Jump to content

Are Liberals Evil? (Title is slightly sarcastic.)


Starfall

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Lonemathsygirl said:

The thing is that the way in which this is done by actual social justice warriors, ie people who actually go out there and protest, volunteer in campaigns etc has considerably more nuance than what you are claiming. I hope I made a distinction between liberals and other leftists/activists fairly obvious: liberals take the issues of the rich just as seriously, so name calling your manager when you're angry and saying something like bitch, is jumped on as much as, or really in my opinion, more than scapegoating immigrants for claiming benefits and calling them racial slurs. The "social justice warriors are evil" talking point is not the one in this forum, but rather the talking point of the alt-right who would rather homogenise every person who ever tries to change systemic injustice. Social justice warriors(aka people who want to change things via signing petitions, turning up to protests or just being generally political online-my facebook is used almost exclusively for this because it's my main interest) don't generally do this. Liberals are more likely to, because they see the problems in society, but fail to register in their actions who they hit hardest. This language CAN be abused by managers looking to climb up the ladder, or celebrities looking for a bit more fame. Not because these people are women, or black, or because some systemic injustices don't exist, but because by being a celebrity or a manager(or white or cishet as well) they are already privileged enough to avoid most of the effects of it. But if you're serious about trying to make society better, this should be obvious.

Also, because of the alt-right, it's far more likely at present I think for someone to gain fame or repute by saying they feel there is systemic oppression against white people, men, cis people etc anyway so a lot of the problems from liberals are no where near as serious as those from these sorts of people. And the reason why the people who repeatedly say these things often don't get debates with leftists and activists, is because the message they are spreading isn't exactly honest. There's a good video I watched on youtube from someone who said that, if someone maintains their talking points after you repeatedly give them evidence to prove otherwise, you have to wonder if the message they're trying to get across isn't that white people, or men, or cis people, or cishets, are oppressed, and if that's not the real message they're trying to deliver, why should you debate them on it? I think a lot of the time the real message isn't that certain oppressions don't exist, but rather that it's okay for those people who aren't affected by them to actively hate and discriminate against those who try to point it out to them. I actually don't mind, to a certain extent, responding to people who say for example that women aren't oppressed because of alimony, because it's a more covert message if the person does truly hate women for no reason, but otherwise it's something I can provide information on and see if they accept my point. But someone who says that feminists just want women to be more powerful than men, or soon the traditional family will have completely disintegrated, is just ridiculous to me, trying to spread under a message which would take time to answer fully, and isn't worth debating.

Still. Using language around left wing issues doesn't get good responses anyway, and I have to wonder how many people are sneering at some of the wording I use, just because they don't have the same interests, and I've been interested in this for so long. Btw my interest in this started in finding out about biases in the diagnoses given to people by psychiatrists, and worrying about how this could personally affect me, it's not superficial though there are still many things I don't personally relate to. I think a lot of the people the right call SJWs have too many personal reasons for having gotten involved to be able to handle someone whose arguments are based on denying those same issues.

Except there is no such thing as the "Alt-right". Leftists started calling anyone that didn't agree with them the "Alt-right". So some of them embraced the title, but it is not an organization or a movement. You are also being incredibly dishonest. You have no idea what these people stand for if you think that is what they believe.

 

The only uniting factor of the "Alt-right", is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left. The Left preeches equality, but actively works to promote racism against whites. The "Alt-right" calls this out, and the Left blamed them for being Nazi. This cycle happens over and over with several different problems. The "Alt-right" is simply defending against the bullshit irrational attacks on innocent white people being scapegoated by the Left as the true enemies of literally everything. Defending people doesn't mean they support all groups within them either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief

@Maou-sama I don't know if I can show you enough to convince you about just how much harm the alt-right actually does in society. However I won't make any assumptions that I can persuade you, and I suspect you won't actually want to watch what I post on here. If you do watch it I will greatly appreciate it. If you are 100% convinced that it is fair to say our society is racist against whites I don't really know if I'll be able to convince you, because these sorts of views are very difficult to persuade people to let go. I will say to anyone interested enough to still be reading my post, that the following video is not just a rant, but cites all of the videos it is replying to so you can check the quotes aren't taken out of context. In addition it pretty much just shows the things which Richard Spencer said in an interview,  and since he is pretty much the lead figure in the movement, you can consider the movement to be well represented by him. People like Paul Joseph Watson who also writes for Infowars are also popular members within the movement, and you can find many, many leftist videos calling him out for his views and providing statistics on them.

I don't really have the will to explain all of the reasons why racism exists and cannot be defined as something which disadvantages white people more than others at the moment, but if people are interested, I will try to summarise with as many statistics as I can find another time.
 



I can tell that the people who are on here are going to probably react poorly simply to this person's youtube name. If you do, please just consider watching because this provides so much context for the alt-right movement. I don't necessarily think I'll ever convince someone who believes in this immediately, but I respond to things like this in the hopes that it will be appreciated in the long term. I try to avoid strawmanning, and the people I watch on youtube and sources I share are usually, I hope, provided with enough context. But if you ever feel this is not the case, it is also your own responsibility to check for yourself. That's how we all have to try and avoid standing by illogical, unscientific or poorly thought through views, including myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lonemathsygirl said:

@Maou-sama I don't know if I can show you enough to convince you about just how much harm the alt-right actually does in society. However I won't make any assumptions that I can persuade you, and I suspect you won't actually want to watch what I post on here. If you do watch it I will greatly appreciate it. If you are 100% convinced that it is fair to say our society is racist against whites I don't really know if I'll be able to convince you, because these sorts of views are very difficult to persuade people to let go. I will say to anyone interested enough to still be reading my post, that the following video is not just a rant, but cites all of the videos it is replying to so you can check the quotes aren't taken out of context. In addition it pretty much just shows the things which Richard Spencer said in an interview,  and since he is pretty much the lead figure in the movement, you can consider the movement to be well represented by him. People like Paul Joseph Watson who also writes for Infowars are also popular members within the movement, and you can find many, many leftist videos calling him out for his views and providing statistics on them.

I don't really have the will to explain all of the reasons why racism exists and cannot be defined as something which disadvantages white people more than others at the moment, but if people are interested, I will try to summarise with as many statistics as I can find another time.
 



I can tell that the people who are on here are going to probably react poorly simply to this person's youtube name. If you do, please just consider watching because this provides so much context for the alt-right movement. I don't necessarily think I'll ever convince someone who believes in this immediately, but I respond to things like this in the hopes that it will be appreciated in the long term. I try to avoid strawmanning, and the people I watch on youtube and sources I share are usually, I hope, provided with enough context. But if you ever feel this is not the case, it is also your own responsibility to check for yourself. That's how we all have to try and avoid standing by illogical, unscientific or poorly thought through views, including myself.

You misunderstand me. I never once denied racism exists. I only pointed out the origin of the lable "Alt-right" being incorrect. Infowars was one of the groups that adopted the lable. The Left invented the lable. When before, they were simply labled Alternative media.

 

The racism in the world isn't some grand conspiracy to keep anyone down intentionally. It's just basic human tribalism, and there is nothing that can be done about it without going full segregation. People simply prefer to "keep to their own". Of course there are always exceptions.

 

Culturally though, I believe each race is responsible for all of it's own steriotypes. Steriotypes are based in some truth, and sometimes through word of mouth mutate. Steriotypes also have a habit of playing themselves out. So can you blame others if they get cautious around specific steriotypes as they appear before them? Communuties should crack down on these steriotypes, and show solidarity it an attempt to change how people see them. None of them even try. They are too busy calling everyone racist.

 

Why is it only white countries that have to be "Culturally enriched"? Asians have their own culture and nation. Blacks have their own culture and nation. Hispanics have their own cultures and nations. So why can't whites have their own culture and nation? Do Liberals go to China and Japan, and demand more black and white representation in their media? No they don't, and why is that? Then when people move to places like Japan, do they bring their culture with them and force Japanese government to accommodate them? No they don't. They assimilate, and embrace the native Japanese culture. So why is it only in predominantly white countries, that the Left forces minority cultures on the majority. Why don't they support making migrants asdimilate into the very light American umbrella culture? Isn't that cultural suicide? Why is it only White people being accused of cultural appropriation? Are the Left so ashamed if being White, that they must forever self harm themselves to repent for being victorious in early wars? Why can't white people like their culture? Because they killed people? That's not fair because every single race and culture killed people. Some where far worse than the whites as well. Slavery? It would have never ended if white people didn't end it. America wasn't even the worst offenders in that. Arabs had both white and black slaves. Are they guilt tripped everyday? No they are not. Also, a large majority if whites, like the Irish, were also expendable slaves. Then only like a couple percentage of people owned slaves, and some of them were black owners. The Jewish people were the ones that also owned the slave trade. But they also get off scott free in responsibility. Do you get out of responsibility if you were holocausted? In that case, all Irish, Polish, and many other white tribes were holocausted too. Not just the Jewish people. 

 

So what is the source of the Left's insane desire to punish themselves and guilt trip white people? Ill tell you what I see. I think it is because the white people running the Liberal show feel that white people are superior to every other race, and that all races need to be coddled and protected from evil white people in charge. Filling their heads with all the bad things white people have done to them. Inciting anger, and making them victims. I feel that is the true core of Liberalism's flaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief
17 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

Why is it only white countries that have to be "Culturally enriched"? Asians have their own culture and nation. Blacks have their own culture and nation. Hispanics have their own cultures and nations. So why can't whites have their own culture and nation? Do Liberals go to China and Japan, and demand more black and white representation in their media? No they don't, and why is that? Then when people move to places like Japan, do they bring their culture with them and force Japanese government to accommodate them? No they don't. They assimilate, and embrace the native Japanese culture. So why is it only in predominantly white countries, that the Left forces minority cultures on the majority. Why don't they support making migrants asdimilate into the very light American umbrella culture? Isn't that cultural suicide? Why is it only White people being accused of cultural appropriation? Are the Left so ashamed if being White, that they must forever self harm themselves to repent for being victorious in early wars? Why can't white people like their culture? Because they killed people? That's not fair because every single race and culture killed people. Some where far worse than the whites as well. Slavery? It would have never ended if white people didn't end it. America wasn't even the worst offenders in that. Arabs had both white and black slaves. Are they guilt tripped everyday? No they are not. Also, a large majority if whites, like the Irish, were also expendable slaves. Then only like a couple percentage of people owned slaves, and some of them were black owners. The Jewish people were the ones that also owned the slave trade. But they also get off scott free in responsibility. Do you get out of responsibility if you were holocausted? In that case, all Irish, Polish, and many other white tribes were holocausted too. Not just the Jewish people.

Okay so I should say that if you stuck with your very clearly stated views at the start, you would have some good points. However the very first thing I can immediately give a response to is the "people who entered Japan assimilated" point. The reason for this? We did in fact take our culture to Japan, in the form of capitalism. Capitalism is pretty much something which was forced on other nations by Europe. You need only take a look at how Britain ran the East India Company , and America's interference with the last several decades of politics in Nicaragua to realise that. There were examples of communalism in Africa, as well as empires and such but capitalism is a European thing in terms of the extent to which it defines private property and redistributes wealth to a minority group which isn't predetermined. This is actually the reason why it's so easy for leftists to scorn liberals(true leftists, who actually believe in the ideas of "From each according to ability, to each according to need" or "Seize the means of production"-from the capitalists who use their possession of housing, water, agriculture, money etc to exploit the working classes), because without a good understanding of how capitalism was born from colonialism, you can end up arguing in circles with the alt-right. So from my view, the very fact that the entire world now exists as a capitalist economy(yes that includes China and Cuba, they still trade with other countries so have to operate as capitalist to some extent) is the height of white-on-non-white racism. If you would like to hear more about this I would be happy to explain, but I know that many people don't wish to hear arguments against capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

African nations did have borders.. The whole world history and economy us more complex than "capitalism is bad" narrative and that it is white on non white racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lonemathsygirl said:

Okay so I should say that if you stuck with your very clearly stated views at the start, you would have some good points. However the very first thing I can immediately give a response to is the "people who entered Japan assimilated" point. The reason for this? We did in fact take our culture to Japan, in the form of capitalism. Capitalism is pretty much something which was forced on other nations by Europe. You need only take a look at how Britain ran the East India Company , and America's interference with the last several decades of politics in Nicaragua to realise that. And the most extreme case is Africa. Before Europeans came, much of Africa didn't have any defined nations and was basically an example of communalism, in which property is generally shared including houses, agriculture etc, without borders. This is actually the reason why it's so easy for leftists to scorn liberals(true leftists, who actually believe in the ideas of "From each according to ability, to each according to need" or "Seize the means of production"-from the capitalists who use their possession of housing, water, agriculture, money etc to exploit the working classes), because without a good understanding of how capitalism was born from colonialism, you can end up arguing in circles with the alt-right. So from my view, the very fact that the entire world now exists as a capitalist economy(yes that includes China and Cuba, they still trade with other countries so have to operate as capitalist to some extent) is the height of white-on-non-white racism. If you would like to hear more about this I would be happy to explain, but I know that many people don't wish to hear arguments against capitalism.

Are you saying Japan's authoritarian war prone empire would have been better for them, than the constitutional government they have now? I'd say losing to the Americans was the best possible outcome for them. America rebuilt them completly, and now they admire USA. Remember, Japan backed Hitler and admired his vision of a pure race. Japan has commited genocide against the Chinese and Koreans. Japan is still an incredibly proud, nationalistic and patriotic country as well. 

 

Introducing Capitalism helped them become a 1st world country in only a couple of decades. How can Capitalism be bad if Japan has the lowest crime rates of any first world country? They are literally the best argument for capitalism, and the best argument against multiculturalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

I think very few people on the right actually take the alt-right seriously, They are few in numbers and from what I can tell just some people who sit on the internet all day I think the extreme leftist are more bigoted usually and greater in number so they get more of my attention of trying to stop.

 

As for Capitalism being evil, I'd look into the systems used before capitalism and tell me how evil it is then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

I think very few people on the right actually take the alt-right seriously, They are few in numbers and from what I can tell just some people who sit on the internet all day I think the extreme leftist are more bigoted usually and greater in number so they get more of my attention of trying to stop.

 

As for Capitalism being evil, I'd look into the systems used before capitalism and tell me how evil it is then.

Well, I would argue a Just and Fair philosopher king is the best system of government. But yeah humans suck, and that rarely happens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
On 6/15/2017 at 10:28 AM, Maou-sama said:

Hillay was chosen. It was her turn. Thats the only reason she got covered. Surely as a Sanders supporter, you know the corruption of the DNC. They ousted Sanders because it was her turn. The media did the same with Ron Paul.

I'm well aware of the DNC's corruption. But you said that the media was controlled by the left. If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a media blackout on Bernie Sanders.

 

On 6/15/2017 at 10:28 AM, Maou-sama said:

If you think Rush is extremist, you literally know nothing about conservatism.

Didn't you once say that Bernie Sanders was an extremist?

 

On 6/15/2017 at 10:28 AM, Maou-sama said:

I watch PJW for laughs, and memes. Its not really a news source either. It's a blog. I mean, you think The Huffington post is a proper media.

There's a fundamental difference between InfoWars and the Huffington Post. The articles that InfoWars published are blatantly false and riddled with conspiracy theories. This is not the case with the Huffington Post. Yes, it has some stupid op-ed pieces, but so do virtually all newspapers. 

 

On 6/15/2017 at 10:28 AM, Maou-sama said:

We're obviously both crazy. You're a psychopath and I'm a sociopath.

well i suppose this part is true

 

On 6/15/2017 at 10:28 AM, Maou-sama said:

I can guarentee you 10 years from now, you'll have a vastly different political position. 

I can guarantee you that you're wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AcePsycho86 said:

I'm well aware of the DNC's corruption. But you said that the media was controlled by the left. If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a media blackout on Bernie Sanders.

 

Didn't you once say that Bernie Sanders was an extremist?

 

There's a fundamental difference between InfoWars and the Huffington Post. The articles that InfoWars published are blatantly false and riddled with conspiracy theories. This is not the case with the Huffington Post. Yes, it has some stupid op-ed pieces, but so do virtually all newspapers. 

 

well i suppose this part is true

 

I can guarantee you that you're wrong.

Allow me to rephrase what I mean about the Left controls the media. 

 

The Left elites control the media, the party leaders. They decide who gets the most positive coverage. If the Media wasn't controlled, Bernie Sanders would have gotten more coverage. But no, Clinton paid the media to cover her more. 

 

I don't recall saying Sanders was an extremist. I do however, remember saying I thought he was a good person. 

 

You should't disregard things, just because they also cover conspiracies. Sometimes it is good to have a brain workout, and thinking about "what ifs" is entertaining. After all, it is the right of the listener to choose what to believe. No one should tell anyone, what to believe. 

 

Maybe one day you will look back on our conversations fondly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
4 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

Allow me to rephrase what I mean about the Left controls the media. 

 

The Left elites control the media, the party leaders. They decide who gets the most positive coverage. If the Media wasn't controlled, Bernie Sanders would have gotten more coverage. But no, Clinton paid the media to cover her more. 

Clinton isn't the left though.

 

5 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

You should't disregard things, just because they also cover conspiracies.

InfoWars has shown a blatant disregard for facts. Why should I take anything they seriously?

 

9 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

It is the right of the listener to choose what to believe.

You're entitled to believe falsehoods, sure, that doesn't mean you should.

 

15 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

Maybe one day you will look back on our conversations fondly. 

Probably, but I'll still be a progressive social democrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AcePsycho86 said:

Clinton isn't the left though.

 

InfoWars has shown a blatant disregard for facts. Why should I take anything they seriously?

 

You're entitled to believe falsehoods, sure, that doesn't mean you should.

 

Probably, but I'll still be a progressive social democrat.

It didn't matter what Clinton was, the elites chose her. They choose both the candidates they want going against each other. It is to create the illusion of choice. 

 

All main stream media has. PJW is part of Info wars, but he isn't Alex Jones. He does his own thing entirely. Don't blame PJW for the folly of Alex Jones conspiracies. Were you not the one claiming the other day, that Huffpost Africa or whatever, wasn't the same as Huffpost America? Same situation. 

 

Implying mine are the falsehoods, and yours are not. You cannot be 100% sure about everything. We can only come to conclusions, and we will never know who is right unless more proof is revealed. Which almost never happens, and our lives go on and nothing changes. 

 

When I was in high school, I was a Social democrat/Left-Libertarian myself. My perspective stayed constant, until I actually decided to open myself up to politics in 2015, and really take a good look at it. I went straight over to Libertarian Conservatism after learning about economics, and how culture affects society. I also learned about all the bullshit that was going on with the Left. The more I learned, the more Authoritarian I had become. Philosophy also played a major role in my political influence. I eventually wound up on Authoritarian Centrist. Because once you get it, you cannot go back to being a Liberal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

Are you saying Japan's authoritarian war prone empire would have been better for them, than the constitutional government they have now? I'd say losing to the Americans was the best possible outcome for them. America rebuilt them completly, and now they admire USA. Remember, Japan backed Hitler and admired his vision of a pure race. Japan has commited genocide against the Chinese and Koreans. Japan is still an incredibly proud, nationalistic and patriotic country as well. 

 

Genocide is attempting to (or being successful at) wiping out a whole people.  Japan invaded China; it didn't attempt genocide on them, or on Korea.  Japan didn't back Hitler; it took advantage of what he was doing in Europe and attempted to take control of Asia.   Japan is not nearly as nationalistic as it was;  it is a capitalist democracy now.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sally said:

Genocide is attempting to (or being successful at) wiping out a whole people.  Japan invaded China; it didn't attempt genocide on them, or on Korea.  Japan didn't back Hitler; it took advantage of what he was doing in Europe and attempted to take control of Asia.   Japan is not nearly as nationalistic as it was;  it is a capitalist democracy now.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief
17 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

African nations did have borders.. The whole world history and economy us more complex than "capitalism is bad" narrative and that it is white on non white racism.

I'm sorry my views weren't properly nuanced and changed the comment about Africa because I am by no means qualified to comment. However there does seem to be significant evidence towards a number of things, firstly that land was rarely bought and sold, or not at all, in pre-colonialist Africa, secondly that this made for a flexible way of organising generally not involving fixed governments or geographical borders, such as the example given by the sociologist/journalist in the first source :
"The continent consisted not of closed reproducing entities, equipped with unique unchanging cultures, but of more fluid units that would readily incorporate outsiders (even whites) into the community as long as they accepted its customs, and where the sense of obligation and solidarity went beyond that of the nuclear family.

An example of such inclusiveness were the Xhosa who limited Xhosadom not along ethnic or geographical lines but along political. All persons or groups who accepted the rule of the paramount chief became Xhosa." I quickly checked and the vast majority of opinions on this author are respectful and signify that he is very heavily involved with a number of countries, West Sahara in particular, so quoted him. I did originally base my views mainly on a documentary which I watched on how colonialism changed the political and social structures, and a strong element of pre-colonialist society according to it was that the people were all involved in the running of communities and there wasn't the necessity to buy or sell for the sake of living, which is the way in which I see capitalism as being exploitative.

And this article establishes the following, from a respected economist(Morten Jerven): "To what extent did capitalism come into being in Africa before 1850? If by capitalism we mean the production of goods for exchange by capitalists who combine their own capital and land with labor bought from free workers without land, then the accumulative historical evidence tells us that only to a limited extent had capitalism emerged before 1850, and it was most certainly not the dominant system of production in Africa (Iliffe 1983). This does not mean that there was no production for the market. Nor does it imply that there was no wage labor, or that exchanges of capital did not take place. Finally it does not mean that there was no economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa before 1850. As will be analyzed here, markets did exist, there were some wage labor and there were means of exchange that facilitated some economic growth, though growth mostly occurred on the extensive margin." I think that, considering there are a number of anarchists who would disagree with this definition of capitalism as it makes no distinction between buying and selling personal and private property, ie property which is necessary for a good quality of life for the vast majority of people and that which should be owned individually because it doesn't have much potential for personal possession to create exploitation/an unequal exchange when buying/selling, we would actually say there's even less of a case for pre-colonial capitalism in Africa.
I do also want to comment that, in case you believe I look down on Africa by saying this, I simply don't believe that capitalism is responsible for the vast majority of the improvement of life globally, and certainly don't see it as inherently a better system, even for industrial production, than stateless, socialist alternatives. It has created considerable inequality, and considering in order for it to be established in Africa land needed to be bought by whites and systems of chiefs and councils existing in some of the African states had to become far more fixed, with chiefs being answerable to white colonialists, you can definitely say that capitalism from its origins as a global economic system is racist. It destroyed previous ways of organising, because it contains as a core philosophy the need to constantly expand in search of profit, before the value of money comes crashing down.

Going to stop now, I just think capitalism is deeply tied to white-on-non-white racism.

BTW @Maou-sama Japan is mostly held up as a good example of capitalism based on capitalist standards, of economic growth, wealth etc. That doesn't mean the people there have had a better quality of life after its introduction. See the third source for a more socialist take on this.
Sources: https://stiffkitten.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/pre-colonial-africa/
https://www.aehnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AEHN-WP-27.pdf
http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no7-winter-1987-8/japan-other-side-miracle

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AcePsycho86 said:

I can guarantee you that you're wrong.

Yeah, not sure why some people think they know someone else will have a different political outlook at some future date (apparently based on some assumption that as people get older they will somehow "see the light" and/or automatically become more conservative or for some other misguided reason?). I've had people say things like "once you start making money you'll become a Republican, too". Nope.

 

I guess they're projecting and/or trying to comfort themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more concerning that you guys have already established that you will never change. It proves that you are not open to new things. Because if you were, you would not consider yourself already a closed book. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChillaKilla
8 hours ago, Sally said:

Genocide is attempting to (or being successful at) wiping out a whole people.  Japan invaded China; it didn't attempt genocide on them, or on Korea.  Japan didn't back Hitler; it took advantage of what he was doing in Europe and attempted to take control of Asia.   Japan is not nearly as nationalistic as it was;  it is a capitalist democracy now.   

...no, Japan was extremely awful to Koreans and Chinese citizens. Sorry, but Tofu's right on this one. The only thing is their nationalism has turned from an outward expression in imperialism, to an isolationist, solitary expression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChillaKilla
Just now, Maou-sama said:

It is more concerning that you guys have already established that you will never change. It proves that you are not open to new things. Because if you were, you would not consider yourself already a closed book. 

Difference between being open to new ideas, than changing your mind completely and radically. The bottom-left people here won't become upper-right just by being more open-minded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ChillaKilla said:

Difference between being open to new ideas, than changing your mind completely and radically. The bottom-left people here won't become upper-right just by being more open-minded.

I said that they would change as they got older. I didn't say to what. I changed radically myself, but that is only myself. I don't expect him to stay the same. He might go full blown anarchist etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChillaKilla

I for one will probably change my opinions on things when I get older. I have that much self-awareness, at the very least. In what direction? Who knows? I'm not clairvoyant :P but thinking I won't at all is silly

2 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

I said that they would change as they got older. I didn't say to what. I changed radically myself, but that is only myself. I don't expect him to stay the same. He might go full blown anarchist etc. 

Perhaps, but daveb was referring to the oft-peddled statements that people will necessarily go right with age, which there may be a correlation for, but like anything, causation is nigh impossible to prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChillaKilla said:

I for one will probably change my opinions on things when I get older. I have that much self-awareness, at the very least. In what direction? Who knows? I'm not clairvoyant :P but thinking I won't at all is silly

Perhaps, but daveb was referring to the oft-peddled statements that people will necessarily go right with age, which there may be a correlation for, but like anything, causation is nigh impossible to prove.

Oh, well if that is what he meant. I agree with him. People don't flip flop so easily. It is more easy to draw correlations between personality, and political views. Than it is to draw correlations between age and political views.

 

I changed easily, because I am can understand all sides. So my position is more or less what I feel like society needs, and is most efficient in doing so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

They are literally the best argument for capitalism, and the best argument against multiculturalism.

What does it say about those two positions that the "best argument" for both is a country that's slowly but steadily dying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Still said:

What does it say about those two positions that the "best argument" for both is a country that's slowly but steadily dying?

It isn't dying lol. Foreign media is trying to force them to take in immigrants, which they have staunchly been opposed to. Japan has the hardest immigration laws in the world. They wont even consider letting you in, unless you are a native English speaker with a degree, or a useful skill. 

 

Then they are not having kids, because the people there are too engrossed in their lives and interests to date. I'm sure the asexuals on this site can relate. Many of them just don't want kids. The "Depopulation" also only refers to the rural areas. They are extremely densely populated everywhere else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think falling birth rates are a great thing. I don't see much future for a country that doesn't take in immigrants and whose own population is dying off, though. Immigration would be much better for this world - which sure as hell doesn't need any more people - too.

 

That is if you actually want the population to survive in the long term, of course. I wouldn't mind if humanity in general just decided to stop breeding and died off, so I'm probably the wrong person to give my opinions on this :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

Were you not the one claiming the other day, that Huffpost Africa or whatever, wasn't the same as Huffpost America?
 

no, that was me that was making that point

Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't far left enough! *slams fist on table*

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

It didn't matter what Clinton was, the elites chose her. They choose both the candidates they want going against each other. It is to create the illusion of choice. 

It does matter what Clinton was, because that's what your entire argument rests on. A media controlled by the left wouldn't have chosen a non-left-wing candidate.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

All main stream media has. PJW is part of Info wars, but he isn't Alex Jones. He does his own thing entirely. Don't blame PJW for the folly of Alex Jones conspiracies.

The fact that he still chooses to associate with conspiracy theorists is extremely concerning. Instead of denouncing Jones as he should, Watson legitimizes him by working on his network and treating him like a serious person. Even if you choose to take Jones out of the equation, Watson has also engaged in spreading conspiracy theories, so he's still a ridiculous figure.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

Were you not the one claiming the other day, that Huffpost Africa or whatever, wasn't the same as Huffpost America? Same situation. 

Are you talking about when I said that you should separate the news articles on Huffington Post from the op-ed articles on Huffington Post? If not, then I have no idea what this is referring to. 

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

Implying mine are the falsehoods, and yours are not.

I was not referring to you specifically, I was using "you" in the general sense of the word. 

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

You cannot be 100% sure about everything. We can only come to conclusions, and we will never know who is right unless more proof is revealed.

I think we can look at the evidence we have right now, and then determine who's right based off that.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

Which almost never happens, and our lives go on and nothing changes. 

What do you mean it "almost never happens"? We're constantly finding out more information about things.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

When I was in high school, I was a Social democrat/Left-Libertarian myself. My perspective stayed constant, until I actually decided to open myself up to politics in 2015, and really take a good look at it. I went straight over to Libertarian Conservatism after learning about economics, and how culture affects society. I also learned about all the bullshit that was going on with the Left. The more I learned, the more Authoritarian I had become. Philosophy also played a major role in my political influence. I eventually wound up on Authoritarian Centrist.

Yes, I'm sure there's been a few people like that. Just as I'm sure there's been people who went from libertarian capitalists to social democrats after learning about economics. And people who stayed social democrats throughout their lives. Just because that was your experience, that doesn't mean it'll be mine. 

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

Because once you get it, you cannot go back to being a Liberal. 

I think you've got this backwards, but whatever.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 9:09 AM, Maou-sama said:

It is more concerning that you guys have already established that you will never change. It proves that you are not open to new things. Because if you were, you would not consider yourself already a closed book. 

Believing that I'll remain a social democrat is not equivalent to being closed to new ideas. I'm always open to new ideas - whether they be conservative, communist, whatever. I just think it's unlikely that I'll be convinced by them.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 9:19 AM, Maou-sama said:

Oh, well if that is what he meant. I agree with him. People don't flip flop so easily. It is more easy to draw correlations between personality, and political views. Than it is to draw correlations between age and political views.

 

I changed easily, because I am can understand all sides. So my position is more or less what I feel like society needs, and is most efficient in doing so. 

It's very much possible to be understanding of alternate viewpoints and still be difficult to convince. Just throwing that out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan
9 hours ago, AcePsycho86 said:

It does matter what Clinton was, because that's what your entire argument rests on. A media controlled by the left wouldn't have chosen a non-left-wing candidate 

Higher ups in the democrat party wanted Clinton to win. I don't get your confusion but Bernie Sanders was very unlikely to win, as presidents are usually moderates and he is far left. It is a basic strategy to go with the one who is moderate as they pull moderates and far leftist will vote for them either way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...