https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zoomb3qptg
*YOU'RE A FUCKING WHITE.. ANYTHING!*
Some people see everything in white and nigger.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2017, 11:39:16 AM
Some people see everything in white and nigger.
You aren't Han Chinese, so you will always be a dog-pig.
Jews from the 1970s forward are considered White, because they are successful. Same as Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Indian people who are in the US, are now considered White. The 1992 LA riots were basically Hispanics (not Blacks) against Koreans. And yes, the SJW mind distortion field is clear to anyone looking beyond their own ideological box.
The signature song for the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ErZT_eLNY
And that snappy tune written by Sturmführer Horst Wessel for the right.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 29, 2017, 06:26:24 AM
And that snappy tune written by Sturmführer Horst Wessel for the right.
Leftists suck Stalin's dick
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/0/05/Condescending_wonka_on_minorities.jpg)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 29, 2017, 06:56:11 AM
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/0/05/Condescending_wonka_on_minorities.jpg)
Whites are a minority, in the world. Always have been. There is a whole lot of Asians, particularly Chinese, Japanese and Indian. And if you don't get all tribal, there are a whole lot of Africans. And not a few Latin Americans. I am about 99% White (European) myself, almost all W European. II could E Europeans as mostly White also ... though there are of course Jews, Gypsies, Turks out there still. And more than a few W Africans in France, and quite a few N Africans in Spain. Approximately 1.1 billion out of 7.6 billion or about 14%.
Don't like being a minority, then have more children, if you can afford them.
Arab Muslims consider non-Arab Muslims to be second class. Go preach to them for a change ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2017, 01:28:23 PM
Whites are a minority, in the world. Always have been. There is a whole lot of Asians, particularly Chinese, Japanese and Indian. And if you don't get all tribal, there are a whole lot of Africans. And not a few Latin Americans. I am about 99% White (European) myself, almost all W European. II could E Europeans as mostly White also ... though there are of course Jews, Gypsies, Turks out there still. And more than a few W Africans in France, and quite a few N Africans in Spain. Approximately 1.1 billion out of 7.6 billion or about 14%.
Don't like being a minority, then have more children, if you can afford them.
Arab Muslims consider non-Arab Muslims to be second class. Go preach to them for a change ;-)
Alt-right doesn't acknowledge any country but the formerly great "America". I love it that they don't realize that "America" was never actually a country.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 29, 2017, 05:18:50 PM
Alt-right doesn't acknowledge any country but the formerly great "America". I love it that they don't realize that "America" was never actually a country.
New Yorkers don't recognize any state West or South of New Jersey. Why do you humor morons like that?
The world is competitive, and often violent. Compete or be buried. If you want to be on the Chinese or Indian team for example, then go there and help them out, just don't try to cheer them from the USA stands. USA fans don't like that ;-)
USA is the team I love to hate. I am like a Cubs fan ;-))
lol. To the chinese, the worst insult is to be called a white sjw. Smart people.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 01, 2018, 10:52:33 PM
lol. To the chinese, the worst insult is to be called a white sjw. Smart people.
"I heard that on Youtube, so it must be true!"
Also... the Chinese are about as ignorant to American culture as Americans are to Chinese culture, so...
I have also seen Chinese interviewed who think Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread because he is, and I quote, "a strong leader"... so if we are going to generalise 1.37 billion people based on a youtube account... then the Chinese really aren't all that smart.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 01, 2018, 11:23:47 PM
"I heard that on Youtube, so it must be true!"
Also... the Chinese are about as ignorant to American culture as Americans are to Chinese culture, so...
This isn't the first time I've heard it. In fact, I've seen it on certain boards I frequent. It's true.
Whether or not they're ignorant of our culture is irrelevant. What they're insulting is marxism and post-modernism - the former being something of a real experience for them, still fresh in their minds.
QuoteI have also seen Chinese interviewed who think Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread because he is, and I quote, "a strong leader"... so if we are going to generalise 1.37 billion people based on a youtube account... then the Chinese really aren't all that smart.
Most asians - and that includes indians - actually vote right when they become US citizens. They also tend to have the highest IQ's, right behind the kikes :-)
QuoteWhether or not they're ignorant of our culture is irrelevant.
Except if they are going to insult a segment of our society, it is relevant on them having a clue about our society.
QuoteMost asians - and that includes indians - actually vote right when they become US citizens. They also tend to have the highest IQ's, right behind the kikes :-)
A. IQ =/= intelligence.
B. If you think Trump is a strong leader, then you are not all that smart. I don't even mean that as in if you voted for him, whatever... I completely understand how people could be deceived into thinking he was a good choice. But if you think he is a strong leader, that is an objectively wrong statement, and you cant be too smart if you believe it.
Again, that is only a few Chinese people I saw on youtube, and I don't believe they are representative of the 1.3 billion Chinese citizens (in China alone, even more when you just consider ethnic chinese).
No more representative of 320 million Americans, than the "angry young men" are in their 20s ... but those young men (and their female counterparts) are the future. Of course later, they will settle down, only to be opposed by their own children ;-)
Baruch wrote:QuoteOf course later, they will settle down, only to be opposed by their own children ;-)
If they could be bothered to have any.
Feminist and MGTOW are not the family type.
Quote from: pr126 on January 02, 2018, 05:27:33 AM
Baruch wrote:If they could be bothered to have any.
Feminist and MGTOW are not the family type.
Isn't that a good thing? Why would we want them to reproduce, or raise children? ;-)
You should quit watching that stuff, it'll rot your brain.
Quote from: Mermaid on January 02, 2018, 10:10:22 AM
You should quit watching that stuff, it'll rot your brain.
government/central bank controlled media? I agree.
Instead of playing left vs right, we should be looking to our real oppressors. I'd like to think that most who play the left vs right game are closer to the center, and closer still if they actually listened to what their supposed political opponents believe from their political opponents themselves, rather than from media pundits. The tribalism being played out in politics isn't beneficial to those playing it, and the schism between the tribes doing it isn't nearly as large as the tribes think it is - rather, it is the elite propagating the lie that it is an insurmountable schism.
Or we can lose ourselves to hysteria.
Then, anyone to the right is devoid of empathy, driven purely by greed. Pure evil.
And anyone on the left is feels > reals, voting based on what makes them feel virtuous, rather than what will lead their country to prosperity. Too stupid to live.
Guess we have to kill eachother. Meanwhile the debt-based monetary system and its petro-dollar continue to provide a life of ultra-luxury to the elite for a little while longer, even while everything outside their little bubble collapses.
PR's afraid of becoming a minority, because minorities get treated like shit.
"What goes around, comes around."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 02, 2018, 11:20:41 AM
PR's afraid of becoming a minority, because minorities get treated like shit.
"What goes around, comes around."
What kind of stupid remark is this?
BTW, your avatar describes you perfectly.
Thanks, it shows the respect I haven't for you.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 02, 2018, 11:20:41 AM
PR's afraid of becoming a minority, because minorities get treated like shit.
"What goes around, comes around."
Minorities get systemic positive discrimination via affirmative action policies - which is the only quantifiable discrimination there is. They literally have more legal rights. How the fuck are they discriminated against?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 02, 2018, 12:31:23 PM
Thanks, it shows the respect I haven't for you.
Because I don't share your ideology?
The "respect" is mutual.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 02, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Minorities get systemic positive discrimination via affirmative action policies - which is the only quantifiable discrimination there is. They literally have more legal rights. How the fuck are they discriminated against?
Um. No.
Quote from: Mermaid on January 02, 2018, 01:04:07 PM
Um. No.
Yes, just virtue signal that you are against the unpopular opinion (also a fact.) Don't actually provide an argument (because you can't) that challenges it.
Anti-intellectual.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 02, 2018, 01:10:05 PM
Yes, just virtue signal that you are against the unpopular opinion (also a fact.) Don't actually provide an argument (because you can't) that challenges it.
Anti-intellectual.
What??? Fact? What the hell?
Are you trolling or do you believe the things you write? You are so ridiculous.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 02, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Minorities get systemic positive discrimination via affirmative action policies - which is the only quantifiable discrimination there is. They literally have more legal rights. How the fuck are they discriminated against?
(https://m.popkey.co/40626f/e94eo.gif)
"Its okay to be white left"
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on January 02, 2018, 04:37:51 PM
"Its okay to be white left"
Only if it means being light skinned and a southpaw ;-)
That is the first video in a LONG time that I clicked on from pr. God damned cute asian chick clickbait thumbnail
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 02, 2018, 08:48:56 PM
No, it's not.
"Damn the left for being so closed minded and intolerant! I'm nothing like them! It's okay to have a different opinion, so long as it's an opinion I like!"
Why is the left (Marxist/socialist) ideology is better than anything else?
(https://i.imgflip.com/221rjm.jpg)
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 12:48:41 AM
Why is the left (Marxist/socialist) ideology is better than anything else?
(https://i.imgflip.com/221rjm.jpg)
Socialism is, simply, better because it works; you look at the countries with the highest standards of living, highest level of happiness, highest wealth... and they all lean closer to the socialism spectrum than capitalism/crony capitalism spectrum. This is an unarguable fact. Let's look at the top countries by wealth...
Switzerland, Australia, Belgium, Italy, Japan, France, UK, Netherlands, Canda, Taiwan, South Korea, Spain, United States (take into account the size of our economy compared to every one else's though), Germany, Sweden, China (again, sheer size)... all of these countries, even the United States and China to an extent, heavily emphasize socialism over capitalism.
Now lets look at the happiest countries in the world, where socialism's benefits are even more pronounced...
Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden... it's not until the 20s that you start to see countries that lean less on socialism (though are still rather socialized).
Finally, let's look at standard of living... Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Singapore, Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, United States, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Sweden, Lichtenstein, UK... again, all heavily socialized countries.
If you care about happiness, wealth, and quality of life... it is simply inarguable that leaning closer to socialism rather than closer to capitalism does the most good for the most people. Now, perhaps you have an entirely different standard of what makes a country great, in which case that might not work for you, but for most people those three things are the most important things.
QuoteFinally, let's look at standard of living... Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Singapore, Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, United States, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Sweden, Lichtenstein, UK... again, all heavily socialized countries.
So... What happened in Venezuela?
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 01:49:30 AM
So... What happened in Venezuela?
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/018/489/nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.png)
Alot of things... much of them involving internal corruption and external factors. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
What external factors?
The person that whines the most here is pr. he whines more than the people he says are the problem whines. Anyone else see the lack of self awareness here? I know I said this before and many, many people seconded it, but I just want to see if I can drill it in his head that he is being beyond hypocritical.... it probably won't happen, but Im an optimist.
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 02:20:40 AM
What external factors?
External factors, like your mom.
I'm sorry. That last one I posted was hilarious lololol
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 02:20:40 AM
What external factors?
The global decrease in price of oil, which is not good for a banana republic whoms one export is oil. Another issue was drought, which crippled their power grid that ran on... surprise surprise... water (it's main source of power was hydroelectric, but when the lakes and rivers dry up that isn't going to work).
Internally there were a lot of factors, but there are two that really doomed their system; Chavas Populism and corruption. The first one is what we consider "socialist" (Chavas buying a fridge for "everyone" [only people who voted for him] from China & extremely expensive short-term policies that again mostly benefited his constituents rather than society as a whole) and then the corruption of the system when qualified officials were replaced by people who kissed up to Chavas.
I would argue any policy that only benefits people who support you, like Chavas enacted, is not socialism since it does not serve the interests of society, but rather corrupt favoritism and increasing ideological divide. Compare his form of socialism to what we have in the countries listed above; socialism that benefits all members of society... be they left, right, black, white, gay, straight, male, female and what ever other either/or you want to put down. That is socialism, and that is what you "oppose" (though I really doubt you do, I think you just hear the word and are so set in your ways to realise that it means something other than what you think it does).
Venezuela is nothing short of being just another example of how corruption and a populist candidate who runs on hatred of the other rather than love for his people will destroy a country. Ironically, the people that brought Venezuela down are of the same vein as the people you like; Trump, Le Pen, et. al. who are running purely on "populist", hateful ideologies... and in Trump's case, installing corrupt leaches over qualified people for positions of power and legalizing wealth redistribution to the top and/or legalizing bribery.
You just cant see the forest from the trees.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 03, 2018, 02:44:00 AM
External factors, like your mom.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 03, 2018, 02:44:26 AM
I'm sorry. That last one I posted was hilarious lololol
Yeah, funny as hell.
Btw, my mom died before you were born.
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 12:48:41 AM
Why is the left (Marxist/socialist) ideology is better than anything else?
(https://i.imgflip.com/221rjm.jpg)
Gonna save this meme so I can reply to pretty much every single one of your posts that you have ever made
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 03:46:31 AM
Yeah, funny as hell.
Btw, my mom died before you were born.
That's what your mom said
Get lost.
Why? stop being so triggered, pr. Chill out. You're like one of those white lefts.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 03, 2018, 03:47:45 AM
Gonna save this meme so I can reply to pretty much every single one of your posts that you have ever made
Self-reflection is not his strongest trait.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 03:52:25 AM
Self-reflection is not his strongest trait.
Yes. I know. Maybe he's a vampire? Vampires don't even have a reflection. That would make a lot of sense, actually
I wonder what it will take to get pr to see how much he contradicts himself. Logic doesn't work. Poking and prodding with jokes to illustrate a point doesn't work. Maybe the saying is true; you cant teach an old dog new tricks.... and pr is an old, crusty, whiny old dog.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 03, 2018, 04:26:02 AM
I wonder what it will take to get pr to see how much he contradicts himself. Logic doesn't work. Poking and prodding with jokes to illustrate a point doesn't work. Maybe the saying is true; you cant teach an old dog new tricks.... and pr is an old, crusty, whiny old dog.
That is because I don't give a flying fuck what any of you think.
Have a nice day.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 02, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Minorities get systemic positive discrimination via affirmative action policies - which is the only quantifiable discrimination there is. They literally have more legal rights. How the fuck are they discriminated against?
Really? You think blacks weren't discriminated against? That's why the affirmative action programs were put in place.
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 06:04:09 AM
That is because I don't give a flying fuck what any of you think.
Have a nice day.
Insert dittoness here, mein klein Nazi.
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 06:04:09 AM
That is because I don't give a flying fuck what any of you think.
That's why you get so triggered all the time?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 06:20:37 AM
That's why you get so triggered all the time?
Nah, that just comes from being a whiny little shit.
LOL.
Pile on, sweethearts. Have a ball.
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 06:24:52 AM
LOL.
Pile on, sweethearts. Have a ball.
You are a loser and proud of that. Awesome.
Okay people, can't believe I'm the one to say it, but time to stop making this forum look like a third grade classroom. PR has what he feels, and you have yours, just leave well enough alone, that goes for both sides, please.
Liberal fascism (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberal-Fascism-History-Mussolini-Politics-ebook/dp/B003P9XCPS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514991547&sr=1-1&keywords=liberal+fascism)
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 06:04:09 AM
That is because I don't give a flying fuck what any of you think.
Have a nice day.
Really? Clearly you post here because you want to change our way of thinking, so you must care.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 03, 2018, 10:44:12 AM
Really? Clearly you post here because you want to change our way of thinking, so you must care.
I don't think there is the slightest possibility to change an indoctrinated leftist mind.
For some, it has become a religion. Dissenters are heretics, or in the new language called fascist, Nazi.
That includes millions of Trump voters.
Talking about fascist and Nazis, the Antifa who claim to be anti-fascist, are using the same tactics as Hitler's brown shirts.
The only difference is that the brown shirts didn't cover their faces.
And didn't carry any communist flags either.
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 10:00:14 AM
Liberal fascism (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberal-Fascism-History-Mussolini-Politics-ebook/dp/B003P9XCPS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514991547&sr=1-1&keywords=liberal+fascism)
As opposed to the type you preach?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 01:20:38 AM
Socialism is, simply, better because it works; you look at the countries with the highest standards of living, highest level of happiness, highest wealth... and they all lean closer to the socialism spectrum than capitalism/crony capitalism spectrum. This is an unarguable fact. Let's look at the top countries by wealth...
No, they don't. All countries you have in mind when you say this have a capitalist economic system. They have socialist policies, but socialist policies =/= socialism. You don't know what socialism is. It's a folly of language, really, but socialist policies don't inherently have anything to do with socialism.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 12:18:08 AM
"Damn the left for being so closed minded and intolerant! I'm nothing like them! It's okay to have a different opinion, so long as it's an opinion I like!"
Well, yeah. You're allowed to be wrong, but I wouldn't call it okay. People holding positions on things that don't accurately describe objective reality as it really is is responsible for 75% of humanities woes.
If you're a leftist or a right-winger, you are an idiot. To be either is to say that part of what goes into your deciding what is accurate and inaccurate is your tribes currently existing consensus on it. That's stupid.
Quote from: pr126 on January 03, 2018, 10:51:01 AM
I don't think there is the slightest possibility to change an indoctrinated leftist mind.
I quite agree. Any mind that is indoctrinated is difficult, if not impossible, to change, or even impact. And I see your mind as being indoctrinated. That's why I rarely reply to your posts--there is no point to it, for you will never change your indoctrinated mind.
For Shiranu:
Socialism is when a communist party becomes in-control of a government - either by seizing it or by democratic means - gets rid of capitalism and the free market, and uses the government to move towards communism, with the end-goal to abolish itself (the party - now government) because communism is inherently without government. It is considered a stepping stone towards communism.
(Also, for communism to exist, it doesn't necessarily need socialism to come beforehand. Like I said, socialism is considered but a helpful tool to bring about communism, but not absolutely necessary.)
Now, things never really work out as intended with marxist bullshit, but those are the theories, anyway. For example, every single time a communist party takes control of a governing body, it loses sight of itself with its new-found power and therefore never actually abolishes itself to bring about the communism it promised. Rather it becomes a totalitarianist shit-hole.
But yeah, literally none of the countries you mentioned in that post were socialist states...
Actually socialism =/= communism.... But at the same time, socialism is not better than capitalism. It's important that there is a blend. Neither would be good on their own. So, Shir and Gilgamesh, you're both kind of right. At least in part.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 03, 2018, 02:15:07 PM
Actually socialism =/= communism.... But at the same time, socialism is not better than capitalism. It's important that there is a blend. Neither would be good on their own. So, Shir and Gilgamesh, you're both kind of right. At least in part.
It doesn't = communism, and I never said it did. Socialism is inherently a means to an end, though, and that end is communism. You can disagree and be wrong; that's fine. Go to a socialism/communism board and ask them what these terms mean - they'll tell you exactly what I just said.
Then again, you could just be confusing socialist policies with what constitutes a socialist state. They don't have anything inherently to do with one another. Again, it's a folly of language that we call certain policies socialist, and we call a system of government socialist, while they don't necessarily have a logical connection.
QuoteNo, they don't. All countries you have in mind when you say this have a capitalist economic system.
That lean towards socialist policies. Which is what I said...
QuoteIt's a folly of language, really, but socialist policies don't inherently have anything to do with socialism.
Social democracy and social liberalism, which is the government style found in countries like those in Scandinavia, Western Europe, etc. , is under the blanket term of socialism. So yes, social democracy is a form of socialism... just as it is also a form of capitalism. Hence the reason I said socialist leaning, not pure socialist.
Particularly here in America, the term socialist is used as a catch-all for those because there are no basically no true socialist countries in the world. If we were to say, "those socialist countries...", we would be talking about no one since they don't exist. So it's kinda an expectation of who we are talking to using common sense and realising we aren't talking about communist-esque socialism, but social socialism.
Still waiting for a response to this...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 03, 2018, 06:10:26 AM
Really? You think blacks weren't discriminated against? That's why the affirmative action programs were put in place.
Though I think it is worded it a bit wrong... leaves open the retort of, "That was the past, not now!" to avoid that it still happens...
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:06:59 PM
That lean towards socialist policies. Which is what I said...
Every country you mentioned is literally a state with a capitalist economic system. They don't 'lean more towoards socialism than capitalism' as you put it,
because they are literally capitalist states and literally NOT socialist states. It's a fucking binary.QuoteSocial democracy and social liberalism, which is the government style found in countries like those in Scandinavia, Western Europe, etc. , is under the blanket term of socialism.
Wrong. Go read a book on socialism or ask actual socialists what socialism is. Your 'social liberalism' is not socialism. Actual socialists/communists believe liberals are inherently right-wing.
just stop talking about shit you know nothing about please. You consistently posit things as true that are the opposite of truth.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:09:37 PM
Still waiting for a response to this...
"Really? You think blacks weren't discriminated against? That's why the affirmative action programs were put in place. "
Though I think it is worded it a bit wrong... leaves open the retort of, "That was the past, not now!" to avoid that it still happens...
I do think blacks were discriminated against, yes.
QuoteEvery country you mentioned is literally a state with a capitalist economic system. They don't 'lean more towoards socialism than capitalism' as you put it, because they are literally capitalist states and literally NOT socialist states. It's a fucking binary.
Except they aren't.
Our highways are socialized. Our police are socialized. Our libraries are socialized. There are socialized radio and T.V. stations. Our postal service is socialized. Our college education loans are half socialized, half privatized. Garbage collection, the farming industry, Congressional health care, the EPA, public schools, museums, food stamps are all socialized or mixed. The list literally goes on, and on, and on, and on...
Socialism and capitalism are not, "either/or". That's why communism failed (amongst many other reasons) and that's why "pure" capitalism fails as well.
QuoteWrong. Go read a book on socialism or ask actual socialists what socialism is. Your 'social liberalism' is not socialism. Actual socialists/communists believe liberals are inherently right-wing.
That's nice, but social liberalism and social democracy policies fall under the definition of socialism, so they can cry about that all they want.
Quotejust stop talking about shit you know nothing about please.
Says the guy who thinks you cant be capitalist and socialist at the same time. Yeah, don't think that's going to happen.
QuoteI do think blacks were discriminated against, yes.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:23:00 PM
Except they aren't.
Our highways are socialized. Our police are socialized. Our libraries are socialized. There are socialized radio and T.V. stations. Our postal service is socialized. Our college education loans are half socialized, half privatized. Garbage collection, the farming industry, Congressional health care, the EPA, public schools, museums, food stamps are all socialized or mixed. The list literally goes on, and on, and on, and on...
Yes - and none of those policies make the state that employs them any more a socialist state. Socialist policies =/= socialist state. You're getting confused with the semantics of it. Both terms evolved naturally from the term, 'social' - but they did so separately. A socialist state is a very specific thing.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 02:06:32 PM
For Shiranu:
Socialism is when a communist party becomes in-control of a government - either by seizing it or by democratic means - gets rid of capitalism and the free market, and uses the government to move towards communism, with the end-goal to abolish itself (the party - now government) because communism is inherently without government. It is considered a stepping stone towards communism.
(Also, for communism to exist, it doesn't necessarily need socialism to come beforehand. Like I said, socialism is considered but a helpful tool to bring about communism, but not absolutely necessary.)
Now, things never really work out as intended with marxist bullshit, but those are the theories, anyway. For example, every single time a communist party takes control of a governing body, it loses sight of itself with its new-found power and therefore never actually abolishes itself to bring about the communism it promised. Rather it becomes a totalitarianist shit-hole.
But yeah, literally none of the countries you mentioned in that post were socialist states...
The jargon gets in the way. The Western Left formed in the gap between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution (particularly the popular uprisings in 1848 as portrayed in Les Miserables). The French Revolution was betrayed by the Right-totalitarianism of Napoleon. The Russian Revolution was betrayed by the Left-totalitarianism of Lenin. Karl Marx was an ineffectual intellectual, who tried to create a theory of inevitable French Revolution everywhere (but in the most advanced countries, not in shit-holes like Russia or China). Marx thru in some still popular sci-fi progressivism, think of Jules Verne with a beard. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution (the really serious revolution in the 19th century ... by Capitalism) people wouldn't have to work anymore, producing an H G Wells scenario, that could be a dystopia or a utopia. Most opted for the utopia (duh).
Because of anti-revolutionary forces, and paranoia ... you get Robespierre killing even his friends and allies. Because of anti-revolutionary forces, and paranoia ... you get Stalin killing even his friends and allies. Militancy was a better way to get rid of thousands of people. Napoleon realized this, as did Trotsky. Napoleon got ahold of the French Army ... and eventually said "A man like me troubles himself little about a million men." Here are his maxims:
http://www.napoleonguide.com/maxim_war.htm
In the Soviet Union, Trotsky was in a similar position, being the leader of the Red Army ... and Stalin knew he was in danger, so he expelled Trotsky, and eventually had him assassinated. Trotsky was the smarter man .. he understood what Hitler was all about ... and Stalin didn't. Hard to imagine that Stalin was a naive optimist .. but he was probably just playing for time in 1940.
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19370125,00.html
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
There were only two guys who understood Hitler ... Churchill and Trotsky. Before Hitler, Churchill could even admire Mussolini ... but that was partly because Italy wasn't an existential threat to Britain, since Roman times ;-) One could see Mussolini as a bulwark against the Stalin boogeyman ... and people saw Hitler that way initially too. And Franco in Spain, and other Catholic fascist states. Classic fascism goes with Catholicism ... in Austria, Portugal and Argentina as well. It was Right Terror in reaction of Left Terror. Socialist? Maybe, but that missed the point of it.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 04:30:27 PM
Yes - and none of those policies make the state that employs them any more a socialist state. Socialist policies =/= socialist state. You're getting confused with the semantics of it. Both terms evolved naturally from the term, 'social' - but they did so separately. A socialist state is a very specific thing.
People think that Sweden is socialist ... it is actually a monarchy ... and a pacifist one at that. Not an example of socialism at all, just the failure of King Gustavus Adolphus to conquer Germany, and that of King Charles to conquer Russia.
Public sector vs private sector is a thing, in any country. Having more than 0% public sector (say highways) doesn't make you socialist, in the way that people mean. They are thinking of the French/Russian/Chinese/Cuban revolutions, and smaller revolutions elsewhere (say in Mexico). Originally the US was formed from a moderate Left revolution ... but we didn't stay that way ... the revolution in the US, like a few years later in France, was betrayed by our greatest general, George Washington, at the coup de etat of 1787. Napoleon actually followed the example of Washington (in 1799 in France). Napoleon tried to de-trigger the rest of Europe by re-establishing the Church and monarchy ... Washington was offered monarchy in 1783, but declined it. And as a Freemason, didn't need the Church to give him legitimacy.
Had the US been on the wrong side of the Atlantic, GB and the other monarchies (and the Vatican) would have done all they could to crush us. The Terror (the original modern use of that term) was started in France ... and it scared Europe even more than the US was in 2001. The French Terror was an existential threat ... like Hitler was in 1939 (and the Kaiser was not in 1914) and like Lenin was in 1918. The 2001 attack wasn't an existential threat, not even Pearl Harbor was an existential threat ... to the US. Hitler was, to everyone, and before him, Stalin was the boogeyman. Thus the Allies concentrated on defeating Hitler first. Sorry Japan, but you weren't that scary.
Quote
Yes - and none of those policies make the state that employs them any more a socialist state. Socialist policies =/= socialist state.
So having socialist policies doesn't make you socialist...
I think you should take a look at who is actually getting their semantics confused.
(P.S. - for the umphteen time now, I'm not saying they are socialist states. You could save yourself some effort and actually read what I have said multiple times now [Socialist
leaning governments] and not have to write paragraphs about a position I don't even hold.)
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:46:38 PM
So having socialist policies doesn't make you socialist...
I think you should take a look at who is actually getting their semantics confused.
(P.S. - for the umphteen time now, I'm not saying they are socialist states. You could save yourself some effort and actually read what I have said multiple times now [Socialist leaning governments] and not have to write paragraphs about a position I don't even hold.)
Read more history, and with skepticism. Having free medical care, isn't socialism. It actually could be a good thing, if we don't overdo it. But it isn't guillotines or machine gun firing squads, in the streets.
You tend to not be geographically parochial (good for you). It is a big world out there, and the US doesn't have all the answers (or maybe any right now).
But don't be historically parochial, or be politically naive about human motivation.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:46:38 PM
So having socialist policies doesn't make you socialist...
Yes.
QuoteI think you should take a look at who is actually getting their semantics confused.
You. You believe that because our sloppy language developed two terms with the same word that they necessarily have anything to do with one another.
Quote(P.S. - for the umphteen time now, I'm not saying they are socialist states. You could save yourself some effort and actually read what I have said multiple times now [Socialist leaning governments] and not have to write paragraphs about a position I don't even hold.)
lol okay. What actually happened - and anyone can go back in this thread to see it - was that you posited a bunch of countries as examples of marxism/socialism working well (in response to pr's question.) Socialism refers to one thing - especially if it's fucking /'d with 'marxism' - and that is a socialist state.
Not to mention you literally argued for the position - that you seemingly don't believe now - in the past two posts you made to me here.
So you're backpedaling. You don't have to. Just admit you were wrong, man. You'll appear more intelligent for it.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:23:00 PM
Says the guy who thinks you cant be capitalist and socialist at the same time. Yeah, don't think that's going to happen.
That you said that unironically is hilarious. Take anyone who is vehemently pro- either of those stances and they will tell you that, no - you, in fact, cannot be both. Read any literature about socialism and you will learn this. Ask socialists and they will tell you this. Ask free-market nuts and they will tell you this. You know, people who live and breathe all these topics that you continue to demonstrate to know nothing about.
It would be fucking hilarious to see you go into a group of socialist intellectuals, who actually read the literature, and proclaim all these capitalistic states to be socialist states.
"b-but muh 'socialist' policies."
Joke.
"You believe that because our sloppy language developed two terms with the same word that they necessarily have anything to do with one another."
English is a terrible language to think with ... just ask any Frenchman ;-)
I am constantly drawn to trying to see things from the POV of other cultures and languages ... because of the inevitable confusion the echo chamber I live in creates.
On the one hand I admire pacifism, but find examples to contradict it. On the other hand I admire militancy, but find examples to contradict it. And using any language (in the context of propaganda) is there either to confuse, or persuade. I don't want to be confused, and I am suspicious of persuasion.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 02:22:39 PM
It doesn't = communism, and I never said it did. Socialism is inherently a means to an end, though, and that end is communism. You can disagree and be wrong; that's fine. Go to a socialism/communism board and ask them what these terms mean - they'll tell you exactly what I just said.
Then again, you could just be confusing socialist policies with what constitutes a socialist state. They don't have anything inherently to do with one another. Again, it's a folly of language that we call certain policies socialist, and we call a system of government socialist, while they don't necessarily have a logical connection.
I not once said that I want a socialist state or that it works. I said that a mix of capitalist and socialist policies or capitalism and socialism is the best way to go. Which ever one you want to call it... if you want to get hung up on the wording for the sake of just arguing, go for it. Your folly at that point. not mine.
QuoteYes.
Then definitions are meaningless, since the very things that define them don't actually define them. Therefor, I think you are a Nazi Jew Communist. That makes sense, since the definitions of those words no longer are defined by policy and action but rather arbitrary approval.
Quotelol okay. What actually happened - and anyone can go back in this thread to see it - was that you posited a bunch of countries as examples of marxism/socialism working well (in response to pr's question.)
Yes, because by definition the policies that make those countries great are socialist leaning. Socialised medicine, socialised social programs, socialised infrastructure are all socialist since they are entirely state controlled means of production and distribution.
QuoteNot to mention you literally argued for the position - that you seemingly don't believe now - in the past two posts you made to me here.
What I don't believe is that you choosing one limited definition of socialism is representative of my views. So to try to clarify, since you insist on using a limited definition instead of using common sense and common vernacular, I changed my position to "socialist leaning".
I did that to try to establish my position within the framework of your definition since you refused to change your personal definition to the common sense, common vernacular definition of socialism.
You are using a wrong definition, but I changed the wording of mine so that it would fit with your definition of socialism. In doing so, you are now accusing me of changing my position and back peddling, when all I was doing was trying to find common ground when you refused to use common sense or common vernacular. You are refusing to compromise, then arguing that someone is back peddling for trying to compromise with your position.
Get the fuck out of here with that dishonest, underhanded bullshit. You wonder why "the left" don't compromise, don't try to work with you? Because of bullshit like that. The moment we start to work within your framework to try and find common ground, you use that as a tool to try to get a leg up instead of actually working with us. And then you'll fucking turn around and say, "See! They didn't work with us! Stupid leftists!" because even when they try to work with you, it's all a big competition for you to just be the best.
Pathetic.
I'll try one more time...
You're Australian, right? I get that your definition of socialism is different from what we use in the States. So I am happy to change my position to, "Socialist Leaning". But I do so with the caveat that in the States, that would just be defined as "socialism". We speak two different languages, even though much is the same words, so I can see where that confusion arises. So hopefully that clarifies it.
Trying to define words ... for a young man ... is like teen rebellion. Sorry. History is real, you have to take it into account. One can define pro-gay marriage as socialist or fascist or whatever ... but it doesn't make it so. I see pr128 and Shiranu as two anti-peas in the same pod. You gotta separate rhetorical use of language (to you and by you) from a consistent system of thought. That is hard, and comes with maturity.
The Democrats for instance, aren't socialist. And the Republicans for instance, aren't fascist. Those are hate speech.
Quote
That you said that unironically is hilarious. Take anyone who is vehemently pro- either of those stances and they will tell you that, no - you, in fact, cannot be both.
So first you accuse the left of being uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialists who hate capitalism and who want to destroy everything to their right...
And then when you meet an average "leftist" who isn't an uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialist who doesn't hate capitalism and thinks the two can work together, nor who wants to destroy everything on his right, you jump on me for not being left enough...
Interesting...
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 05:10:41 PM
Then definitions are meaningless, since the very things that define them don't actually define them. Therefor, I think you are a Nazi Jew Communist. That makes sense, since the definitions of those words no longer are defined by policy and action but rather arbitrary approval.
Yes, the root, 'social' does not solely define the terms 'socialist policy' or 'socialism.'
QuoteYes, because by definition the policies that make those countries great are socialist leaning. Socialised medicine, socialised social programs, socialised infrastructure are all socialist since they are entirely state controlled means of production and distribution.
They are not 'socialist leaning.' One can't 'learn socialist' You either have a socialist state or you don't. Socialism only refers to the political system of a socialist state - nothing else. A socialist policy is a policy that exists to help people. The word, 'social' has nothing inherently to do with socialism or social policies. It originally just means 'friend' or 'friendly.' Both the term 'social policy' and 'socialism' developed separately. They share a root word - this doesn't mean the terms are related. This is the last fucking time I'll explain this to you.
QuoteWhat I don't believe is that you choosing one limited definition of socialism is representative of my views. So to try to clarify, since you insist on using a limited definition instead of using common sense and common vernacular, I changed my position to "socialist leaning".
Your argument that because a socialist state doesn't currently exist (And it does - NK) that therefore when you use the term incorrectly I should just mentally swap out meanings with the term 'social policy' is insane. That is insane.
QuoteI did that to try to establish my position within the framework of your definition since you refused to change your personal definition to the common sense, common vernacular definition of socialism.
'My' definitions are correct. You are using words incorrectly. Not my fault.
QuoteOne can define pro-gay marriage as socialist or fascist or whatever ... but it doesn't make it so.
Except that's not what we are talking about.
Socialized medicine is socialism and capitalism; it is the government saying it owns the means of "production" (in this case, the "production" is medical services). However it is also capitalistic in that private sources are the ones who produce the medicine.
Socialized infrastructure is socialism and capitalism; it is the government saying it owns the means of production (the creation of roads, bridges, dams, power plants, etc) and hires capitalists to make it happen.
Social welfare, like food stamps, social security, unemployment benefits... are almost entirely socialized.
And so it goes, etc. etc. etc. ... it is socialism and capitalism working together. It leans socialist in that it is the state saying it is the master of the product, but it is also capitalist in that it allows private individuals to be involved in the production. But at the end of the day, it is still the state running the system.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 05:22:53 PM
So first you accuse the left of being uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialists who hate capitalism and who want to destroy everything to their right...
Well, no, I did none of those things.
QuoteAnd then when you meet an average "leftist" who isn't an uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialist who doesn't hate capitalism and thinks the two can work together, nor who wants to destroy everything on his right, you jump on me for not being left enough...
Interesting...
I'm not going to change my correct position to a wrong one on the basis of "it's good to compromise. That is a stupid thing to say. You're stupid.
Finally, we can get over this little hump, though;
If I really did just pretend that everytime you said socialism that you meant a capitalist state with social safety nets, then yeah - I agree, man; those are generally the best systems.
See ... ad hominem meets hate speech ;-(
Guys, just talk particular policies, maybe in different strings, without the jargon/labeling.
And yes, capitalism with social safety nets, are capitalisms that don't end up like France, 1792. It is self preservation, which won't happen, if the powers that be, are stupid. I am empathetic to needy people, but I don't want Dr Zhivago either. Unfortunately humanity in general, and upper class in particular ... seem to be self destructive.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 05:28:06 PM
Well, no, I did none of those things.
I'm not going to change my correct position to a wrong one on the basis of "it's good to compromise. That is a stupid thing to say. You're stupid.
Except you have done that thread after thread, but fine, we will stick only to this thread and say you didn't. And again, it's not a "wrong" one; it's your language (Australian) is different from mine (American). Neither is "right" or "wrong", any more than Castilian is more right than Latin American Spanish.
QuoteIf I really did just pretend that everytime you said socialism that you meant a capitalist state with social safety nets, then yeah - I agree, man; those are generally the best systems.
Except that's not what I am talking about.
I am talking about where a service industry is completely socialized by the state (for example, the "production" of health care to it's citizens being completely in the hands of the state, or the construction and maintenance of infrastructure being entirely state mandated, constructed and maintained), but the smaller parts of making that happen are done through capitalist means (for example, the production of the medicines the socialized doctors will prescribe, or the workers who build the roads, bridges, etc. being private employees).
It's a system that is using both socialist and capitalist principles to operate; hence the reason I am saying "socialist leaning"... it is capitalism that is leaning towards socialism since the final product's distribution and maintenance is socialized, but the initial construction is done through capitalistic means.
To call that "just" capitalism is blatantly wrong. And to say that the two cant work together is also blatantly wrong, since that is what not just all Western economies are based on but even most Eastern economies as well; it's not either/or, it's both working together.
Quote from: Baruch on January 03, 2018, 05:35:15 PM
See ... ad hominem meets hate speech ;-(
Guys, just talk particular policies, maybe in different strings, without the jargon/labeling.
That's the things. Most arguments get hung up on semantics. If you think about it, as long as you know what they really mean - what they're really for - then you can get by without getting caught up in the semantics. 'Ol Shiranu likes capitalism with some good socialist policies. You know, maybe some government intervention in labour to make sure workers are getting their due and aren't exposed to harm. Perhaps socialised medicine and welfare for the disabled. All good stuff, I say. Thumbs up, Shiranu.
Also, I'm Canadian, Shiranu. Nice to meet ya'.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 05:40:08 PM
That's the things. Most arguments get hung up on semantics. If you think about it, as long as you know what they really mean - what they're really for - then you can get by without getting caught up in the semantics. 'Ol Shiranu likes capitalism with some good socialist policies. You know, maybe some government intervention in labour to make sure workers are getting their due and aren't exposed to harm - stuff like socialised medicine, welfare for the disabled. All good stuff, I say. Thumbs up, Shiranu.
Also, I'm Canadian, Shiranu. Nice to meet ya'.
Alright, that makes sense too. I guess I should say a more "European" definition of socialism... but maybe just a more "English". I don't know enough Spanish, German, etc. to know how the definition varies between the other languages.
I have no idea where I got Australian though... must have been some other G-name that was... *shrugs*
Not every statement by a male is sexist, though it seems to me that some people think so.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 09:04:17 AM
Not every statement by a male is sexist, though it seems to me that some people think so.
Women aren't "it" ... they are sexist too. But like pigs, some animals are more equal than others.
Quote from: Baruch on January 18, 2018, 02:37:20 PM
Women aren't "it" ... they are sexist too. But like pigs, some animals are more equal than others.
And I didn't say so, Snowball.