[Pants-of-dog]

EVERYBODY has a history of discrimination. Blacks (IF they are who they claim to be) held my ancestors in bondage for over 400 years.

Sure.

But that discrimination stopped, and it no longer has any impact on the modern USA. The discrimination against black people is ongoing.

Since I do not know anybody in the alt-right and have not read any of their material or listened to their leaders, have no idea what they believe or disbelieve. As long as they are not breaking laws with what they say, I support their Right to say it, however. I might pay attention to them and actually get offended, but will still stand up for their Right to their own views (again so long as it does not jeopardize my Rights or put anyone into danger).

I see.

Since many of them are white nationalists who openly advocate that non-white people should have less rights, it could be said that providing a platform for the alt-right would jeopardize the rights of non-white people.

Now, you said that would still stand up for their (i.e. the alt-right) Right to their own views so long as it does not jeopardize your Rights. How about if it jeopardizes the rights of others?

[Drlee]

This is the kind of typical insulting and repulsive posting I'm subjected to.

Obviously you are just not up to the level of debate here. I suppose you are used to people rolling over to your bullying. You are not being insulted when someone disagrees with you but that idea seems to be the current position of the far right. Somebody questions their opinions and they run off to get a gun and dress like a rent-a-cop.

You can go on and post whatever you like. I am not going to stoop to the absurdity of the "Obama is a Muslim" argument but I am sure you can find quite a few pituitary cases to masturbate to it. Really guy. If you are as educated as you claim to be (more than 20 years post secondary education is your claim) then up the level of your debate. Leave aside the nonsensical ideas constructed to impress the less intelligent far-right ideologues (like the Muslim president garbage) and have a political debate on the ideas.


But here is the thing. POD is correct. You are speaking exactly like a far right white supremacist or at the very least an ardent white nationalist. Perhaps you do not intend this but you are using all of their buzz words.
And they have no notion of a political discussion. Their way to power, as they see it, is not through the ballot box. Is yours?

[The Resister]

No matter how much I try there are those who want this thread to be about me. If the OP doesn't object, I will go along with the derailment (while actively trying to get my critics to address the actual topic).

I find the allegations that I am a fascist or even a Republican to be insulting, disgusting, dishonest, and done with the clear intent of violating the rules here. That way, if I respond in the same spirit, I could be banned. Newbies aren't the most informed people as to how a set of rules are interpreted or applied.

I do not consider myself a Republican because Republicans cannot say the word Republic even if someone has them in a leg lock and threatening to break their leg. They are all about the "democracy." What they cannot tell you is the real difference. There is a very REAL difference between the two ideologies. It is not addressed by the left or the right; Democrat or Republican; conservative or liberal. It is a wholly different subject, but the founders and framers hated, loathed and despised democracies. The RINOs really don't know why. Since all the aforementioned don't know the difference, I am not one of them. I don't think the Libertarians know either, so I've avoided joining their organizations.

Since fascism requires one to be in favor of an authoritarian type of government (much like the Trump worship), that definitely does not describe me. Insofar as being for the rich, that does not describe me. And I am the ultimate individualist, so that too is antithetical to the political ideology of fascism.

The framers of the Second Amendment intended for an armed citizenry to exist, not only for the protection of the individual, but for their family as well. Let's ask the man that wrote the Second Amendment:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

James Madison, in his role as President of the United States nominated Justice Joseph Story to sit on the United States Supreme Court as one of the Justices there. Here is what Story wrote:

"The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them"."

You know who else believes that? Fascists. I don't think that the facists and the framers of our Constitution were the same kinds of people. But, if you called me a fascist, you called the framers of the Constitution fascist as well. That is why this attempt to discredit me because I did not nuance every word I typed to the liking of my critics is childish at best. I'm an individualist that does not like an authoritarian government. I spent many years fighting National ID and, yes, it was the Republicans who ended up endorsing the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify laws and the 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance of American citizens. I find that abhorrent.

Frederick Douglass once said a man had three rights: the ballot box, jury box, and the bullet box. I say you have three votes by which to enforce your Rights: your vote at the polls, the Grand Jury vote and your jury vote. You cannot call out a militia until every non-violent political and legal avenue have been exhausted, and even then, you leave the door to negotiation open. So, NO. The critics still have not got me "pegged" as they claim.

[The Resister]

Sure.

But that discrimination stopped, and it no longer has any impact on the modern USA. The discrimination against black people is ongoing.



I see.

Since many of them are white nationalists who openly advocate that non-white people should have less rights, it could be said that providing a platform for the alt-right would jeopardize the rights of non-white people.

Now, you said that would still stand up for their (i.e. the alt-right) Right to their own views so long as it does not jeopardize your Rights. How about if it jeopardizes the rights of others?

EVERYBODY faces discrimination. The whole point is, forced integration has had more than enough years to work. Live and let live. I signed a document that puts everybody on a level playing field. You should sign it. If you read my posts I have REPEATEDLY told people, I don't give a damn whose Rights are at stake. If it comes down to unalienable Rights, I will fight to the death for their Rights. Will you? If so, you need to sign the charter and get off my back. A reading of this thread every time you see my posts might help. This repetitive stuff is silly.

[The Resister]

Obviously you are just not up to the level of debate here. I suppose you are used to people rolling over to your bullying. You are not being insulted when someone disagrees with you but that idea seems to be the current position of the far right. Somebody questions their opinions and they run off to get a gun and dress like a rent-a-cop.

You can go on and post whatever you like. I am not going to stoop to the absurdity of the "Obama is a Muslim" argument but I am sure you can find quite a few pituitary cases to masturbate to it. Really guy. If you are as educated as you claim to be (more than 20 years post secondary education is your claim) then up the level of your debate. Leave aside the nonsensical ideas constructed to impress the less intelligent far-right ideologues (like the Muslim president garbage) and have a political debate on the ideas.


But here is the thing. POD is correct. You are speaking exactly like a far right white supremacist or at the very least an ardent white nationalist. Perhaps you do not intend this but you are using all of their buzz words.
And they have no notion of a political discussion. Their way to power, as they see it, is not through the ballot box. Is yours?

There is one thing for sure. You are the absolute master of projection. Again, sir for the umpteenth time:

IF any "debate" existed here, your side lost the moment they sunk into name calling, hurling baseless accusations, and doing all they could to insult me. Maybe they would have been well served to call out the big guns BEFORE they lost any pretend debate. WHERE is the incentive for me to litigate a phony "debate" I've already won? I don't know where in the Hell you learned how to debate, but in a debate you learn how to ask questions, not make baseless accusations, hurl insults, and accuse people of believing things they don't believe. Now, you show me a civil conversation that doesn't end with (expletive deleted) calling me a racist, fascist, bigot, etc. and might have yourself a debate. It won't be on this thread. Your side lost that for you many posts ago. I see no reason to re- litigate it and all I'm doing is showing that you don't know what you don't know.
As far as packing the gear for a debate. Your side hasn't been up to it. Civil conversation requires that you show people respect.

Go back in this thread instead of posting another worthless post. READ what happened. Right out of the chute and all the way up until now, it has been one insult after another. I'm not being given the latitude to respond in the same spirit. So, where is the "debate?" An attempted lynching might better describe the way I've gotten treated.

[Tainari88]

EVERYBODY faces discrimination. The whole point is, forced integration has had more than enough years to work. Live and let live. I signed a document that puts everybody on a level playing field. You should sign it. If you read my posts I have REPEATEDLY told people, I don't give a damn whose Rights are at stake. If it comes down to unalienable Rights, I will fight to the death for their Rights. Will you? If so, you need to sign the charter and get off my back. A reading of this thread every time you see my posts might help. This repetitive stuff is silly.

Everybody faces discrimination?

Well, I can think off the top of my head? That if you don't have a lot of money to pay a criminal lawyer and you are facing criminal charges? Justice is not even handed. If you are in a job that doesn't pay much getting an education is a lot harder.

The problem a lot of people have is just accepting that there is injustice and that there is a whole lot of work to be done trying to get people those inalienable rights you crow about. If you believe in capitalism? I posit you wind up discriminating Resistor. You can't help doing so. Because in that system you got investors, you got owners of the property and you got workers who neither own property nor have investments. So all of us are not equal in terms of power over the basis of the economic system. Our relationship to power and lack of it? Forces us to realize that our rights are not equal.

If you are born in an unincorporated territory of the USA and don't have constitutionally guaranteed citizenship? But statutory citizenship that is one way and not mutually agreed upon? You got inequality. Which means you don't have inalienable rights. You got limited rights.

And the government imposing that hypocritical status? Is the USA government. The only way any of the people being screwed over by the USA government get justice? Is by not allowing themselves to believe the fiction that everyone gets discriminated against equally. They don't.

[Pants-of-dog]

EVERYBODY faces discrimination.

No, this is not true.

The whole point is, forced integration has had more than enough years to work. Live and let live.

Are you saying that white people should be allowed to have their own nation?

I signed a document that puts everybody on a level playing field. You should sign it. If you read my posts I have REPEATEDLY told people, I don't give a damn whose Rights are at stake. If it comes down to unalienable Rights, I will fight to the death for their Rights. Will you? If so, you need to sign the charter and get off my back. A reading of this thread every time you see my posts might help. This repetitive stuff is silly.

I have no idea what document or charter you are discussing.

Anyway, whose rights ill you fight to the death for?

Youtube’s right to refuse service?
The alt-rights free speech rights?
The rights of non-whites jeopardized by the alt-right?

[ingliz]

It is dishonest for us to claim that there isn't a genocidal war against Whites

Bravo! You have won the prize given for the stupidest post of the day. Well done. I thought @blackjack21 had that one sewn up for certain.

[Wellsy]

The complexity of postmodern society is such that it is inconceivable that a better world can be approached by the further elaboration of duty, of laws and regulations, outside the fostering of social values which ensure that what people desire to do is socially beneficial, or at least not harmful. It is undeniable that the elaboration of rights, as opposed to duties or virtues, is the fundamental level of ethical life, but it is equally inconceivable that a good life can be reached by rights alone. But these questions cannot be answered as isolated theoretical exercises: how can people live a good life? That is the question.
...
Conservatives, however, don’t mind ethical rhetoric about duty, in fact they are the moralistic advocates of duty par excellence. Liberals on the other hand will resist any attempt to cross the boundary of ethical struggle from rights into duties, from what you are allowed to do, to what you ought to do.
...
Over and above this, neo-liberalism now marginalises even an ethics of duty in favour of an exclusive focus on the ethics of right. As a result, negative is prioritised over positive freedom, what you are allowed to do, over what you are able to do.

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf

A singular focus on rights is inadequate for all except the liberal who concerns themselves only with the abstract and formal regulation of life but no thought further to the realization of the good life. In fact it is often characterized as impossible.

Broadly, the position of ideological liberalism here is that since it is impossible to rationally justify the values deployed in intersubjective activity, any attempt to do so leads to infinite regression, circularity, or dogmatic assertion, and since it is formally impossible to know the social consequences of your action (a final Good), all those ethical theories which rest on a notion of the Good, utilitarianism included, must prove theoretically unsustainable. Consequently, the only consistent position which can be defended in ethics is the specification, or at least prioritisation, of rights; any attempt to place a concept of the Good at the ground of ethics must lead to dogmatism or inconsistency.

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/macintyre2.pdf

Maintenance of the illusion of “objectivity” is essential, and MacIntyre sees the universities as playing a crucial role in the maintenance of this illusion. Since academics rely for their livelihood on disproving each other’s theories, the resulting interminable and esoteric debate continuously re-establishes the impossibility of consensus.

“In the course of history liberalism, which began as an appeal to alleged principles of shared rationality against what was felt to be the tyranny of tradition, has itself been transformed into a tradition whose continuities are partly defined by the interminability of the debate over such principles. An interminability which was from the standpoint of an earlier liberalism a grave defect to be remedied as soon as possible has become, in the eyes of some liberals at least, a kind of virtue”. (p. 335)

Far from this failure to find any firm ground undermining liberalism, MacIntyre believes that it reinforces it, because one of the fundamental bases for liberalism is the conviction that no comprehensive idea (to use Rawls’ term) can enjoy majority, let alone unanimous, support. This then justifies the ban on governments pursuing the general good.

“Any conception of the human good according to which, for example, it is the duty of government to educate the members of the community morally, ... will be proscribed. ... liberal individualism does indeed have its own broad conception of the good, which it is engaged in imposing politically, legally, socially, and culturally wherever it has the power to do so, but also that in doing so its toleration of rival conceptions of the good in the public arena is severely limited.” (p. 336)

Such a ban on governments pursuing the social good of course serves a very definite social interest.

“The weight given to an individual preference in the market is a matter of the cost which the individual is able and willing to pay; only so far as an individual has the means to bargain with those who can supply what he or she needs does the individual have an effective voice. So also in the political and social realm it is the ability to bargain that is crucial. The preferences of some are accorded weight by others only insofar as the satisfaction of those preferences will lead to the satisfaction of their own preferences. Only those who have something to give get. The disadvantaged in a liberal society are those without the means to bargain.” (p. 336)

and consequently,

“The overriding good of liberalism is no more and no less than the continued sustenance of the liberal social and political order”. (p. 345)

In each of the historical settings that MacIntyre investigates, he is able to show that the type of justice and the type of rationality which appears to the philosophical spokespeople of the community to be necessary and universal, turns out to be a description of the type of citizens of the community in question. Accordingly, the justice of liberalism and the rationality of liberalism is simply that justice and that rationality of the “citizens of nowhere” (p. 388), the “outsiders,” people lacking in any social obligation or any reason for acting other than to satisfy their desires and to defend the conditions under which they are able to continue satisfying their desires. Their rationality is therefore that of the objects of their desire.

Liberalism is barren.

[Drlee]

@The Resister Sorry guy. You are puffed up and tedious.

By the way. This does not argue for but rather against the unregulated ownership of guns.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Clearly Madison saw the ownership of these guns or at least their deploying as a function of state government and under the direction of officers appointed by the states. This does not empower a person to own a gun but rather to bear them while a member of a militia. But you will reject this because your friends like to play with military firearms. It makes them feel potent.

You cannot call out a militia until every non-violent political and legal avenue have been exhausted, and even then, you leave the door to negotiation open.

Then you agree you are speaking of the state militia. If you are NOT speaking of a militia then you advocate armed insurrection against the state and federal governments. In this your armed mob would kill the police, the National Guard and our own military. Our sons and daughters. And why do that? Over a political disagreement that you can't win at the ballot box. That is called treason and armed insurrection. I will no longer debate with some insurrectionist who advocates killing the military over a political disagreement.

The Resister wrote:
It is dishonest for us to claim that there isn't a genocidal war against Whites

Yes. @ingliz the stupidist post of the day. Although this one is pretty close:

And I am the ultimate individualist...

Garden variety racist - white nationalist. Nothing to see here.

[QatzelOk]

Garden variety racist - white nationalist. Nothing to see here.

Well then, let's get the bonfire going. Drlee, go get the matches and your exorcist kit.



This witch is ready to fry!

[The Resister]

Everybody faces discrimination?

Well, I can think off the top of my head? That if you don't have a lot of money to pay a criminal lawyer and you are facing criminal charges? Justice is not even handed. If you are in a job that doesn't pay much getting an education is a lot harder.

The problem a lot of people have is just accepting that there is injustice and that there is a whole lot of work to be done trying to get people those inalienable rights you crow about. If you believe in capitalism? I posit you wind up discriminating Resistor. You can't help doing so. Because in that system you got investors, you got owners of the property and you got workers who neither own property nor have investments. So all of us are not equal in terms of power over the basis of the economic system. Our relationship to power and lack of it? Forces us to realize that our rights are not equal.

If you are born in an unincorporated territory of the USA and don't have constitutionally guaranteed citizenship? But statutory citizenship that is one way and not mutually agreed upon? You got inequality. Which means you don't have inalienable rights. You got limited rights.

And the government imposing that hypocritical status? Is the USA government. The only way any of the people being screwed over by the USA government get justice? Is by not allowing themselves to believe the fiction that everyone gets discriminated against equally. They don't.

You are talking to the wrong person. As a teen, I lost my first job which was high paying union job to a black due to affirmative action. Sure, the government tells the sheeple that employers were not allowed to fire us, but they merely laid us off and when the next project was started, the employers hired Blacks due to affirmative action. ALL of my life I've felt the sting of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, racial quotas, racial preference in hiring, and Whites that were scared to death NOT to hire a Black or call them on the carpet when they screwed up.

I've never laid the blame on the Black people for the disparity. It's always been connected to the government AND to self hating Whites that think we should be obligated to destroy ourselves for alleged actions that took place eons ago - and the reality doesn't match the hype we've created surrounding it. I've never had "White privilege." My race has AL:WAYS worked against me in getting hired, promoted, and getting paid as much as the people in the companies I worked for. My last employer hired me because I didn't look White. It was really a good thing, however. It inspired me to go back to school (though I got discriminated against in one college because I was neither Black nor female). I ultimately ended up working for myself most of the time and earning my piece of the American pie.

While I'm at it, I have NEVER crowed about "inalienable" rights; I'm talking about unalienable Rights. I bold the word because there is a legal difference. It is a very important distinction in law. If not for the cancer of inalienable rights (sic) you would GLADLY sign the charter to which I allude because it demands that the government acknowledge and respect your unalienable Rights. Don't let the laymen fool you. There is a major legal difference between those two seemingly innocuous words.

We may not get discriminated against "equally," but that is irrelevant. It's just life. Sometimes you have to quit blaming the government, other races, etc. and become the master of your own destiny.

[The Resister]

Bravo! You have won the prize given for the stupidest post of the day. Well done. I thought @blackjack21 had that one sewn up for certain.

The honest and brutal truth is stupid?

[The Resister]

No, this is not true.



Are you saying that white people should be allowed to have their own nation?



I have no idea what document or charter you are discussing.

Anyway, whose rights ill you fight to the death for?

Youtube’s right to refuse service?
The alt-rights free speech rights?
The rights of non-whites jeopardized by the alt-right?

Nothing personal, but I won't dignify most of your reply with a response if you're too lazy to read the thread. Whose Rights will I fight for? I fight for the unalienable Rights of man. The rest of your crap is either a personal insult or an attempt to get me to keep repeating myself. I'm done with that. Those accusing me of racism are, most likely hate mongers themselves. It soothes the guilt by projecting.

[ingliz]

I'm talking about unalienable Rights. I bold the word because there is a legal difference.

What are you wittering on about? Inalienable or unalienable, legally, there is no difference. They both refer to rights that cannot be taken away or transferred.

If it's more 'Founders' bollocks you want, the Rough Draft* of The Declaration of Independence reads inalienable. Congress didn't change it. It was John Adams in making his copy of the Rough Draft to send to the printers who wrote unalienable.


* Hint: Tap the screen and the image will enlarge.

[Godstud]

It is dishonest for us to claim that there isn't a genocidal war against Whites

Please provide some actual evidence for this ridiculous claim. The very idea is asinine.

[noemon]

Nothing personal, but I won't dignify most of your reply with a response if you're too lazy to read the thread. Whose Rights will I fight for? I fight for the unalienable Rights of man. The rest of your crap is either a personal insult or an attempt to get me to keep repeating myself. I'm done with that. Those accusing me of racism are, most likely hate mongers themselves. It soothes the guilt by projecting.

There are no personal insults in Pants-of-Dog's questions to you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nothing personal, but I won't dignify most of your reply with a response if you're too lazy to read the thread. Whose Rights will I fight for? I fight for the unalienable Rights of man. The rest of your crap is either a personal insult or an attempt to get me to keep repeating myself. I'm done with that. Those accusing me of racism are, most likely hate mongers themselves. It soothes the guilt by projecting.

If you think I am insulting you, please report my post to moderation.

There are two ways you can do this. One is through the drop down menu available in the top right hand corner of my post. The second is by starting a thread in the Basement. The moderators appreciate this, but please read the instructions on how to post there properly.

Now, whose rights are inalienable?

Youtube?
The alt-right?
Non-whites?

Thanks!

[QatzelOk]

No, this is not true.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Resister here.

Perhaps it might appear that certain people are immune from discrimination - like Royals for example. But within their own community, Royals (and other seemingly safe groups) practice the same kind of brutal discrimination among themselves (and are particularly brutal to other Royals in other nations) as the peasant class does with their pursuit of common witches.

All of this "competition" leads to major discrimination in all sectors of life.

Youtube, for example, is Royal Media. So its burning of "Alt-Right" witches... fits into the discrimination category.

[Drlee]

@The Resister

You are talking to the wrong person. As a teen, I lost my first job which was high paying union job to a black due to affirmative action. Sure, the government tells the sheeple that employers were not allowed to fire us, but they merely laid us off and when the next project was started, the employers hired Blacks due to affirmative action. ALL of my life I've felt the sting of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, racial quotas, racial preference in hiring, and Whites that were scared to death NOT to hire a Black or call them on the carpet when they screwed up.

Of course none of this squares with the life narrative you have posted already. You claim vast education, considerable wealth and political power. Now you want us to weep for you. Poor little snowflake. Those black folks have had their foot on your neck. The above reads like typical racist white supremacist propaganda. Better fit for Stormfront than here. And I don't believe a word of it. "The sting of affirmative action."

I've never laid the blame on the Black people for the disparity. It's always been connected to the government AND to self hating Whites that think we should be obligated to destroy ourselves for alleged actions that took place eons ago - and the reality doesn't match the hype we've created surrounding it.

Another racist rant. Care to explain what you mean by "alleged actions". Are you claiming that slavery, Jim Crow, and racial discrimination may not have occurred?

I've never had "White privilege." My race has AL:WAYS worked against me in getting hired, promoted, and getting paid as much as the people in the companies I worked for. My last employer hired me because I didn't look White.

Guy you need to learn something. The people who post here are usually pretty educated folks. This is not our first rodeo. You can't sell this nonsense here. There is not a soul, except perhaps one, who is believing any of this. It does not pass the stink test.

We know garden variety racists when we see them. We have heard the white supremacist rhetoric before. We have heard these nonsensical claims from many people before. Though you can find a great many people who will fall for this nonsense, you will not find many here.