Comments by "" (@josephcoon5809) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

  1. “The world would be a much better place if people are more educated and more understanding to different cultures and values.” The number of laws a nation has is inversely proportional to the understanding that nation has for “different cultures and values.”
    88
  2.  @MrJMB122  “God” is merely all the moral values that you deem are good. Whether you anthropomorphize that group of ideas or not, it is still your collective moral compass. Here’s the thing atheists neglect to address when they ridicule religion. “God” and every idea you ever had, will have, and will never have ALL exist in the same place: the metaphysical realm. No materialist can explain what the mind is and how the brain manifests it. No materialist can explain where ideas reside because they are not physical objects. Consciousness is something that cannot be defined by physical laws. Even something as basic as color is an idea a materialist struggles to comprehend.
    52
  3.  @busylivingnotdying  Here’s what materialists don’t understand about reality… A rock has ONE set of material (physical) attributes: size, weight, hardness, shape, color… However, it has MULTIPLE ideal (metaphysical) purposes: projectile, container, wall, ballistic, bludgeon, cutting-edge. Conversely, a cup has ONE purpose: contain a fluid. However, it can be instantiated with MULTIPLE materials: rock, wood, glass, metal, plastic, and you can even cup your hands at a river (contain water) or around your mouth or ears (contain air). Reality has a reciprocal ONE to MANY relationship between MATERIAL and PURPOSE. It is this lack of understanding that Materialism fails in resulting in a loss of value for some particular material. That value is determined by the IDEAL purpose; not its material attributes. A rock is more valuable for every purpose it is given depending on the circumstances. What “socialism” does is it limits what people can imagine a material object CAN be used for by dictating what a material object IS used for. A free market isn’t about the ends of wealth accumulation. It is about the innovations required to stay competitive for that wealth. That’s not even the fundamental issue with “socialism.” The fundamental issue is that socialism WORKS IF EVERYONE IS A WILLING PARTICIPANT. The moment you make it mandatory is the moment it begins to degrade. Freedom is always the heart of these conversations, and that’s why both sides get it wrong. Socialism is JUST the communal ownership of capital (“means of production” is the same thing; it was coined to give it a positive connotation when applied by the state). That communal ownership is completely possible, and even beneficial, within a free market. So the actual argument is about whether individuals willingly come together and collectively manifest socialist ideals WITHOUT forcing it on unwilling participants: Actual Socialism versus NATIONALIZED Socialism. And I hope everyone is familiar with the outcome of NATIONALIZED Socialism. Most Jews do, I am sure.
    29
  4.  @zacharyclark3693  How do you understand something you don’t put into practice? A hypothesis is only as good as its interaction with reality. Words don’t prove veracity; examples do. The problem with these arguments is that it is prelude to relinquishing the application of the theory to a government with almost no oversight from those that authorized such power and responsibility to a faceless entity. It’s a great setup for, “Well, it didn’t work because they did it wrong.” or “Ot would have worked if THOSE people didn’t corrupt it.” These conversations should do ONE thing, and it isn’t to justify one’s voting habits which is nothing more than abdicating personal responsibility for proving one’s own ideas. These conversations SHOULD attract like-minded individuals to one another so they they can pool their resources and efforts to collectively build EXACTLY what they imagine so that there is no question to why it failed. And if it didn’t fail…then they have something better than words to support their arguments: reality.
    19
  5.  @wildfire9280  The problem is that “our society” is an extremely nebulous concept. Are you talking about the national society, or the various local societies? The point is for people who agree on what “society” should be like should congregate based on that common ideal. We shouldn’t be imposing our ideals on those who disagree with them. The vitriol you speak of is the result of individuals resorting to voting for their ideals to be forced on strangers around them rather than actively finding those who agree with them already. The larger a nation is, the fewer national laws there should be. Laws should increase in volume and definition the more local you apply them. People in one part of a nation shouldn’t be dictating how strangers, they’ll never meet, should live.
    12
  6.  @pancakes3250  The point is NOBODY is supposed to govern the country: the Left, Right, Center, Top, Bottom, Front, Back or whatever. America was designed to be decentralized so that individuals could build whatever society they wanted without forcing it on everybody else or everybody else forcing it on them.
    9
  7.  @busylivingnotdying  😂 I meant specifically how the brain is organized. 😂 Lower order neurons are represented by higher order neurons in a 10-10,000:1 relationship. That is a fractal pattern that repeats through higher orders of neurons. Using 100 as the base… a 2nd order neuron will represent 100 1st order neurons; a 3rd order neuron will represent 100 2nd order neurons and 10,000 1st order neurons; a 4th order neuron will represent 100 3rd order neurons; 10,000 2nd order neurons; and 1,000,000 1st order neurons. and so on… All these groups of neurons are ideologically segregated but integrated with each other through higher order neurons. If humans did the same thing… 100 adults with greater than 95% ideological agreement would create a 1st order community. They would send 5 representatives to a 2nd order community to live there 3 months of the year. This second order community is composed of 5 representatives from 20 neighboring communities of 100 adults. WITHIN each community, there is a 95% ideological agreement, but BETWEEN each community there is a 90% ideological agreement. So, this 2nd order community represents 2,000 adults. And you pest the process, like the brain… 1st order community: 100 adults 2nd order community: 2,000 adults 3rd order community: 40,000 adults 4th order community: 800,000 adults 5th order community: 16,000,000 adults 6th order community: 320,000,000 adults This organization leads to far less law enforcement since you only need to enforce laws on people that disagree with them. Taxes all but disappear because taxes are an imposition upon those who disagree with them. If you live with the people you agree with, laws become “house rules” that visitors/immigrants must abide by or get kicked out, and taxes become voluntary contributions. ALL decisions made by representatives DIRECTLY affect those representatives for 9 months of the year because they eat, sleep, work, play, live, and die with the people they represent. Those representatives are DIRECTLY held responsible and to account by those they represent. This is in contrast to the system of thousands and millions of citizens represented by abject strangers that pass laws that nobody is faintly aware of. With less law enforcement, there is FAR less incarceration since anybody who breaks a house rule is exiled rather than incarcerated. The “offender” doesn’t lose 99% of their freedom; their family need not be broken up; and the “offended” community need not WASTE resources incarcerating a non-productive member of the community. All this is possible through deliberate ideological segregation where individuals MOVE to LIVE with people they agree with instead of the antithetical paradigm of “forced inclusion” which results in the mass incarceration we see today.
    7
  8.  @mattluck2826  “..easily exploited by people who by sheer virtue of experience can counter issues you haven’t seen yet.” Which is why the MOST stable systems are DECENTRALIZED like in a free market and not CENTRALIZED as in a planned economy. Name ONE system that evolves TOWARD centralization as it grows and becomes more complex ASIDE from human societies foolish enough to adopt democratic principles. Name one, and I can name billions that are decentralized: the human brain.
    6
  9.  @mattluck2826  “corporations don’t have the same rights as an individual citizen.” Coroprare- Latin: combine in one body. Your problem is that your understanding is extremely limited. To incorporate merely means for individuals to act as a single unit. This is NOT limited to businesses, and that’s why individuals have far less wealth than large BUSINESS corporations do. People do not understand how to incorporate themselves as a community. IF citizens actually incorporated themselves as businesses did, they would exercise far more efficiency than even large corporations could execute. THAT is what “socialism” is missing: the willingness of citizens to INCORPORATE and act as a single body with the SAME goals. My argument isn’t even against “socialism.” My argument is whining about “socialism” until government “does it” by which time citizens have voted the last of their rights away with no way back to freedom without a bloody revolution. All because they decided to VOTE their “socialism” onto each other instead of just PRACTICING it.
    6
  10.  @busylivingnotdying  The reason there is a power dynamic in the first place is BECAUSE companies INCORPORATE and implant naturally superior hierarchies than the typical citizen that does not congregate based on similar ideological beliefs. 20 individuals reporting to a single individual creates a difference in consciousness/perspective. In a business corporation, this is a work group where 20 associates report to a SUPER-VISOR (super meaning higher; visor meaning view) the associates are conscious of their individual tasks whereas the supervisor is conscious of the summary from each associate AND the higher level view within the company. In a community, (villages, communes, neighborhoods), the same concept applies. A supervisor isn’t one that commands. They are the ones that see further. As a community grows, the more levels of supervisors (representatives) you need to consider the summarized information from all their subordinates (not inferiors) and apply it to their broader perspective. Otherwise, you have millions of individuals all trying to understand those broader perspectives which is absolutely impossible. That’s why the brain is designed the way it is. That’s why computer networks are designed the way they are. That’s why large companies are designed the way they are. That’s why riots and branches grow the way they do. All these systems evolve the SAME way because it is the most efficient way to organize large populations of…anything. Democracy is tyranny, no matter how you slice it. If the answer to disagreement is to force the minority faction into compliance, that is the very definition of tyranny. These concepts are simple, and they apply at any level of magnitude you consider them at. “Not wild “jungle freedom”…” I’m beginning to feel like you are reading to respond, rather to understand. It seems you are equating “wild “jungle freedom”” with anarchy. If you feel the necessity to restrain the economy for fear of corporations ruling everything (which, ironically, is exactly what democracy is for: handing the reins of power to those who can manipulate unthinking populations), then do so IN YOUR community of like-minded individuals. Then those corrupt companies will take advantage of more free communities, and those freer communities will see the folly of their ways. Or you will. When you make that decision for everybody, you lose the ability to isolate what is actually leading to the corruption and inefficiency. When you allow smaller and smaller communities to try all the different ways to run a society, you’ll see exactly which ideas work and which ones don’t. Your method is basically: when ever you don’t feel good, take an aspirin. It doesn’t matter why you feel I’ll, just resort to the same solution every time. Would you go to a doctor that has limited options? If so, then democracies are your thing. Allow everyone to have a say in what other people can and cannot do. “People tend to cooperate when they see the benefit of it…” When they SEE something they have no time to look at because I everybody is busy living an individualist lifestyle. What percentage of pages in the legal code have you read? You’re responsible for 100% of it no matter what your answer is.
    6
  11.  @ibah6  I know it is. I also know that from the individual all the way up to the societal level, the past does not define anything. The past is merely to learn from. What leftists have done is disregarded the most important lessons of the past so that they “choose” to recreate that which those in power strive for. In your haste to broad brush everything, you sacrifice everybody’s individuality which makes it easier to control society. Your Corporate News and Social Media have conditioned you to believe you are making noble choices when all you are doing is accepting a turd that was polished. 😂
    6
  12.  @republitarian484  The point of The Constitution was to allow ALL ideologies to coexist within America. The ONLY way that this is possible is for ideological coherence to occur. That is only possible through ideological segregation. That is only possible through explicit codification of ideologies at the LOCAL level…which was the intent of The Constitution at its inception. If some portion of the population thinks any particular race is “superior” and that individuals of other races should NOT be included in their societies, they have the right AND the responsibility to build that society WITHIN America; not turn America into a homogeneous monolithic culture defined at the Federal level. A few years ago, a group of Black families in Georgia attempted to pool their resources to build an all Black/Black-ally town. Sounds pretty racist, doesn’t it? It’s also Constitutional. It’s also the most rational and moral choice. Ask yourself why it wasn’t national news like it would have been had it been white people doing it. Then, ask yourself why you would NOT want all racists in one area so non-racists know where to steer clear from? Why would anybody want racists living next to them?
    5
  13.  @dee5298  It’s only authoritarianism if people who don’t agree with law are forced to live by that law. Live with the people you ALREADY agree with, and they are less “laws” and more “house rules.” “If you wish to live with us, you have to follow these rules. If you disagree, get out:”
    5
  14.  @otakumangastudios3617  What makes your parents “progressive”? I tell you this: if they advocate for federal laws for local issues, then they are definitely NOT “progressive.” After reading your comment a few more times to digest, it seems you are using the actual definition of “progressivism” rather than the popular contemporary usage. Cheers 🍻
    5
  15.  @Peter-qe1yh  While ALL words are made up, redefining words to be contrary to established norms for the end goal of controlling public policy is very dangerous. When you teach society that “words have power” despite science proving that the power a word has is separate from where the word is processed in the brain, you are conditioning people to be controlled via words. When you control what people feel through words, you get everything from Sophists engineering Socrates’ execution to the Holocaust.
    5
  16. What is evil about the one?
    4
  17.  @TheCommonS3Nse  “You should check out the work of economists…” You should check out natural systems that exemplify pure economies. One of my favorites is the brain. I don’t need to rely on hypothesis when Nature provides all the raw data we need. You can’t get more “real world” than billions of years of Natural evolution. Besides, human engineering is far from the pinnacle of engineering in general. Nature developed rotary motors that can spin up to 100,000 rpm and switch directions in a split second over a billion years ago. “And the best economy is the one that strikes the best balance…” Which means you need a highly flexible economy that can rapidly evolve to accommodate changes in the environment… free market capitalism.
    4
  18. Unfortunately, CRT is merely the Trojan Horse to justify control of the individual through legislation. By creating the perception of a “problem,” Marxists hope to create the perception of a need for a “solution.” The tragically ironic issue of this whole discussion is that proponents of CRT seek to centralize political power for the oligarchs who wait patiently to purchase that power all gift-wrapped in a nice neat federal package. The problem is not the discussion about race. The problem is the proposed “solutions” from the same irrational people. Besides… Your Body is WHAT you are. Your Mind is WHO you are. Marxists are materialists who seek to define WHAT people are by stripping them of their right to define WHO they are…
    4
  19.  @danthegeoman  😂 Yeah. If you critically examine “Intersectionality,” you will find that it is nothing more than a circular firing squad of jerks. If you are attacked by an SJW, pay less attention to their accusations against you and more attention to how they accuse you. More times than not, they will be “offensive” to another team in the victim hood olympics which allows you to wade into a room full of them and leave half an hour later while they attack each other. The best way to end this disease is to help it along. Societal Jeet Kune Do involves learning g your enemies tactics so as to use it against them until they tire of the ridiculous game that they invented. 😂
    4
  20.  @scambammer6102  Thanks for a word salad with no meat in it. So, which theology do you assume I belong to?
    4
  21.  @scambammer6102  Then why would you assume I have a religion? Perhaps it’s because you are arguing from ignorance? How about you be a little more specific in your issues with what I’ve said instead of relying on irrelevant and incorrect generalizations?
    4
  22.  @stuckinthemud4352  I do laugh when you finished with: “History tells us that collective ownership never ever has worked on large scale and to claim that private ownership of business is less efficient than collective ownership…and there is zero evidence in the actual world of this. Show me an example? I’ll wait.” Close your eyes and throw a dart at a list of companies on the STOCK MARKET. 😂 The problem with that part of your argument is that you conflated COLLECTIVE ownership with PRIVATE ownership. Collective and Private are NOT mutually exclusive. “I’ll wait.” 😂
    4
  23.  @ryebread3417  “…you need to substantiate that somehow.” What does a dictatorship do if not exert authority over individuals? Are you saying that a dictatorship has no authority over citizens? How does one acquire the classification of “proletariat,” and what does one do if they do not wish to be classified as such?
    4
  24.  @dee5298  It isn’t the way, because it assumes guilt until proven innocent by using pseudo-intellectual hogwash.
    4
  25.  @mackmckinney5206  “The way* is to identify bias, and then join with the offending institution to remediate it. No blame, no guilt.” In another thread, you said proving that factors other than bias was not the cause. Did you leave out a step, or are you just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks?
    4
  26.  @dee5298  The simple fact is evolution (biological or ideological) is driven by competition. Resources in early human evolution played a huge role in how often different cultural groups interacted/competed with one another. Cultures that were able to establish agricultural cultures were able to innovate along certain trajectories that those whom did not establish those cultures. As efficiency (represented by wealth accumulation) increased, technological innovations also increased. I find it strange how some of the loudest complainers of “racial inequality” are the same one relaying on the technologies of cultures they are denouncing. It’s almost as if they are tacitly admitting to the superiority of the culture they are denigrating.
    4
  27.  @mackmckinney5206  CRT definitely isn’t a science. 😂
    4
  28.  @ibah6  Not just “white people.” Rational people also view history the same way. 😂
    4
  29.  @ibah6  “That makes no sense…” to YOU. 😂 Just as the fact that “your life is a simulation” would, most likely, make no sense to you either. Your inability to understand something is not always indicative of a nonsensical concept. It may signal your inability to understand a perfectly simple concept that your synaptic structure is not conducive to understanding it. If you stop at “That makes absolutely no sense,” you’ll never figure out which is the case. It is your choice to remain blissfully ignorant, and with the advent of the internet, it is a conscious choice. 😂
    4
  30.  @mattluck2826  Besides, chess at high-levels is reflex due to the high number of repetitions crystallizing common configurations in the brain. So, you’re wrong there too. Good job.
    3
  31.  @mattluck2826  Let’s boil this down to the simplest question at the heart of all of this: WHAT IS STOPPING YOU FROM DOING ANY OF THIS?
    3
  32. @Wimbledon womble You’re missing the point. Nature is fractal. It repeats successful patterns at ever increasing magnitudes. The pattern of organization found in the brain is fractal and it can and should repeat into human society. Nordic style socialism doesn’t work on larger scales precisely because of diversity found in larger systems. Party politics fighting over centralized control is why systems are unstable. Instead of fighting over centralized power, each party should segregate and build the societies each one envisions while collaborating where they agree.
    3
  33.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  So, you are saying that you need to impose polices on people to address something that isn’t settled science because people don’t know how to read academic papers? You do realize that the papers parrots refer to make heavy use of words like “suggests” because the researchers doing these papers hedge their bets on science that is far from settled. That’s JUST the research into a manufactured problem. We can also discuss the obvious design obsolescence in solar panels that necessitate constant manufacture, strip mining, and disposal into land fills even though passive optics would all but eliminate those issues. However, you can’t make a lot of money if you don’t justify government buying the solution form the people who manufactured the problem in the first place. Which brings me to my next point of confusion: what is preventing ALL the Marxists from congregating in the US; pooling their resources; and purchasing all the “means of production” they require to manufacture goods based on their philosophy. The whole point of a free market is to allow EVERYBODY to utilize whatever processes they wish to provide goods for sale. This can be private ownership by a few individuals OR collective ownership by an entire community. The problem that I have with Marxism is all the talking without any doing. It’s the same problem that I have with “global warming.” Scientists are so brilliant to have figured out such a complex system as our atmosphere based on data from a percent of percent of a percent of the time that Earth has had an atmosphere, but they can’t design a commercially viable solution that doesn’t require government subsidy to purchase the solution from the large industries you have a problem with. Your words will convince very few people. Do you know what would convince them? An actually example built with your own two hands so that you can’t write off any failure as, “well, THEY didn’t do it right.” So, so it right, and shut all the naysayers up about it.
    3
  34. Babies take two months to LEARN to see colors. Chess masters spend decades to learn to see patterns. Depending on the bystander, they may see much but understand little.
    3
  35.  @abhinav-v2i  And what makes larger businesses more profitable? Perhaps it’s the laws they draft for politicians we choose to “represent” us? Ever wonder why the wealth gap grows along with the regulatory code? Perhaps it’s because the companies that enjoyed the freedom in their infancy ti become the behemoths they are today don’t want to extend that same freedom to today’s entrepreneurs: their competition. Try running a race with five adults and 100 children, but add hurdlers and a back pack to all the participants that create the same absolute burdens but vastly different relative burdens. 10 pounds on the back of an adult is negligible while 10 pounds on the back of a six-year old is quite dramatic.
    3
  36.  @someguy5438  Republicans side with a free economy. Democrats unwittingly hand big businesses the government. When was the last time you read a law from start to finish? And you are ok with politicians you’ll never meet signing those things? You’re ok with those social contracts that you and everybody else is obligated to honor just because it has a pretty title on it? It’s not a matter of what people say they are for. It’s what they do that actually matters. Trust me. I’ve got no love for Republicans either, but Democrats have been fighting to turn America into a democracy for decades. All that will do is hand the country to globalists that much faster. The globalists got impatient though. It took too long to undo the electoral college. Why do you think so many Blue Voters flooded into Red Areas in 2020?
    3
  37.  @someguy5438  I am a libertarian, but not like any others. And libertarianism works just fine in your skull for 100 billion neurons while your infantile tyranny leads to the worst atrocities in history. Pick up a history book, kid.
    3
  38.  @viverntahl2541  Name one person who doesn’t “live in his head.” 😂
    3
  39.  @keithbell9348  I am a collector of ideas. As such, I am free to consider ideas with a critical perspective. I build new ideas from those which I have collected, and the ideas I build are dependent upon the component ideas; not where they came from. “Connotation” is one of those mind tricks which is used to control people through their emotions. I understand this, but I consciously decide to use the best word for a comment despite any “connotations” an individual may or may not place upon it. Offense is taken. It is never given. Progress will only be attained once the individual takes responsibility for the only thing they are ever innately in ownership of: what they think, feel, and do. Once people exercise enough sovereignty to take responsibility for what occurs in their own mind, we will see a new Age of Enlightenment. Until then, enjoy the roller coaster ride that is infantile political discourse predicated on things that people do not understand. 😂
    3
  40.  @danielweaver470  That is absolutely correct. When discussing “minorities” regarding politics, the most salient classification is the minority ideology. Physical attributes play little to no role in a person’s character, yet it is character that is ignored when discussing “minority.” It requires a simple mind to base minority status n something so irrelevant as “skin color,” and that’s the kind of people that justifies rational song the legal voting age. Under-developed adults should not have the power to dictate how others live, yet that’s what we have today despite the Founder’s best efforts to prevent it. Nature spent billions of years proving the power of decentralized governance, yet adult-aged children believe centralization is better. Nature managed to organize upwards of 85 billion neurons connected by nearly 100 trillion synaptic connections, but humans can barely get past 100 million people without starving large chunks of the population. The hubris of the Left is astronomical. Imagine if we could generate power from all that hubris. We could end the fossil fuel industry tomorrow while also attaining interstellar travel. 😂
    3
  41.  @keithbell9348  keep in mind, depth perception requires two DIFFERENT perspectives. Each eye, optical nerve, and hemisphere of the brain only understands in two dimensions. To understand reality better, you require a third dimension, and higher dimensional understanding requires perspectives that offer different information. Science is all about finding data that cannot be explained in the dimensionality we currently understand things. Once those discrepancies are discovered, a new dimension that encompasses multiple prior dimensions of understanding is required. You see the same thing even in theoretical physics when in String Theory, 10 spatial dimensions enabled the combination of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (the astronomical) and Quantum Mechanics (the vanishingly tiny). The conundrum was that 10 dimensions generated thousands of viable solutions. It was not until somebody proposed an 11th dimension which resulted in M-Theory, and the explanation that all the solutions in 10 dimensions were merely the same solution from different 11-dimensional perspectives. Even at the neuronal level, the brain evolved to accumulate information and after multiple iterations of similar situations, relevant information is synaptically reinforced while irrelevant information is synaptically pruned. That is the basis of bias, conditioning, prejudice, assumptions, and worldview which all describe the same thing: an individual’s logic. The universe is filled with so many fascinating phenomena that it is truly sad that humans allow political discourse to cast a shadow on all that glory. I apologize for bloviating, but my own personal journey has left me more idealistic than when I was far Left in my 20s, and more pragmatic when I was far Right in my 30s. I see purpose in everything, and I want to see other planets. 😂 It’s just nice to meet other open-minded people when bumping heads with closed-minded bigots is par for the course. 😂
    3
  42.  @busylivingnotdying  As for “better ways of organizing society” See: the brain
    3
  43.  @busylivingnotdying  As for the point about Europeans and Asians… I hold that the increased rate of conflict was the primary cause for rapid technological advancements seen in Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, while sparse populations of tribes with plenty of room to roam without competing with other tribes OR the creation of large centrally governed civilizations held back most of Africa and the Americas. Evolution requires a diversity of thought (decentralization) in competition with each other (close proximity resulting in a higher rate of interactions). As ideas compete for supremacy through adoption by the general populace, innovations use those ideas as a foundation. When you have a highly centralized government, you necessarily reduce the number of allowable ideas leading to less synthesis of new ideas.
    3
  44.  Johnson Li  LOL You just proved why government SHOULD NOT interfere in businesses. As a matter of fact, look up “chart of the century” and you’ll see what government does to different market sectors. Every market government regulates and/or subsidizes grows more expensive faster than the the inflation rises. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
    3
  45.  @ItsYouAreNotYour  That’s not common in this Twitter Tweet attention span era. Major Kudos to you!!
    3
  46.  @stuckinthemud4352  Look, kid. A village collectively owning the means of production is socialism and is no different than any corporation. Corporation merely means a collection of individuals acting as one body. 100 individuals acting independently is less productive than 100 individuals acting collectively. The socialism that you are referring to is NATIONAL socialism which only works when there is a lower number of individuals…such as in the United States where there are 50 INDIVIDUAL States. The problem in America is that that pattern doesn’t continue down to the INDIVIDUAL person. The NEXT step would be INDIVIDUAL counties, then INDIVIDUAL cities/towns, then INDIVIDUAL neighborhoods, then INDIVIDUAL blocks, then INDIVIDUAL houses, THEN the INDIVIDUAL person. An INDIVIDUAL is defined as a collection acting as ONE. I’m sorry that you don’t understand how complex systems are designed and evolve as they grow, but stop using sound bites, and start using some critical thinking.
    3
  47.  @Pteromandias  The only concept pertinent to “Marxism”, or any other -ism, is what is codified into law based off of it. If a group of people wish to live a certain way, the rational and moral way to handle it is to allow everybody in that group to live that way. If all the “Marxists” congregated to a single glee area, then they can practice their “Marxism” to their heart’s content without outside interference OR interfering with others with different views. The issue is when “Marxists” disperse through a democratic society and vote to impose their ideas on the society at large.
    3
  48.  @mackmckinney5206  Point to someone capable of critical thinking? Already have. I don’t talk TO ideological demagogues. I talk AT them for everybody else. You don’t want to broaden your horizons, and I am suffering no illusions otherwise. You seem to believe in some nebulous idea that America is “racist” by blaming another nebulous concept of “institutions” instead of analyzing where all the “systemic racism”, as defined by you people, actually originated: Democrat controlled cities and states.
    3
  49.  @mackmckinney5206  “Crap throwing” coming from the guy adhering to a racist doctrine, like CRT, that treats individuals as statistics to justify the policies you seek to impose on absolute strangers by authorizing other absolute strangers to do so. If I am the one “throwing crap,” at least I can say I’m no tyrant.
    3
  50.  @mackmckinney5206  You claiming that I am “throwing crap” is not proof that I am “throwing crap.”
    3