Youtube comments of AholeAtheist (@AholeAtheist).
-
820
-
521
-
466
-
447
-
281
-
244
-
214
-
195
-
193
-
166
-
135
-
120
-
115
-
115
-
110
-
106
-
104
-
95
-
89
-
82
-
82
-
74
-
71
-
69
-
66
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
60
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Thresh The Chain Warden I've been subscribed to him for a while, and some of what he says is good, but then he ruins it by actually being illogical and using rhetoric that most on the left would attribute to the right or social conservatives. I can't think of any specific examples right now, because I don't take note of them, and I really can't be fucked going to sit through some of his videos just to get a couple examples of the rhetoric I'm talking about.
I get the feeling that he's guilty of identity politics as much as the people he critiques. So while originally he wanted to be this person that identifies as a working class person who supports working class politics, he's become someone that fights other people's identity politics because as a white man he feels victimized by their wanting fairer society. That's in his rhetoric. I know he'll also tag on some rhetoric about jobs and trade to make it seem liberal, I'm a person that agrees with those arguments, but after he's just given a speech filled with right-wing "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" type bullshit, people who really are out on the left, can't swallow it as being a liberal, working man's position. Often he sounds like he might as well be a member of the Alt-Right.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
LOL. I don't get this. What exactly did the "Alex Jones encounter" show about TYT that was so horrible? One them rationally initially accepted him being there, even though he was uninvited, and then rationally got defensive when charged with false allegations. Another just yelled shit, although it wasn't very well thought out and some people rightly pointed out what she was yelling wasn't exactly great, it wasn't that horrible either. And another, a comedian, decided to make a joke out of what was already a joke, because Alex is not a serious person so why take him seriously? Which was actually hilarious.
The people who hate TYT seem to only listen for what they want to hear. Recently one of Cenk's videos championed free speech in a way that should completely exonerate him of any charges of being "regressive", and all you idiot trolls were surprised. Why were you surprised? Because like I say, you people don't listen properly and only hear what you want to hear, unless he comes out and says something in such plain English that you can't misinterpret it, at which point you act like it's the first time he's ever expressed those sentiments.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Yup, all Americans. In New Zealand alone we've had George Nepia, who was similar to your number one, as the first prominent Maori athlete, he played Rugby for the national rugby team known as the All Blacks, and that particular team known as the Invincibles, and also played Rugby League for our national team. Then there are a few who represented New Zealand in both Rugby and Cricket, Jeff Wilson being the most notable but there were others before him I believe, and then there's Sonny Bill Williams, world champion in Rugby and Rugby League, and has also been trying his hand at professional boxing. And I'm sure there are Brits who have represented their country in both either Rugby and Cricket or Football and Cricket. There's Australians and other European and even possibly South American or South African athletes who have also had success in two sports. Maybe you could have done an all American top ten and a Rest of the World top ten?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
+Serahpin 1. She didn't have a problem with anyone else's race. She may, or may not as in this case she may have been referring to gender, have a problem with minority ethnicities being underrepresented in this particular company. Big difference.
2. She was likely concerned with gender also. Is she also a misandrist? No, she's asking for equality of opportunity, which may or may not be the current reality, but she's asking questions to make sure. She's not asking for women to be automatically considered better, reversing the current situation to the point all of the people in the room except one are women. She's not asking for that, therefore she's not a misandrist, and by the same logic, she's probably not a racist either. She's asking if THEY are racist or misogynist because of the identities of those present. Examining whether or not someone is racist, doesn't automatically make the person questioning a racist.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
cmack17 Technically, you're right and wrong. What he probably thinks of as communism is the socially authoritarian brand of state dictatorship or red fascism made known by the likes of Stalin and Mao, so that's not "socially liberal". Where you're wrong is that communism, especially in it's intended form, can be/is more socially libertarian than authoritarian.
These people are all quite far out there on the economic left, though. So most "social liberals" that this guy describes, are actually not so far out on the left that they are "communist", but merely social democrats, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists and anarcho syndicalists/socialists, which is not fucking communism.
The stupidity of branding anyone even slightly left of center as "communist", hurts my fucking brain, that's how stupid this is.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It's crazy. I have a different experience with them both. I've been watching Kyle since the early days, and then I got turned on to JRE from a friend in 2014, and I was like, I remember Joe from Fear Factor and that The Union documentary about cannabis, he's cool. And all I wanted was for Kyle to get on JRE and explain certain things to Joe and his audience, especially because Joe had lunatics like Shapiro and Crowder on and didn't push back enough on their lunacy, then Kyle got on there, and I think he somewhat failed to articulate some of the things I was hoping he should have(like that the center of the Overton window and the center of the zeitgeist isn't actually the center rather the actual center is the center of the political compass, which is the spectrum of what is theoretically possible. And these days I'm even disappointed in Kyle because even he talks about the center as if it's the center of the zeitgeist when he says the "center of the country"). Although he did articulate some things well, to give him some credit.
Then slowly between 2016 and 2020 I got more and more disappointed with Joe Rogan. Especially when he stopped doing them live and moved to Spotify. Now I hardly watch his podcast at all, only watching when he has a really decent guest on.
One thing that did always piss me off too, was that he never had Michael Brooks or Sam Sedar on. Michael was a legend and we sorely miss his use of comedy and in-depth analysis, and Sam is also a legend.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@michaelhomes8049 I think the majority will be happy with it. The 50% that voted for the Labour party, and the 7.9% that voted for the Green Party, and the voters who voted for some of the smaller parties who both did and didn't get seats in parliament might be happy, particularly those who voted for the Maori party who did get a couple of seats. Of course the two main right wing parties National(25.6%) and ACT(7.6%) have support bases that are either crying about small businesses not being able to afford it, or saying it's pointless because businesses will just pass the extra labour costs on to the consumer, which is somewhat true but not a good argument. Oh, and of course a few complaining that the unemployed being given a little bit more too.
But, if you add it all up, I'd say that at least 60% of voters could potentially be okay with it, and maybe the same amount(60%) of the 19% that didn't vote are probably somewhat okay with it too because it will at least help them personally in the short term.
It seems good, but this is only a slight shift back leftward for a neoliberal(center-right) Labour party, after a decade of a very neoliberal National rule. A lot of those Labour voters are swing voters that might understand where the Nats have been, where Labour are, and are okay with moderate social authoritarianism and "kind" neoliberalism, but may not want Jacinda to go "too far". And as Kyle said, she's gone about this rather slowly, almost as if testing the waters, or waiting for the political winds to be completely on her side before doing it. This all might mean that some of those Labour voters aren't totally on board with all of this, so maybe you could knock 5% off their voter base. But with the addition of the Greens and Maori party supporters it's still over 50%.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
SamSederIsAnIdiot You're uneducated. You have a false perception of the Left/Right political axis.
You even seem to have a false perception of U.S. history. If you think disregarding the constitution is a Left-wing action you are truly insane.
I'm going to explain some things about fascism in detail so you might understand..
fascism -n. a right-wing system of government characterized by extreme nationalistic beliefs and strict obedience to a leader or state.(1)
Which party is more nationalistic, Repugs or Dems? Republicans. Who is more nationalistic, G.W.Bush or Obama? Bush.
Is the Patriot Act "strict obedience to a leader or state"? Yes. Is it Authoritarian? Yes. As in conservative Right-wing? Yes.
Does this make Bush, and the Republican Party also/in particular, fascist? Yes.
Does any of it make Obama Left-wing? No. In fact, like I said in my last comment, if you check a political compass, Obama and Hillary are Right-wing. Exhibit 1. (Even Bernie Sanders isn't Left-wing, he's directly in the center.) There's no "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. If your politics are not Left-wing or socialist, and are in fact Right-wing and fascist, then that is what you are.
Fascism is also described as the merger of corporate and state power.
Exhibit 2: Obamacare. Now, while all you far-Right nutters are going on about how this is socialism, it is not. It is not supplied by the government, it is mediated by the government and supplied by privately owned corporate insurance companies. This is the merger of corporation and state. It benefits the corporation more than it does the people and the country.
Exhibit 3: TPPA. Obama is currently working on a "trade" deal, that is essentially giving corporations control over sovereign democracies. He's literally diminishing our democracies. That is not Left-wing AT ALL.
"rather tenuous argument" No. That shit was insane. Are you going to start raging about "white genocide" now? LMMFAO. What, an, idiot!
(1) Oxford English Dictionary.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Africa, Europe, Asia, North America, South America, Antarctica and Australia. Officially. But there are a couple of reasons why there might be some confusion..
The Americas are generally one large landmass, but the North, South and Central Americas are all on separate tectonic plates. Which is likely why they are considered to be separate(although I guess the central American plate gets considered part of the North American continent). While this is also the reason why some consider Europe and Asia to be one continent "Eurasia", because they're on the same tectonic plate(and Greenland was likely once part of North America, as the are on the same plate). This is where I find the inclusion of India and it's greater ethnic region's inclusion in Asia to be a bit strange, as they are separated from the rest of Asia by the Bangladeshi delta and the Himalayas because they are on separate plates, hence why there's the Himalayas there in the first place. The people there more closely resemble the people from the Arabian peninsula, which is also on it's own plate. Why isn't this considered the Duo-micro continent or something?
Oh, and most importantly, "Oceania" is not a continent, Australia is the continent, Oceania is the greater region which includes Melanesia and Polynesia. Or, possibly just Polynesia, if you're were going by tectonic plates, as Melanesia is largely on the Australian plate, while Polynesia, is mostly on, or on the edge of the pacific plate. Although if you were using the definition of Oceania, it wouldn't be a continent still obviously given the name.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This isn't a scandal.
First of all, he said "if you're second cousins" it's probably not a problem. Which is true, despite Kyle being skeptical of that.
Second of all, this is a ridiculous thing to bring up as some sort of gaff or failing on Oz's part. It's not a policy of his or anything. On the flipside, in Aotearoa, we have a right-wing "libertarian" party that tried to decriminalize incest, and in my left wing libertarian opinion, they were right for that. Not every case of incest involves pedophilia, grooming or procreation. Having laws against incest was probably important before we had contraception and abortion, but it's not now. It's basically a victimless "crime" like drug use. Kyle seems, probably quite aptly considering his nationality, quite sex negative and socially authoritarian about this.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
SamSederIsAnIdiot "Statism" is not equal to religion, but Libertarianism is. Here's why; left-wing people believe in economic regulation by an elected body of democratically elected representatives. An elected body of representatives which is not only a tangible group of people that one can confirm exists, but can also be changed whenever it is rational to do so based on evidence. It's kind of scientific like that. Libertarianism, on the other hand, believes the economy is best regulated by itself, or by "the invisible hand of the free market," which is not tangible and there is no evidence it exists/works. Get that again, it's a supernatural/metaphysical claim that cannot be proven. Yet Libertarians dogmatically believe it to be.
You were also a bit off, about religion and the state before the constitution. Most governing bodies before that point were monarchies which derived their power from being "God's representative." All based on classist ideals, that have no scientific basis in reality, that some are better or more deserving than others. It's funny you even brought that up, because Libertarianism would bring in a second era of Feudalism.
Now, go and cry to your god the "free market."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Denys Lightbow "Because people who break laws care nothing about society.." That's a pretty sophomoric assessment. I care about society, and I break certain laws, they are simply laws that I see as unjust. And any rational person should also see them as unjust, but unfortunately the world is populated with idiots. And what of the laws that are just, but people break them anyway, not because they see them as unjust, but because they live in an unjust society which leaves them little option but to steal for their own survival? The world is not black and white, and some people are forced into corners that they can't see any way out of, it doesn't make them rotten people, it makes them unlucky and if they give in to the temptation of using crime to escape their bad luck, it makes them weak, but last I checked we're all weak at times.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Joe Haas "Do rich white men make black youth sell crack?" Pretty much, the poor black people aren't the ones who take cocaine into America. "Do rich white men force young black girls to get knocked up at 13-14 years old?" Actually, yes, it is the rich white men who have political power that rail against abortion. And how many black people are having sex with 13-14 year old girls? Not many, and there are probably as many white men doing that sort of shit. "Do rich white men force black families to LIVE (not use temporarily) on welfare?" No, but you say that like there aren't white people that LIVE on welfare, as opposed to just using it temporarily. You're wrong. "Do they force black youths to drop out of school? No. It has nothing to do with racism." YES! Do you not realize how racist the school systems version of history is? How it ignores African history? Why would they want to go to school to be taught bullshit, and no shit about their own history? "Can you name a very successful predominantly black country?" Yes, I can. Look at Egypt and other ancient African communities, they were doing just fine until Europeans came in and fucked with them. I pose the same question to you that I posed to auspol04, do you realize racist people, like you are known to have low IQ's? Now, realize and recognize that you're a fucking idiot, and shut the fuck up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think what Abigail is saying is that it's not a dysphoria of gender, but rather a non-cis combination of sex and gender. Meaning their sex and gender pairing isn't the "normal" pairing, but that doesn't mean they have gender dysphoria, they know what their gender is, to say they have dysphoria about it, is almost to deny their transness, and/or transness in general even, and claim they should be the gender that is more commonly paired with their sex.
So yeah Kyle took the exact wrong conclusion from it. She's saying that having a dissonance between gender and sex is natural for a trans person, so there's no dysphoria of gender, because they KNOW what gender they are, it's just that their sex doesn't "match" in the way that it does for cis people. The word "dysphoria" could imply that their feelings on their gender is wrong and that they should be cis rather than trans. I.e. transphobic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This video is ridiculous.. First of all, social democrats might as well be democratic socialists lite, and as far as right wingers are concerned, especially the far-right, that's socialist according to them, even center-right is socialist to them, because you still have a social safety net, albeit a punitive one, they still don't like that and want that gone.
Then you've got this stuff about Venezuela, which has an economy that is still majority in private hands, so it's barely a social democracy, being authoritarian, is actually not, and is actually a democratic regime. David seems misinformed on that, and given what it actually is, he should be criticizing that regime from the economic left, not the economic right, as he seems to be.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
David is either a disingenuous liar, or a low IQ clown. We don't talk about the Treaty, we don't honour the Treaty, we honour te Tiriti, the version the iwi who signed it understood. Every time he says "the treaty" in this interview, he's referencing a defunct, irrelevant document.
When he says "I don't think you should be treated different because you're a treaty partner" he's trying to make out that Maori are treaty partners(as per te Tiriti) but pakeha are not, separating the Crown from pakeha, as if we are not the Crown, but essentially we are.
When he's saying that "one side always gets a veto" he's essentially just trying to lead pakeha in not honouring te Tiriti, but he doesn't speak for all of us, and that is essentially illegal. We can't go back on it now.
When he appeals to other countries that have had essentially apartheid states, he's being completely disingenuous. There's no indication that honouring te Tiriti would lead to that.
When he says he's committed to in education, health and housing, the policies of his party regarding those will all just make matters worse for the working class, which disproportionately includes Maori. So this is either disingenuous, or indicative of his having a low IQ.
Just a bunch of dog whistles to low IQ racists. If he and his supporters hate and fear Maori so much, they should leave Aoteearoa and never come back.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Exactly. As I said in my comment(Millennial speaking here), blue jeans(or any jeans, but typically blue) and trainers or runners = the Boomer uniform. This is how you can tell the difference between a Boomer and Gen Xer, Gen Xers know you need casual or skateboarding shoes(often Chuck Taylor's) to go with your jeans, usually black. If you're wearing runners or trainers, you wear shorts or trackpants. These are the rules.
Boomers typically have the plaid button up shirts(usually tucked in), or rugby or football shirts, whereas Gen Xers usually have a t-shirt with a band print or something else printed on them, sometimes maybe a footy jersey, but almost always with black jeans and casual shoes. Sometimes an older Gen Xer might wear the Boomer uniform, but not often.
3
-
Bernie Sanders isn't far-left. He's center left. Like REALLY center left. And most other Democrat politicians are on the center to solid right, in the socially authoritarian/conservative end of the social spectrum, so your comment couldn't be any more wrong.
That's why you don't actually need bipartisanship.. Because when polled, the American people, even those who identify as conservative, actually agree more with the policy positions of the likes of Bernie, than they do with Republicans or corporate Dems.. This is because the corporate media doesn't highlight any of this, and feeds into the bipartisanship of the corporate donor system.
So partisanship is important, but not because the Dems are too far left, but because both parties, apart from a few centrist Dems like Bernie and Warren, are too far to the RIGHT.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Satan's Son No, I'm a practical, objective leftist who thinks voting for a center-right, only slightly socially authoritarian candidate even though she's a sellout, is better than voting for a candidate, who, economically, people are finding hard to place, is he center-right, or middle-right, and is quite socially authoritarian.
The Satan you know is better than the Satan you don't. Fighting Hillary would have been better for the people. Fighting Trump's cabinet full of loonies is going to be extremely difficult. At some point we had to accept that the DNC fucked Bernie over and there was no way to overturn it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bullshit. You don't understand politics very well. You fail to understand that Left wing(Liberals) people ask for evidence that the leaders they are electing are doing the job well. Meaning they wish to have more government to regulate the economy better so everyone is getting a fair deal, and they expect to see evidence of that. Right wing(Conservatives) believe in "Free Market" ideology and neoliberal economics which has no evidence backing it up whatsoever. So really they are accepting this on the AUTHORITY of other people who say it's true yet have no evidence to back it up. ... And that's just economics side of politics...
On social policies, Left wingers or Liberals are Liberal, we don't care what you do as long as it doesn't mess with other people's Human Rights. They do this because it is a logical thing to do, it doesn't assume that they have the authority or power to tell people what they can and can't do as long as it doesn't mess with other people's Rights. Conservatives, on the other hand, are socially conservative and they take their AUTHORITY on these matters from illogical places that have no evidence to back them up, like the Bible or the Koran, so they think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do and have less problem with the authorities charged with upholding their ignorant fascist laws. Simply because they do not know how to question authority, probably because they do not realize who authority actually is, and that is Conservatives. Liberals are not authority. We are the scientific method, we challenge authority. We especially challenge the authority of the rich who buy the political process and hence power, and also run the financial system and all the major corporations who are mostly, if not all, exponents of the "trickle down" myth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Canadian Atheist I'm sorry, but you're the one behaving like a child here. You've fallaciously assumed that being emotional is fallacious, even though it is not intrinsically that. Emotion is a result of evolutionary biology, it is quite possible for an emotion to be result of logical thought processes, in the face of others who refuse, or are unable, to recognize the logic and sense in the argument being made.
I think this shows Sam Harris is either a conservative shill or a xenophobic bigot. I was on the fence the whole time. I agree that Islamic doctrine is a problem, but when you say you'd vote for Carson over Chomsky, I don't care what caveats you throw in there, you're either on the take, or you've lost your damn mind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Rich Hudson You guys do have a rugby team, dude. So they must play it there somewhere. What you guys really want to bring to the U.S. though, is Rugby League, the rules are a bit different, so like how in American Football you get four downs, in Rugby League you get a set of six, which is six tackles, so generally after the fifth tackle your team will kick the ball if they are not in a position to run it at the try line, because otherwise they have to hand over the ball to the opposition where ever the sixth tackle occurs. They have 13 players instead of 15, and it can just be a slightly more exciting game, if you ask me.
2
-
2
-
+Cryomaniac2099 Exactly. And the numbers are not on the side of this video. It leaves out related facts, such as the culture ofJapan and Germany.. Japan is just weird, no white, brown or black people are giving up normal relationships to fuck pillows, and the Germans actually have brains and are great at engineering, they will automate their society to fill the gap of younger, more physically able workers. Most of the "New World", America, Australia, New Zealand, are full of idiot Anglo-Saxons and Germans and Dutch who have lost touch with their intellectual heritage, who all seem to think they have plenty of lebensraum. Well, they're wrong. They're idiots.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
See, I don't like Milo one bit, but I actually don't think he meant to say that consent was arbitrary and oppressive, I think he meant that the current dynamic of consent around the age of legality is arbitrary and oppressive. He has a point, but he's chosen the wrong way to express it, and in a way that doesn't condone sex acts between an 18 year old and a 16 year old, or a 15 year old and a 17 year old if the age of consent where you are is 16.. Which in the end makes him sound like he condones men 25 years or older having sex with 12 year olds, which is completely fucked. So yeah, at least be fair to the guy, and especially the argument he's making. The current age of consent is arbitrary, i.e. not based on scientific and logical determinism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+BlueUncia As a kiwi with Dutch and British heritage, I can attest to what you are saying, most nations like mine, Aussie, Canada, the U.S.,(unlike South America) have adopted more northern, western, eastern and central European culture, which as far as physical affection goes is rather austere, opting to respect people's personal space. Some of us still understand the southern European culture, most likely those that are still in Europe, even though our culture is slightly different, although many, as seen in this video, aren't as aware of these customs and expressions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fredagsmorgon No. Oceania, is a greater geographical region that includes the continent of Australia, the islands of Melanesia, and the Islands of Polynesia(generally excluding Hawaii as it's a U.S. state). It's not "Australia".
Sincerely yours, the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands and New Zealand.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jacob IAm "I've heard they don't just accept anyone though."
That's strange because most of us feel as though our government has an open door policy. Immigration will be a big election issue next year.
"Really? I always read about New Zealand as some sort of heavenly realm."
Well, yes, compared to many places around the world we have it pretty good. You'll arrive here and feel like you're able to breathe. This simply just due to the fact that we have low population density, but this is a good thing that shouldn't change. Having said that much about our country has changed and is changing.
"Is it really that bad (I mean comparing it to the US does seem a bit extreme no?)?"
Well, yes, definitely. It's not as bad as the U.S. really, but it is comparable to the UK, which compared to many other European nations is a bit more right-wing, a bit more like our American cousins than our continental European cousins, particularly the likes of France, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. I think many in these countries still have a good grasp of class struggle and the political landscape, whereas in New Zealand, Australia and UK, the Overton window has been moved to a place where people actually don't understand that it has been moved to, and so accept artificially defined centers of the political axis's, both economic and social. It's certainly, as it is for some in the UK also, starting to feel for some of us as though it is heading towards being as bad as the U.S.
At least we still have an M.M.P. parliamentary system though. There might be a way to save it all yet. The media and our culture are the biggest obstacles.
2
-
You people are so simple. Poor little simple minded people. The same people that claim you can't raise the minimum wage because of price inflation, unwilling or unable to see the fact that there are other things you can do such as legislate a freeze on prices, forcing the money to be redistributed from the bourgeoisie who don't deserve it, to the proles that do.
"Due to this, all of the smarter citizens are moving to other countries for a better life"
How is this true?.. Why is it true, it it is true?.. Because supposedly the lesser number of younger working age people are there to support the aging population. But that's not a problem if you take other actions. Such as raising the retirement age, as one possibility, but not the only one. You can figure out a way to redistribute the wealth from the bourgeoisie, who use social and demographic phenomenons to horde more wealth, to proletarians that actually do the work, which gives the populace at large, particularly the middle class, more money and more reason to stay. And you could make tertiary education "free", as in paid for by your parents taxes, and more the taxes of the wealthy, so that there's plenty of well educated people, so it doesn't matter if some leave. You could make this up by taking refugees and small numbers of immigrants from selected places, rather than large numbers of immigrants that bourgeois fucks assert are necessary to make up for these problems, which undermines the bargaining power of the proletariat, allowing the bourgeoisie to horde more money, making the problem worse.
"*Gets punched by SJW*"
Umm, no. You just got "rekt" by a rational, free speech defending, social justice campainging, leftist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This analysis about populism is very poor. It's largely focused on the rise of right-wing populism, and doesn't really identify what it really is.. While ignoring left-wing populism which is also on the rise..
It's not just about the economy and the elites with right-wing populists, they're the ones who make it about race and nationality. These guys make out that right-wing populists decry identity politics, when that isn't the case. Likewise with left-wing populism, I don't think we completely decry identity politics, but we definitely state that those things should be weighed against economic issues in terms of priority, and if that was done the economics would seriously help sort out some of the social issues. While other social issues may not be subject to that, but compared to the authoritarian left, the populist left isn't trying to focus on trans issues in a disproportionate fashion. But again, that's the difference between the populist left, and the populist right, because the populist right plays on those identity politics issues under the guise of not being "politically correct". Meanwhile, the populist left isn't as concerned about their lack of "political correctness" like the authoritarian left is, because we want to focus on the economic issues that effect both the populist left and the populist right, which some of the populist right can be pulled further left on.
One of the major problems with this analysis, is that not once in mentioning Duterte, Bolsonaro, or Trump did they use the word "fascism" or "fascist", which is definitely applicable to the first two, and should at least be brought up with reference to some of Trump's rhetoric and aspirations, the checks and balances of the U.S. system the only thing keeping him in relative check.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@-Foxer- iSn'T a FaScIsT sTaTe. NoT yEt.
Except they display fasces in congress and have supported most fascist coups around the world over the last 70 years. Anyone that says that the U.S. isn't a fascist state has a very, very narrow definition of what fascism is. With the way the Democrat and Republican parties govern, they tick off many of the boxes. They both seem to love the merger of state and corporate power in order to maintain the existing social and economic hierarchy. They're both socially authoritarian, the Dems slightly less so, but they're also both culturally exceptionalist, not many establishment Dems advocate to get rid of the pledge of allegiance, just as one example. They also both have authoritarian streaks in their parties, Republican voters love to be on the bully side and tell people what they can and can't do, while the establishment Dems think that there's channels you have travel to get somewhere and you have to get in line for the throne and Hillary is the yaas kween, with their super delegates, delegates and electoral college. It seems most people don't see the fascist/1984 elements of U.S. society because the Brave New World is poking through to blind them. Not that those elements are bad things, they often help you see some of the fascist/1984 shit, but education is also needed, legal drugs don't work on their own, and in that department the U.S. is fucked.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ahem.. There certainly is large corporate donations. The difference is anything over NZD$10,000 has to be declared publicly Which means you can make a donation of $9,999 and not have to say who you are. There's also the fact that all parties get election funding, BUT that funding is proportional to the number of seats the party already has in parliament. So the Nazbol vortex is working well to keep Labour and National in power.
One could possibly say, look on the bright side, at least ACT got more seats this time, possibly taking some from National, but I would say most of those voters are former NZFirst supporters who are anti-immigration for racist reasons, who realized NZFirst weren't going to live up to their promise f slowing immigration significantly, so they thought at least they can stop "those bloody Maori activists from taking over the country" by voting for ACT who, although supposedly socially libertarian, are bad on race relations. Evidence for this would be that when polled, they found that only about 53% of ACT voters would support cannabis decriminalization. Which was lower than the National party. So it's pretty obvious that these new ACT voters are the socially conservative/authoritarian NZFirst supporters. And the Greens are more social libertarians. But the other bad thing about ACT growing is they love money in politics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelhomes8049 I know what you mean.. I've been watching Kyle since the early days, because I'm interested in politics. So I see what your system is like.
Parliamentary MMP is definitely better, but does have some problems still in this country. For instance the money in politics issue isn't quite as bad, but there are a couple of issues there, one being that all parties getting funding or campaigning, but the amount given is based on the results the party got in the last election, meaning the larger parties perpetually have an advantage. Some would also say that the ACT party, who for years polled between 1-2% and only ever held one electorate seat until the recent election in which many New Zealand First voters, an economically centrist, but socially conservative party known for being anti-immigration and who chose to build a coalition with Labour rather than National, defected to the ACT party, the party of far right business interests and "equal opportunity, equal rights", Hobson's pledge whitewashing of Aotearoa New Zealand's colonial history, is lucky to have received the amount of media coverage they have over the last two decades, and therefore have probably been benefitting from being that far right party of business interests.
One of the interesting things about this, is that it seems many of those who are now voting ACT may have brought their socially conservative views over from NZFirst. When polled recently, after the failure of the cannabis legalization referendum held with the last election, only 53% of ACT voters support cannabis decriminalization, which is interesting because the referendum on euthanasia that was also held at the last election passed and it was proposed by ACT with help from the Greens and Labour, and in the past have even proposed legalizing incest, so they've been known to consider themselves as social libertarians in the past, but now that 53% in favour of cannabis decriminalization is less than the numbers in favour among National and Labour voters, and of course Green voters, but we're well ahead with 93% of Greenies saying yes. So it's pretty obvious that the ACT party has a new base of support that might differ with it's leadership on some social issues.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hmm, I dunno.. I think what Abigail is saying is that it's not a dysphoria of gender, but rather a non-cis combination of sex and gender. Meaning their sex and gender pairing isn't the "normal" pairing, but that doesn't mean they have gender dysphoria, they know what their gender is, to say they have dysphoria about it, is almost to deny their transness, and/or transness in general even, and claim they should be the gender that is more commonly paired with their sex.
So basically, the argument is "of curse they don't like their sex, but they do know what gender they are. That's not gender dysphoria, it's the natural dissonance between sex and gender that is natural to a trans person."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Where this political commentator is wrong:
0:25 - 0:35 Opinions are irrelevant. You should be able to say what you want, when you want and how you want, without any serious repercussions. Saying that as a libertarian Seymour should be in favour of people living without having hate speech directed at them is a form of doublethink.
3:17 - 3:31 Problem with this claim is that we have examples of people not have a fair definition of hate speech. I say this as a leftist. Perfect example was a incident with Bill Maher recently when he used a certain term and everyone took offence to one word, when that word was in then text of a conversation, and beyond that was used as the second word in a two word descriptor. They chose to ignore or didn't understand the context. And while this obviously wasn't an incident close to inciting violence, how long will it be before a bunch of idiots assumes a fairly innocent statement is actually doing that when it isn't.
3:53 - 4:08 We get to a harmonious society via education and understanding. State education, not state authoritarianism. Fund education more and expand the curriculum. Be proactive, not reactive. This is where the government failed in it's response to the Christchurch shootings, regulating firearms, and I'm not saying that all of those regulations were necessarily unreasonable but some may have been a little heavy handed, but they focused on the technical aspects of the weapons, rather than the processes around buying and licensing of the firearms, and things that relate to that such as police vigilance and white privilege. It was largely reactive and focused on the wrong things.
6:20 - 6:35 I agree with what this National person said there. And he made a good point with out actually saying it explicitly, but we already have laws around harassment etc. that people can be prosecuted for, and if it includes hatred based on race or gender or sexual orientation, then the judge can take that into account when sentencing.
State authoritarianism where social issues are concerned should need to be explicitly evidenced and justified.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tylr "I don't want the government involved in it." The fact you say that shows you're bullying others, not just peer pressure, but bullying others into living their lives in certain ways.
"Let's just let rich people bully poor people into poverty by lording the means of production and the power that comes with that over them."
Nobody said college education was necessary for all jobs. But it should be available to those that want one.
"something that has 0 benefit to me"
That is bullshit. That is so ignorant. Have you ever heard of the Butterfly effect?
1) every individuals right to life should be held above everyone else's right to property if their right to life is not impeded by such taxation, which it isn't. Simple as that.
2) That is largely due to it being underfunded, largely due to the fiscally conservative idiocy you're displaying right now.
There's nothing wrong with that, because it would make the options more apparent and accessible, but college should be most accessible to those who aren't ready to stop their education and hence aren't ready to support their living. These people will often become scientists and politicians, the most educated of us, so giving them the opportunity to concentrate is important. Maybe a bit of both would make the costs to the state, and hence taxpayers but also remember the parents of the students, would be cheaper? Maybe the extra tax money saved could be used to create a pathway for those who want apprenticeships or other practical schools?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tylr *Facepalm* You're an idiot. That didn't make any sense. One can hold intolerant views, what shouldn't happen, is if there is a majority of people with such views, those views shouldn't become part of government legislation because it would be intolerant of tolerable phenomena.
For instance, you could continue to argue for cannabis prohibition all you want, but because that is intolerance of tolerable phenomena, it should never happen, even if that was what the majority wanted. Now, if that majority dwindled to nothing, no people in the nation are for prohibition, people would still be aware that prohibition would be intolerant. Hence what you are saying is not logical. Once again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most people who make and like these types of videos, are people who don't understand politics or reality. It's too hard to think about, so they boil it down to simplifications that in return lead to ridiculous conclusions that don't really line up with reality. What Bernie has done is practical and tactical. Most of us don't like it, we'd prefer he tried to take the nomination by stirring up the pot, but if he tries and fails, it's not good for Clinton's campaign, which is important in defeating Trump. Bernie also knows the most important thing is to actually turn the revolution growing around his campaign, into a campaign to elect more third party candidates to senate, which would make it easier for a third party candidate to poll high enough to be more highly involved in the next presidential election.
Honestly, I'm a foreigner, and I would suggest voting for Jill Stein if you live in a blue state, so I'm not saying any of this to defend Hillary and the corrupt DNC. Just being real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** No, you would like it to be the end of discussion, but it is not. That is unObjectivist, Randian, nonsense. You just refuse to acknowledge the truth of ecological limitation, the truth of overpopulation, the truth of people not choosing to be born, that's a choice their parents made, now they are born though, they must have enough to survive and thrive to reduce things like crime. It's basic logic and people like you fail at it time and again.
What John Smith said above with his last paragraph..
"We shouldn't have to forcibly remove money/property from the wealthy, because they should be educated well enough to realize that by giving their money to others through taxes helps everyone in this country, including themselves."
Is spot on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
whyamimrpink78 It's single payer for everything else, though. You go to the doctor, it's cheap because it's subsidized, if you go to the hospital it's free. It's really the only failing of some of these countries. I'm pretty sure in left leaning nations, like possibly those in Scandinavia, they probably have a publicly funded ambulance service. St. Johns are mainly in the Anglosphere, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, I believe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Colin Pittman "Different standards for different races assumes racial inferiority." Umm, firstly, affirmative action is not having "different standards", it simply states if two candidates who both meet the same standard apply, the job goes to the African-American individual. They still meet the same standard. Secondly, it doesn't assume inferiority, it simply acknowledges the resource disparity between the European segment of the community, and the ghettoized African segment of the community, and attempts to equal an unequal playing field. See, being that there's less African-American people for a start, and then add in the fact that they are coming off the back chattel slavery, in which NO African-Americans were members of the bourgeoisie, in fact they were entrenched proletarians, which means there is a very small segment of the overall population that are African-American and also bourgeoisie, and being as we know that racial bias comes into hiring for jobs, that African Americans have less of a chance of being hired by the mostly white bourgeoisie, with a rather large European proletariat standing by. Your rhetoric is devoid of any social and economic historical context. It's a shame, coming from someone with a fairly reasonable position on the political compass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alex xeon Yes and no. It depends. The death penalty to a suicidal person is not a punishment, it's probably relief from a shitty existence. Think of people who commit suicide by cop, for example. They are generally people who live in ghettos or slums and are having a pretty shitty existence, so too most of the people who end up on death row. They are willing to risk death, because it will relieve them of their pain, for short term gains, because it might seem to them the only way to survive at the time. It's like, survive now and possibly die later or die now.
But if you're living a good life and don't want to die, then sure, it would suck, but it would probably still not be the worst punishment. Like, "oh, I got to have a great life making good money locking people up, I got to go on holidays, plenty of parties, I enjoyed my life, and now I get to die and not feel anything else ever again, including any form of pain." It would make more sense to lock them in a cage, to eat shitty food everyday for 20, 25, 30 years or some shit, so that they can understand why, they can feel the pain and suffering others have.
You totally have not thought any of this through well, have you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Danceofmasks There is enough money, in the bank accounts of the wealthy who are hoarding it. It is in the economy already going around, but because of the structure of business and the regulations and taxes around such, mean that much goes into the bank accounts of upper middle class people who both overspend and save some of it. Which, if was different, could allow for the poor, lower middle class and middle class more disposable income, which would stimulate the economy, and actually allow for the use of that money and the groceries that sit on the shelves all night, while the grocery store is closed, and poor people are at home starving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jasmine Salas Wrong. Cenk's position here was a knee jerk gender based reaction, he likely felt because he put himself in the shoes of a male falsely accused of rape. He has no evidence to assume that the accused in this case is innocent, there just was not enough evidence for a court to convict. (Sure this may be an Argument from ignorance fallacy, which is only an informal fallacy, but you are making an Argument from Fallacy, which is a formal fallacy.) Her artwork clearly makes the point, which you are clearly missing, that the manner in which she feels she was raped is one that such it is not clear to even her because she initially consented to sex. When Cara said; "Do you think women want to make this up!?" SHE HAS A FUCKING POINT! And she's not saying that no one would make it up for various reasons, I think what she is saying is that those instances are few and usually pretty fucking obvious. The fact she didn't do anything about it for months is evidence in her favour, not evidence against her, especially given the nature of her claim. Now, if she'd claimed she'd been out-and-out raped by some guy which she could identify months later, then maybe you would be correct. But, because she is claiming that it was started as a consensual act that turned into rape after she'd told him to stop, there is more probability that she is telling the truth because of the more convoluted nature of events and her own unclear perceptions around consent and rape.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheRhinehart86 Then why, since Israel was created, by taking half of Palestine, for what reason, I don't know, have Israel been STEALING more and more Palestinian land. There are plenty of examples of how the Jews in Israel are intolerant of the natives and are trying to cleanse the whole country of them, and that's not a crazy minority either. You should also realise that the Jews of Israel have no claim over that country. They are Europeans who have a small amount of middle eastern Jew ancestry. They are not native to that region, the Palestinians are. They should leave, and go back to Poland, where they came from. Get better sources of information, the ones you have currently are not working in your favour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm surprised by that last answer, Kyle. I would've thought you could at least entertain that one. I'm a New Zealander, and have come to realize New Zealand is very similar to the U.S. in many ways, it's very different in many also, but it's very similar regarding the general ignorance and lack of education among our populations, and as such we have a right-wing parliament destroying our once better, striving for egalitarianism country. Because of that, I have thought of leaving, places I wouldn't mind would be, Scotland, but only because they're English speaking and I have ancestry there. The Netherlands, because I have ancestry there, and the Netherlands are just fuckin' awesome. Canada, because I see similarities to New Zealand, except they've finally turned their back on their Tories and voted for Labour. Greenland, because like New Zealand it has a native population that has been subject to European imperialism and should really separate official ties with said and create a republic, something I've wanted for NZ but isn't likely due to the general stupidity of the population, but I think the population of Greenland is small enough to be swayed away from Denmark. Also, I imagine Greenland will get much greener as climate change takes effect, so there's that, it could easily become a much greater nation as a result of arable lands diminishing elsewhere and increasing in Greenland. And I've even considered California, Oregon or Washington, but preferably if there was some sort of western seaboard secession or the U.S. being split into a few smaller nations, because, ya know, legal weed, and I imagine there's less rednecks in these states than the rest of the U.S. and indeed NZ.
Although I suppose your response is probably a joke given that that question followed the one regarding nationalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Smokey ThebAndit Yeah, CURRENT black people have no trace of that DNA, the Homo sapiens that fucked the Neanderthals, had to be black, because the Neanderthals are what made us white. The reason no, or not many anyway, have Neanderthal DNA, is because migration went out of Africa, and then out of the Caucuses and Eurasia out, not back into Africa, so hence the genes didn't come back down into Africa, so Africans that live there now, don't have any Neanderthal DNA. Like, duh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Charley Panda You consider THAT a "rant"?! You are the height of anti-intellectualism. You were always inferior to me. Your impertinent replies demonstrate a wicked and malicious attack upon your betters. You're an unhappy man. One other commentor has given you so much. Who else would reply to you, Charley? When was the last time one of your comments resonated with other viewers? Here's the reality, Charley, you live in the shadow of the Kulinski fans. You live in the shadow of an Ahole, Charley. Consider the following, Charley.. I'm more attractive than you. I'm more intelligent than you. I have a greater grasp of reality than you. And fuck, Charley, I'm even a better pan smoker than you. This list could go on infinitely, but we don't have until the heat death of the universe, so let's proceed forward.. Charley, look, it's time to bow to your betters. DP, as you state, are such good internet patrons, while your attempts at internet stardom have come to nothing but failure and disappointment, this is how Po must feel every time your gay, fat, Panda ass lumbers through the bedroom doorway. While DP's success soars, yours is bogged down in the cesspit you've inhabited for years. Where you are winter, I am the first day of spring, and DP is the height of summer. Charley, the truth is, you must look up to even see us, because we are placed so high above you. Go ahead sing another poor Brett Keane impersonation. To be honest, you are but fodder for my amusement, if I was to never speak to you again, I would not fucking care. Charley, my only hope is that you and David can stop living in my shadow, in Kulinski's shadow, and in the DP's shadow. You are a landlocked manatee, doomed to wander the backwaters of the internet. Thank you, Charley, and I hope you have an amazing day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To so many of you commenting here... Many of you don't understand politics very well. You fail to understand that Left wing(Liberals) people ask for evidence that the leaders they are electing are doing the job well. Meaning they wish to have more government to regulate the economy better so everyone is getting a fair deal, and they expect to see evidence of that. Right wing(Conservatives) believe in "Free Market" ideology and neoliberal economics which has no evidence backing it up whatsoever. So really they are accepting this on the AUTHORITY of other people who say it's true yet have no evidence to back it up. ... And that's just economics side of politics...
On social policies, Left wingers or Liberals are Liberal, we don't care what you do as long as it doesn't mess with other people's Human Rights. They do this because it is a logical thing to do, it doesn't assume that they have the authority or power to tell people what they can and can't do as long as it doesn't mess with other people's Rights. Conservatives, on the other hand, are socially conservative and they take their AUTHORITY on these matters from illogical places that have no evidence to back them up, like the Bible or the Koran, so they think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do and have less problem with the authorities charged with upholding their ignorant fascist laws. Simply because they do not know how to question authority, probably because they do not realize who authority actually is, and that is Conservatives. Liberals are not authority. We are the scientific method, we challenge authority. We especially challenge the authority of the rich who buy the political process and hence power, and also run the financial system and all the major corporations who are mostly, if not all, exponents of the "trickle down" myth.
1
-
1
-
Roland White No. The status quo would be the conservative politicians, hence the name "conservative", because they're trying to conserve antiquated classist values. They believe in "fee market" ideology, along with Libertarians, which is whay Rand Paul runs on the Republican ticket, and why parties like the ACT Party in New Zealand, which is Libertarian in nature, work with the conservative Right-wing parties. Why? Because they have the same economic ideology, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The Left-wing are the one's who follow evidence, like the evidence for climate change, for one example. They may not change their overall ideology, but they will change some aspects around their policies when evidence suggests they should, and for that, they are not the status quo. They are also not the status quo, because they're also called "progressives." Why? Because we like to see things move forward towards egalitarianism, which is a big part of Marxism/Communism/Socialism. We're also not for the status quo because the Left are the one's who advocate the government ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING, whereas the Right wish to undo anything the government is doing to help the people to the point where the government is doing fuck all.
Also, I noticed you say something about the American education indoctrinating kids. You really think they're making them subservient? To whom? Left-wing government? You have to look at the U.S. and see who is in control of that country, look at the state of their politics. It is being run by the wealthy for the wealthy, hence why even the Democrats are Right-wing. In fact, I don't know how you even came up with this ignorant little piece of rhetoric you're throwing around. If you look at it the whole U.S., from their pledge of allegiance, to their Police and military industrial complex to even their schools is all authoritarian, and authoritarianism is distinctly Right-wing. So if they are trying to make people "subservient" it is not the Left who are doing so.
I can't believe I had to waste my time explaining that to you. How do you not know this shit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Myte It's funny you say "protecting the rights of minorities" when Lefties and Socialists are usually all for that. And why do you consider it "stealing." Paying tax should be something we all like doing, because it gives us, or should at least, great things that we all use, even if we don't directly use them, we often get the benefit of it's use.
You say "Also if the majority says one thing it does not make it moral." Which is exactly my point, people's right to life should be a priority over other people's property rights, i.e. infringing on on someone's property rights via demanding taxation when it does not impede that persons right to life, and could facilitate someone else's right to life.
You also say, "This type of argument could try to make it legal to rape women when they get 50.0001% of the population." But that is incorrect. That is exactly my point. Human rights should not be the plaything of majorities. Socialists usually agree with that, which is why if the majority were socialist, they'd be looking out for the needs of minorities, because we are generally in favour of human rights, and human rights in the way I've explained, where some are more prioritized over others. Because even if we were demanding higher taxation, we would still be allowing for firstly that person's right to life, but also secondly their property rights in that we would not want to tax too much so the person still had fiscal freedom and disposable income.
This is the problem with many of the fascist governments of developed first world nations. They think people's right to life is a plaything to be used to garner slaves for the corporate class pyramid. They think nothing of our right not to be arbitrarily arrested, detained or punished. It's a shame that you sound like you're in the majority on their side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL. You would have a point, if it wasn't for the fact, Donald Trump, a reality TV host, which is basically his best title because he's not a successful businessman, is running for president of the U.S. and he's defeated 16 opponents already. Yet there are still many celebrities whose fame has been garnered from television or movies that I would trust to have a better, more sophisticated, more decent, political position than Donald Trump.
But, here, have my like for the Chappelle reference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Red Lion Regressive? Dude, you don't know what you're talking about! You're the one drinking the Kool-aid. Libertarians like you are the best allies of the authoritarian right. "Authoritarian" leftists aren't all the authoritarian because the only authority they wish to exert is one in which people should adhere to anyway. The idea that all individuals right to life is held in a higher regard than and one individuals property rights, so therefore taxing a rich person is not wrong, because it doesn't affect their ability to survive, not taxing the rich and helping poor people is directly affecting their ability to survive.
I suggest you read this, you regressive, backwards, fool..
Homo sapiens, we have a mind for the abstract, which sets us apart from our closest primate relatives. It gave us art and language, which enabled us to communicate in greater definition. With better communication came a greater ability to cooperate and coordinate.
Surely, this has contributed to the successes that members of our species have had, in enduring the elements of the environment, and conquering those members of our species who communicate, cooperate, coordinate and do diplomacy with less efficacy.
Ever since the neolithic revolution our species has lived by farming the arable land available to them. Only to have the spoils of such siphoned off to those who contributed the least and were the least in need. Those who controlled the social and economic structure of the group simply because they held the resources to exert their will, domesticating the physical might of Homo sapiens as Homo sapiens had domesticated the might of other mammals.
This was as such for centuries, for millennia, until slowly, increment by increment, innovation by innovation, communication by communication, revolution by revolution, our technologies and ideas evolved. The industrial revolution and the age of enlightenment brought forth socialists and republicans all over the world who organised. Who cooperated and coordinated. Eventually realizing an ancient idea.
Enter democracy. Enter Governments.
Enter fiscal conservatives. The remnants of aristocracy. Those who did not wish to relinquish the rule and superiority enjoyed by those of their genealogy. Enter those confused about their place in this antiquated economic class structure. Those confused about what is morally correct and fair. Those opposed to realistic meritocracy, yet proclaim it's existence from rooftops and soap boxes. The Doublespeak, the transparent cognitive dissonance.
Seeking to minimize governance, minimize, or eliminate, democracy, the fiscal conservatives are winning. The more tumultuous society is, the more they are winning. Cooperation and coordination do not seek dysfunction. Those who oppose macro cooperation and coordination seek dysfunction.
Is that disingenuous? Maybe. It is likely fiscal conservatives do not seek dysfunction, they seek their own success. Determined to believe individual success is dependent upon individual merit alone. Determined to deny determinism. Determined to deny ecological limitations. Dysfunction can be the only result.
The socially liberal branch of fiscal conservatives call themselves "Libertarian." They have many among their numbers who are nonreligious, and refer to socialists and social conservatives as "statists." Despite that not actually being a word. The term is usually used to insinuate that those in said categories have a dogmatic belief in the state, a word which actually does exist. An assertion which is delightfully dissonant. When the facts are the "Free market" is basically the same as any described deity. It is not tangible, and is supposed to be omnipotent enough to realize meritocracy. While a state is an organized democracy. As in proportional representation as democratically willed by all the people. It is tangible, and it bends to the will of the people, rather than requiring dogmatic apathetic determinism. Which, like religion, will only maintain and manufacture top-down authoritarianism.
When we give up our democratic rights, we allow our government to be neglected. The only people that gain from this, at least temporarily, are fiscal conservatives. It puts many social services in the hands of people who are motivated by profit, rather than efficacy and the greater good.
It's not that fiscal conservatives won't cooperate and coordinate, either. They're simply more likely to cooperate and coordinate in the pursuit of denigrating and exploiting proletarians and the poverty stricken for a few individuals to profit, than they are to cooperate and coordinate to ensure the comfort and success of the whole group. This micro cooperation. This is negative cooperation. Divide and conquer. "Us" against "Them."
We, as a nation, as a species, can continue to lie to ourselves and to each other, to continue this micro cooperation, this conservative cooperation, this negative cooperation. Or, we can be truthful and transparent, and we can achieve macro cooperation, positive cooperation, progressive cooperation.
...
Oh, and one more thing, not all SJWs are opposed to free speech, we actually take Kyle's stance on that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
spinosauruskin Wow! the stupid is strong in you, isn't it?
"There is evidence against her claims."
That's ridiculous. There wasn't enough evidence to convict, that's not evidence there was evidence to the contrary.
""Not saying they are assuming it did in fact happen"
They were."
I disagree. I don't think that's what they were doing at all.
"But they'd be the first to argue that a man convicted was definitely a rapist."
Probably, because if he was convicted there was likely more evidence. Duh.
"Conflicts with the feminist idea that rape victims are traumatised by reliving their rapes and that's why they don't go to the police." Not every case is the same, and in this case she is likely more traumatized by the fact that her accused got away with it, if it did in fact happen. So her art is a way of expressing to others the ways in which some people get away with rape.
"Not what the media here is discussing. And Cenk put it best. "we all agree""
Maybe because they missed the fucking point all together, much like most of their audience.
"Why bring identity politics into the conversation? Oh yeah because you're a bigot."
Because this obviously has a lot to do with identity politics when Cenk is making such an ignorant, gender biased argument. The fact I'm bringing up gender politics when gender politics are clearly applicable because it IS applicable and because Cenk made it applicable, is not evidence I am a bigot! In fact, it is clearly evidence to the contrary! What, an, idiot! Do you not have any knowledge regarding privilege in all it's forms? I suggest you acquire some.
"And let's face it, this whole bullshit about campus sexual assault is focused around female victims and male perpetrators for a reason. And it's not because that's the most common form (it isn't) or the most condoned form (it's the least)"
Again, while what you said there might be true, your ignorance of privilege is clouding your perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pulse Gamin *Kiwi employee.. I'm not American. And, yes, I do care if they display incompetence. LOL. Yeah bro, the white guy that listens to Hip-Hop, and not just radio Hip-Hop, like Afrocentric revolutionary Hip-Hop and all, and I'm some stereotyping scum because I understand politics? I didn't even say all Indians were bad, just the vast majority don't seem to match up to western standards. It would be much better for that majority if those within it that are thinking about going elsewhere stay there so that their poor behaviour and work doesn't tarnish the perceptions other people have of their people, and that the one's that are good, should stay the fuck there to teach the others how to be good, or share their wealth, rather than fucking off with it, so that the others aren't the way they are.
"I have no clue what you are talking about" No, you really don't. "I honestly could care less about politics." You really should because that's why you have no clue what I'm talking about. You claim to not care about politics, yet you are here chastising me for stereotyping, which is inherently political. Which, here's a tip, is because literally everything has political implications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TGGeko Yes, yes, idiot right-wingers keep saying that, despite fascism being explicitly described as a right-wing form of governance that merges corporate interests and the interests of the state, while also being classist and anti-egalitarian. It stretches from the center-left to the middle-right and occupies the top third of the authoritarian/libertarian axis, so more possibility of right-wing fascism exists, than left-wing fascism.
You're likely not convinced by that assessment due to years of right-wing propaganda, which has move the center of the economic axis to an arbitrary position on the middle-right, and the Overton window of your media, even our media in my country to a degree, without any outward acknowledgement of such has corresponded.
1
-
TGGeko "Merging corporate and state interests sounds an awful lot like collectivization."
Well then you misunderstand what that means. What that means is, like Obamacare, tax payer money is funneled back into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. And, as I've stated, it is socially conservative, much like the U.S., and has classist system, much like the U.S. Most of these things are also true of Nazism, or National Socialism, which is center-Left, but it doesn't take up much of the area that is Socialism. There are many other forms. Just as there are many other forms of fascism, and although one form might be slightly left economically, it has abandoned all of the social socialist ideals. Saying they were enemies of capitalism doesn't mean anything. It is still a Right-wing, as it is authoritarian and classist, persuasion. It simply means they are not for the kind of free market capitalism practiced in the past by Feudal aristocracy. It is still a conservative ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That is why you don't see one grocery store sale milk at $10/gal." No but I'll explain to you why the price of milk is relatively higher than it should be in my country which has a main industry of dairy farming. We export most of our products to asia, a capitalist idea, and we only have two large grocery store chains that pretend to be five. They're not having to compete with one another much, the dairy farmers all sell their milk to one dairy company, who sells it offshore which must make the price, obviously thanks to the demand created by exports, higher. Our fresh produce is quite expensive too, even though it's all grown here, we pay more than we should for it because local retailers, for some bullshit reason have to match the export price, because supply/demand, even though we don't have to pay for the extra expense of shipping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
robinsss "the way a gov't treats it's citizens has nothing
to do with economics" That's totally not true.
"it's about how humane the gov't is" Yes, and in a democracy that is in direct relation to how humane the population is, some of which are still largely Christian, or a Christian denomination is the largest religion outside the non-religious, and many developed nations still have savage legal systems that are not "just" and imprison innocent people at high rate. The guise of civility, is just that, a guise.
Interesting to note that the nation with quite a high percentage of Christians compared to other developed nations is actually the one with the most innocent people in jail for things they shouldn't be in there for, the U.S. It is also the leader of the charge of developed nations waging war in foreign, Muslim majority nations, but I suppose you're going to tell me the Muslims are the bad guys, that they're the aggressors? Ever hear of the Crusades?
Child please! You're an idiot. At least Milo is a troll that doesn't actually believe that shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Rob Wilson You can walk down the street and pull your cell phone out of your pocket without having to worry about whether a nearby cop is going to think it's a gun and fucking shoot you. That's what this whole "white privilege" thing means, you don't have to think about issues that people of colour DO have to think about, like the cops treating you like you're always armed and extremely dangerous, prospective employers making judgments based on your name etc. etc. etc.
There's scientific studies that will educate you to the fact that people have unconscious bias towards those that look like us. It's how our species is wired to look out for our family, and then our tribe etc. That itself manifests into a reality in which white people are naturally going to be slightly more privileged if they're are the majority of the population, which they are. This leads to white people on average, and note that I say "on average" there, if you don't understand averages then leave this conversation, you don't have the intellectual capability to understand any of this, being more economically privileged than people of colour. Which, again, continues the cycle since slavery ended of African-Americans being generally confined to the class of proletarian because it's the bourgeoisie who have the resources therefore they have the jobs, and they also have that unconscious bias to people who look like them meaning white proletarians have more chance of becoming petty bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie. Not that they have that much more chance because history tells us that white proletarians too are being oppressed by the white bourgeoisie, and class ascension is very rare.
You say, "try opening a history book." I would advise you to do the same. Only this time try a bit of historiography and at least attempt to comprehend historical dialectical materialism.
You people that can't intellectualize any of this shit and keep denying white privilege exists are idiots of the intellectual level of kindergarteners. You don't seem to understand abstract concepts.
Go back to school.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a post for +James Fitz, whose name won't seem to come up for me. Maybe he's blocked me because he can't deal with the truth. Cognitive Dissonance, much?...
Hahaha. Maybe that's the problem, maybe you should get an education from another country that isn't as backwards. Fox more consistent! Yeah, consistently one sided and wrong! Just because TYT say one thing is racist, and then defends someone who clearly isn't racist, doesn't mean they are inconsistent. In fact, it makes them fair and balanced because they are actually weighing up the facts and attributing the correct amount of merit to each argument/event. Which makes them consistently correct. If you can't understand that, and you think you've had one of the best educations your country can offer, then maybe it wasn't the lack of people trying to educate you, maybe you were dropped on your head as an infant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eric Camacho Neither do I, but I understand the varying degrees and manners in which a nation can organize it's governance and be considered Left-wing or Socialist.
I find it funny him querying my Marxism. I'm an atheist, hence a materialist. Check. I'm all for the regulation of economy. Check. I'm in favour of public ownership of at least one or more organizations that provide necessary amenities. Check. I'm all for egalitarianism. Check. I'm against the militarization of the police force. Check. I'm against foreign military intervention in almost, if not all instances. Check.
I am pro private ownership, as I believe one of the precursors of Marxism is not just the bourgeoisie being able to hold the means of production over the proletariat in order to exploit them, but the inequality among the people. People want things, but they especially want the security of having a means to feed, house and clothe oneself and their family. Above all they want these things in a self actualized fashion. In other words, we all want to successful an for most that means being the owner of the means of their own production after earning it via selling their labour to the bourgeoisie until the decent wages afforded to them by decent governmental regulation gives them the upward economic mobility to become an owner themselves. Or at least if their profession doesn't allow for that(and I'm not talking because of monopoly, more because their whole industry is publicly owned etc.), that they have Union representation that allows them a salary that sets them up for a good living. I.e. being able to buy a residential property at a relatively young age, being able to take holidays, having disposable income to enjoy consumer products and recreational activities. Bottom line: we all want a little bit of something to call our own, so I'm not for 100% Communism, but we need something close that still allows for some private ownership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MRostendway No, no. You still don't understand. You're assuming that she is proposing a conclusion, when in reality she is proposing a hypothesis. She is not assuming that they are there based on their race and gender, she is asking if that that is a possibility based on the available evidence. Again, she could be wrong, which is why she likely went through private avenues, but based on the visible evidence, she could deduce that it was a possibility, she didn't say it was certainly what the case was.
"But there is no real evidence to suggest that this company is racist or sexist just because the room she walked in to happened to be filled with white men "
Exactly. Which is why I say she proposed a hypothesis, not a conclusion. She was going by the available evidence and proposing the hypothesis.
"Also you can call a klansman a racist because they are racist by definition."
If you don't want people to be able to query the possibility of racism because if they do that automatically makes them the racist, then you are probably a racist that wishes to continue to enjoy their white privilege by shutting down conversations such as these in this way. By calling people racist when they are not.
You people are fascist idiots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
لتحويل فخور Cannabis doesn't mess up people's lives, and it only alters their consciousness for the better. One of the main chemicals in Cannabis, CBD, actually links perfectly with receptors in the Homo Sapiens brain. As if we were made for each other, although I don't believe we were "made" for each other, this is certainly evidence that shows the Cannabis plant is a product of the biosphere that is perfectly evolved to benefit Homo Sapiens. It's funny that you're on here calling people idiots, because as far as I can tell, you're the only idiot here. Even your argument that use would increase if it were legal, is nonsense. People who smoke it will smoke it if it's illegal or not, people who don't smoke it, won't start smoking it just because it is legal. For some people they just don't enjoy the effects it has.
1
-
لتحويل فخور Honestly, when I can afford to be, I am. But if I can't afford to be, I don't let it mess up my life by committing actual crimes, crimes with victims, to get some. That's how I know it doesn't ruin lives. The only thing that ruins lives about Cannabis is the fact that people get thrown in jail for having it, then they have a criminal record they don't deserve, which might stop them from gaining employment. That's not to say there are times when I don't get high, and technically you can't be high all the time. You only get high for about an hour, then you're "stoned" for about another hour or two and then you're back to normal. It's when I get back to this "normal" that I get high again. But you can only do that every two or three hours because trying to get high after you've just been high doesn't work because the chemicals in Cannabis release Dopamine into the brain, and it takes a while for your brain to build levels of Dopamine back up to a point where you can get high again. But, yeah, it does alter it for the better. If you've never tried it, I suggest you do sometime. There's no risk of overdose, and it might just open your mind up to ways of thinking that you've never thought before, in a good way. It's like if you normally see things in 2D, you'll see them in 4D. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
1
-
لتحويل فخور My second response, just to clarify something.. But at the same time, if you don't wish to try it, don't. But don't think that it's okay for you to stop others from using it just because you don't want to. It's not going to be the end of the world if people can legally smoke it. Like I said, if people want to smoke it they will if it's legal or not, and if they don't they won't, whether it's legal or not. Also, I say it alters your consciousness in a good way, but then for some it's not so good, although it's relatively the same, it's the increased awareness and introspection that can make people paranoid, which is what a few people I know of cite as the reason they've only tried it once or twice but won't smoke it anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Yeah, you might be right about that. From what I understood about Fabian Socialism, it had some positive aspects, but there are some aspects that on the surface seem condescending and domineering. I think they might be less so than is perceived, i.e. they have good intentions, a bit like Dawkins talking about a feminist revolution in Islam, it's like he's not allowed to even suggest that us as white western males should help in that, because then it's taken as us trying to dictate to them or something, when really it's more like, hey, we're just trying to help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shepsu Tera Netchebmaa "You got a subject to debate ass hole?"
Well, being as you are the one who seems to be defending Alex Jones, I assume you agree with much of his assertions, and being that they are his assertions, the burden of proof is on him, and anyone else who also chooses to assert these things as facts.
So, being as they are his assertions and you're defending him, maybe you know of which of his assertions you would like to debate?
"Let's you and I discuss issues right now."
Sorry, it's taken me some time to reply, but let's..
"I doubt if you you can complete a coherent sentence."
Well, prepare to be proven wrong on that assumption. I did well in English all through school, top of my class in high school, and my country regularly ranks highly in OECD Reading Comprehension rates.
"What we have now is crony capitalism/fascism/socialism and it's not working."
You might as well just call it fascism. It's capitalism as far as it's classist and authoritarian. It's only socialist in that fascism incorporates some minor elements of socialism, while rejecting the egalitarianism of actual Marxist socialism, which most fascists vehemently denounce.
"You just don't understand a free market society. That worked for 200 years here."
Most people who argue against the free market actually do understand. There are many reasons that free market capitalism "worked"("worked" because it obviously didn't provide freedom and liberty to all, i.e. slaves, native populations, and was basically might equals right, bullies get to dictate to the weak) in the "New World" for all that time. Context is important, and that context has changed.
"Show me where socialism has worked and I'll vote for him."
Socialism has been working all across the developed world since the middle of last century. The U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, all have had socialist programs for a long time, most of which are effective, although some could still get better, and might.
"Socialistic/Fascistic/Communist government"
It sounds like you have a misguided idea of some of these concepts. Are you aware of what the political compass is?
"Do you know what conspiracy "theory" is? It's only a question until one or more facts of the or a conspiracy is put forth. Then it's no longer a theory."
LOL. A conspiracy theory is not the same a scientific theory, and what conspiracy theorists consider credible and verified facts would not hold up to scrutiny.
"I am not a believer but a "knower.""
Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
"We are in an oligarchy/fascist as well with socialistics and communism too."
Do you even know what communism actually is?
I agree with you on the Federal Reserve. But that is more reason to vote for the most economically left candidate.
1
-
***** "Property taxes = you never own your property because you're always paying for it"
That's not what that means at all.
"as long as the FEDERAL RESERVE continues to produce INFINITE FIAT MONEY"
Okay, it's not good that the Federal Reserve is controlled by private persons, but the problem with that is not that the currency is not backed by anything, it's that the reserve bank usually sets interest rates and influences how banks are regulated, which allows for fractional reserve lending, which causes inflation and debt. Fiat currency is the way forward. It need not be be backed by anything because money doesn't need to be a representation of all the physical resources available to a person/country because markets include things that are not physical resources such as arts and services. You might say, well that then makes the prices of physical commodities arbitrary and artificial. And I would say, yes, and that makes all the more reason to have a democratic socialist government that regulates effectively for the benefit of all.
"Oh yeah, Sanders allegedly hates the Federal Reserve, but he "'sold out' on a measure to audit the Federal Reserve. Sanders agreed to modify the measure in a way that requires audits of the Fed during the financial crisis but not of the bank's monetary policy ""
What you don't seem to understand about this is that politics, and democratic government is subject to diplomacy, a dialogue between ideas and ideals. You don't always get exactly what you want. Sometimes you have to compromise to make some small ground, and bide your time until you can make more. Say, until the public votes for more senators and congress reps. that are of his stripe, that are willing to help him. That's politics, sometimes progress is slow and painful.
"Even with all this freely available information proving how dangerous it is?"
What some consider "proof" others would not. Dare I say that what people like you that consider such things as proof are usually ignorant of much context, when knocking down opposing ideologies, and when promoting their own.
"In theory, socialism is nice. In reality people are motivated by greed; that's not cynicism, that's fact?"
Yes, and idiot right-wingers don't realize that the left-wing have a more holistic approach to their greed. They realize that if as a society they try to take care of everyone all the time, people are going to take care of them personally all the time. Everyone is going to have a relative amount of prosperity. Notice I said "relative" there, I'm not talking about everyone having exactly the same amount.
"..renewable energy and automated technology"
You realize socialists are all about clean energy, right? You understand what needs to happen when everything is automated, right? We're going to have to move all these unqualified workers onto Universal Basic Incomes. That's socialism. You might want to ignore that fact. But that is what is going to need to happen. These people are going to become consumers, artists, and citizen journalists etc.
"Yeah, violent savages (aka "refugees") are financially exploiting the countries that they're invading"
What the fuck is wrong with you? That is categorically false. The fact they are refugees proves that they are not in fact "savages", because they trying to escape the violence in their region. What a fucking idiot! "Invading"? You know that implies military force, right? You know there's none of that, right? You fucking idiot.
1
-
1
-
Shepsu Tera Netchebmaa Dude, you want someone to address the Agenda 21 issue? I'll run it down for..
Most of what is in Agenda 21 are GOOD FUCKING THINGS! Unfortunately, not all of those things are being pursued, because of what I've alluded to above(to one of you) that governments, and the U.N., are subject to a dialogue between political ideologies, and hence the diplomacy necessary to go with it. They don't have an overall, singular consciousness and agenda. The funny thing is, people like you are worried about Agenda 21, while also being worried about the "N.W.O." while seemingly being ignorant of facts such as, that Agenda 21 isn't really being implemented in it's entirety, and, that the objectives of it are not in any way similar to the objectives of those right-wing, fascist politicians that openly spoke of an "N.W.O." in the '80's. The objectives of Agenda 21 are environmentalist, egalitarian, and respectful of indigenous people's, right-wing fascists/conservatives/capitalists are none of those things.
The problem is, people like you read into the wording what you want to read into it, even though it isn't there. Interpretation and imagination should be carefully managed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blue blah It doesn't so much offend me, as it does surprise me. New Zealand is a weird place because of all the people of European descent, half, or maybe less than half these days, are really good, anti-racist types. Then the other half, or maybe more than half, are somewhat racist assholes. Then there are some that help perpetuate a racist system and don't even realize it, but generally aren't that racist, and don't understand how the implications of their political beliefs perpetuate racism. So I don't blame you for the comment, although most people tend to find us to be mostly non-racists, I can see where you would find a few assholes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Argya Wanaditya "To still argue that the rape happened is cruel to the guy who had been cleared up." See, that is where you are wrong. Just because he was cleared by a court because there was no evidence is no basis to assume that no rape occurred, it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Having said that, you also said; "Take away her rape story, her art project is too artsy at best and confusing at worst."
I will admit, the disclaimer might seem confusing to some. But, with the fact it was an art project, and the fact the accused was acquitted while she still seems convinced of his guilt, that maybe this is her artistic way of expressing her frustration with, a) the way society hasn't empowered women enough for them to acknowledge when maybe they have been raped when the lines of consent are blurred so she wasn't sure whether or not to call on authorities, and b) that her accused was acquitted, seemingly because of 'a', so that justice wasn't served. Making the whole thing both an exercise in expression and a public service announcement.
1
-
Argya Wanaditya "notice how her stories don't add up AT ALL."
No, I don't.
"She even asked him to put it in her butt after the rape!"
What does that have to do with it. You do not know her intentions behind asking that question, which could range anywhere from attempted entrapment to a lonely young female with Stockholm syndrome.
"If she had talked to everybody during the 8 months, does it make sense to you, two psychiatrist parents would not go and report on her behalf?"
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING SELF INDULGENT, UNINTELLIGENT IDIOTS! What planet are you living on?!
"Remember the famous quote that you can prosecute (not convict, mind you) a ham sandwich?"
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"what does it say about an allegation of rape that failed to even get prosecuted?"
Probably little to nothing.
"He wasn't cleared because of "a"
He was cleared because it was already 8 months after the dates."
Yeah, and it was 8 months after the dates because of 'a.' What are you stupid?
"Furthermore, circumstantial evidence like her changing stories and her raunchy texts show the prosecutor that there was no case to be made."
The texts could be sen as evidence in her favour, by anyone with half a brain that is, because, to quote myself from above; "You do not know her intentions behind asking that question, which could range anywhere from attempted entrapment to a lonely young female with Stockholm syndrome." Furthermore, his nonchalant response to that text is almost evidence of guilt, if you ask me.
"You have to understand the more false/weak allegations are made, the more trivialised real rape victims are."
Completely disagree. You have no evidence for this assertion, other than your own, and maybe your own assumptions about other's, inability to analyse on a case-by-case basis. You'd rather be intellectually lazy about it, and assume others wish to be also.
"Her message is good though. No matter what once the man or the woman says no, it should be over."
Glad you agree. So why are we even talking about her story, not only talking about her story, talking about it as if it's completely untrue and her some sort of charlatan? It's disgusting the amount of judgment being thrown at her without seemingly any attempt to understand her position.
"Don't these feminists get disgusted that such thing as rape being trivialised by this woman and the other famous fake rape case?"
Probably not, because they don't see her as trivializing it. Only idiots think things like this are being "trivialized" simply by being mentioned. It's not "trivializing" it, it's putting focus on the issue.
"Right, sorry I did not grow up in a feminist country (Indonesia*) and am not currently living in a country where people fall into either "obnoxious feminists" or "men's activist" (NZ)."
Wait, what? Are you saying there are both "obnoxious feminists" and "men's activists" don't reside in New Zealand? I haven't seen too many "obnoxious" feminists here, but we do have feminists. And we do have men's rights activists. Even I have spouted rhetoric that one could attribute to MRA's. But it's not a common thing I do. Why? Because for the most part the men already have the privilege over women. Maybe the fact you are from such a backward country, and now living in a semi-backward country, is the reason you are on the internet being nonsensical.
1
-
C/Gw "feminists dont want equality, they want special treatment. they want to be above the law, above objectivity and common morality."
Nice Strawman. Oh, I'm sorry, am I invoking a "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Actually no, I'm not. Groups are defined by the people in them and what they believe, not what people outside of the group believe those people to believe. And the beliefs of a minority within such a group who have more extreme views are not representative of that group, and are, in fact, not true to the ACTUAL ideals of the larger group. Hence, they are not true "Scotsman" and that is not a fallacy. You are making a false claim. Feminism is about equality. Nothing else. Get your fucking facts straight.
"americans (and our european pets)"
What a fucking arsehole.
"feminists are not noble people, they are shysters. if they were serious, they would join charity organizations, they would work for the red cross, planned parenthood, trauma rehabilitation centers, etc."
You're an idiot. Charity is sham. It is the rich convincing the poor to give to the poorer while the rich get richer. State socialism is far superior.
"they would reach out to ALL women all over the world, professionally and passionately."
It doesn't work like that, at least half the women on the planet would likely be, and in many obvious cases are, too stupid to to show solidarity with other women.
"they do none of that, they bitch and whine on the internet like a bunch of self-righteous self-entitled cunts who do not realize just how good they have it in the western world."
Again, you're an idiot. Saying to a poor person in a western nations; "oh, you know what, you have it so lucky, look at those poor people in developing nations" does not eliminate that persons economic underprivilege. The same goes for male privilege/female underprivilege. How are females supposed to reach out "professionally and passionately" if they're busy ignoring their own underprivilege. That doesn't help the underprivileged in developing nations in any fucking way what-so-ever.
"they do not sympathize for other groups of women who are REALLY oppressed, only for themselves."
Bullshit. Idiot.
"feminism is a useless term. it implies itself, it is for women only. egalitarianism is what were talking about."
No it is not. Feminism IS egalitarian, despite what people like you think, simply because a few nutcases consider themselves part of the same group. The reason it is called "feminism" and not simply "egalitarianism" or humanism" is because the title acknowledges the current social conditions in which the female is underprivileged.
"reason and rationale are more important than emotions and opinions."
Reason should include emotions as emotions are biological facts. If someone is feeling an emotion, there is an evolutionary reason for it, and it is likely reasonably acquired due to outside influences. Ignoring them is NOT rational or logical. It is an ignorant right-wing idea, stemming from the stupidity of those too self absorbed and intellectually lazy to consider other people.
"i am not a feminist or a "MRA" or sjw, i am an egalitarian."
Quite clearly you are not, otherwise you would take more time to understand all the forms of privilege/underprivilege.
"numbers mean nothing, opinions mean nothing, being offended means nothing, only the facts."
Numbers are often representative of facts. Opinions can be based on facts. Being offended and other emotions are facts themselves of the field of evolutionary biology, and are usually based on external facts. Dismissing people's perspectives is really easy isn't it? Which is why the only thing you said that made any sense is correct, society IS a poor source of authority, because idiots like you are really, really poor at interpreting reality, and really ready to dismiss other people's concerns because you are too concerned about how their concerns will affect you, or attack the problem from an ignorant or biased position. If we are talking about Muslims wanting to kill apostates, fair enough, the charge doesn't equal the crime. But, if we're talking about other things then tolerance of tolerable ideas should be a given, while tolerance of intolerance shouldn't be allowed. And what you have done above, in invoking Islam, is to assert that we shouldn't tolerate intolerable ideas. Yet, you are railing against egalitarianism like you think it's intolerable, yet it fits into the "tolerance" category, so therefore should be tolerated. That whole comparison of Islam and feminism is a complete false equivalency.
1
-
mstraney "Delusional dolts like you make it harder for actual rape victims to be believed."
Disagree. Not going to justify why, such a baseless claim doesn't warrant refutation.
"The adjudication was to a preponderance of evidence. Since you clearly don't know the facts or what that even means, I'll explain it for you. It means that the MAJORITY of evidence showed there was NO sexual misconduct by the accused[ it was NOT to the harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt standard.] The accused established with over 50% certainty that it didn't happen [that's what preponderance of evidence means]"
Doesn't seem to be any difference than a reasonable doubt verdict. I have already addressed above why such evidence would not be found.
"As to what Cara said, yes she answered Cenk's question "how do you KNOW she was raped?", and Cara said, " because she said so". That very much means Cara KNOWS she was raped, and he raped her."
She also said; "benefit of the doubt." You know why? Because it makes logical sense. With her; "who would make it up" as evidence for it being a logical conclusion. That is not to say that false rape allegations are not made, but it is to say, maybe, that those allegations are usually so transparently false. In this case, there seems to be reason to believe her story, such as the fact she didn't go to police for months because she wasn't sure whether to label it rape or not due to her uncertainties concerning consent.
The fact the panel here on TYT were so split by it, and along gender lines, might indicate that both Cara and Hannah, and Cenk, were on differing extremes of interpretation. Now, I'm not saying Cara and Hannah are 100% correct, but I am saying that maybe those observing this story need to try their hardest to put their gender bias aside.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kim Kaneki They still had the choice not to start doing that drug in the first place. The drug dealer is also a victim of a capitalistic society, that doesn't provide equal job opportunities or correct remuneration, so selling a black market commodity is sometimes an only option for them to live comfortably. I also don't think it's always, or maybe even at any time, "exploitation". The user gets what they want out of the situation, and there are actually functional users of all kinds of drugs, from alcohol, to cocaine, to cannabis, to heroin even. They go to work and do their jobs. On their lunch break and after work they get high, or slightly intoxicated or even drunk, but they do their fucking jobs, and they pay their fucking taxes. You seem ignorant of these facts. You are not in a position to say what I've said is not true. Please search for videos of Dr. Karl Hart, he studies drug use, and can back up everything I'm saying here with well researched facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cenk doesn't understand, if they'd lost 3 or 4 to nothing they wouldn't have been like that because they wouldn't have thought that they'd had a chance to win, but a tight game at 1-0, they thought they were still in it until the end, and Barcelona FC is one of the four or five best clubs in the world. These kids were probably hoping to beat them and get the ovation of their whole country.
Also, on the cultural thing, they're right, these probably Spanish, Portuguese, French, or Italian kids in this Barca team come from a intimate culture where they touch each other all the time, a culture that has been exported to South America. Places like the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia have all imported the more northern, western, eastern and central European culture(as opposed to the southern European) which is a lot more focused on people's personal space. As I feel the same is for the Japanese by comparison to other Asian cultures, maybe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+The Moral Crusader The Koch brothers themselves, just two people, contribute a quarter of the amount the 14.5 million Union members in the U.S. pay. Two people, equal to over 3.6 million people. 2, that's one number, 3,600,000, that's the other. Bit of a difference, yeah?
No single union came close to matching the Koch's political spending in the 2012 election cycle.
That's just the Koch brothers, who are accused of running a confusing network of nonprofits.
All business sectors combined spent over $9.5 billion in the 2012 election cycle, while labour unions spent only $600 million.
I see the immoral lying by the right-wing media is still strong, the question is, did you knowingly, and hence immorally, lie about this also? Or did you not know that you'd been lied to by the right-wing media? Maybe TYT should report on it, so you're not ill informed on the matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Right and wrong. I'm a New Zealander by citizenship. Therefore, I am either a European Polynesian, or a European New Zealander, because I am not of an aboriginal ethnicity to New Zealand or Polynesia, but I was born here, it is all I know, the same as an African American, therefore I am a New Zealander and a Polynesian.
"If you're offended by being reminded of the country you were born in, then too fucking bad."
I'm not. That's why have no problem with European New Zealander, and I think you'll find, that that is the exact term used in New Zealand census forms. Not that I tick that because the whole thing is divisively racist, I'm a Homo sapiens sapiens. As we all are.
"anything more is unwelcome and unnecessary."
Then how do you discuss racial issues, which clearly still exist? I mean, I say that I tick "Other" and put Homo sapiens sapiens in the space provided, because often statistics are cited by the Right-wing to incorrectly stereotype and negatively characterize, because they don't understand the causes of anything, so put false causes on things like "race".Those same statistics usually prove there is racism in the system, such as both in the U.S. and in New Zealand, African Americans and Maori make up only 14% of the population and make up 53% of the prison populations. Which clearly shows that low socioeconomic status, and police racial profiling lead to more violent crime in areas where people of these ethnicities live, while having the same amount of drug use as other sectors of society, yet are imprisoned more for such offences.
"Oh, and I am aboriginal in the country of my birth, not that it fucking matters or should ever matter."
Well, it matters to some, and I can see why. I think they should let go of it a little too, but that's going to take some time, especially when populations like Maori and Native Americans have been largely of low socioeconomic status since imperialist white people came along and stole a vast majority of the land they lived on.
1
-
1
-
Andreas Löfgren You can still continue to make claims without evidence, all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Ana has successful "virtue signaled" to me that she is not an SJW by saying she is against "safe spaces" on college campuses.
Calling racists racist does not make one an SJW. It does not make one opposed to free speech. Calling someone a racist, is not directly trying to shut them up or stop their speech, it is simply continuing the dialogue in a constructive fashion. Not owning up to racism, and in turn calling people things such as "SJW" and "regressive" seem to be directly designed to shut people up, because they are not a clearly defined descriptor like "racism" or "racist" is. In fact, you people call so many people that are not "SJWs" or "regressives" these things, that you are losing allies, and defining yourselves as a group of irrational centrist cucks, who cannot understand when people are clearly saying that they support free speech, because even when we do, you call us regressives or cucks before we can even get a chance to explain that we are in favour of free speech. Like you're looking for SJWs so hard that you get triggered by anyone on the left who remotely shares similar rhetoric, without actually saying they want to ban people from saying certain things by threat of governmental or otherwise systemic force.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stinky Puppy The first amendment is not undemocratic, in fact, I can't think of much more democratic than that.
"Under our republican form of government, the individual, the smallest of minorities, is protected from the mob."
But that is clearly not true. Your country has, and still does, allow majorities to oppress minorities of all stripes.
I would remind you, that if your country is not democratic in that it allows democratically elected representatives, it is abusive of human rights, as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So if I was American I'd be very eager to accept the notion that my country is a democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ash "So in your world ALL drugs would be legal?" How about this, you legalize the one's you can, like cannabis and mushrooms. Then you regulate that market. You do the same with things like MDMA and LSD which are low risk, again, regulate the market. Then you make cooking meth extremely fucking illegal, you make selling meth a crime punishable by large fines, and you make possession decriminalized but subject to confiscation. The same with speed, and heroin, which should only be used for medical purposes. And you make cocaine legal, maybe put it in a drink, like, gee, I dunno, COCA-FUCKING-COLA!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jason baker "by a person that talks in circular language."
Feel free to show me where I've done that.
"do me a huge favor, dont use the word empirical, cognitive, ineptitude, erroneous, and lastly not least, stop with the atheist liberal overuse of the word LOGIC. LIBERAL LOGIC is an oxymoron"
No. No. No. No, and lastly but not least, no. No oxy, no moron, not left, look right, look down, you are a moron.
"i bet you believe youre a victim of a christian society throwing their logic at you"
What logic? I'm a victim of society throwing all their ignorant beliefs at me. They don't have to be religious, but religious people tend to also have ridiculous political beliefs as a result. Bottom line, if they have classist or fascist political beliefs, and they happen to be in the majority, which they are, then in a democracy, which this is, then I am a victim. You can't go around telling people they can't use certain words when you're too dumb to understand determinism and democracy. Acting as if things exist in a vacuum.
Such a stupid fucking idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The state is coercion" is nonsense. Imagine a polity in which everyone agrees politically, so what ever they vote for and their government subsequently carries out, if of course these things align.. What you have then would be zero coercion, and as far as states being coercion in reality because a good portion of the population, 40-45%, disagree, well firstly that just goes to show how stupid conservatards are, but also that even when you finally get a society of intelligent people, there will be some small percentage who aren't smart enough, and will still be conservative. The difference is that the coercion the left would place on this remaining 5-15%, is not coercion that puts lives in danger. No one is having a shoot out with police over over taxes, and taxes are never enough to be the difference between life and death, if you have a relatively socialist mixed economy system, and those taxes on the wealthy are never enough to fully diminish their disposable income.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm a white 37YO hip hop fan from Aotearoa New Zealand, and I've got a few things to say.
Let's get this one out of the way straight away, not including the SSLP up there or better than the MMLP is a crime. The idea that the Eminem Show is his best album is far too prevalent so I love that you correctly identify it as being mid, but put some respect on the SSLP please. It has some good class social commentary on If I had and Rock Bottom. Plus just bars on some of those other tracks.
Also, RATM should get more respect here with their class social commentary. I'm surprised, I mean, I get classing them as white, even though Zach is latino and Jewish, and Tom is black. Their music style does appeal a bit more to white audiences.
The main thing I wanna talk about though is a white rapper, Tom Scott(Home Brew, @Peace, Average Rap Band, Avantdale Bowling Club) from here in Aotearoa that I think is respectful of hip hop culture and authentic to kiwi culture, a little bit more so with regards to the latter comparative to some other kiwi rappers that were around a bit before him during the same period. Some of which had a little bit too much American style in their vocal performances and their fashion choices. (That's not to say that Tom and his counterparts in any of his groups don't have American style influences, because I think we all do in the English speaking realm.)
I wanna also speak to this through experience though, being a white dude and wanting to rap. I was quite interested in doing that throughout my later teens and early 20's. But I eventually decided I was probably getting too old and I wasn't getting anywhere trying to do it my way(which was admittedly very dumb and too shy). Then my younger brother introduced me to Home Brew around 2010, right before they dropped their self titled full length album, and a little after they'd just dropped about 3 different EP's from 2007-2009. And it was like some Lauryn Hill Killing Me Softly shit, because dude was rapping about all the things I would have wanted to rap about. Songs like Monday, Tuesday and Sunday from the Last Weak EP, Same Shit, Different Day from Taste Test, basically the whole of the Summer Ale EP, but particularly Good God, State Of Mind, Dark Intro, 55 Stories, Basketball Court, from the Home Brew album, and a song called Just Another. So needless to say I felt like there was no need to try to rap when dude was already making all the songs I wanted to make.
He continues to too, with his latest release TREES from Avantdale Bowling Club almost literally telling the story of my life over the past 5 years. It's also very Jazz influenced. They're dope as. And the live performance of three of the songs from this album on YT sort of shows what I mean about being respectful of the culture, as they fly Tino Rangatiratanga flags above the bowling club they're playing at. The significance being they're the flag associated with Maoridom, and Maori sovereignty over Aotearoa, with some of the band members being Maori and polynesian, and Maori and polynesians being the pioneers of hip hop in Aotearoa, having an affinity with black people being minorities also.
I personally think his music is better than Eminem's, and as far as lyricism and that he's not far behind or perhaps even on par too. The only thing I think might be an issue is some of the kiwi cultural elements, but we as non-Americans have the same thing with some American rappers and I think we fill in the spaces or Google the terms so it shouldn't be too much of a barrier. I think F.D. and others who may not have heard of him should check him out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Destiny isn't center left. He's a cringey center right liberal.
For someone who has studied political science, Kyle can be pretty bad with political descriptions. Like when he talks about the center, he talks about "the center of the country" rather than an objective center of ideological economic policy and regulations.
I used to kind of give him credit on this, thinking that he knew how far right the American Overton window was, and that the window is not the same as the compass, and had high hopes that one day he would get on Joe Rogan, enlighten Joe Rogan and his audience, resulting in Joe no longer having the likes of Shapiro, Crowder etc. on his podcast, but as time has gone on, Kyle finally got there, been on multiple times, and Joe just got more right wing, moved from Cali to Texas and sold out to Spotify. Average Joe just gets dumber and dumber, it's Idiocracy personified. LOL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fernando Onate > Yeah but doesn't politics relate to government?
Yes and no.. It's not the only thing that politics relates to.. Politics is basically the study of human interactions, and how we choose to govern ourselves, which is where the relation to government comes into it, but everything is political because you could potentially "politicize" anything.. "Oh, you like keeping felines as domestic pets?.. I don't like that, I want it outlawed." Literally anything you can think of. Even if it's not a case of wanting something legislated by government, because if you want no government at all, that's still political, as it affects the whole of a polity, having far reaching consequences, as the way we organise society would be different, but still have all sorts of implications for the populous at large. Science is also part of it, whether it's legislated by government or not.. For instance, if you have no government, you have no collective controls on what experiments people can and can't do, meaning you might end up with all sorts of designer drugs killing people, or random explosions killing people in residential areas because there's collective don't see the need to legislate an industrial sub-division. It's not JUST government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xrilliam7.62 No, I don't find it confusing, I think his content on the subject is confusing viewers who don't know better.
He brings up Venezuela to say that they're socialist, they're not. The majority of the Venezuelan economy is still in private hands.
Then he talks about it being an authoritarian imposition of government, when Maduro is democratically elected. They have press freedom, and the judicial freedom he's concerned about is something Maduro was democratically elected to rectify, he ran on that as a campaign issue. Where the fuck are you people getting your information?..
Then he brushes aside U.S. meddling in Venezuela, like it isn't a possible, or more accurately probable, reality.
As far as the ideological description portion, don't get me wrong, I think it's great that he identifies parts of Marxism-Leninism as having value and that that shouldn't be neglected because some prescriptions from that school of thought leave much to be desired. But as far as the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism, I think he might be being too strict in his analysis, and there is obviously some grey area between the two where either might be aptly applied. I think he could have explained this better, and as such I think this could be confusing to less knowledgeable viewers. (Not in the sense that they would be knowingly confused, but that they might unknowingly confuse the political landscape when thinking about and discussing it because of this.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree and disagree with Kyle here. Yes, Joe helped him get elected, but it had nothing to do with the endorsement or having Trump and Vance on his podcast the week before the election, and everything to do with platforming lunatics like Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson, Saad, etc. for years.
And also, just to criticize Kyle a bit here, part of it is his fault for not explaining certain things well enough to Joe, and by extension his audience, when he talked to him. Especially his failure to explain that the political center is not the center of either the Overton window or the zeitgeist(which is what even Kyle does now when he says the "center of the country") but rather the center of the objective political compass which is the spectrum of what is theoretically possible.
At least now he's admitting that he's been too soft on Joe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*Corporatist News Network. Fixed that for you.
Communism is a world away from corporatism.
Also, even though I've watched the CNN clip about this(first CNN clip I've watched in probably well over a year, and I never really watched many before that either) and I didn't pay enough attention to it as I should have, I gotta defend CNN or anyone else pointing this out too. I'm not sure if they are saying that Joe took horse meds, most of the actual left leaning commentators on the internet are saying that he probably took the human dose Ivermectin, but that he didn't specify that, and many of his poorer fans might not be able to afford a friendly doctor who will prescribe them human dose Ivermectin for covid. So I'm thinking CNN was leaning into a pretty similar narrative maybe? Unless someone in on CNN has been explicitly stating that Joe took the horse paste. Then I take that back.
I guess even if they're implicitly stating that by saying Joe took it, and then just focusing on the fact it's mostly used for livestock more than it is for people, that's just as bad. Like I say, at least lefty commentators on the internet understand he probably took the human dose, and that it is the irresponsibility of not explicitly saying that that they're taking issue with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, technically, no it's not. History, when broken down etymologically is broken down into two components, 'Hi', meaning 'Him' or 'His' pertaining to human kind, and 'Story', obviously story meaning tale or plot. So History is actually the study of the story of the Homo Sapiens species. So while 'History' is the right word to explain what's being described here, etymologically, it's wrong. It is, however, likely the only word to aptly describe pre-human "History".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a 35 year old white guy from New Zealand who grew up listening to the likes of Tupac, Eminem, Snoop, Royce da 5"9' then later delving into the likes of NWA, Nas, Jay-Z, De La Soul, Tribe, the Fugees, KRS-One, so when the likes of Talib Kweli, Lupe Fiasco and Kanye came along I was like this is cool, but when Drake came along I was like WTF is this? Especially as everyone seems to be into it. It's weird. I prefer Sweatshop Union or Classified over Drake any day. And those are just the Canadian white boys. I'm so here for this content.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The (minor)problem with this video, and the mainstream media, is this.. Saying that the left is committed to neoliberalism is incorrect. Any party that is committed to neoliberalism isn't the left. Labour(UK), Labour(Aotearoa), Labor(Australia) and the Canadian Liberal party all became center right neoliberal parties in the 1980s and haven't gone back, but the mainstream media still calls them all center left when they are not, and they slander the actual center left parties as being "far left". These parties DO articulate the solutions accurately, but they either get largely ignored or slandered and maligned by the media.
A big problem is that most of our populations are poorly educated, and don't know enough about this political history. It makes our populations easily duped by all this right wing propaganda in the media, media and propaganda that many wrongly identify as being "leftist". Much of this is actually thanks to American media. We need to do better at spreading the word about these facts(maybe without telling people they're poorly educated, or doing it nicely enough as not to offend people, something I personally struggle with.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think we might be on the same brophilosophy buzz, but this is how I put it.. I think what Abigail is saying is that it's not a dysphoria of gender, but rather a non-cis combination of sex and gender. Meaning their sex and gender pairing isn't the "normal" pairing, but that doesn't mean they have gender dysphoria, they know what their gender is, to say they have dysphoria about it, is almost to deny their transness, and/or transness in general even, and claim they should be the gender that is more commonly paired with their sex.
She's saying that having a dissonance between gender and sex is natural for a trans person, so there's no dysphoria of gender, because they KNOW what gender they are, it's just that their sex doesn't "match" in the way that it does for cis people. The word "dysphoria" could imply that their feelings on their gender is wrong and that they should be cis rather than trans. I.e. transphobic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These videos annoy me because they use the origins of the left/right spectrum to claim it isn't valid, but the left/right spectrum has evolved a bit over time to the point where the political compass was born, and the political compass has TWO spectrums, and the left/right spectrum is about economics. This is why the essentialist theory is wrong, because you can oppose immigration, because that is on the social spectrum, and also be an economic leftist.
LOL. Tony Blair and Barrack Obama are not left wing economically. They're not even "left wing"(the libertarian end of the social spectrum) socially. But focusing more accurately on the economics of it all, the actual left/right spectrum, they are neoliberals, which is right wing. Bernie Sanders is center left economically, and immigration, as I noted above, is a social issue.
The idea that tribalism forms most of our political opinions applies mainly to those who do not understand the actual political compass and don't focus on actual policy. For example, if you're actually on the center left and focus on policy, you would no like Obama or Blair, but you would probably hold your nose and vote for Obama anyway because you live in a two party system and he was the least bad option.
Republicans/conservatives switching their opinions on the minimum wage based on their leaders opinion is because they are exactly the poorly educated, and poorly informed people who don't actually care about policy, and instead focus on their own political identity/label.
This granular idea isn't a bad one, but it still doesn't mean we have to throw out the political compass. Ground News is shit because they're also still falling for an Americanized Overton window that is centered almost entirely over the authoritarian right quadrant of the political compass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eww, Armisen.
A few issues with this segment. Don't get me wrong, Bill is out of touch on economic issues, and his podcast is a bit cringe, but Emma referring to it as an "interview" is a bit wrong as it's a podcast, and then saying his atheism is "based" in Islamaphobia is a bit dumb. Like, he can be wrong to be going so hard against Muslims without nuance and also be atheist because, ya know, he doesn't think there's a deity. That, is the basis for atheism, because if it was just about hating Muslims he could be a Christian or otherwise spiritual. Language matters.
And also Armisen. Eww, Armisen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL. This is a social issue, nothing to do with left or right, left and right is economic spectrum.
But, now, if this was a left/right issue, so let's for your benefit call social libertarians "left", and social authoritarians the "right", how is this "we" being anything remotely left?.. We're still pretty well right if you look at the facts of what happened here.. This guy has been allowed to enter someone's residence and take someone's property and destroy it, without being prosecuted for any of it, because the items in question are allegedly illegal, even though that illegality is actually in contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 9.
This is only a discussion in the media about something. To that "we" as a society are getting too far libertarian because of a discussion is ridiculous, other than if you could find me a lefty in NZ far enough left that they consider the theft of personal property to be something that should be legal, which I don't think you could, and if you could, those people have no systemic power. Like, at all.
1
-
Again, the media is "left" in what way?.. Because it's more socially liberal?.. Again, that's not actually left, and even then, it only appears to be to people who are old and stuck in their ways, because the Overton window has shifted over the past few decades. It's not that the media is extremely socially liberal, either. It's just that human society is waking up out of a period in which our governments have been particularly authoritarian, the Nazis and Soviets aside. Some people seem too used to that old way. As you say, they "need to learn the harsh reality".. No, you need to learn the harsh reality, that that harsh reality is human rights abuse, and opinions like yours should be void because your opinion should be considered outside the Overton window permanently. Punishing people for smoking cannabis is just not logical. Just because a law currently is one way, doesn't actually mean that it should be that way.
BTW, all the media in New Zealand is corporate, so it actually has an inexplicably fiscally conservative, or right-wing, slant.. Even far-right, considering the likes of Mike Hosking and Paul Henry have been key media figures in New Zealand over the past decade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you watch the video?.. Like, I generally agree with Kyle when he talks about stuff like that, but I don't think it's often TYT that he's talking about, and when he is, it's not about videos like this, in which they actually have a pretty balanced point of view so they point out where there might be some issues, and also reasons why it's not just a blanket issue over the whole industry for example.
I think the main problem with this video is more the misleading title.. But that's just my opinion. I also think that some of the downvotes are people on the right just knee-jerk assuming the Young Turk's position on the issue without even watching the video, and they'll even comment some stupid shit that makes it clear that they didn't watch the video, or they're on the left wing and automatically downvote it because they're also coming into it with confirmation bias so wait for any little trigger to make a comment like yours, rather than focusing on the whole context of their dialogue, which is actually a pretty right wing thing to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, racist, a few things to be cleared up here.. Firstly, while sometimes it may have been for sustenance, using the whole person, most of the time, they only ate the vital organs of their slain enemies for their "mana". Secondly, that isn't a "covered up fact", it's well known. Thirdly, Europeans were cannibals too. There was a lot of cannibalism in Germany as late as the 19th century, and in the 15th century a group of Dutch people murdered their prime minister and ate his vital organs, similar to what the Maori people did to their enemies.
1
-
1
-
Firstly most of what you're saying is irrelevant or framed dishonestly.
"The 7th century is the time when the Arabs began to expand their Lebensraum and colonize the world."
What are you talking about? We're talking about part of Arabia. Ironic that you're using the word "lebensraum" there, for reasons I'll come back to later.
"The Arabs and Muslims invaded and colonized the land, which later became Mandatory Palestine."
So Arabs invaded part of Arabia? LOL wut?
"During this period, Jews and Christians were considered second-class citizens at best. (So, no, they did not live in harmony or peaceful coexistence.)"
Irrelevant.
"A geographical entity called Palestine did not exist during the period of Arab and Muslim rule (634-1918)."
Irrelevant. Germany didn't exist in the 19th century either.
"Part of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine (do not confuse it with Mandatory Palestine) was the territory of modern-day Jordan."
Barely relevant. So Britain and France fucked up the modern day borders it created like it did elsewhere. So what?
"On July 24, 1922, the League of Nations issued a formal recognition of the Jewish nation's connection to the Land of Israel and approved the decision to establish a Jewish national homeland in the territory of Mandatory Palestine."
So a European driven international body decided to do some European colonialism so that makes it cool? Who is this "Jewish nation"? Why did they need approve the establishment of a "homeland" for Europeans who don't live, and have never themselves lived in that "homeland"?
"In 1947, the UN proposed a plan for the partition of Mandatory Palestine into an Arab-majority state and a Jewish-majority state. The Arabs rejected it."
Based and secular pilled.
"According to the principle of international law known as Uti Possidetis Juris, the whole territory of Mandatory Palestine became Israel at the moment of the declaration of independence in May 1948. (In other words, Israel is not an occupying power.)"
LOL. wE dEcLaRe LOL
"The Arabs invaded Israel’s territory almost immediately after the declaration of Israel's independence because they wanted to erase it from the map."
Based.
"Side note: The Arabs of that time didn't self-identify as "Palestinians.""
Irrelevant. Prussians in the 19th century didn't identify as Germans either but they were.
"Side note: The so-called Palestinian ethnicity and the myth about the stolen Arab land of Palestine were invented by a handful of Arab leaders with some help from the USSR during the early 1960s. In other words, there's no scientific or historical evidence that supports this myth. For example, there's no archeological evidence that an ethnic group called Palestinians or a geopolitical entity (e.g., kingdom or state) with the name Palestine existed before the invention of this myth in the 1960s."
The so called Jewish ethnicity is just Palestinian of a different name, and most Israelis are more German or Polish than they are Palestinian or "Jewish". Again, Prussians didn't call themselves German too but they were.
Sidenote: you have a very smooth brain.
"Neither the UN nor other organizations label those territories as occupied."
LOL.
"Side note: The 1949 armistice lines (aka "the 1967 lines," aka "the Green Line") were neither political nor territorial boundaries (aka official borders between Israel and its neighbors)."
Irrelevant.
"After the Arab defeat in the 1948 war, the Arabs expelled almost 100% of Jews (c.850k) from Arab controlled territories (e.g., north Africa and Judea-Samaria)."
Are we talking native Jews or European colonizers?
"In 1967, during the Six-Day war Israel legally captured territories from the Arabs."
lEgAlLy LOL
"Both of them show the silhouette map of "Palestine" (which they want to liberate). It is quite odd that it resembles the silhouette map of Mandatory Palestine. In other words, both Fatah and Hamas would love to erase Israel from the map and replace it with an Arab and Muslim majority state."
Based and ACTUALLY Zionist.
"As I said before, the Arabs had many opportunities for establishing an Arab state called Palestine. Instead of focusing their efforts to hinder the Jews from establishing and maintaining the only Jewish-majority state, the Arabs could have turned that energy into creating a peaceful Arab state, something like Singapore 2.0."
Nonsense. The Nazi "Zionists"(Babylonians) wouldn't let them.
"These are some of the most common tactics used by the Regressive and Control Left, Islamists, Religious Apologists, and other fascists and crypto-fascists:"
I'm a libertarian leftist though.. And an atheist..
And "other fascists".. LOL This denotes a lack of understanding of political science, while also being hilariously hypocritical as you support an apartheid, white supremacist, European colonial, fascist state. LOL
"1) If the facts are not on your side, use identity politics, cultural relativism, and projection against the opposition."
Yeah, you followed that point well, but some of us aren't having it.
"2) If that doesn't work, call them by names, e.g., racist, bigot, Islamophobe, mansplainer, etc."
Yay! I can't wait to be called an anti-semite for, *checks notes*, taking the side of the actual semites.
"3) Play the victim card."
Poor you.
"4) If that doesn't work, deny them access to discourse (e.g., block them)."
I look forward to when you do this part.
"5) Or, you can express your thoughts by replying to them (use as much as you can from points 1-3 in your reply), but then block them immediately"
Can't wait for that one too.
You can lawyer this up all you like, but what it breaks down to is, you're supporting a white supremacist, colonial settler state created by Germans and Poles who were told they were too brown for Europe, but that the white powers that be decided are perfect to make the Arabian diaspora more European.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukraine was actually created by the Mongol invasion which split the original Russia, ya know, the one without all the territories to the east that they later imperialized. The Ukrainian language developed after that. Before that, Kiev was the seat of power in original Russia, AKA the Kievan Rus. Which is where Putin gets his, "they're just Russians" line from.
This is why it's a shame that China, Russia and the U.S. are nuclear nations. They should all be invaded and split into smaller countries with more uniform cultures. And if it wasn't for the nuclear threat, that's probably what NATO would be doing right now to Russia. Then they could possibly do China, and then kick the U.S. out and do them. Alas, they're all too powerful, especially China and the U.S.. Maybe diplomatic pressure might eventually get the job done?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stefan4159 Because the death penalty isn't justice. First of all, 4% of people convicted are innocent, therefore it's impossible that justice is being served in those cases.
Secondly, killing people who are actually guilty isn't justice either, because prison is worse than death. When you die you just don't exist anymore, so no more suffering.
Thirdly, it's just inhumane for a person to know when and how they're going to die when they're a physically healthy person. That in itself is a form of psychological torture, let alone the fact that most places with the death penalty execute it in a torturous manner these days because the civilized countries that made the drugs to do it painlessly won't sell them to the U.S. anymore. Never mind Saudi Arabia and the like with their beheadings.
Lastly, if it's wrong to murder, then it's wrong for the state to murder. You can't say it's bad when you do it, but good when we do it. That's logically inconsistent, regardless of the context, because it should be that the supposed "good" guys are setting the standard for what is decent behaviour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBrandomized Ok, racist. Let me clue you in on a few facts. There are very few Maori who are part of the economic "elite" in this country, for a start. Most Maori are rather poor on average relative to others. I'm pakeha and I support the movement to stop this government, so it's not just some bRaInWaShEd MaOrI that are supporting this movement, secondly. Thirdly, they're not handouts, they're reparations for past wrongdoings of the Crown that stole Maori land contrary to Te Tiriti, the deal that we pakeha made with Maori then reneged on, and are now trying to do again.
We are not brainwashed, sir. We are educated on the history of this country, and international law with regards to treaties made with indigenous populations. What ACT and National are doing is illegal with regard to international law, and they should probably all be locked up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As an expert in this shit myself, as someone who has worked in Burger King and Subway and considers himself a burger/sandwich expert, but coming from Aotearoa New Zealand where we only have less than half of these brands, I have to say, Kyle shouldn't be giving these shit companies advertising like this. As a lefty he should know better. I'll give him somewhat of a pass, as being an American, he probably doesn't see these chains as being obnoxious as they are, but he should want to see "mom'n'pop" fast food places everywhere instead of this garbage.
Now, to the rankings he's given, starting from the bottom with the one's he hasn't tried, I've also not tried most of those, the only one I've had is Carl's Jr. and I hate to say it's pretty decent as far as fast food chains go, probably A tier.
C tier: haven't had Papa John's or Popeye's, but I'm not hating on Subway's positioning here.
B tier: haven't had Lil Caesar's, but Kyle is wrong about Burger King, it's A tier. KFC is a bit of weird one for me, because I feel like it's a little overrated by my own friends and other people in my immediate community, but I actually do rate the herbs and spices, but think they could do better with their menu selection.
A tier: haven't had Arby's, Chik-fil-A, Chipotle, Panda Express, Taco Bell or White Castle, but what I would say about some of those is, I'm surprised by Kyle's rating of Arby's, Panda Express and Taco Bell given what I've heard, and also surprised about White Castle, considering I've heard pretty good things there and they're the O.G.. As for McDonald's and Dominoes, I'll tolerate McDonald's in A tier, because they have the best fries I've had from the places we have here in Aotearoa. And Dominoes should be at least B tier, if not C tier. But at least he's right about Pizza Hut being a whole tier above Dominoes.
S tier: haven't had In'N'Out or Five Guys, but from what I've heard about the food, and the fact they've kept it to fewer locations closer to where they originated, I think he's 100% right about that. As for Pizza Hut and Wendy's, you gotta move those down a tier. Just one. In this tier I would also put kiwi brand Burger Fuel, and also Burger Wisconsin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vijayiyer8518 Yeah, 100%. I'd feel bad for those people, but there could be migrations from some places to others. And you're right, in my conception of it, a southern nation and great plains nation would represent the two more right wing nations, while the left coast and midwest/north east would represent the two more liberal/left leaning nations.
Also, another possible conception of this I was envisioning, which would probably not be how it happens if it does, but is still technically not impossible, would be one in which the new nations consisted of areas that weren't directly split along state lines, but rather had some states split in half. This was partly based on an article I read that explained the 7 "cultural nations" in the U.S.. So for example, one of those nations is called the El Norte culture, which includes the southern parts of the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, which would work well as a nation coupled with the "left coast" culture on the coast of northern California, Oregon and Washington. So the interior of California, Oregon and Washington, and the northern parts of Arizona and New Mexico would likely end up as part of the great plains nation, while the northern and eastern parts of Texas would be part of the southern nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great video. As someone that's interested in history and human civilization, I wouldn't say that I never think about the Roman empire, but I would never think about it as much as some of the answers to the question going around. Bit of a red flag if you ask me.
Also, I especially loved the joke about the 90s and specifically Pete and Pete and Clarissa. Like, get out of my head, dude.
Seriously though, I have this idea and I've talked about it before in a few corners of the internet, but essentially what I want is for SkyTV in my country(and maybe because America does it first too) to have a handful of new channels, similar to how they have a TV1, TV2 TV3, and then a TV1+1, TV2+1, TV3+1 that broadcast what was on those free to air channels an hour earlier an hour later, but with Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon but not +1 hour, but +10 years and +20 years and maybe even a +30 years at some point in the future, complete with the old cut aways like "don't go anywhere, football head will be right back" or whatever, but just slot in new ads, ya know, so they're still on that business model. Gotta keep the investors happy.
Not only would this be cool from an old heads nostalgia POV, but also from the perspective that it's still probably suitable entertainment for kids and tweens coming up now and in the future, so I think they could get quite good viewership. Good chat. Let's make it happen team.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So no one is gonna mention that the title says England but the video uses the British flag and never mentions Scotland or Wales? Britain starts off with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, like WTF?..
It also could have been noted that before England started conquering everyone, it was invaded and colonized by the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, a few Frisians, and the Norse, the latter four being viking-like cultures from northern Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Norway, basically colonialist warrior cultures. I find that fascinating. It's like we all got together and decided to be Britain's bully, and then turn Britain into the world's bully, like some abusive parent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also, early on they state that hey came to power with a minority, but that's false. While the Labour party had a minority, the three parties together had a majority, so when they claim it was against what the majority of what most New Zealanders wanted it's completely false.
Also, NZFirst were economically to the left of Labour in 2017, and Labour were/are on the center right, so really it's been Labour holding themselves back on economic issues,NZFirst was just a handbrake on social issues.
Also, this coalition wasn't exactly like a pact between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, it was more of a pact between a left wing Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aidygooner TBH, Switzerland makes some sense, knowing the history. And I guess you could say the same for Belgium(interestingly I just watched a brief history of Belgium before seeing this video).
But as a kiwi with Dutch ancestry, and a bent towards enlightenment, I see the way Belgium was formed as somewhere halfway between the antiquated monarchist ways and aspirational democracy. But the monarchism tarnishes it for me, and I'd rather see the Netherlands be the whole Dutch speaking region, including Dunkirk which I think the French should give back to the Dutch in the event Belgium does split, or it should become a city state like you say of Brussels. Although I think Brussels should just be part of Flanders/the Nederlands more than a city state, with the French speaking people migrating south. Which I imagine, but may be wrong, would make some sense as I imagine a lot of the French speaking people in Brussels are there as government representatives and workers representing Wallonia. as the French being spoken in Dunkirk is a little bit more organic, as it's directly on the border of the linguistic regions. But you might be able to tell me how right or wrong I am about that assumption?
Also, is Gooner your surname, or are you an Arsenal supporter?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The US should be divided into seven different nations(California(California, Oregon, Washington, western and southern Nevada, southern Arizona, southern New Mexico and south western Texas), Montana/Colorado/Dakota(?)(Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, the Dakotas, Nebraska, northern Arizona, northern New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas panhandle, Kansas and Alaska), Texas(eastern Texas, Louisiana, southern Mississippi, southern Alabama, southern Arkansas and the Florida panhandle), Illinois(Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, northern Arkansas, Indiana and northern Ohio), Florida/Georgia(?)(Florida and southern Georgia), Appalachia(northern Arkansas, northern Mississippi, northern Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Carolinas, Virginias, southern/western Ohio, western Pennsylvania, south eastern New York) and New York(New York, New Jersey, Delaware, D.C., Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Maryland and eastern Pennsylvania)), and Hawaii should be part of the IWP(Nga Iwi Whakakotahi o Poronihia) along with Aotearoa, Fiji Samoa, "American" Samoa, Tonga, Niue, Tokelau, Tahiti, Rapanui and Rarotonga. Capital in Tamaki Makaurau(AKA Auckland), as much as I love Wellington and love it being our capital, Tamaki Makaurau would make more sense for the IWP. And before anyone says it should Honolulu, no, Tamaki Makaurau has a diverse Poronihia community and is closer to most of those other constituencies.
Sorry, not sorry. Sort it out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cwkay6847 Yes, and yes? My whole comment was pointing out that we're not a social democracy. But before the Labour party went all neoliberal on us in the 1980s, they were a social democratic party, so when the Michael Joseph Savage government was around, we were more similar to social democracies like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, which are social democracies, BTW, which BTW, still has markets as it's a form of regulated capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly, I'm not fat. Secondly, Gnostic doesn't mean "knowledge" it means "having knowledge" just as Agnosticism means "not having knowledge", which you clearly don't, by the way. Thirdly, I'm not yelling my "beliefs" at anyone. I'm simply challenging stupid people to think more, which hopefully, will result in them thinking more clearly. Forth, I did answer your question, you're just to dumb to do the basic mathematics. Your comments are receiving too many negative votes for a reason, dumbass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xeno Idaltu Funny you say that, because because of the nature of Hip-Hop, they are able to and often do, sample music from classical, to jazz, to rock, to electronic, so you don't need to miss out on any of that. And, as has been pointed out above, you can find rappers who have lyrics that delve into many different areas of thought/expression, such as Greydon Square or Aesop Rock or GZA, the last two of which, have a very high vocabulary in their lyrics, higher than Shakespeare.
Although, I'm not trying to argue here.. People like what they like..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1