[Saeko]

Expansionist collective autocratic communism?

I think you might enjoy The Culture series of books. It's about humanity in a post-scarcity society seeking to uplift all other species into bliss where humanity no longer colonizes or interferes with planets becuase they can just build their own self-sustaining, infinitely extending platforms in space.

But like people and AI's are free to fuck off and live lives of degenerate hedonism or if they're bored they can join the Star Trek style army where they subvert other species into their total individual freedom beliefs that can only exist in the post-scarcity society they want to bring everyone into.

Yeah, but the thing about communism is that I think a classless society only exists in fairy-tales. Anyway, that's enough about that, i don't want to derail the thread further with the topic of me. Which is a great topic, a wonderful topic, just... the best topic, believe me folks, the best topic. Just not now.

White heritage is Western civilization.
No white people no Westen civilization and Everything goes to shit

Western civilization is being destroyed from Within by Leftists and this all being financed by certain people like Soros
You have to be blind not to see that those protests are organized by certain organizations who come from other statea/cities while the locals are against burning their cities

It must REALLY grind your gears to see so much more support for the n-words, as you referred to them earlier, to be included in this Western Civilization you love to dick-ride so much than there ever will be for Israel.

[noemon]

I've criticized Jews a whole lot on this forum, but I've never called them names, nor did I basically call for the death of their culture.

Listen racist guy, you are sitting here making the racist argument that "diversity" has brought down the American civilisation. Your argument is about how Black people(and presumably others) should only be used as slaves to make America Great like in the past and when slavery is not possible anymore then they should be discarded because "diversity will bring down civilisation". That is the natural conclusion of your racist fascism. We let you say these things because then we get to ridicule you and show people how truly pathetic your political positions are, but sitting here trying to blame the Administration for bias when no action is being taken at all is a step too far.

If "honkey" is an insult that applies to racist white people with stupid ideas about Black people then that is what you are. And if you wanted me to deal with the term "honkey" you should have reported it and explained to me, a Greek person why the term should be censored while analysing to me how scared and threatened you feel by it. Then I will take action.

[Code Rood]

Listen racist guy, you are sitting here making the racist argument that "diversity" has brought down the American civilisation.

Yes, it's one of the reasons.

Your argument is about how Black people should only be used as slaves to make America Great like in the past and when slavery is not possible anymore then they should be discarded because "diversity" will bring down civilisation.

I'm opposed to slavery. Stop putting words in my mouth.

If "honkey" is an insult that applies to racist white people with stupid ideas about Black people then that is what you are. And if you wanted me to deal with the term "honkey" you should have reported it and explained to me a Greek person why the term should be censored while explaining to me how scared and threatened you feel by it.

Threatened? Scared? No. It's just that I smell the hypocrisy from a mile away. But carry on and pretend that you're neutral.

[noemon]

I'm not neutral at all and nor am I pretending to be. I am against your racist fascism with the entire body of my being. I still let you roam around freely though. You are the one that -having failed to produce a coherent argument that stands the scrutiny of logic- is throwing your toys up in the air trying to clutch at whatever straw you can find like a drowning person.

You should stop taking stupid positions without thinking them and articulating them properly.

Yes, it's one of the reasons.

Carry on, if you have the wits and the guts.

What should be done about "diversity" in America?

[SpecialOlympian]

Yeah, but the thing about communism is that I think a classless society only exists in fairy-tales. Anyway, that's enough about that, i don't want to derail the thread further with the topic of me. Which is a great topic, a wonderful topic, just... the best topic, believe me folks, the best topic. Just not now.

Nah, this is a much more productive discussion than our resident racists trying to derail the discussion into Literally Anything Else, Please Stop Talking About Black Murder.

Classless doesn't mean "classless." Society necessitates expertise in subjects necessary to the continuation and advancement of said society. Even in a socialist country like Cuba, which regularly exports its own doctors for humanitarian purposes to countries that aren't America because fuck them we still hate you and will never accept your help, people who have the aptitude and drive to specialize in a profession are commensurately rewarded for the effort they put forth into society.

And there's nothing wrong with that. You can have relative disparities in prestige and material conditions without a dude like Jeff Bezos in the room. You would still be poorer than Bezos if you made $10,000 a day every day from the beginning of the Gregorian calendar to today, btw. The point is that both a doctor and a janitor should have access to medical care, decent housing, and be afforded the dignity that every human being deserves.

Instead, our resident racists champion capitalism. Capitalism pretends to be meritocratic, so therefore people who are poor are deserving of whatever happens to them. Obviously this ignores things like nepotism, inherited wealth, etc. But capitalism, as a system that produces the best outcomes somehow by treating everyone as atomized individuals randomly bumping into each other, only works in a vacuum.

This is why libertarianism is a fast track to fascism. If you believe The Market is perfect, then it is natural to assume anyone who is poor is poor by din of their own social and genetic failures. So if this natural order, because markets are natural, has been established, why not just codify it with force? All you're doing is accelerating natural market forces.

[Patrickov]

... our resident racists trying to derail the discussion into Literally Anything Else, Please Stop Talking About Black Murder.

One thing is certain that they are stupid, because if they weren't, they could have done either of the following:
1. Give valid reasons and proof to lay out their case and have most of the others agreeing their observation.
2. When (1) is unachievable (note that it doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong, it could be just that they were incompetent), just bite the bullet and shut the fuck up.

This is why libertarianism is a fast track to fascism. If you believe The Market is perfect, then it is natural to assume anyone who is poor is poor by din of their own social and genetic failures. So if this natural order, because markets are natural, has been established, why not just codify it with force? All you're doing is accelerating natural market forces.

I am also a believer in market, but I think codifying it with force is against my fundamental belief. (Although I cannot say it's universally so, maybe there are exceptions?)

Any artificial process is by definition unnatural, even if its purpose is to imitate natural process.

[SpecialOlympian]

I am also a believer in market, but I think codifying it with force is against my fundamental belief.

That's nice. But there's a reason the phrase "Scratch a libertarian, find a fascist" exists.

If you are dumb enough to believe the market is the true arbiter of worth and value, then you will assume people who are poor are poor because they are inherently inferior. And that is the jumping off point from libertarianism to fascism.

[wat0n]

That's not true. The man who killed Trayvon Martin, who was suspciously black in a gated community, was let off by a Grand Jury.

A Grand Jury is defined as:



In the case of Trayvon Martin, his murderer wasn't even allowed to be brought before a court for criminal prosecution. And this was done on purpose by the District Attorney, becuase black lives are deemed to be less valid by our racist judicial system.

As @Prosthetic Conscience said, that actually did go to trial (plus Zimmerman wasn't even a cop).

But I can get your point. That did happen in the Eric Garner case - you know, the African American who died by asphyxiation in NYC, the original "I can't breathe" that helped to get BLM running too - although my point remains that this was ultimately a jury decision (one, by the way, we have no idea how was reached - I think NY keeps those sealed by law, and for some reason FOIA doesn't apply).

And since this case is so similar to that one, it will also be a test to see how much things have changed since then. And how much is left to do.

Is there a point here? The US Justice system fails Black people. It perpetuates their murder and unless it changes, then the entire system should be brought down and recreated from the beginning.

There is definitely a point: Jurors come from the citizenry, and the whole point of having them in is to allow for it to participate in the process. How they understand these cases is a key determinant in convictions.

And that's where BLM comes in. If people are reacting to it, we should see it in jury behavior. And it seems to me that indeed there is a slow cultural change going on in this matter - while it would be great if it was quicker, it's rare for it to be the case when it comes to cultural attitudes.

As such, if the system isn't working here it's because of something going on in American society, and if you want to bring that system down by force you'll have to deal with it as well, or replace it by a more administrative, elitist one (which has its pros and cons but I doubt Americans will consent taking that route).

Black people and White people who believe in Justice for all should all unite and change the system by whatever means necessary. When you 're right you should have no thugs to fear because Right is on your side.

I'd definitely fear having thugs with assault rifles coming at me, regardless of whether I'm right or not. Being right is no consolation if I'm dead.

Furthermore, if that unity occurs then the justice system basically fixes itself: Juries start considering the evidence differently, and making their mind in a way that doesn't systematically let cops off the hook. I think that's where things have been going during these last 2-3 years and hope that remains the case - even if there remains much to do.

Wishful thinking or not, your reverse psychology remains irrelevant for precisely what I said. This is about making Black Lives to truly matter and this should happen yesterday by whatever means possible. For the record I did not feel scared with either Brexit or BoJo. I felt frustrated on some people's stupidity about Brexit but for the record I voted for BoJo because he gave me a very hefty business rates relief and at the bottom line we are all self-interested creatures. During the last 3 months of the elections I made not a single peep in here and just let it play out.

Well, *possible* is the key word here. Having a second Trump administration won't help to that effect, particularly if the Justice Department doesn't step in to enforce Civil Rights law in these cases. Especially not if the motto will now be Make America Safe Again.

That's why this emotional reaction, while understandable, is awful news. This makes it more likely that Trump will be elected. And although I don't think he's as bad as some think (there are other populists who are way, way more destructive than he is), this doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible President. One who, by the way, has dropped some Civil Rights cases on police brutality, including the homicide of Eric Garner IIRC (last year).

[Patrickov]

If you are dumb enough to believe the market is the true arbiter of worth and value, then you will assume people who are poor are poor because they are inherently inferior. And that is the jumping off point from libertarianism to fascism.

The problem is not what ideology they are holding. The problem is that it is simply wrong to use only one reason to explain a multi-cause phenomenon. And I am against explaining poverty with solely external malice as well.

If I have to say, poverty is a symptom, not a disease. It can be from a lot of reasons. The person in concern being in bad luck (including being born in the wrong place or time) or being incompetent, are both just possible reasons. It needs further investigation and observation to make appropriate conclusions, just like we need to see the doctor to find out what's really gone wrong.

EDIT: And even if it's proven that the person in concern is incompetent or inferior, what next? The problem of some people (in fact, everyone of us at certain point of time) is that they jump to conclusions, or even an action plan, too quickly.

Or even simpler, everybody can just ask themselves a simple question: What if poverty happens to me?

[noemon]

There is definitely a point: Jurors come from the citizenry, and the whole point of having them in is to allow for it to participate in the process. How they understand these cases is a key determinant in convictions.
And that's where BLM comes in. If people are reacting to it, we should see it in jury behavior. And it seems to me that indeed there is a slow cultural change going on in this matter - while it would be great if it was quicker, it's rare for it to be the case when it comes to cultural attitudes.
As such, if the system isn't working here it's because of something going on in American society, and if you want to bring that system down by force you'll have to deal with it as well, or replace it by a more administrative, elitist one (which has its pros and cons but I doubt Americans will consent taking that route).

Once again, I am not a legal jurist in America, but I can clearly see there is something rotten with permitting people to kill Black people with impunity. Regardless of who is at fault, the jury, the prosecution, the police, the system as a whole it needs to change by whatever means possible. No people would or should take so many insults and do nothing about it.

That's why this emotional reaction, while understandable, is awful news. This makes it more likely that Trump will be elected. And although I don't think he's as bad as some think (there are other populists who are way, way more destructive than he is), this doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible President. One who, by the way, has dropped some Civil Rights cases on police brutality, including the homicide of Eric Garner IIRC (last year).

I highly doubt Black people in fear of their lives should worry or even apologise that their emotional( I see it as a rightful & political one) reaction might support Trump by rallying the racist bigots around him. By this kind of logic, Black people should just take it up the ass and not even squeak in fear of the squeakiness bringing a racist bigot out of the woodwork.

[Patrickov]

there are other populists who are way, way more destructive than he is

Trump is more destructive in the sense that he is proved to be electable and is in power, although as I said, not all responsibility is laid on him.

[wat0n]

Once again, I am not a legal jurist in America, but I can clearly see there is something rotten with permitting people to kill Black people with impunity. Regardless of who is at fault, the jury, the prosecution, the police, the system as a whole it needs to change by whatever means possible. No people would or should take so many insults and do nothing about it.

You cannot fix it if you don't know why it is how it is, however. But more importantly, what if the system had already began addressing these issues on its own, and the reaction you mention ends up working against it? Black Lives Matter, I think, was a movement that precisely led Americans to think about how policing is carried out in Black communities and particularly about how and why aren't cops brought to justice. And since then, I think, some progress did occur, such as the conviction in the Laquan McDonald case. I think this wouldn't have happened, say, 10 years ago.

I highly doubt Black people in fear of their lives should worry or even apologise that their emotional( I see it as a rightful & political one) reaction might support Trump by rallying the racist bigots around him. By this kind of logic, Black people should just take it up the ass and not even squeak in fear of the squeakiness bringing a racist bigot out of the woodwork.

But protests haven't been exclusively Black (at all, there's been plenty of Whites fighting the cops). And there have also been Blacks who have had their businesses looted, including in Minneapolis, and as such there's also been Black opposition for that reason.

Although this incident has an obvious racial side, the violence is a typical Left vs Right thing. I would definitely not describe what has been happening as a race riot, even if the case started out as a racial incident.

@Patrickov I'm considering certain other people in power that have been more destructive to their own countries than him. He's bad but the American system has also helped keep him in check. Even now, for all his rhetoric, he hasn't sent Federal troops outside Washington DC - why? Because it's illegal for him to do so without any request to that effect from the States.

[Patrickov]

I'm considering certain other people in power that have been more destructive to their own countries than him.

My point still stands. He's still more destructive because he gets to be US president instead of leadership of some less influential countries.

[wat0n]

Oh, sure, as far as the international system goes he's been very destructive indeed.

[SpecialOlympian]

My point still stands. He's still more destructive because he gets to be US president instead of leadership of some less influential countries.

Lol if you think MAGA hat man is making anyone look to him as a source of consistent leadership, and not the fickle moron he is.

[noemon]

You cannot fix it if you don't know why it is how it is, however.

You are not required to be a legal jurist to demand justice for Black people. And to demand it by any means necessary. This is quite a major straw, demanding from victims of injustice to become legal jurists so they can pinpoint the issues with the system. No dear wat0n, there are specialists for this reason and countries to follow their legal examples, you just need the political and social will to actually do it and protesting/rioting and demanding your rights by any means necessary is all about enforcing that will to activate itself. Things may have got better after Obama was elected and changed certain things, but things are clearly not good enough.

But protests haven't been exclusively Black (at all, there's been plenty of Whites fighting the cops). And there have also been Blacks who have had their businesses looted, including in Minneapolis, and as such there's also been Black opposition for that reason.

I am asking you again, why should or would Black people in fear of their lives be afraid to express their discontent with a State that discriminates against them in very obvious ways.

Why would White people supporting Justice be scared to express their own discontent with the very same state? Because that will bring racist bigots out of the woodwork you say. But that is not a good enough reason even if true and not even true to begin with as it will eventually force racist bigots back into their basements. So try again.

[SpecialOlympian]

Just imagine how dissapointed the average PoFo Trump supporter must be if they voted for him for the racism and now they're watching black people burn down police stations lmfao.

[Godstud]

Trump is more destructive in the sense that he is proved to be electable and is in power, although as I said, not all responsibility is laid on him.

That's not an argument, and it's a stupid point to make. My dog is electable. She's very cute and does fun stuff. That doesn't mean she should be a President of the most powerful country on earth.

All responsibility SHOULD be laid on him, since he's the fucking LEADER. Why is it everyone wants to let the leader off the hook, in Trump's case? Anywhere else and it's all the leader's fault.


@SpecialOlympian If only they'd let him build that wall. This wouldn't be an issue.

[SpecialOlympian]

usermention=1129]@SpecialOlympian[/usermention] If only they'd let him build that wall. This wouldn't be an issue.

You're thinking too broad.

This is the end result of The Great American Wall experiment:

A white man, imprisoned by his fellow white men, joyously murdering people and thanking his jailers for giving him a reason to kill.

[Patrickov]

:roll: That's not an argument, and it's a stupid point to make. My dog is electable. She's very cute and does fun stuff. That doesn't mean she should be a President of the most powerful country on earth.

All responsibility SHOULD be laid on him, since he's the fucking LEADER. Why is it everyone wants to let the leader off the hook, in Trump's case? Anywhere else and it's all the leader's fault.

"Proved electable" simply means "proved that his type could still be elected" here. It is not a testimony to his actual ability.


In totalitarian countries like China we can safely (in the sense of not being wrong, not personal safety) place all blame to Xi Jinping, and he's gleefully assuming his power anyways.

It's not the same for United States' case. Both Trump voters and those didn't vote simply because they were angry of Hillary Clinton have to bear responsibility. Most (although not all) of them know what's going on, and if any of them find the reality hard, they asked for it.