Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukJVpSUOM1U&list=WL&index=155

Domestic abuse is horrible no matter who it happens to.

[Vol]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShfsBPrNcTI&feature=emb_title

This is just fucking bizarre. Is advertising normally like that with you guys? We get the usual propaganda here, for the usual reasons, but I've yet to see something as nonsensical as an airline denigrating the cultures of an entire region its based in. This kind of self-hatred is not healthy, assuming the producers actually are Scandinavians.

"Your country is nothing, your people are nothing, your culture is nothing, it is all a patchwork creation. You are an economic unit. They are economic units. We will move our economic units around as needed, accept this. You have nothing to live for but our goals."

[Mazder]

Are you on my friends discord?
Because one of my friends posted that there only a day ago!

He said pretty much the same thing.

Good thing I know it's not you as he's Swedish, so I am glad I was able to avoid being paranoid for a sec there.

[TTTX]

This is just fucking bizarre. Is advertising normally like that with you guys? We get the usual propaganda here, for the usual reasons, but I've yet to see something as nonsensical as an airline denigrating the cultures of an entire region its based in. This kind of self-hatred is not healthy, assuming the producers actually are Scandinavians.

"Your country is nothing, your people are nothing, your culture is nothing, it is all a patchwork creation. You are an economic unit. They are economic units. We will move our economic units around as needed, accept this. You have nothing to live for but our goals."

Well the dislike on this video is big and the comment have been disabled, they should have learned from Gillette don't post videos like this.

Well I haven't seen this on my TV yet so I don't know if it is for the Scandinavians market (sure doesn't feel like it at all) and well it felt way more american made than Scandinavian our advertising is generally more about being together, be happy and maybe a bit of humor thrown in to make the people watching feel good.

And that note FUCK THE GODDAMN VIDEO.

[Alienmorph]

That was hilariously terribad, like on the same level of that dumbass Gilette ad from last year.

There's a big fucking difference between aknowledging the influence of other cultures and nations on yours, and just going "you're not a culture, you're just a hodge-podge of stuff you stole".

By that logic there is no such thing as being of a certain culture, because guess what? Humans like to trade, explore and interact, and pick up things they like while they do so, and nobody lives entirely in a bubble separate from everyone else. I mean... the spot itself mentions several times places like the US and ancient Rome, which are/were literally made by the crossing of several cultures and races pretty much from the ground up, yet THEY are treated like some kind of functional whole compared to the scandinavians. How so? What makes them different? Oh right, thei're trying to shame the people from Scandinavia this time...

Also... weren't the first true equal rights for women movements like the Suffragettes a thing first in France and in the UK rather than the US, like the video claims ...? I might be wrong on that, but I'm fairly sure I'm not.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Kind of for your last bit. No idea about France. Women could be voted in to government in 1918 in the UK while they got the vote a little later in the US.

But the UK didn't more fully extend the franchise to everyone till a decade later.

[TheodoricFriede]

As I understand that add was pulled almost immediately, so they clearly realized they fucked up.

[TTTX]

As I understand that add was pulled almost immediately, so they clearly realized they fucked up.

well the add is still on youtube so they haven't pulled it everywhere completely, yet.

That was hilariously terribad, like on the same level of that dumbass Gilette ad from last year.

There's a big fucking difference between aknowledging the influence of other cultures and nations on yours, and just going "you're not a culture, you're just a hodge-podge of stuff you stole".

By that logic there is no such thing as being of a certain culture, because guess what? Humans like to trade, explore and interact, and pick up things they like while they do so, and nobody lives entirely in a bubble separate from everyone else. I mean... the spot itself mentions several times places like the US and ancient Rome, which are/were literally made by the crossing of several cultures and races pretty much from the ground up, yet THEY are treated like some kind of functional whole compared to the scandinavians. How so? What makes them different? Oh right, thei're trying to shame the people from Scandinavia this time...

Also... weren't the first true equal rights for women movements like the Suffragettes a thing first in France and in the UK rather than the US, like the video claims ...? I might be wrong on that, but I'm fairly sure I'm not.

Women got the right to vote in Norway in 1913 and in Denmark it was 1915 which was years before the USA.

[Sinekein]

First place women got to vote was New Zealand AFAIK. 1945 in France. We were not early at all and had prominent Joblom-like "women shouldn't vote" people in the 1930s.

I think the point of the video, clumsy as it is, is to stop people outside from Scandinavia to use it as a hypothetical holy land when discussing local matters.

But I do like the point about Scandinavia basically being a place where ideas from other places get used well. It's healthy patriotism for me, being proud of what your country is doing well while admitting not everything is perfect and should remain the same. And of course opening your eyes to the shitty aspects - the opposite of the sadly common blind faith.

[Mazder]

"you're not a culture, you're just a hodge-podge of stuff you stole".

And if there is any nation that should get it it's not Sweden!

Not when the UK is in the room!

[Someone With Mass]

Wow. I haven't seen that ad until now. While I can sort of see what they're going for, since it's an ad for an airline and they have to work in the promotion of travel somehow, it's just weirdly executed. Oh yeah, we took a lot of things from other cultures. Guess what. So did everyone else.

[Sinekein]

I think the point they tried to make was that being a mixture of many foreign ideas is good actually as long as you pick the right ones and don't pretend you are above the others.

But considering how the world is currently faring someone in the decision chain should have realized that would not be what people would keep from it.

[Vol]

Well the dislike on this video is big and the comment have been disabled, they should have learned from Gillette don't post videos like this.

Apparently Gillette is going to double-down on their toxic masculinity campaign, which is also fucking baffling. Marketing was supposed to be selling product, not chiding lectures, and yet, here we are.

Good thing I know it's not you as he's Swedish, so I am glad I was able to avoid being paranoid for a sec there.

Well, as far as I know, I don't have a drop of Swedish blood in me, unless there was some cross-pollination between the Dutch and them.

Wow. I haven't seen that ad until now. While I can sort of see what they're going for, since it's an ad for an airline and they have to work in the promotion of travel somehow, it's just weirdly executed. Oh yeah, we took a lot of things from other cultures. Guess what. So did everyone else.

I wonder how true that is. Human history is extremely brief, and while transportation advances made the world tiny, recently, once you get out of the eternal crossroad that is the Middle East, the chain of exchange might be quite short.

I think the point they tried to make was that being a mixture of many foreign ideas is good actually as long as you pick the right ones and don't pretend you are above the others.

But considering how the world is currently faring someone in the decision chain should have realized that would not be what people would keep from it.

That's a more fair point, if that's what they intended. I disagree with it, but it would make for good marketing material, rather than what they made.

[TheodoricFriede]

Apparently Gillette is going to double-down on their toxic masculinity campaign, which is also fucking baffling. Marketing was supposed to be selling product, not chiding lectures, and yet, here we are.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N5HD340/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N4HNRY9/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


$20.00

[Alienmorph]

Considering they apparently lost 8 BILLION dollars, lots of people are already following your advice Theo. I use an electric shaver, so I didn't buy Gilette blades anyway lol.

And of course tho the people addressing the situation are spewing the usual nonsense about not wanting toxic people as their customers anyway, and that thei're cool losing that much money if it helps making the world a better place.

Yeah right... imagine all the good you could with 8 billion dollars, for women and men alike. But nooope... let's throw them all away to be preachy pricks!

[TTTX]

Apparently Gillette is going to double-down on their toxic masculinity campaign, which is also fucking baffling. Marketing was supposed to be selling product, not chiding lectures, and yet, here we are.

And it has cost them 8 billion so far.

A business will always follow the money at the end of day, the question is how much is Gillette willing to lose before changing course.

But I don't shave that often and even when I do, I use an electric shaver, I hate razors.
So it won't affect me either way,

[Vol]

I rarely clean shave, thankfully. Looks terrible on my baby-face. So yeah, electric razor, buzz it down to a healthy stubble, or let it grow to a never-quite-thick-enough beard.

It's almost impossible to be a moral consumer, but I make an effort to excise what I reasonably can. So fuck Gillette. But it's a curious scenario we find ourselves in these days were these companies are willing to take immense financial loss to push propaganda, despite logic and convention saying they should not. Woke movies busting, woke ads pissing off their target demographic, woke games flopping, and yet, they persist. Queer, that.

I can't tell if it's the consequence of poorly educated Millennials being able to make decisions at this companies now, and composing the bulk of their workforce, or if these international corporations are working in concert to engineer us into rootless economic batteries. Probably both!

[TTTX]

I rarely clean shave, thankfully. Looks terrible on my baby-face. So yeah, electric razor, buzz it down to a healthy stubble, or let it grow to a never-quite-thick-enough beard.

It's almost impossible to be a moral consumer, but I make an effort to excise what I reasonably can. So fuck Gillette. But it's a curious scenario we find ourselves in these days were these companies are willing to take immense financial loss to push propaganda, despite logic and convention saying they should not. Woke movies busting, woke ads pissing off their target demographic, woke games flopping, and yet, they persist. Queer, that.

I can't tell if it's the consequence of poorly educated Millennials being able to make decisions at this companies now, and composing the bulk of their workforce, or if these international corporations are working in concert to engineer us into rootless economic batteries. Probably both!

or it's just a bunch of people who have a small circle of friends that share their view and they destroy anyone they don't, they have one problem they can't really control the narrative as the Chinese, Russians and North Korea can especially now the people on youtube are the ones who are popular among the people as people like seeing other people give their opinion (and you can find the opinions you like) on stuff and not being quiet as one sided.

It's also hard for the people writing articles to go from that to try and well sit in front of mic and/or a camera to convince people they are right and anyone who disagree with them are wrong and that takes a certain personality.

[Sinekein]

I hate that "woke" term because it is an all-encompassing diss against any position that is perceived as "political" - another vague term that is thrown at random to mean "any opinion I disagree about".

I hoghly doubt those ads are that damaging honestly - discardable razors are I assume less and less popular because electrical ones get better and cheaper, that I think is the root of Gillette's issues - and companies keep doing it because it serves them. At the very least companies use that as reputation whitewashing: better to talk about Nike's Kaepernick ad campaign than the margins they do on each pair of sneakers due to how they treat Asian employees.

But under the "woke" umbrella is thrown anything that is vaguely seen as linked to liberal ideas, and that includes companies trying to improve their environmental standards. Which, unlike social issues, is basically a net benefit for almost everyone on the planet, since less pollution, less trash produced, smaller production impact, etc.

Now those campaigns are not all honest, some are blatant greenwashing, but not all of them. And yet I am pretty sure many a GOP sympathizer happily throws everyone in the same bag of "leftist trash" or whatever.

[Alienmorph]

I just hate the whole notion that nowadays you MUST be either a right-wing nazi, or a woke soyboy if you want to talk about politics. But leftists are often the first to perpetrate such extremizations, because that way they can dismiss everything anyone who disagrees with them have to say with no second thoughs, so... there's that. If that's a bed many of self-proclaimed "liberals" want to sleep in, they don't have many others to blade for the setbacks, but themselves.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I just hate the whole notion that nowadays you MUST be either a right-wing nazi, or a woke soyboy if you want to talk about politics. But leftists are often the first to perpetrate such extremizations, because that way they can dismiss everything anyone who disagrees with them have to say with no second thoughs, so... there's that. If that's a bed many of self-proclaimed "liberals" want to sleep in, they don't have many others to blade for the setbacks, but themselves.

I meme a shit tonne but I actually share your frustration. Believe it or not I used to plot slightly left libertarian back in the early 2010's. I wasn't very political back then but I fell into that general moral morass of vaguely left but largely disinterested. It was actually the Media in America largely deciding to go "Woke" over the last 8 years that has pushed me out of that box solidly into right libertarian.

I grew up not giving a flying fuck about race beyond making the occasional edgy joke as part of banter with friends. But these intersectional types are obsessed with it, first I found it creepy, then I it made me angry. I feel sorry for the center and moderate left people. The Far Left Intersectioal types are the loudest, have the biggest presence in journalism, and seem utterly determined to drive as many people away as possible in their desire to purity spiral.

[Vol]

or it's just a bunch of people who have a small circle of friends that share their view and they destroy anyone they don't, they have one problem they can't really control the narrative as the Chinese, Russians and North Korea can especially now the people on youtube are the ones who are popular among the people as people like seeing other people give their opinion (and you can find the opinions you like) on stuff and not being quiet as one sided.

It's also hard for the people writing articles to go from that to try and well sit in front of mic and/or a camera to convince people they are right and anyone who disagree with them are wrong and that takes a certain personality.

That is all true, however, these people are also wielding actual power. Blocking guests who think the wrong way from conventions, getting people fired, injecting themselves between the western market and Japanese developers, etc. For a small group of radicals, they have a lot more power than they should, as well as the support of the media. Very hard to assail them, ideologically, or compete, since these people are often in companies running at a loss.

I hate that "woke" term because it is an all-encompassing diss against any position that is perceived as "political" - another vague term that is thrown at random to mean "any opinion I disagree about".

I hoghly doubt those ads are that damaging honestly - discardable razors are I assume less and less popular because electrical ones get better and cheaper, that I think is the root of Gillette's issues - and companies keep doing it because it serves them. At the very least companies use that as reputation whitewashing: better to talk about Nike's Kaepernick ad campaign than the margins they do on each pair of sneakers due to how they treat Asian employees.

But under the "woke" umbrella is thrown anything that is vaguely seen as linked to liberal ideas, and that includes companies trying to improve their environmental standards. Which, unlike social issues, is basically a net benefit for almost everyone on the planet, since less pollution, less trash produced, smaller production impact, etc.

Now those campaigns are not all honest, some are blatant greenwashing, but not all of them. And yet I am pretty sure many a GOP sympathizer happily throws everyone in the same bag of "leftist trash" or whatever.

Much like SJW, it's the best term we have to describe this group of people. In the absence of a more direct, definitive term, the understood slang works fine.

The issue is that it appears as if we're being sold a new, bizarre social order through ads, instead of ads reflecting what people actually believe or do.

1. The theory touted is that representation matters.
2. If that is true, then the absence of representation equally matters, as does the kind of representation. This is political.
3. Any advertisement has thought and effort put into its message and where it is seen. All of it is intentional.
4. All advertisement is inherently propaganda for the product and/or company.
5. Therefore if one of these political product advertisements comes out, and it in some way slights, excludes, or otherwise preaches a message against my interests, it is an intentional act of propaganda that they did.
6. And so my recourse is to denigrate them, their ad, their products, and to refuse to purchase them.

I imagine it feels really good to have all these international conglomerates, and the near entirety of the global press corp, and entertainment media, all agreeing with you. To not have them do that for me, is not pleasant. And at times, seems insidious with their intentional messaging. Which would make them my ideological enemy, as they have grotesquely more power, reach, and resources than I do. To say a commercial is "leftist trash" is the least I could do given all that.

However I also like nature, and think urban areas are blights that drain resources and destroy the natural world exponentially quicker than if the populations were dispersed, so I'm on board for propaganda ads pushing rural living. That and demanding China/India shut down their heavy industry. 100%, I'd back you on those.

[Sinekein]

Much like SJW, it's the best term we have to describe this group of people. In the absence of a more direct, definitive term, the understood slang works fine.

It only works because it's easy and insulting. It is much easier to call everyone "woke" or a "SJW" than to look closer and admit that there are a ton of nuance between a writer trying to create a character from a culture different from his own, one that claims you can only write about what you know and experienced, one who says that "any story without a [X] character is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic", and so on. Most of the so-called "SJW" spend way more time insulting each other (or at least, part of them spend more time insulting another, bigger part of them) than they do trading insults with Gamergate fans or 4chan users.

On the other side, there is the same issue with people using "nazi" as a global term to designate anyone right of Joe Biden. In both cases, it is pure intellectual laziness: look for something that can be seen as a common denominator, and ignore absolutely all the nuances. I mean, it's better, since it is going to anger the moderates, and has a higher chance of pushing them towards the edges where they will actually start resembling the initial designation, right?

On this forum, there are several right-wing people, but only one that in my mind deserves to be called a "nazi". The others can be conservatives, or libertarians, or a mixture of those and other things, but they are not nazis.

So if you use these words, for me, you just demonstrate you are too dumb or lazy to even bother trying to understand who these people you disagree with are, and prefer the good, old, easy, black and white division.

I'm pretty sure that I fall into the "SJW" category because I do think that representation matters and I support a number of initiatives going that way. And yet I would say that roughly 70% of the news I read about something made by "SJW" just makes me roll my eyes or facepalm real hard. Yet the label is identical.

It's like hashtags are now considered to be proper, accurate tools to describe how the world works. Mind-boggingly stupid.

[Mazder]

It only works because it's easy and insulting. It is much easier to call everyone "woke" or a "SJW" than to look closer and admit that there are a ton of nuance between a writer trying to create a character from a culture different from his own, one that claims you can only write about what you know and experienced, one who says that "any story without a [X] character is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic", and so on.

Not to be too diverging here but I actually had some thought on this, coming from mainly a writing perspective but I guess it touches on to all creative works.

I always tried to be the first option where applicable. Back when this group was in the Mass Effect 2 forums/groups era we did some RP writing stuff. And, I had a bunch of female characters.
Back then I didn't really think about the implications of the characters I was potentially writing, but now, looking back on the thought of them I can not see how they were not in some way either sexist or some other form of problematic writing. If I were to be asked to write them again they would be very, very different. Because I fear of the latter claim of "you can't have any story without X in it/any story that has this written by someone who isn't X is bad".
I fear that I am placing myself into category two, "you can only write what you know", because of fear of a reaction from category three. Which would stop me being able to work in category one.

They may be different thoughts but they all interact and they are all affecting one another.

I don't know what it is like to be a woman, so I don't "really" have a "right" to ever write one. I also don't really have a "right" to write a black person, or indian, etc, because I am not one. Should I never try? I don't actually know. But I don't think right now I could ever try because of the third category's type of interactions with a creator.

I mean, even just drawing a female again, I have supreme doubts on if I even want to try again. If I make them too beautiful it's offensive to ugly people. If I make them too skinny it's fat shaming. If I make them to sexualized I am sexist for doing so. If I don't use darker skin tones I am racist. If I do but I am white then I am also racist. If I don't out-rightly express if one is not straight then I am bigoted.
It's quite honestly maddening how loud this vocal minority is that it's able to affect me, someone who is not even all that creative into thinking this and stifling myself. Imagine what it does to those who are big creators.

Or maybe they don't think about it as much.


I dunno what my point ultimately is, I just wanted to get that out there.

[Sinekein]

https://youtu.be/Ouv5CJ7Ig7c?t=261

That sums up the issue pretty well IMO (at 4'20). It offers 4 ways to deal with diversity:

1 - Don't. Have a uniform cast, because you know about that uniform cast and can properly write about it.

2 - Use stereotypes. Your casting will look more diverse.

3 - Use a diverse cast but don't address diversity issues. Write a gay character without an entire arc about his coming-out. Write a female character who does not have to deal with a glass ceiling.

4 - Use a diverse cast and do research to address the issues related to that diversity. If you include a native American character, talk about the issues its community faces. Include a trans character and mention transphobia and the difficulties of transitioning.

And while 2 is pretty clearly considered bad, 1-3-4 all have their appeal, with none being inherently better than the other. Do 1, and you can be accused of sexism/racism/whatever. Do 3, and you will be accused of ignoring the plight of minorities. Do 4, and you will be accused of cultural appropriation or silencing minorities. You can always be accused of wrongdoing, there is no "perfectly moral" position.

Sidenote - 3 and 4 both clearly fall in the SJW spectrum, yet are wildly different positions with a ton of nuance between the two - you can decide to tackle the issues facing a gay character in depth, but all black or muslim ones live their lives without it being an issue. You can even get a mix of other numbers, create a matriarchal society to interrogate sexism yet have all characters with the same ethnicity and sexuality, which is pretty much clearly 1 with a dash of 4. I mean, you can craft a pretty racist matriarcal society...and still be accused of being "woke" because you are a "feminazi" or somesuch.

[TTTX]

That is all true, however, these people are also wielding actual power. Blocking guests who think the wrong way from conventions, getting people fired, injecting themselves between the western market and Japanese developers, etc. For a small group of radicals, they have a lot more power than they should, as well as the support of the media. Very hard to assail them, ideologically, or compete, since these people are often in companies running at a loss.

I know, but here is the thing investors at the end of the day will want money at some point, if those people don't deliver or worse cause the company to go down well some changes will come, because people don't like it when you mess their money.

[Alienmorph]

That sums up the issue pretty well IMO (at 4'20). It offers 4 ways to deal with diversity:

(didn't copy the whole post because mine is already turned out into a big enough wall)

No, I wouldn't say 3 and 4 are in the "SJW spectrum", I'd say is the opposite and that the "SJW" spectrum falls within examples 3 and 4. Specifically often the "clumsy as fuck" and "poorly done" part of the 3 and 4 categories.

A good example, using something I know so I'm not talking out of my ass, are the X-Men. The X-Men and the Marvel mutants in general have been used as a methaphor or to insert commentary in a story for pretty much every kind of prejudice-based bias, from racism and homophobia, to religious biases and immigration issues.They even went as far as giving mutans their own equivalent of Israel, by letting Magneto rule his own citystate... and then a mutant equivalent of the Shoah when the Sentinels burned said citystate and all its inhabitants to the ground. And backwhen, the X-Men became really popular only after they went from the original cast of 4 american boys + token girl to the international cast which included characters of all ethnic origins (including an apache that lasted only2 issues... ops...), as their diversity and personal struggles where well-integrated with the main superheroe-y plots rather than feeling forced in it. So definately a combination of 3 and 4 at their best. At least in the good storylines, which of course can't be ALL of them once you're talking of something that's been around for several decades and had a ton of writers tackling it.

Nowadays instead we get stuff like the whole Iceman debacle, where they took the only founding member of the team who wasn't already in an hetero relationship, retconn him to be gay and then give him his own cringe as fuck spinoff series where most of what he does is being a dick to his parents (who had been also retconned from loving and accepting types into "I don't have a son anymore!" dirtbags) and act like the most stereotypical, flamboyant gay horndog imaginable, because if he doesn't crave the D every few pages how are we supposed to remember he's gay and that the authors are being very brave and progessive for making a comic about a gay superhero? And meanwhile, there's several X-men character who have been canonically LGBT from their creation who are criminally underutilized, of course.

Come to think of it, the "SJW spectrum" if we want to dignify it by treating it as its own thing and not just call it bad fucking writing, if anything uses a whole lot of Category 2, the stereotypes, because they have convinced themselves that nuance and grey areas shouldn't be a thing, and so they end up with very VERY cartoony and un-subtle characters, whenever they make their own, or derail existing ones. There are exceptions of course, but the general trend is pretty easy to notice.

[Sinekein]

That is how you use SJW. But the word has been used every single time a character's ethnicity, religion, sexuality or gender has been changed (or when a new one has been introduced for what is perceived as diversity issues).

Yes, even for critically acclaimed and popular cases like Kamala Khan.

So if you restrict the use of the word to what you consider to be bad writing, I mean, okay, it is a reasonable criticism to do. Problem is that many use "SJW" without caring about quality - promoting diversity is enough. And the more the term is used the more it reinforces it in its broadest sense. Basically, in the entirety of the aforementioned cats 3 and 4, even though not all are worthy of criticism as you mentioned.

Which is why I strongly dislike the use of the term. Sure, it targets bad writers and I have no issue with that whatever, but a ton of great ones are collateral victims because of how vague it is.

[Alienmorph]

I don't agree with that generalization of the word, for sure. Like I said a few posts priors, one of the things that annoys me the most is how whenever you tackle anything even remotely political nowadays you almost inevitably get someone who doesn't like what you have to say either call you an SJW soyboy or an alt-right nazi. Some times, even both at the same time, if you piss off enough people.

I do rant against SJW and SJWisms alot, it really gets on my nerves... more so that it should more than likely, but I am well aware thei're only a very vocal, and unfortunately very influential, minority when it comes to left-leaning and liberal people, being one of those people myself. And diversity and rapresentation can be an added value to a good story, for sure, or help you re-invent old stories in new ways. The problem is that more often than not these days we get these hollow, awfully written stories that are supposed to be really good ONLY because of how diverse the cast of characters in them are, or because they have very obvious, one-sides social commentary jammed into them.

Like, congratulations Holmes and Watson movie, you took the piss at Trump for 2 minutes. You're still the film where Jhon C. Riley lactates, you haven't magically become the Citizen Kane of comedies. To make a silly example lol

[Sinekein]

I have not seen that movie but I think Trump criticism - like any prominent leader - should not necessarily be seen as political. In many cases it is basic satire, mocking the powerful because they are in charge, basic free speech.

Of course if you make a whole metaphor about building walls it will be political, but nowadays I get the feeling that you will be considered a SJW leftist if you make a Twitter-addicted president with a horrible tanline. That's a bit dangerous,, I'm pretty sure many GOP sympathizers would rather the president tweet less, and find his skin color worthy of mockery. Cult of personality to the point any laugh is seen as dissent is not a good look (see Xi Jingpooh for an example).

[Alienmorph]

I have not seen that movie but I think Trump criticism - like any prominent leader - should not necessarily be seen as political. In many cases it is basic satire, mocking the powerful because they are in charge, basic free speech.

You're not missing anything, if you want to see a good comedic spoof of Holmes and Watson I'd recommend the much older "Without a Clue" film with Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley. Lots of old-timey british witty humor in it. Still, I was using it as an hyperbole more than anything. And of course satire is something I'm quite okay with too, especially in comedy.

Of course if you make a whole metaphor about building walls it will be political, but nowadays I get the feeling that you will be considered a SJW leftist if you make a Twitter-addicted president with a horrible tanline. That's a bit dangerous,, I'm pretty sure many GOP sympathizers would rather the president tweet less, and find his skin color worthy of mockery. Cult of personality to the point any laugh is seen as dissent is not a good look (see Xi Jingpooh for an example).

That goes back to my point about how everything remotely political being looked at automatically as something that MUST have come from one of the two extremes of the political spectrum. It's dangerous indeed, not to mention that it forces you to make whatever story your making the as bland and non-controversial as possible, if you want to avoid getting someone outraged and lose money and support because of that.

[Vol]

*Terms snip*

The people we're referring to are heavily authoritarian, they range from far to moderate left economically, and run the financial spectrum from poor to wealthy, but all favor government mandated wealth redistribution in some form or another. Their focus is primarily identity, race, gender, and sexuality, and their nominal goal is the eradication of social and economic inequalities. What is a non-pejorative term to describe them?

I don't know what it is like to be a woman, so I don't "really" have a "right" to ever write one. I also don't really have a "right" to write a black person, or indian, etc, because I am not one. Should I never try? I don't actually know. But I don't think right now I could ever try because of the third category's type of interactions with a creator.

I mean, even just drawing a female again, I have supreme doubts on if I even want to try again. If I make them too beautiful it's offensive to ugly people. If I make them too skinny it's fat shaming. If I make them to sexualized I am sexist for doing so. If I don't use darker skin tones I am racist. If I do but I am white then I am also racist. If I don't out-rightly express if one is not straight then I am bigoted.
It's quite honestly maddening how loud this vocal minority is that it's able to affect me, someone who is not even all that creative into thinking this and stifling myself. Imagine what it does to those who are big creators.

I would say to reject the premise that who and what you are has any bearing on what you write/draw, and to so as offensively or inoffensively as you care to. There is no one who has the authority, real or imagined, to proclaim that a given group can only be written/drawn/understood by anyone. Why should an ugly woman tell a man not to draw beautiful women? What does she know of them? Does a black person have any standing to tell a white person to not write a black character? Who are they to speak for all people who look like them?

The answer, of course, is that it's an impossible standard, otherwise you're reduced to only writing yourself. Which is nonsensical for anything but an autobiography. You're free! Let your creative winds carry you wherever they go! Of course, it is admirable to try to understand how different people think and live, for the sake of knowledge if nothing else. Though if we've come back around to essentialism through the left-wing, then it becomes trickier.

I know, but here is the thing investors at the end of the day will want money at some point, if those people don't deliver or worse cause the company to go down well some changes will come, because people don't like it when you mess their money.

Probably. It does seem like failure at these high levels of industry and finance doesn't seem to punish the people who made the mistakes. They stick around, wealthy as ever, and then do it again. And in America at least, our government handed out $10,000,000,000,000 to failing companies so they wouldn't go under because of their mistakes, so in those cases, no matter what they do, they cannot go out of business.

[TTTX]

Probably. It does seem like failure at these high levels of industry and finance doesn't seem to punish the people who made the mistakes. They stick around, wealthy as ever, and then do it again. And in America at least, our government handed out $10,000,000,000,000 to failing companies so they wouldn't go under because of their mistakes, so in those cases, no matter what they do, they cannot go out of business.

The powerful and rich always stick together for one reason or other, unless the one who made the mistake is in some illegal stuff that can hurt them well they generally get ride of that person.

on the other hand it isn't a good thing to have lots of companies to go under at once wouldn't have new great depression that would be bad for everyone.

Still though there should some sort of regulation or law that prevents higher ups from getting their golden handshakes when the company go under though.

[Sinekein]

The people we're referring to are heavily authoritarian

No. Again, you're picking a vocal minority who asks for law changes to forbid whatever they disagree with, and generalize that everyone is like them. Many - I include myself in some cases - will complain about some social issues because it disagrees with them, but will not ask for a rule overhaul, they will simply hope that society will evolve to make some issues disappear altogether.

In the same vein, you have many right-wingers who complain about the POTUS being laughed at or mocked because they like him, but without saying that it should be forbidden by law to do so. And then you have "heavily authoritarian" ones who think that the media should be forbidden to mock the leader of the country. Same kind of minority.

they range from far to moderate left economically, and run the financial spectrum from poor to wealthy, but all favor government mandated wealth redistribution in some form or another.

Not all of them, no. I mean, the poster-child of "SJWs" these days are some Hollywood writers, and I'm pretty sure wealth redistribution is rather low on their list of priorities. You can be called a "SJWs" despite very much being economically liberal, pro-free market.

Their focus is primarily identity, race, gender, and sexuality, and their nominal goal is the eradication of social and economic inequalities.

Again, that is not true. That is even a major source of disagreement on the left, between those who indeed prioritise those issues, and those who prioritise fixing income inequalities in order to solve other social issues. Yet all of them are commonly branded as "SJWs" - simply because they consider that there are identity, race, gender and sexuality issues, no matter how high on their political bucket list it ranks, how vocal they are about it, and how much they individually care about them. "SJW" makes it sound like intersectionnalism is the rule, and it really, most definitely is not (and those people spend the majority of their time insulting "moderates" because they're not as extreme at them, not Trump supporters).

What is a non-pejorative term to describe them?

I would ask whether it is smart to try and find ONE word to describe a large group of people whose ideas have a very large range. You go from liberals like Biden or Buttigieg to Social-Democrats like Sanders or Warren, with presumably some libertarians who cringe at discrimination, and even a bunch of outright racist or sexist individuals who happen to be neither white nor male. Is there, according to you, a "non-pejorative term" to describe all the voters who are likely to vote for Trump in the upcoming election?

I'm pretty sure "Republican" is inaccurate, because Trump has been politically courting some far-right nutjobs who are pretty far from agreeing with the GOP lines. "Conservative" is also too narrow, because right-wing libertarians are most definitely not conservatives. Ditto with "Reactionaries", or, well, "Nazis".

But there are actual "Nazis" who will support Trump in the upcoming election. I doubt his voters will be happy if left-wing voters in their entirety decide that from now on a Trump voter should be call a "nazi" because of that minority existing, and because, I don't know, they tend to agree that it is important to respect authority which is a concept that can be found in national-socialism.

Now "SJW" does not have the same historical baggage (and I am absolutely not arguing that Trump voters should be called that way), but the generalization is similarly stupid. If you want a broad term, I don't know, you can go for "left-wing" (even though many disagree that a Biden or Buttigieg is left-wing at all, let alone Obama), or "Trump opponent" because for the most part that fits rather well and it seems to have been one of his political strategies to create a new divide, so it is likely to please both sides.

Now if you want a diss, then by all means, suit yourself.

[Joblom]

As I understand that add was pulled almost immediately, so they clearly realized they fucked up.

Where did they get the idea in the first place? Hmm...

In other news, In 2020, Bend the Arc: White Action is mobilizing Whites and allies across the country to rise up in solidarity and build a country that is truly for us.

Oh wait, no. That was Jews and other peoples. Not white people. Never white people. Jews get a nation, other groups all get a nation, but Whites don't get any nation of their own. How could they? They have no culture of their own.

https://youtu.be/KRnddZ1t8SA

inb4 Theodric gets triggered

[Alienmorph]

Inb4 you're told by everyone here to shut the fuck up with this antisemitic bullcrap. Again.

[Joblom]

They don't? They are protecting themselves since the terrorists are attacking the USA or at least they think they do. You are wrong Islamic terrorists have been attacking the west (which include the USA) for decades long before the USA didn't need oil, for the terrorists it's about religion. Israel is located near the holiest city in the world for the top 3 religions in the world that is a very good strategi place for some obvious reasons.

Islamic attacks on the US didn't begin until after we started getting involved with Israel and the Middle East as a whole. My point is, we have no reason as I see it to be involved in either right now. Yet, strangely, the government and Republican Party seem intent on constantly putting Israel front and center of our policy. They even go after people who boycott this "great ally".

Politics sucks sometimes that's the way of life, if you don't like it well become a hermit and cut yourself off from society.

The problem isn't that I don't like it or don't support it. It is that my country's support for this nation isn't done for the benefit of my country, and that my refusal to support this is used as an excuse to persecute me by the very government that is sworn to uphold my rights. I do not appreciate being threatened by Congressmen.

That people can't see how disproportionate Israel influence in American politics is, and how toxic it is, is almost baffling to me. You are a good example of how this king of thing happens; you are casual and indifferent. Someone easy to exploit. Maybe you should care?

Now you gave reasons for that support, but not good ones. Not anything substantive. You basically just repeated Neo-Conservative propaganda. Very lazy.

So you have 2 examples vs...the entire rest of the academic field.

I only need one example. I don't just have one, of-course. The evidence is pretty prominent. All my opposition should need is one example, but they can't do that. They offer no evidence for their claims. What they do is offer verbal arguments centered around various concepts for classification.

If there was evidence that debunked this I would read it and I would accept it. That evidence has not materialized. Sinekein claims education in this field but he demonstrates no actual knowledge. You are not demonstrating any knowledge either. The mistake that he makes with waving around his PHD is basically the same one you are making now by appealing to authority. Sinekein's PHD or any other biologist's PHD doesn't make them right. The evidence they have is what makes them right or wrong. Is that hard to understand? Apparently it is for you.

I'm not even talking to you on the research, mainly you behaviour, which is just shitty.

Oh, my behavior is shitty? Have you seen Theodric and Mobious' posts? Bias much, sir? I have been very restrained and respectful considering the vitriol. Regardless, thank you for voicing your concerns about my attitude, but I don't really care to be lectured by you so that's waste of time. Anyone childish enough to disregard an argument presented in a tone they don't like is not somebody I care about appealing to.

Respectfully, take your accusations of bigotry and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

Your arguments are 100% "these things were said by a scientist so they must be true".

No, Mazder. The data they present is true. It is true unless it is debunked with other data that counters it. Since you obviously don't understand anything about science or debate, I recommend you bow out of this conversation. You are not contributing anything constructive to it. Sinekein has not shown any research or data. He just wrings his hands and says I'm a racist and that other biologists are disgusted with these studies. He can't present any evidence for his claims because there aren't any. If he could provide some actual evidence that human intelligence is universally the same, that races don't exist, I would accept it. ...but he won't do that.

Your evidence only matters when it is in support of your claim, not in the contrary

No, Mazder, that's not how it works. You clearly do not understand the scientific method. Go back to high school and this time pay attention, please. Falsifiability is one of the most paramount concepts in science. If you present a theory, the theory must allow for some method of debunking it through evidence. Everything I have said can be debunked. If we analyzed human DNA and genes and couldn't graph human ethnicities onto a chart out of that data, then that would be evidence. If we conducted IQ tests around the world and couldn't find any differences not explained by malnutrition, say, then that would debunk the concept of human races. If we couldn't find any genes which affect behavior that were unevenly distributed among human populations, then that would debunk the concept of human bio diversity.

Once again, this has not been done. Sinekein doesn't have such arguments. He has non-scientific theories which attempt to explain away the evidence in favor of this, but he doesn't actually have any data to debunk it.

Yeah, except it's the consensus of the scientific community that matters as they are the ones that actively look over the evidence and peer review it in order to ascertain it's validity.

No. It. Doesn't. Scientists can be wrong. They have been wrong and are wrong about many things. They are only human.
You don't even know what peer review is. Peer review is not "I read your theory and I agree with it". Peer review is scientists comparing your results to their own results. It is often scientists repeating your experiments and ensuring they get the same results. Peer review includes some analysis of your methods to check for errors, yes, but it ultimately comes down to finding the same evidence. S

Something is adopted into the consensus once it's been through that testing.

...and in this case there hasn't been any testing. The only testing supports my side of the argument. Not the "consensus", which doesn't even exist anyway. Lots of biologists agree that human ethnicity/race is real and meaningful. Medical science certainly supports it.

Plus, if popularity of a theory doesn't matter then even if this theory you're upholding now gets popular it still will not matter.

No, it won't. Popularity doesn't mean anything; only the evidence supporting it. You're learning. Slowly but surely, you are learning.

As soon as you can show me why my genetics can show why I might or might not favour aspects of a certain cultural preference that doesn't have anything to do with the society around me I will give you the point. Until then it's all speculative at best and absolute absurdity at worse.
I have a family member, his name is Jacob. He is black. He is my cousin. I am white.
Can you tell me from that what he's more preferable to like or dislike or do? Can you tell me if we share or do not share traits or skills?
Because if you can from that info alone you're not finding things in his genetics, you're fucking psychic.

Nature and nurture are both important. I don't judge individuals, I judge groups on aggregate behavior. I already pointed to the "Warrior Gene" in this very thread. Depending on what genes you have, your preferences for foods and environment, your behavior, will be affected. You'll be subject to certain disease risks, you'll be better or less able to play certain sports or enjoy certain intellectual pursuits.

I want you to explain to me why environment would not shape human evolution. You are the one insisting that humans are an exception to evolution. The onus is thus on you.

Generally, the theory on this subject is that peoples who evolved in environments with harsh winters had to learn better long term planning and delayed self gratification. People who grew up in environments without this, where food was available year round, did not. Thus they have less impulse control, poorer delayed self gratification, and poorer long term planning. This would explain why, as a whole, blacks have not done well in white dominated societies, and it is born out in studies on young children where they are tasked with delaying their gratification with the promise of a reward in the future. It is supported by the distribution of the "warrior gene", by IQ tests, and by brain structure.

So you've found it's their genetics, rather than the fact they live in the poorest areas, which means their schools receive the least funding and by extent have less education standards. But no, must be their genetics...
Again, crime rates in the lowest economic areas...hmm, starting to see a pattern here. ( Also bollocks, in the UK it's not your genetics but your economic level.)
Again, poorest areas....yet they're supposed to not use the welfare which is their main lifeline out as it means they're genetically inclined to do so? Despite the american stereotype of a poor person being a dumb white hick in the south?

This has been studied and the economic explanation, for both IQ and for crime, has been debunked. The most reliable metric for predicting crime rates is race, not poverty level. Sorry to break it to you.

Also, are you sure you want to present yourself as morally superior to me while also using the phrase, "dumb white hick?"

(Regarding Israel)
When that nation shapes trillion dollar foreign policy it becomes a big "What". It's not the only issue and might not even be the most important, but it is a big one. It is one that it can be dangerous even to talk about in the US.

Again, I say, so what?[/quote]

I value freedom of speech. Hard to make change when you can't talk or broadcast your message. Imagine if instead of Israel being in the way here, I was an advocate for equal rights but the government presecuted me for speaking on the matter. This takes place in 1960's say. In that case, I'm sure your answer would not be "So what".

Only because your nation is afraid of abandoning the 2 party system.
If the ones in the center were able to make their own party then it might go smoother.

Agreed.

Republicans have absolutely moved.
If your base hasn't then bully for you, but they have absolutely changed.

They have changed, but not much. Moved very slightly to the right since the 1980's and if Turning Point USA is any indication, they are trying to pull back closer to the center or left. That's what the data says.

That still doesn't make them not fringe ideas.

It isn't fringe if it can get you elected. If it can get you elected it can become law. Probably not immediately, but considering we granted amnesty in the past I expect we'll do it again. I expect that, given our culture has embraced the concept of Hate Speech despite the Supreme Court ruling, numerous times, that it doesn't exist, that will eventually become law. Cultural trends indicate the 1st and 2nd Amendments are living on borrowed time.

Yeah, nothing abhorrent going on there...

Lots of abhorrent things going on right now, and it will be worse in the future.

Until that drops to 49% you'll still be a mostly white nation.

And until you have proof that it's going to actually bring in those things you fear then it's all speculative again.

I have proof. I have opinion surveys. Unlike you, I can also look at the world around me and pay attention to what people advocate for. What they believe in. You are either willfully ignorant, which is a mark against your character, or just not very bright and observant, which is just a tragedy.

In the US illegal aliens have a habit of using Emergency Rooms as a doctor's officers. After all, they can't get insurance very easily if at all. This drives up costs. My solution is this: they need to GTFO.

or how about you have basic healthcare for all citizens to give them incentive to become a citizen?[/quote]

How about they stay the fuck out of my country instead? Then I don't have to pay for their healthcare or grant them citizenship. You seem to think everyone has a right to come here, but I do not. It is my country, not any foreigner's. Immigrating here is a privilege, not a right.

Also if you had the ability to check if someone was in a national health service system then you'd have all the records in one system.

We can't even check if people are citizens before they vote so I don't think we're going to check who they are if we have universal healthcare. Besides, are you arguing we should deny illegals healthcare completely? I'm not that heartless. If someone needs emergency care they ought to receive it. Genuine emergency that is, and if we didn't let dependent people flood our nation in the first place this would be a non issue since they'd be in their own country and it would be that government's problem and not ours.

So basically "I got mine, fuck anyone else who wants theirs because i'm already in the system".

You are almost as childish as Theodric and Mobius.

If I came to the USA legally, would I be allowed the same welfare you get or less?

Invalid question since we have enough stupid people already and shouldn't be importing them.

And what if it's America's interest to create a better world?
Would that put everyone else ahead of America or is it just another way of saying America wants to be in charge?
And this is coming from the Brit here.
The nation that used to be in charge.

Okay. Let me help you out here. We need to talk.

Replace the concept of "nation" with "family". Instead me wanting to put my nation first, I want to put my family first. What does this mean? Does this mean I want to dominate all other families? Hmm, no, it probably doesn't. It means that in general, I prioritize the needs of my family over the needs of other families. This doesn't mean I oppose other families or want to dominate other families or wipe out other families, it just means that my first priority is to see that family has what it needs to be safe, secure, and to prosper. It means I buy my son the school supplies he needs before I consider buying the school supplies for someone else's child. Now I may indeed do that because these other families, even if they aren't my own, they are in my community. Just as these other nations which are not my own are also in my community, so to speak. The global community. Indeed! The prosperity and stability of our neighbors does affect us, doesn't it? So maybe, sometimes, in certain ways, I will spend my time and effort helping them, but first I help my family. I do this, because if I don't make them the priority then nobody else will. Russia or the UK or Poland or Israel or Bangladesh, are never going to think,

"Well, first we need to make sure America is taken care of, then we'll worry about our own needs."

Now when it comes to nations, there is a power dynamic at play. The important thing to note here is the motive or incentive. Power, is a means to better acquire resources. Resources provide for the group you identify with. The UK built an empire to benefit itself. The US dominates the world to benefit itself. The Israelis dominate US politics to benefit themselves. China and Russia seek to undermine and replace US foreign power, at least in certain regions, to benefit themselves.

To apply this to the family metaphor, it means that I compete with other fathers or mothers to the best jobs. We can't all have the same job or make the same money. There is competition. So I do seek to have as best a job as I can to provide as much for my family as I can. However dominance of the other family, isn't the real goal. Nor does that even really fit as a description in this metaphor. Again, I'm not trying to dominate the other family, but I am denying something if I get the job that another parent was angling for. It's at their expense because resources are not infinite.

Does that make sense?

Now I get it. You hear nationalism or America First or "my people's interests" and you think dominance. You think Empire. I regard that as a flaw in your psychology. Possibly it is even projection. It certainly isn't reasonable or logical. Not unless I start saying we should go out and conquer other countries and peoples and exploit them for our benefit. Some people say that, but I don't. I'm an isolationist which means I'm opposed to Empire. I want strong domestic industries to lessen the incentive for empire and the reliance on foreign trade. I want self sufficiency.

Yeah, you just think African Americans and Hispanics are naturally gonna crime and be poor and stuff.
Yeah, you just want them out.
I don't know where I got the impression you're aligning with racist ideas...

I keep getting this impression you're not very bright.

they're not genetically more inclined to have more or less of an intent to perform criminal acts than me, or be poorer than me, or more antagonistic to the police than me.

How do you know?

Ask the Saxons, the Angles, the Picts.
This nation has had rapid influxes before and likely will again.
Our cultural identity changes.

Is that what you'd say if you around in the 1930's, that since culture changes and England has been invaded before, you shouldn't oppose the Third Reich? I find it depressing that you are this stupid.

So how about instead of putting America first, how about spending time to make Mexico a better place to live?

Why can't Mexicans do that? It's not my responsibility. Here's what I'd do: if it were up to me the American government would leave Mexico alone. No drug trade, not smuggling weapons to cartels. I might even agree to some economic arrangements with Mexico. I think that a prosperous Mexico, or at least a stable and safe one, is to my benefit. However that last bit is the important part here: the motivation. Mexico's problems are not inherently my problems. Nor the rest of Latin America. I believe in self determination, so that means I believe people are responsible for themselves. Mexicans need to prioritize making their country better. They will be better incentivized to do that if they can't keep coming here.

The Rape gangs is annoying

"Annoying"? That's the word you would choose to describe it? Should you perhaps, rephrase that? Has it occurred to you that it might make you look like kind of a jackass, like you are trivializing the sexual exploitation and violation of children? I think you should try to think more in general, though I have doubts it would accomplish anything. Can only do so much with shitty hardware.

[Joblom]

Inb4 you're told by everyone here to shut the fuck up with this antisemitic bullcrap. Again.

inb4 you refuse to explain your reasoning here or even attempt to debunk what I said. You can't. You know you can't. On some level you know what I'm saying is true, but you're too cowardly to admit it. Or maybe just too stupid. People like you deserve to be exploited by those in power.

If only society still had sense of shame or any dignity.

[Vol]

The powerful and rich always stick together for one reason or other, unless the one who made the mistake is in some illegal stuff that can hurt them well they generally get ride of that person.

on the other hand it isn't a good thing to have lots of companies to go under at once wouldn't have new great depression that would be bad for everyone.

Still though there should some sort of regulation or law that prevents higher ups from getting their golden handshakes when the company go under though.

Like Epstein!

I think of it like chemotherapy. It's awful, painful, you're basically dying from it, and every day is a struggle. But if it stops the cancer, it saves your life, and you can be healthy again. As opposed to doing nothing while you feel okay, and letting the cancer eventually kill you. A depression is the chemo, cancer is entrenched financial interests.

*snip*

So of the group of people that are oft complained about and called "SJW" or "woke," they have no consistent economic or social message, and their views on the strength of government varies as well. It's clearly an ideology that exists, and can be identified, but has no defined philosophical roots or non-pejorative descriptor beyond existing in the entirety of the left-wing of western politics.

Whereas I assert they're predominantly far left socially, with strong authoritarian beliefs to enforce those views, because they do in fact enforce them. If you do not believe in using the power of the state or other, lesser organizations to espouse your beliefs, then you disagree with the laws and movements that punish that do not follow your ideals?

If so, you're similar to me, in having your own, strong beliefs, but not necessarily demanding everyone believe or pretend to believe them. You're also not a SJW then. The murky area tends to be in that specific area between cheering the cause and believing in ideological control and cheering the cause but believing it can come about organically. Hard to tell at a glance who is who, since rarely is someone not dipping their toes in both pools, so it's a matter of degree.

Re: Trump - Yes, they'd be called "Trump Voters," as they occupy the entire range from center-left to far-right, authoritarian to libertarian, and consist of groups that otherwise loathe each other. But it's possible to break them down into their general political affiliation groups as part of that coalition. Ancaps, Nazis, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Rust Belt Democrats, Republicans, evangelicals, etc.

I imagine the global news media isn't reporting on it, given ours doesn't do it much either, especially since no one was killed, but there's been 2 attempted murders of Trump supporters in the last few weeks. One guy rammed his car into a voter registration tent for Trump/GOP, thankfully he missed the volunteers, and just now, a couple in Iowa tried to run over some teenagers on bikes wearing MAGA hats. To be called a Nazi is inherently preferable to being made a martyr for a cause as vague as a US president's platform.

*Snip*

The bizarre aspect is that Trump, by all appearance, adores Jews. In his personal and public life. His daughter married an Orthodox Jew, has Jewish grandkids, was involved in Jewish causes (And supported minorities and women, honored highly for that before he magically became a racist, sexist, anti-Semite while running for the Republican nomination) for decades. Recognized Jerusalem, gave them yet another massive aid package, wore the yarmulke to kiss the wall, groveled at AIPAC. Only gets the Orthodox Jew vote for all that (90% or so), called a Nazi as seen in that disgusting video, or mocked for "MIGA (Make Israel Great Again)" by some of the actual antisemitic sort.

I don't follow Jewish internal politics, but it logically appears at a glance that the split is between the heavily religious and everyone else, as the former are obviously more focused on spiritual matters and living a godly life. There's common philosophical thread between them, obviously, along with an in-group preference which would be considered healthy and normal in any population except Caucasians. This video, single rabbi aside, is plainly not representative of the ethnic group, nor the heavily religious, and can be categorized for what it is.

American might have been that "white nation," given our white population is an amalgamation of many Caucasian subgroups, myself being a complete mutt of European ancestries, and was about 90% those groups until about 3/4's the way through the last century. But for some odd reason, in '65, our leadership did an about face and decided to import anything but Europeans, while leaving our borders open.

I don't see this supposed value of diversity, because as preached, it's supposed to be in thought and cuisine, neither of which seem to require replacing native western populations. Much less what these supposed diverse thoughts are supposed to specifically bring in and improve, given in practice, it appears to be "the orthodoxy or you're evil," yet here we are.

[TTTX]

Like Epstein!

I think of it like chemotherapy. It's awful, painful, you're basically dying from it, and every day is a struggle. But if it stops the cancer, it saves your life, and you can be healthy again. As opposed to doing nothing while you feel okay, and letting the cancer eventually kill you. A depression is the chemo, cancer is entrenched financial interests.

maybe, at least until we find a better solution that works.

[TTTX]

Islamic attacks on the US didn't begin until after we started getting involved with Israel and the Middle East as a whole. My point is, we have no reason as I see it to be involved in either right now. Yet, strangely, the government and Republican Party seem intent on constantly putting Israel front and center of our policy. They even go after people who boycott this "great ally".

that's because the countries in the middle east didn't become their own until after WW2 and some stuff has happened inbetween now and then Iran leadership is an affect of some actions the USA did during the cold war (short story the USA removed Iran's leadership put in a western friendly guy so they could get the oil for close to free, which caused religious revolution) and the Middle east also have both religious and historical reasons to hate the west and the USA and they will not stop for quite a while yet,

So you know not having a stable alley and have eyes on the Middle east would be stupid and USA have tried the whole isolation thing twice.

The problem isn't that I don't like it or don't support it. It is that my country's support for this nation isn't done for the benefit of my country, and that my refusal to support this is used as an excuse to persecute me by the very government that is sworn to uphold my rights. I do not appreciate being threatened by Congressmen.

That people can't see how disproportionate Israel influence in American politics is, and how toxic it is, is almost baffling to me. You are a good example of how this king of thing happens; you are casual and indifferent. Someone easy to exploit. Maybe you should care?

Now you gave reasons for that support, but not good ones. Not anything substantive. You basically just repeated Neo-Conservative propaganda. Very lazy.

Well I'm not american so I don't care as it doesn't affect me.

Europe have a refugee crisis and have had so for quite a few years now and I could give a long list of problems with rights and laws being either bend or broken because of the amount of trouble we are having with thousands of people we have had coming over the border and there is even more waiting to come up.

Of course I can't give good reasons, because I'm not a US citizen or work for your government so I don't have all the details, I kinda wish Raga was here so she could give her two cents on it, but I imagine she is busy doing something important.

[Alienmorph]

inb4 you refuse to explain your reasoning here or even attempt to debunk what I said. You can't. You know you can't. On some level you know what I'm saying is true, but you're too cowardly to admit it. Or maybe just too stupid. People like you deserve to be exploited by those in power.

If only society still had sense of shame or any dignity.

I'm seriously waiting for the day you'll out yourself as a Flat Earther or a believer of some OTHER absurd cospiracy theory. You're pretty much using the same rethoric... "you can't debunk me and you know it", "you're just a sheep that deserves to be exploited"... blah blah blah...

Rejecting "mainstream" sources of knowledge, and picking up a convenient scapegoat for everything that's wrong in the world doesn't magically make you right, and part of a selected few who knows "da truth". You're not Neo in the fucking Matrix, seeying the sourcode of reality.

And as for "sense of shame and any dignity"... how claiming an entire ethnic group DESERVES to be ostracized and oppressed leads to those? Humor me.

[TheodoricFriede]

Nazi punk
Nazi punk
Nazi punk
FUCK OFF!

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuIrts2wAME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwFdRqe9S70

2020 going well it seems.

[Sinekein]

I might speak only for myself (although I doubt it), but Maz, you should not feel the need to waste time answering to the word-vomit wall of stupidity posted above. I personally would never perceive it as "losing the argument". On the contrary.

[Mazder]

I might speak only for myself (although I doubt it), but Maz, you should not feel the need to waste time answering to the word-vomit wall of stupidity posted above. I personally would never perceive it as "losing the argument". On the contrary.

TBH I had seen it yesterday and I just didn't want to bother at the time.

And now, after I have slept, I still can't be bothered. I'm tempted, but I honestly think spending more time would be like arguing against a flat-earther or someone from the Westboro Baptist Church.

He claims bias when we call his behaviour out as being shitty when he's literally posting anti-semetic shit.

Arguments like Mobius and GAC are one thing, but what Joblom is doing is another thing entirely.

[Alienmorph]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxkYJl4y4xE

I just found out about this. A Flat-Earther killed himself trying to get up high enough to see the "real" shape of the planet.

This is why all this pseudo-science and "special knowledge" bullcrap grinds my gears so much. It can literally KILL YOU, because reality gives not a damn about what you believe, or what someone you like makes you believe. And even if it doesn't, it can still hurt you and everyone around you pretty damn badly.

[Mazder]

On the one hand PFFFFAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
On the other hand, sad the dude died for that cause.

inb4 the flat-tards come out and say "OH he got too close to the truth so NASA and the establishment killed him!!!" or some shit.

[Vol]

So The_Donald is facing death by a thousand cuts today. First, new rules, so that upvoting wrong-think in a quarantined board will get you a warning and then further punitive action. Warnings have gone out, obviously, to T_D users, without any notification of what it was they "wrongly" upvoted.

No board has ever come out of quarantine either, and given how the review appeals have gone, the standard is impossible while also actually being a board supporting the president. At first, it was removing all posts ever made that violated the TOS, but became more a vague standard of being acceptable to the culture of reddit.

Then, half the mod staff was removed by administration, to be replaced by the administration's choices. Based on how that's work in the past, someone who loathes Trump could very well end up in charge there.

The galling thing is how chicken-shit they are about this. Clearly, they want to ban T_D, which is a very mild conservative board, full of Boomer beliefs, but lack the conviction to do it and bear the consequences.

I'd say we badly need a parallel internet, as giant companies and governments get their greasy claws into the current one, but it's more than that. Financial system too, the morality goblins go right after your money if you try and start a new project, free and open. So silly, all of this, can't even support the fuckin' US president on the biggest US message board aggregate.

[Vol]

Well, looks like Biden swept the SC primary. A bit over 50% of the total vote as of now, Bernie and Steyer are distant 2nd and 3rd, dipping in and out of being viable for winning a delegate. The black vote came through for Joe, as expected. Contested convention, ahoy!