This is why I hate liberals

@Serendipper

No it depends on context.
Of course this’s all very subjective, but I think the weak should be defended, unless it significantly detriments the strong.
The weak shouldn’t have the same standard of living as the strong either.

It ought to be permissible for a man to punch a woman in defense of himself, others, his or their property, or as retribution for attacking such things.

A better analogy would be a family loses their home, so you they ask to stay with your family.
Instead of showing gratitude, they complain that you don’t treat them quite as good as your family.
They also try to forbid you from ever criticizing them, meanwhile permitting themselves to criticize yours.
Of course they should be happy with whatever you give them, since you don’t owe them anything, and if they don’t like it, they ought to leave.

We shall see, man is a restless animal, he can’t maintain the exact same course for too, too long.

I don’t know where your vitriol is coming from.

What expectations are ridiculous?

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?

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.

We all do that.

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.

What’s deserve got to do with it? How do you earn a right?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDkYZWeeVg[/youtube]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Actually, you should treat guests better than your own family. You tell the ole lady to go cook em supper instead of making them cook supper for the ole lady lol.

But that’s a dire and temporary situation. It’s like “Hey our house was destroyed and we’re starving and cold and would be happy living in the barn” vs “We were born here and this is our home.”

This is something I’ve mulled and I agree and disagree. I will focus on the disagree part.
I notice a pattern. There are people who game things by being partial people. They cut out their empathy. Or they treat themselves poorly - this can be via stupid risktaking or through incredibly limited social connections (not in number but in connection). Or they pretend they are not afraid, when they are. (note I am not making a rule. Sometimes you have to take risks, not feel empathy, put yourself through hardship, etc. But here they have a tendency in these directions I consider pathological.)
These patterns can appear strong, certianly in the short term. Being a partial human works. It can work in the business world. it can work in many social communities. You seem strong. You do things. You get there first. You take credit perhaps when it is not due. You use people. You put your body in harm’s way and wiht a little luck then you are a tough guy. These patterns work really well in the criminal world, but they also work in the police world.

So when I look at many of the people considered strong, out there in society, I see these partial humans, who did effectively gamble, given the specific and incredibly limited goals they had considering they are social mammals, and who are successful. They look strong, at least to most people.

But they look like cardboard cutouts to me. And weak. See what happens when their narcissism is challenged. Out front they may continue fronting the strong image, but they will take enraged and terrified steps in secret to punish and elimnate threats.

The crash of 2008 was caused by a lot of alpha strong even very smart people. Winners. Winners who via risktaking, especially with other people’s money, but also pesonal risktaking, a very limited sense of what success is, often a lack of empathy, were able to lunge into successful roles and performances in the finance industry.

And the vast majority was never punished for what htis caused, in fact they were rewarded and are out there continuing to partial human their way through reality.

A lot of the ‘strong’ look like this to me.

I say they are weak because I don’t see much introspective courage or much faith in themselves as creative or deep people. Once you pare yourself down you can accomplish a lot, but you sold your soul, not in any literal sense, but in a real one.

So when we look out at the strong, I would like to see something more nuanced considered strong. Otherwise what rises to the top is poop not cream.

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.

Here’s the bottom line:

Just as preferring myself and my family doesn’t mean I think we’re superior to, hate, want to oppress or obliterate other families, preferring, preserving and protecting my race and some of its customs doesn’t mean I think we’re superior to and so on other races.
And in a democracy (majority rule), either we should have libertarianism, and/or if we’re to prioritize the interests of one demographic over others, it should be the demographic the majority belong to, which in Canada and the US means Christian/Secular, conservative, white, working class men and women, not minorities on the one hand, nor the elite on the other, who’ve forgotten or else are deliberately trying to undermine and destroy us.
This political philosophy of mine could be called populism.
It ought to be the predominant political philosophy of the future.

Like I said earlier, the founders clearly stated that without an informed populace, democracy cannot work.

Unlike Serendipper, I don’t want to live in a classless society.
However, I would like to see the white working class, as opposed to the capitalist class, possess the majority of the wealth and resources in Canada and the US, by syndicating more mass production, and socializing more essential services and banks.
In my view, you can’t have a democracy without the majority possessing most of the wealth, because wealth purchases politicians.

@Mags

I agree, people shouldn’t be able to use racial slurs in public.
However, we should be allowed to criticize races in public, including whites, which of course isn’t the same as using racial slurs, but there’s a time and a place, only if the people you’re talking to want to hear it, or you’ve been given permission to demonstrate/protest.
Of course you shouldn’t be able to go up to a black, or white man and say blacks are like this or whites are like that. That is not feasible, no one would stand for it, and it would lead to brawls, and even riots.
However, in the privacy of our own home, or on our website, we should be able to say whatever we please.

Again, it’s not that I want to be oppressive or abusive, I don’t, it’s just that I don’t want to give other races special treatment.
I am not a libertarian, in that I don’t think I can go around freely insulting whomever I please without consequence.
That is not how human nature works.

Yes, we need to reduce immigration, and raising awareness of other races weaknesses will help us achieve that.

Agreed.

Right, I think it’s an excuse, at least in part.
The elite have an agenda, they want to create a globalist, transhumanist corporatocracy, and nationalism, among other things, stands in the way of it.
They can’t bring about this new world order if people aren’t ready to surrender their national sovereignty, sufficiency and completely open up their borders to the rest of the world.
Continuous mass immigration will lead to a one world government.

Comparing what went for populism a few years back, with all the focus on a mythically omnipotent Rothschild family and none on the day to day of accountable and leverageable politicians, and how nuanced and comprehensive it has become now, I see things moving in the right direction. The scapegoat no longer suffices, people are realizing that it is an evolutionary crossroads, something much bigger than a few clans conspiring. It is one type of people vs another, even though the majority of people that fights for that other is deceived, that capacity for being deceived makes them belong to that second type which we now seem to be seeing in some slipping action. Populism on the other hand is limited by the term that was given to it by the relativists. Populism really just means strong leadership. Not just popular values, but the sort of values that can be carried with integrity. It is probably good to refer to oneself as belonging to a politics of integrity, disqualifying the other in terms of its lack of integrity, rather than in terms of its elitism. Elitism isn’t bad per se, philosophy is a matter of a small elite, nationalist warrior hood is elitists, so its not good to have the enemy own that term. The antagonist is the politics of value-relativity, the protagonists carry the politics of value integrity. A question of the value of values. Do they have value? The natural human would never doubt it. Socrates, the first Globalist, started the presence that every value is equal and ultimately pointless.

@Mags

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.

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

Yea she’s probably middle eastern.

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

I have no idea who she is.

You know, people, I used to be a stinky liberal and I didn’t even know it. Then I started this thread. The kind conservative folks of this board showed me what a horrible person I was–trying to fix the world’s problems and all–so I abandoned all hope of reforming democracy and started hating liberals. I tried to be a good conservative for a good long while, but like a Christian homo trying to be straight, I guess I still “smelt” like a liberal to the conservatives, so I was never really accepted. Then I remembered why conservatives are such assholes, why liberals exist in the first place. So now I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place–hating all humanity (I guess)–both liberals and conservatives alike.

But that’s not fair, is it now? No, no, no, I don’t hate all humanity, just those who see fit to label themselves with an “ism”–if you’re polarized enough to call yourself a lefty or a righty, you crossed the point of no return. You are now fighting a cause for which reason will never do. Reason is only useful if you’ve got no qualms with the truth. But burden yourself with the yoke of a political agenda, and you serve only a half-truth. The other half–coming in loud and clear from the other side–you can blissfully ignore–or worse, putty it up with ad homs and straw men (like the bitch in the video). Why use reason when it only leads to a more balanced view? No why, Jose! You’re polarized!

I think Karpel is right. This belongs in rant. I’m not intelligent enough to have a sensical political thought. And I’m not invested enough to actually have a conversation with any of you.

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. :laughing:

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.

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.

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.

I don’t want to live in a classless society, but I think there should be a minimum standard of living… a minimum class. Poverty should be illegal. Beyond that, I don’t give a hoot how rich people get or whose throats they cut to get there. I’m not trying to undermine meritocracy or incentives to succeed nor rewards for success. I’m just saying the bottom rung shouldn’t be on the ground and the only reason it is on the ground is to enrich the rich in order to have disparity of wealth and power.

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.

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?

If you’re an individualist, what’s best for you? Is it better for you if the population is sick, poor, and stupid so that a few lucky souls can be unimaginably wealthy? Is it better for you to dodge buckets of feces flung from windows or if undeserving people have toilets? It boils down to making one’s own life miserable in order to punish those who don’t deserve because they didn’t earn. Is your own prosperity more important or is the punishment of the undeserving more important?

Start at 10:22 and it might fall into place for you:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU[/youtube]

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:

Kind of contradicts this:

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.

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

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.