follow the Libya thing? I guess not. I guess you have no idea about the record unemoyment now given your meme. I respect you're reading mostly scientific talks and stuff and politics is too ugly to deal with... you like the good old categories that you can vote for without thinking or re- search. .. most folks never look beyond. But you should. I think.

I follow the news from the economic side since that's my business and I don't have a lot of interest in topics like libya or that Kavanaugh drama, so I'm either expert or totally clueless lol
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: This is why I hate liberals

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:46 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Absolutism vs relativism. Dogma vs open mind. Religion vs science.
If these are meant to be Right vs. left characteristics, that is the left is relativistic, open minded and scientific, I don't think it's accurate.

Really? Not even in general? I know there are exceptions.

One thing I see is the left is very christian in attitude, if less in terms of literal belief, and the right is more pagan, again not in literal belief. IOW the left is not more CHRISTIAN, but they want to be more Christlike, for good and for ill. The Right is more pagan in values, something that might bother the Christian right.

You may be onto something. The left wants to be the savior and that fits with my observation of the right who wants to condemn.

The right is willing to have winners and losers and be more honest about this than liberals.

I think the right is more than willing.

I don't see either side as being particularly open minded. Nor do I see the left as relativists except in certain contexts.

Well the right and especially the christian right is intolerant of certain behavior and it isn't an intolerance they came about by reason, but dogma, and then they judge others by those dogmas. So generally we can describe them as closed-minded because dogma is not open for discussion as it's accepted to be incontrovertibly true by faith. In order to the left to be opposite, they would have to be open-minded and anti-dogmatic and more reliant upon evidence or reason to arrive at a conclusion that is never really known for certain. This is essentially what I see and what the stats that I see reveal.

Atheists on the left, christians on the right. Scientists are evolutionists who are athiests instead of creationists. Atheists are smarter. Smarter people are on the left. Hollywood, wall street, silicon valley.... talent (smart) on the left, dogma (dumb) on the right. It all ties together and nothing really sticks out as being inconsistent. Sure there are exceptions, but generally speaking...

And the neo-con elements are not religious, don't care about absolutism vs. relativism, are openminded about tactics, completely openminded, but not about much else.

Even a dogmatist can be openminded about some things, but what's the core philosophy? Are there absolutes? Absolute loyalty?

While the left and right slap each other around the people who do not give a damn at all about sincerity or being any form of good are guiding the show.

Maybe so. According to Watts, the guy at the top couldn't possibly be an absolutist because he'd be a mere machine in need of a commander.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users