HOME | DD

AtheosEmanon In reply to ??? [2019-11-16 10:10:57 +0000 UTC]

I Do not know about "literally" but they certainly seem to have a very ignorant mentality

That stems from historically America using "democratic socialism"and "social democracy" as interchangeable terms, even though they each have their own meanings. Sanders calls himself a Democratic socialist when in reality he is a believer in a social democracy and is not a democratic socialist at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-16 11:18:23 +0000 UTC]

or people associating communism and socialism with attributes that don't have anything to do with them.

like how a person says "higher minimum wage is socialism" when it's literally not.
or "open borders is socialism"

Conservative reactionaries are beyond ignorant, of literally anything they talk about.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-17 11:50:48 +0000 UTC]

"or people associating communism and socialism with attributes that don't have anything to do with them."

Yes, Socialism and communism also have their own distinct meanings but are also .. usually by the ignorant just lumped in as the same thing.

"like how a person says "higher minimum wage is socialism" when it's literally not.
or "open borders is socialism"

Yes, socialism would imply the workers controlling the means of production - not them being paid more under a capitalistic model.

/-/ Yes, there is nothing with respect to an open border policy that is in of itself socialist - of course the writing of the actual bill may utilize it depending on exactly how one uses the term

"Conservative reactionaries are beyond ignorant, of literally anything they talk about."

once again with the word "literally" ... I would disagree that a conservative is unable to speak about any subject with knowledge.

Though for me, the issue is not just focusing on one side, and leaving the other side out of eye's view.

In modern American history, it was a so called liberal president who deported more people than any President in US history,

Was a so-called liberal president whose administration argued in 2014 that immigrant children should not be given lawyers

It was a so-called liberal president who has arrested more whistle blowers than all other presidents combined, who dropped more bombs than any president in modern histoory.

So liberal, conservative, for me the label is of lesser import than the action

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-17 18:14:05 +0000 UTC]

I don't look at things so mechanically and technically, I do use facts and data to support myself, but I still have feelings and I can understand when the word literally is being used as emphasis rather than being used... well literally.

I too am severely dissapointed with Obama, but I would rather shine a light on fascists and racists in current year, than to harp on a president that it no longer in office.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-18 15:29:35 +0000 UTC]

"I don't look at things so mechanically and technically, I do use facts and data to support myself, but I still have feelings and I can understand when the word literally is being used as emphasis rather than being used... well literally."

That is fine, I was in my HS Debate team for three years, for me I try to stick solely to the facts and date and not go towards "feelings" or emotion. which yes, should be considered dependent on the subject but when in a debate. But when someone says "literally" and then it is followed by a statement at which is not literal it them makes their sentence make less sense.

"I too am severely dissapointed with Obama, but I would rather shine a light on fascists and racists in current year, than to harp on a president that it no longer in office."

If you do not ask How Trump got there then you will end up with another Trump or Trump reelected.. as the saying goes those who do not learn from history are doom to repeat it.. It is like liberals now in Pelosi, Schumer ,Ellen Degeneres embracing and speaking highly of Bush.. a man who set up a torture program and started an illegal war that has gotten over a million people killed. I call out trump for his militant policies at which SADLY not enough Democrats call him out on. in fact, I cannot even remember the last time I saw any Democrat call him out on his foreign policy with respect to bombings.

Now you have Obama now,  who is telling liberals not to go too far left and what to Obama is "too far left" to Obama? he is speaking of medicare for all.. so the liberal president is telling the left we should stop pushing for medicare for all or what he refers to as "too far left"

Now I AM 100% SURE on issue by issue you and I may agree on more than we don't.. but I am a humanist and as such I focus more on human atrocity than simply president .. US foreign policy has been a sad continuous set of atrocities since 1949..

If Obama wants to make himself the voice of the left and telling us that we should not strive for what every other industrial nation on earth has, healthcare as a right then we should call him out.. or at least tell him go sit his happy ass down somewhere.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-18 20:13:21 +0000 UTC]

Well I'm not on a debate team, nor am I in a debate. We're having a conversation that we should likely agree on to some extent.
I use feelings because a lot of the inhumanity that is being perpetrated in my country makes me very emotional, but it doesn't make me incorrect.

Obama doesn't speak for me, I don't care about him anymore these days.
I'm a Bernie supporter, but I also recognize that the electorate in my country is also part of the problem, We have a republican majority senate at the moment, which tells me that the people electing our senators are morons.

You can't improve your country when it's full of people who want it to be this way...
My vote in Ohio is essentially meaningless in every election. the USA is not a democracy, so my vote is literally worthless when it comes to the presidency.
In fact my residency in Ohio contributes to the electoral vote that was given to a candidate I didn't vote for.

Even if we had a far left progressive in office, (which is unlikely because American voters are an aging demographic of drooling christian fundamentalist retards)
But even if we did by some miracle, then the senate will just shut down any vote for a decent healthcare bill.

The only thing that would ever bring change in this country, would unfortunately be physical violence.
If healthcare lobbyists were afraid of being murdered, then perhaps they would stop buying politicians.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-18 23:54:34 +0000 UTC]

"Well I'm not on a debate team, nor am I in a debate. We're having a conversation that we should likely agree on to some extent."

That can still be a debate, particularly the differences in tactics or how one think is the best way to achieve a goal

"I use feelings because a lot of the inhumanity that is being perpetrated in my country makes me very emotional, but it doesn't make me incorrect."

My statement never said use of emotion makes one incorrect,  I stated that use of facts and stats can simply make a far better point then "I feel this way"

"Obama doesn't speak for me, I don't care about him anymore these days.

I'm a Bernie supporter, but I also recognize that the electorate in my country is also part of the problem, We have a republican majority senate at the moment, which tells me that the people electing our senators are morons."

I did not say Obama speaks for you, but he is coming out to speak which in essence is attacking the man you say you support. When obama is speaking of not going too far left, he is referring to BErnie Sanders.. that should be called out since the media keeps quoting him on that . which dims the light on Sanders and shines a brighter light on moderate.

For me the issue is less a Republican majority Senate or Democrat Majority Senate.. your only REAL time to turn the Senate is by running strong left candidates.. you had some Democrats in 2014 even afraid to admit they voted for Obama,.. how you running against Mitch McConnel, and you the Dem candidate are still arguing for coal energy and that nonsense.. If Dems run weak candidates then Republicans will win.. that does not tell me that the people who voted for those Republicans are morons, that tells me if you get the choice between an actual conservative and someone acting like a conservative you will pick the actual thing... and in 2014 many Dems ran terrible campaigns.

"You can't improve your country when it's full of people who want it to be this way..."

.. For me those people are not just on one side. I think that is where we most differ.. you focus, seemingly solely on the right and I.. after a few decades in this country have felt the brunt of that congressional whip from the left and right so seek not a partisan remedy to a ideological problem.

"My vote in Ohio is essentially meaningless in every election. the USA is not a democracy, so my vote is literally worthless when it comes to the presidency.

In fact my residency in Ohio contributes to the electoral vote that was given to a candidate I didn't vote for."

The majority of your state voted for X .. so X got your electoral vote.. though Ohio is one of the few regular swing states that swing back and forth often.. it is not like NY which is a safe blue state

"Even if we had a far left progressive in office, (which is unlikely because American voters are an aging demographic of drooling christian fundamentalist retards)

But even if we did by some miracle, then the senate will just shut down any vote for a decent healthcare bill."

You have to use the bully pulpit, a progressive president, since I am unsure what you mean by "far left" or rather how far to the left would use that pulpit.. Obama never fought for a public option or medicare for all.. IF you recall in 2008 election he ATTACKED Hillary Clinton for the individual mandate and once elected that was pretty much all he picked

"The only thing that would ever bring change in this country, would unfortunately be physical violence.

If healthcare lobbyists were afraid of being murdered, then perhaps they would stop buying politicians."

I disagree that is the "only" thing that would bring change, but as I said .. I do not expect this fast paced change.. I look at through the scope as a Black man in a country where progress was rarely overnight

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-19 01:44:09 +0000 UTC]

 I stated that use of facts and stats can simply make a far better point then "I feel this way"

I both disagree and agree.
The point of a debate isn't to convince your opponent to switch sides, but rather to appeal to an audience observing the debate.
It's not about who is right or wrong factually, but rather who the audience believes is right.
There's definitely a time and a place for facts and stats, but that won't always convince the most amount of people, sometimes an emotional connection is needed to convince more people to take the ethical side, people factually correct is just the cherry on top.

look at how Trump used emotional appeal to win his 2016 election. he appealed to peoples FEARS of illegal immigrants taking their jobs and hurting their financial stability.
Was he factually correct? HELL NO.
but he convinced more people and that's ultimately all that matters.

". When obama is speaking of not going too far left"

right, but what am I supposed to do? I can't debate Obama.

"so seek not a partisan remedy to a ideological problem."

You misrepresent my solution then. because I don't seek any partisanship, but rather a tearing down of the system.
I don't want to beat fascists by holding elections. I want to beat fascists by locking them up in prison indefinitely.

The majority of your state voted for X .. so X got your electoral vote.. though Ohio is one of the few regular swing states that swing back and forth often.. it is not like NY which is a safe blue state

Then it's not a democracy, if 51% of my state votes for a candidate, that candidate should only get 51% of the electoral vote in my state. otherwise why would somebody vote if they live in a state that does not vote the way they do? If I lived in California and voted republican, i would stay home for every election.
in a direct democracy, every vote counts for the same amount of power.

"Obama never fought for a public option or medicare for al"

Obama is a liar and he sucks. so what lol. I didn't vote for him.
I'm a socialist, that is far left.
The people who voted for Obama are just as retarded as the people who voted for Trump.
This tells me that voters on both sides of our current political system, are both garbage.
I can then infer from this that democracy is a failed concept.


Historically speaking, change doesn't occur without bloodshed or pain.
Voting has been, for the most part, a tool for the wealthy elites to calm us with a false choice.
Once you break the illusion of choice under democracy, only then can you see a path to victory.

Money is the biggest most accurate predictor of election victories through-out American history.
I think Noam Chomsky lays it out in his book, manufacturing consent.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-20 02:01:57 +0000 UTC]

"I both disagree and agree.
The point of a debate isn't to convince your opponent to switch sides, but rather to appeal to an audience observing the debate.
It's not about who is right or wrong factually, but rather who the audience believes is right.

There's definitely a time and a place for facts and stats, but that won't always convince the most amount of people, sometimes an emotional connection is needed to convince more people to take the ethical side, people factually correct is just the cherry on top."

The point of a debate is to win, that is why they never say which side you are arguing for or against until a short time before the actual debate.. it forces you to look at a debate from both sides because you may very well be arguing in the affirmative or against.. and you are or rather you must be able to formulate your opinions and facts from either side.. but it also forces you to also think up counter arguments to your own arguments that your opponent may use against you... you are always will be your first opponent.. before you formulate an idea.. you must first attack it.. attack every aspect of it and see if it stands true to you.. and then you will be able to then withstand attacks from others against it for you have already attacked it and know every reply to these attacks.

an emotional connection can help, but if that is all the person has then they have failed before they started.

But you and I are from two very different worlds.. I look at this society and country, and even the world from the premise of a Black man in this country and the history that comes with that - both modern and contemporary.  Emotion is great but you have to have the data behind it.. look at the Black Panthers, look at the Deacons for Defense, look at Robert F Williams, look at Malcolm X, look at Martin Luther King Jr speeches.. they certainly utilized emotion but at the core it was the facts and stats often cited by them because they understood if you are just out there shooting it off the cuff it is unlikely to invoke the proper response.

"look at how Trump used emotional appeal to win his 2016 election. he appealed to peoples FEARS of illegal immigrants taking their jobs and hurting their financial stability.

Was he factually correct? HELL NO."

That is not true, did you know that Trump spoke more about policy, actual stats than HRC did ? HRC spoke less about policy than any Candidate in 20 years.. you have to have those stats and figures while you are trying to illicit whatever emotional responses you are trying to get.. a man like Trump did not happen in a vacuum, a man like Trump is only possible because the people feel the so called "left" party has failed them... there is a reason that Blacks turned out a 20 year low, there is a reason that the youth turned out at a 12 year low, there is a reason that Hispanics turned out at a  near 8-12 year low... Policy matters, it will always matter and if all you office, or rather if all the so called left offer if vote for us we are not as batshit as them.. that is a losing argument.

"but he convinced more people and that's ultimately all that matters.""

Eh... he got 3 million less votes, so he did not convince "more people" what he did was win the swing states and sadly in a EC system as ours.. those are the only states that matter.

"right, but what am I supposed to do? I can't debate Obama."

You cannot debate Obama, but you can debate other leftists that share this view? It is not just Obama that hold this view. I am sure, or rather I would hope you know people with differing political opinions that  may think X is going too far left, and then you start there.. you must "squabble" your ideas in the arena of debate.. not just point towards the right and forget the chinks in your own armor..

"You misrepresent my solution then. because I don't seek any partisanship, but rather a tearing down of the system.

I don't want to beat fascists by holding elections. I want to beat fascists by locking them up in prison indefinitely."

You have not much offered a "solution" to fix the left other than saying we should not squabble, pass that you have not said how you wish to reform the left.. so I was not speaking of your premise, I was speaking of a general fix to the left vs the idea or the notion this is not time to "squabble".

You live, my great hero Thurgood Marshall said you use the law to change the law..  IF you are throwing them in prison, you must first show a law that was violated.. at which someone just having a fascist ideological view is not against the law.

"Then it's not a democracy, if 51% of my state votes for a candidate, that candidate should only get 51% of the electoral vote in my state. otherwise why would somebody vote if they live in a state that does not vote the way they do? If I lived in California and voted republican, i would stay home for every election.

in a direct democracy, every vote counts for the same amount of power."

We have never elected our presidents that way, I am all for getting rid of the electoral college.. it was literally, I know you like that word, an agreement to get slave states to join the union. Because the Northern States had more people so they agreed on the electoral college to ensure we did not vote our presidents by a direct democracy, which I think we should.. but smaller states would never vote away the EC.. so a compromise I would say.. and you may or may not agree.. is simply allocate the Electoral votes proportionately.. no more winner take all and that ensures the person with the most votes will always win

"Obama is a liar and he sucks. so what lol. I didn't vote for him.
I'm a socialist, that is far left.
The people who voted for Obama are just as retarded as the people who voted for Trump.
This tells me that voters on both sides of our current political system, are both garbage."

I do not think they are retarded, you have two ideas, keep the system or change the system.. Obama literally ran , like Trump literally ran on  changing the system.. now if you are one of the 52% of Americans making 32K or less a year, if you are one of the thousands upon thousands of people who file for bankruptcy a year, someone promising a change sounds great.. I do not know if you recall but Candidate Trump said he supported the saying even if you had pre-existing condition that you should be insured.. now me, personally? I voted for Jill Stein because for me both candidates were either overtly racist or systematically racist.. I personally did not feel I had a candidate

"I can then infer from this that democracy is a failed concept."

Since we do not elect them in a Democratic process.. this tells me that the electoral system is a failed concept..  because it does not give much of a voice to your third parties .. unlike many other countries where 5..10..15 political parties are not unheard of.. Democracy can be chaotic, it can be at times tiring, and maybe in the end the correct system will not be Democracy.. may not be a Republic .. but we should start with allowing everyone a voice and then you see which way your system chooses in the end

"Historically speaking, change doesn't occur without bloodshed or pain.
Voting has been, for the most part, a tool for the wealthy elites to calm us with a false choice.

Once you break the illusion of choice under democracy, only then can you see a path to victory."

Historically speaking revolution does not occur without bloodshed .. reformation can and has occurred without massive systemic bloodshed.. now does that means that the individuals and at times the government of this or that area may not cause violence, no.. look at the women's movement.. how many of those women reported being hit, a few even reported being raped while in police custody all just for the right to vote

"Money is the biggest most accurate predictor of election victories through-out American history.

I think Noam Chomsky lays it out in his book, manufacturing consent.""

Yes, in 95% of elections the person with the most money wins.. which why I am personally for publicly funding elections and turning our political debates back overt to the League of Women voters.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-20 02:29:57 +0000 UTC]

If the point of a debate is to win, then facts aren't the determining factor, the audience decides who wins.

I look at this society and country, and even the world from the premise of a Black man

nice flex, you only mentioned it 3 other times lol. I am aware that systemic racism exists, but it's not the only form of discrimination, I too exist as part of a marginalized group, but I don't use it to shape my opinions.
If I recall black men were allowed to vote in national elections before women. I'm not interested in playing the privilege game with you.

I think that we are both oppressed, not as people of color, or gender, but rather class. Discrimination at it's core is based upon wealth over all other forms of identity.

I actually have the facts and the emotion. I'm not sure what you want from me exactly, other than that I use my emotions slightly more? and I'm angry and rightfully so. I hate facists, anyone with a brain does.
Donald Trump just shoots off at the cuff and he became the most powerful man in the world, you have no right to criticize me for attempting to do what WORKS in our modern society.

you can debate other leftists that share this view?

once again you speak from a false premise. people that share the views of Obama are not leftists. they are center right, moderates.

my desire to fight the right comes from a direct and immediate response to a threat against my fucking life. The right is dangerous, white nationalists literally run people down with cars and bomb buildings.
I don't have time to fight with liberals when fascists are in my backyard.

at which someone just having a fascist ideological view is not against the law.

Then you gather a group of people who believe it should be a crime, and create a law and enforce it. The law / government does not protect us, the police have throughout history protected the oppressors over the oppressed, you cannot rely on them.
You must seek natural justice and shame the inadequacy of the current system.

-

I agree with reforming our elections to get rid of a winner take all system.
but I also agree with dismantling the electoral college all together.
and further more I would choose something other than democracy if I could truly have my way, because I don't believe democracy is the best way to ensure freedom for all. Democracy is tyranny, where the majority holds absolute power over the minority.

I voted for Jill Stein because for me both candidates were either overtly racist or systematically racist.. I personally did not feel I had a candidate

you threw away your vote is what you did.
You didn't have a candidate and never will, because Americans aren't good people.

The majority of Americans want medicare for all, yet the majority of Americans don't vote for the candidate offering that to them.
The citizens of America are the reason America is trash, because they are not intelligent enough to vote in there own self interest.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-20 08:30:42 +0000 UTC]

"If the point of a debate is to win, then facts aren't the determining factor, the audience decides who wins."

Debates are rarely scored by the audience.. they are scored by the judges.. usually 3 people who say  or formulate who made the best arguments, and you are scored on your use of data, facts, presentation etc.. the audience is not usually who decides who wins.. now MAYBE,. and this could be a state thing, Ohio Debate teams and the way at which their pick a winner is different than other states. That could be I have been to Ohio, but never debated there ..

I look at this society and country, and even the world from the premise of a Black man

"nice flex, you only mentioned it 3 other times lol. I am aware that systemic racism exists, but it's not the only form of discrimination, I too exist as part of a marginalized group, but I don't use it to shape my opinions."

Of course you do, your identity, who you are and what you value is part of what makes up your political and world views.. if one disregarded themselves in forming their world view then they are lacking value on themselves.

It is not a "flex" my identity is important to me, and a system of justice that obviously does not think it is..

"If I recall black men were allowed to vote in national elections before women. I'm not interested in playing the privilege game with you."

In a few states even before 1870, yes some Black men were allowed to vote and we even had Black male politicians in the 1800s, but are you saying that  because Black males were allowed to vote that somehow erased the issues to be Black in a society that their men or women were subject to the most inhumane of treatment? Then of course it was not those Black men who made those rules it was a few  of those Black men who were also of the women's suffrage movement..

What happened after the 1920s when women got the right to vote? did everyone suddenly become equal .. now you still had decades of Black men and women who were not allowed to vote, or who things were made difficult for them to vote.. a law doesn't change the mind of its populace.

I often say, that the progress of marginalized groups are often very closely loosened.. a few years before this country freed the slaves in 1865.. they freed the woman.. with the Honestead Act of 1862.. which was the first federal law which allowed women, outright to own property, to open bank accounts, etc without the requirement of a male signature at which many states at the time required.. This is not to say, when I mention my Blackness, that no other group has ever suffered but it is to say, the issue is not yet done ..and as such I haven't  the luxury of White america to wait until later .. because waiting for justice and allowing your plight to be put on the back burner is a sure way to ensure it will never come..

"I think that we are both oppressed, not as people of color, or gender, but rather class. Discrimination at it's core is based upon wealth over all other forms of identity."

Class is important, but even among Class there is a racial construct .. such as even as you break down the wealth by class.. you would often find the same racial hierarchy when you go from Upper Class, Middle Class and Lower class with usually the same  order there.. so Class is always important, but race, gender, etc that still operate under these things are as well

"I actually have the facts and the emotion. I'm not sure what you want from me exactly, other than that I use my emotions slightly more? and I'm angry and rightfully so. I hate facists, anyone with a brain does.

Donald Trump just shoots off at the cuff and he became the most powerful man in the world, you have no right to criticize me for attempting to do what WORKS in our modern society.""

I did not criticize you for attempting to do "Works". Trump should be impeached but for violation of the emoluments clause which he never will be since Democrat and Republican violate the emoluments clause.. that would have been an easy case to make.

Sadly, Every American president in my lifetime has been a war criminal, that goes with Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush  42, Obama and Trump... neither of these men will ever face war criminal charges because in America.. once they leave office, they go to their library and we act as if the atrocities committed under them never happened .

You can point to nowhere in my words that attacked you for trying to change society, now, we disagree on methodology

"once again you speak from a false premise. people that share the views of Obama are not leftists. they are center right, moderates."

That is not a "false premise".. Do you think the world is black and white? That all leftists agree on all things and anyone who does not fit into this rigid black and white narrative are not leftists?..

As I said on the other piece, many people can identity as X ... and yet have a very different notion than you what X means..

I am sure if you conversed with many leftists you will find some with a very positive view on Obama.. which as a stand alone means little, but should the policy failures of Obama or any supposed leftists be questioned, examined etc.. sure.. that is how we better our view, by having them challenged. 

"my desire to fight the right comes from a direct and immediate response to a threat against my fucking life. The right is dangerous, white nationalists literally run people down with cars and bomb buildings.

I don't have time to fight with liberals when fascists are in my backyard."

I am a humanist, personally, so yes white nationalists domestic should be fought against, ... but so should our foreign policy, which is supported by liberals and conservatives. MLK, Malcolm X, etc understood you cannot just focus on domestic hardships and not speak to our foreign atrocities.. while we are speaking of FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY .. the United States, as of 2017  the US armed 73% of the world's dictators.. now those dictators beat rape survivors, imprison or kill anyone who has a different religion or political view..

Which goes back to my.. we must walk and chew gum at the same time.. we do not have the luxury of waiting until later because as later comes more and more innocent men, women and children around the world are being slaughtered in your name

"Then you gather a group of people who believe it should be a crime, and create a law and enforce it. The law / government does not protect us, the police have throughout history protected the oppressors over the oppressed, you cannot rely on them.

You must seek natural justice and shame the inadequacy of the current system."

I agree, but then when they get a majority and make your simple political identity against the law, even though you have not called for or directly harmed anyone.. America is one of the few places where you have the right to your political opinions without being hailed off to prison for having a backwards political view.. now if you are then calling for deaths of this or that group, if you are inciting direct violence then that is a crime punishable under our law.. I do not like the I AM AN X..okay you go to prison .. because it always starts out with groups universally despised but it never stops with those groups.

I am going to use this an example.. NYC wants to put up cameras around the city to scan the faces of terrorist suspects.. who could disagree with that? I mean they are on terrorist watchlist.. but you and I both know it will not stop there.. what is next? anyone with a violent warrant.. anyone with a ticket etc

"I agree with reforming our elections to get rid of a winner take all system.
but I also agree with dismantling the electoral college all together.

and further more I would choose something other than democracy if I could truly have my way, because I don't believe democracy is the best way to ensure freedom for all. Democracy is tyranny, where the majority holds absolute power over the minority."

I want the electoral college abolished BUT the only way that can happen if those small states agree to it.. they never will because if you are a small state with little power.. why would you vote away what little power you have.. if there is no EC then politicians will not waste their time on those small states with a few hundred thousand votes..

but if you allocate the EC votes proportionately .. every state is in play, always.. no state can be taken for granted and it still ensures the president ... or rather the person who gets the most votes wins.. it makes no sense in America that you can get the support from more people and yet still lose.

I am not speaking of Democracy in that NO MATER WHAT THE LAW IS IF A MAJORITY SUPPORT IT THEN IT PASSES .. no I am speaking of it in the sense of electing our leader.. like your mayor, like your public advocate, like your senator, like your governor.. they enter a race, the one with the most votes wins.. yet when it comes to presidential elections, you can get less votes and still win.. I think generally the person with the most votes in an election should win it.

"you threw away your vote is what you did.

You didn't have a candidate and never will, because Americans aren't good people."

Throwing away my vote by voting for the person I most agreed with given the candidates?

For you it was throwing away my vote, for me it was my only viable option.

MLK said it best,
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”
― Martin Luther King J

So, no, I did not "throw away" my vote.. so many people have died for me to exercise that right ..for me.. throwing away would just not voting.. no, always vote, stand up and be counted.. now whether or not your person will win, is of a secondary matter to ensuring you voted for the one you think would do the best job if they were in that position

"The majority of Americans want medicare for all, yet the majority of Americans don't vote for the candidate offering that to them.

The citizens of America are the reason America is trash, because they are not intelligent enough to vote in there own self interest."

not all candidates run on that platform, I forgot who it was I think it was VOX .. but I may be mistaken where they said less than 3%  of the Dems running in 2018 made medicare for all a central part of their platform.. and many of them lost.. the ones who did actually did better than those who did not..

This is not a new idea, Germany has the oldest healthcare as a rights system on earth, 1883.. FDR called for healthcare as a right in 1944.. and it is to great shame that 75 years later the leaders of his party - Schumer, Pelosi, Perez, are all against it

To you they are not intelligent, I say again .. for me they are just overworked. if you alleviated some of the economic pressure on them you would find far more political activity .. or course if you continue to grind them down on the economic front eventually you will find political activity on the revolutionary front [for the record, when I say "you" I am not referring to you but of society]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-20 10:28:05 +0000 UTC]

usually 3 people who say  or formulate who made the best arguments

you're being somewhat reductive and ignoring the fact that the "formal" winner of the debate is irrelevant. what matters is how many people you convinced to support your opinions.
it doesn't matter if 3 judges said YOU won the debate by 6 points or whatever, when your opponent John Q. White supremacist, just recruited half the audience into his fascist death cult.

I don't care about winning meaningless battles, if i don't get anything from them. The winner of a debate is whoever convinces more people to their side. I don't give a shit about games and little play debates.

my identity is important to me, and a system of justice that obviously does not think it is..

okay well I do use my identity to form my values, my identity as a working class / poor person, not a woman, or a bisexual. You being black is less important to society than you being poor.

poor white people are treated way worse than wealthy black people.
This is the point I'm trying to get across to you, the reason I don't care about identity politics like race is because race is just a tool to make people hate each other.

The real race is the rich and the poor.
and I'm gonna take a guess here and say that you aren't a millionaire.
A lot of racism stems from poverty.

MLK didn't get assassinated for promoting racial equality.
He got assassinated when he started talking about wealth inequality...

Do you think the world is black and white? That all leftists agree on all things and anyone who does not fit into this rigid black and white narrative are not leftists?..

not at all. political opinions are on a spectrum, we have a left and a right, but also a center and you can be more left or more right, but there's distinct categories for a reason.
There's a point where your opinions are so right leaning that you are no longer a leftist or a moderate.

Not all leftists agree on everything, but if you start talking about gassing the kikes then you're not a leftist lol.
Obama is a moderate, and at times his policies are center right, so he's not a leftist.

You can be a leftist and praise Obama, but if you hold the same opinions as Obama, then you're a moderate not a leftist, because he isn't a leftist.

Which goes back to my.. we must walk and chew gum at the same time.. we do not have the luxury of waiting until later because as later comes more and more innocent men, women and children around the world are being slaughtered in your name

I have to focus on what I'm capable of focusing on. I don't support foreign war, i support cutting the military. but that the extent of it.
We can't have foreign policy changes to make the world a better place if the people in our country don't want that, it doesn't matter if i'm a good person when my neighbors just wanna bomb muslims or whatever the fuck.
I don't know shit about the middle east, and I'm probably more researched and educated than half my country.

I'm just being honest in admitting my limitations. I can't do more than is possible other than just supporting peace in a general sense.

what is next? anyone with a violent warrant.. anyone with a ticket etc

classic slippery slope fallacy.
I would rather sacrifice my principles to eliminate a single reasonable threat, than to allow that threat to destroy everything for everybody, because we didn't stop it early.

 I think generally the person with the most votes in an election should win it.

and what do you do when the person who gets the most votes, wants to bomb a country that didn't attack us?
What do you do when the guy who gets the most votes, got those votes because he promised to legalize slavery?

here's a crazy concept, what if a white candidate says that he'll somehow (is capable regardless of the law) in a democratic system.
He'll take away all the money and wealth from every black American and spread to around for all the white Americans?
well this speaks directly to the self interest of all white people, so what if they voted for him?

tell me, if the majority of the USA is white, and they all vote one way to fuck over the 15% of the country that is black.
How do you fight back against that legally?
You can't win an election, you can't fight back against it.

Democracy is a tool of oppression.

no, always vote, stand up and be counted.. now whether or not your person will win, is of a secondary matter to ensuring you voted for the one you think would do the best job if they were in that position

If your guy doesn't win the election, then you are the minority, and the majority can now exercise complete control over you, you value a system that does not guarantee your rights.
You support democracy, a system in which the people who HATE YOU, can have all the power.

Your vote is worthless if you don't win.
Because you're not exerting any power on anybody. You're not making any difference.

Women have had the right to vote for almost 100 years, and yet woman are still under represented in congress.

the ones who did actually did better than those who did not..

any candidate who runs on medicare for all, and doesn't win the election is a failure on the part of the voters. they are the problem.

I have no problem blaming Americans for the state of America. You do because you cling to democracy.

How do you alleviate the overworked americans to make them become more politically active, if they need to become more politically active to achieve better working conditions lmao.

it's a vampire cycle of shit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-20 23:19:48 +0000 UTC]

"you're being somewhat reductive and ignoring the fact that the "formal" winner of the debate is irrelevant. what matters is how many people you convinced to support your opinions.
it doesn't matter if 3 judges said YOU won the debate by 6 points or whatever, when your opponent John Q. White supremacist, just recruited half the audience into his fascist death cult.

I don't care about winning meaningless battles, if i don't get anything from them. The winner of a debate is whoever convinces more people to their side. I don't give a shit about games and little play debates."

It is not reductive, you spoke of how the winner is chosen with respect to who appeals to the greater audience more, I have debated in many places, and in a few states and  have never saw where the audience was the deciding factor .. Usually the judges are people that look at presentation, style of debate, how the facts were presented etc.

The word is never meaningless, speaking your views and positions, whether on a debate stage or trying to gather a crowd to your side ... it is obvious there is a great deal you do not give a shit about, and that is fine..  you choose what you value.

"okay well I do use my identity to form my values, my identity as a working class / poor person, not a woman, or a bisexual. You being black is less important to society than you being poor."

It is very easy, with great respect for a White individual to continuously disregard race in this country.. I Do not have that luxury..

"poor white people are treated way worse than wealthy black people.
This is the point I'm trying to get across to you, the reason I don't care about identity politics like race is because race is just a tool to make people hate each other."

Yes, Poor White folks have more in common with poor Black folks than they do rich White or Black folks.. but in the court of law.. who do you think is given more time, who do you think is denied early release more between two people of equally poverty stricken backgrounds? This is not something  should be apart of any mantle claiming to carry the torch of Justice... but instead you say we should come back to that later.. how many folks are in that prison, or will be by the time that "later" comes?

"The real race is the rich and the poor.
and I'm gonna take a guess here and say that you aren't a millionaire.
A lot of racism stems from poverty."

I am not a millionaire, but when someone sees me, I can be in a nice car, in a suit and tie and yet my race is what I cannot escape.. from cops who pinned that rich Black guy to the ground because they did not think he "fit" in the area.. the area being his home, where he had pretty much all White neighbors.. race is as much a construct to the American identity as anything else.. but a nation built on slavery and taken by genocide can never escape that

"MLK didn't get assassinated for promoting racial equality.
He got assassinated when he started talking about wealth inequality..."

Yes, his last few years when he started speaking against the wars, started calling out capitalism, started speaking out against the government endeavors against poor people of color especially.. when he was alienated by many of the groups  that once championed him as their hero

"not at all. political opinions are on a spectrum, we have a left and a right, but also a center and you can be more left or more right, but there's distinct categories for a reason.
There's a point where your opinions are so right leaning that you are no longer a leftist or a moderate.

Not all leftists agree on everything, but if you start talking about gassing the kikes then you're not a leftist lol.
Obama is a moderate, and at times his policies are center right, so he's not a leftist.

You can be a leftist and praise Obama, but if you hold the same opinions as Obama, then you're a moderate not a leftist, because he isn't a leftist."

Who determines that? We have no "leftist police" of you are not left because you said something I disagree with.. to some folks on the left they advocate for very strict gun control and say the right just wants everyone to have guns and if you are pro gun you are not on the "left".. now I am very pro-gun and against gun and ammo bans and to some of these folks that would make me on the right.

Of course politics like anything is as chaotic as it comes because you have so many people with so many views of what it means to be whatever label that they ascribe to themselves.

"I have to focus on what I'm capable of focusing on. I don't support foreign war, i support cutting the military. but that the extent of it.
We can't have foreign policy changes to make the world a better place if the people in our country don't want that, it doesn't matter if i'm a good person when my neighbors just wanna bomb muslims or whatever the fuck.
I don't know shit about the middle east, and I'm probably more researched and educated than half my country.

I'm just being honest in admitting my limitations. I can't do more than is possible other than just supporting peace in a general sense."

Are we speaking of just you or the left as a whole? I mean  recall this debate started when you spoke of the left should not "squabble" if you are saying that an entire group of people should wait on focusing on another' oppression or hardship then what is the point of gathering a group of individuals who all have things that are near and dear to em if you just say your issue will have to go on the back burner.. I understand millions of people have been given unjust sentences and  many other nonviolent offenders with life in prison is unjust but you just have to wait..

"classic slippery slope fallacy.
I would rather sacrifice my principles to eliminate a single reasonable threat, than to allow that threat to destroy everything for everybody, because we didn't stop it early."

It is not a slippery slope fallacy since the NYPD already spoke of it being used to catch people who have warrants out .. so going pass just the terrorist watchlist they claimed it would be .. now it has not even been implemented yet and they are already speaking of expanding it beyond the scope.. The NYPD is the most corrupt and law breaking law enforcement institution in America.. no other department in America, pays out over 100M dollars EACH AND EVERY YEAR in wrongful deaths and civil rights violations... so if they already tell me they want to go beyond the scope of the mayor's wants.. it will most likely be law enforcement using the cams so as the great Maya Angelou said "IF someone shows you who are they, believe them" so if they are already saying they want to use it outside of just the terrorist watchlist why would I not believe them when it is clear by the annual lawsuits that civil rights are not high up on their priorities?

"and what do you do when the person who gets the most votes, wants to bomb a country that didn't attack us?
What do you do when the guy who gets the most votes, got those votes because he promised to legalize slavery?

here's a crazy concept, what if a white candidate says that he'll somehow (is capable regardless of the law) in a democratic system.
He'll take away all the money and wealth from every black American and spread to around for all the white Americans?
well this speaks directly to the self interest of all white people, so what if they voted for him?

As I already said, every president in my lifetime has been a war criminal, though perhaps you want to abolish the office of the presidency and get rid of the position, which would be interesting but on the focus of the president.. how do you think they should be elected? if not by getting the most votes?  There are already laws in place, so you are asking what if a President openly attacks a group based on their race and that somehow will come without any push back at all and the country will just go along to get along?

A president doesn't have the right, on his own to overturn a constitutional amendment.. so unless you are granting this president powers he or she does not have.. you would have to do away with quite a few amendments in order for a president to have the power to do that.

For you it is Black and White.. as  Thurgood Marshall said a Black snake or a White snake they both Bite... a Black person could get elected and be just as deadly..for me action .. actual action is what should be charged not this what if..  that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

"tell me, if the majority of the USA is white, and they all vote one way to fuck over the 15% of the country that is black.
How do you fight back against that legally?
You can't win an election, you can't fight back against it.

Democracy is a tool of oppression.""

What is the likelihood of this happening though? Yes some 70% of the country is White, they tend to vote in a very mixed way, they are not all on one side and out to get us Black folks..

In your premises though that is less about democracy and more about violation of the law.. now is the law something that many folks have not violated over the centuries to oppress this or that group, of course not, yet when you are oppressed you have two options.. stay oppressed, or fight back.. now how you choose to fight back is the next phase.. are you more Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or Robert F Williams hmm

"If your guy doesn't win the election, then you are the minority, and the majority can now exercise complete control over you, you value a system that does not guarantee your rights.
You support democracy, a system in which the people who HATE YOU, can have all the power.

Your vote is worthless if you don't win.
Because you're not exerting any power on anybody. You're not making any difference.

Women have had the right to vote for almost 100 years, and yet woman are still under represented in congress."

In what election ..or voting system has a 100% guarantee that your person will win? none of them

I know of no system at which operates in this manner.

Wrong again, "value this system" by wanting the person with the most votes to lead rather than someone being given millions more votes and "losing".. since that is not our system how can I be valuing a system at which we have never had? That is the system I would like, or rather think if you get the most votes you should win.. does that mean that their power is suddenly unlimited? of course not.

"any candidate who runs on medicare for all, and doesn't win the election is a failure on the part of the voters. they are the problem.

I have no problem blaming Americans for the state of America. You do because you cling to democracy.

How do you alleviate the overworked americans to make them become more politically active, if they need to become more politically active to achieve better working conditions lmao.

it's a vampire cycle of shit."

It is your job to make the case for policies you want.. just pointing at em and saying yo are stupid is not going to convince many people. That is why Sanders is doing these town halls in deep red states.. he knows that on many issues they may disagree with him but until you get in the room with and show them what they fear is not going to happen then you are already losing.

This is less Democracy and more putting your ideas out there to your opposition.

Eugene V Debs, speaks of this often, that class and race struggles are never nationally won at once.. you have battles here and there, with this or that group or union, and as one wins, then you fight for the next group to raise their wages..  the working people have far more power than they give them credit for.. you just have to show them that the foot on their neck is not a permanent position

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-21 02:27:00 +0000 UTC]

you spoke of how the winner is chosen with respect to who appeals to the greater audience more, I have debated in many places, and in a few states and  have never saw where the audience was the deciding factor 

I wasn't talking about a title of "winner" you've got it wrong and are not understanding the point i'm trying to make. you're being overly technical AGAIN, and ignoring the nuances and the things that ACTUALLY MATTER.

You look at debates like a sport, or a game. To me it's a fight, a bid for power to convince more people to support the correct ideology.
It is an Arena to shame less ethical people.

if you are debating for sport, and making points to support and ideology you don't agree with, then you're a cocksucker.
No honest person can make honest points for something they don't agree with. You can't argue that slavery was good, there's no reasonable angle you can take while being honest and truthful.

It is very easy, with great respect for a White individual to continuously disregard race in this country.. I Do not have that luxury..

white privilege yeah yeah, don't misrepresent me you scab.

who do you think is denied early release more between two people of equally poverty stricken backgrounds?

You tell me, with a meta-analysis. I want to see comparisons of white and black sentencing with similar economic backgrounds.
I want data before I'm willing to accept your premise that racial bias is currently stronger than class bias.

Who determines that? We have no "leftist police" of you are not left because you said something I disagree with

it's simple, left = egalitarian. Right = Fascism

if you're more egalitarian you're more left, the more egalitarian you are, the further left you are.

I'm also a lefty who supports gun ownership, and I own many guns. There's groups like the Socialist Rifle Association who agree that the working class need to support gun ownership to protect their community.
As the handbook says "The means of production won't seize themselves"

it's mostly libtards who don't support gun ownership, because they fear conflict.

if you just say your issue will have to go on the back burner.. I understand millions of people have been given unjust sentences and  many other nonviolent offenders with life in prison is unjust but you just have to wait..

when did I say to wait for anything? I've made it abundantly clear that I want justice NOW.
you keep intentionally misrepresenting me and being dishonest about my position, you're strawmanning me as if telling you not to squabble is the same as saying blacks need to just "wait" in prison.

I don't want to squabble with you over the best way to get innocent people out of prison, because we already both fucking agree that innocent people don't need to be in prison, so why fucking fight over it?
We need to stop bickering and go get them out instead of fucking around.

YOU'RE THE ONE WAITING.
YOU'RE THE ONE HOLDING THEM UP.
INSTEAD OF TAKING ME AS YOUR ALLY AND GETTING THE JOB DONE, YOU CHOOSE TO SIT ON YOUR ASS AND DEBATE ME.

I can't be more clear than this, because you don't accept reality. you play games.

It is not a slippery slope fallacy since the NYPD already spoke of it being used to catch people who have warrants out

you didn't understand my point again, so I'll ignore this paragraph and reword my point.

1. I'm talking about using the law to arrest fascists.
2. I don't support institutions like the NYPD.
3. I hate the police and would like to see state thuggery abolished outright, in favor of a more progressive form of law enforcement, that involves rotation of authority and mandatory oversight board.

I would prefer a world where civilians carry guns, and expected to use them in self defense, and other citizens would be willing to fill in the gap without police.
I don't agree with any power structure that values one individual over another because of a meaningless badge, the police do not hold a monopoly on justice.

As I already said, every president in my lifetime has been a war criminal, though perhaps you want to abolish the office of the presidency

Yep, I don't believe in a democratic republic, and i reject the hierarchical system of government that I was born into.
I want boards and committees of people in each community, rotating power frequently, so nobody has it for very long enough to do major harm.
There should be no president.
The War criminals who have held the title of president should be tried and sentenced for their crimes, just like any war criminal.
our society is to lazy or dumb to charge criminals for committing crimes.

now how you choose to fight back is the next phase..

I choose obstruction and violence to fight back against injustice.
If the wealthy won't pay your enough for your job, then don't work for them, find other people who agree with your cause and form an alliance to take care of each other and produce food so that you can be independent of the masters.

The law says now that you can't be forced to work. This is a lie because if you don't work then the state will take your property or harm you in some way.

Remember that the wealthy need you more than you need them. You produce the wealth, not them.

if they attempt to take your property from you, defend yourself with deadly force. This is why gun ownership is important for the left.

In what election ..or voting system has a 100% guarantee that your person will win? none of them

precisely. This is why democracy is garbage.
if my candidate does not win, then I am oppressed and at the mercy of the majority.
I reject the entire system, and I reject my lot in life to be a perpetual victim.

If congress will not represent me, then I reject congress. The system that does not support equality and justice is a system that is to be dismantled.

Even if America was a Democracy, we would be left with Hillary Clinton.
Not Bernie, and Not Jill Stein.

Neither the current system or a direct democracy would yield acceptable results. 

and as one wins, then you fight for the next group to raise their wages..  the working people have far more power than they give them credit for.. you just have to show them that the foot on their neck is not a permanent position

This is you, doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
Telling the wage slaves to wait until the first group wins.
You are telling black people to wait for prison reform while you fix our elections lmao

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-21 18:45:53 +0000 UTC]

you spoke of how the winner is chosen with respect to who appeals to the greater audience more, I have debated in many places, and in a few states and  have never saw where the audience was the deciding factor 

"I wasn't talking about a title of "winner" you've got it wrong and are not understanding the point i'm trying to make. you're being overly technical AGAIN, and ignoring the nuances and the things that ACTUALLY MATTER.

You look at debates like a sport, or a game. To me it's a fight, a bid for power to convince more people to support the correct ideology.
It is an Arena to shame less ethical people.

if you are debating for sport, and making points to support and ideology you don't agree with, then you're a cocksucker.

No honest person can make honest points for something they don't agree with. You can't argue that slavery was good, there's no reasonable angle you can take while being honest and truthful."

 If you have not figured it out, I am a very technical person. Since I do not know you, I cannot gather what you "mean" or what you "intend" to say as such I can only go on what exactly it is that you said.  It is both a fight of words, for me generally I do not take my exchanges with random individuals as a personal long detailed attacks against me. I try to comment on the words said, even if I think the words are in a few cases.. juvenile like..

The question for debates, or I have not seen it was never if slavery was good.. that would be too simple of a debate question .

"white privilege yeah yeah, don't misrepresent me you scab."

It is not misrepresenting you, it is saying I do not have the privilege to wait for the entirety of the class issue to be addressed to then focus on the other issues

"You tell me, with a meta-analysis. I want to see comparisons of white and black sentencing with similar economic backgrounds"

Here is data from the United States Sentencing Commission, I assume that would suffice but Washington Post and others took their studies and did their own in their reporting of it

eji.org/news/sentencing-commis…

www.ussc.gov/research/research…

Here is a 2014 University of Michigan Law School which looked up the sentencing disparities based on race but also looked up economic similarities (all three of these studies looked at class aka economic situation as well as race)

repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/v…

www.nytimes.com/interactive/20…

www.sentencingproject.org/publ…

" I want data before I'm willing to accept your premise that racial bias is currently stronger than class bias.""

Changing the debate, I see. I spoke nothing of one being stronger or weaker, I said both should be fought against , now.. and that we have no luxury to wait until the economic disparity is addressed before we then address the racial ones going on for a few centuries now.

I have said several times I think the class fight is important, and also said within that class struggle is a racial struggle and that is why we should address em both not just one and then say the other has to wait

"it's simple, left = egalitarian. Right = Fascism

if you're more egalitarian you're more left, the more egalitarian you are, the further left you are.

I'm also a lefty who supports gun ownership, and I own many guns. There's groups like the Socialist Rifle Association who agree that the working class need to support gun ownership to protect their community.
As the handbook says "The means of production won't seize themselves"

it's mostly libtards who don't support gun ownership, because they fear conflict."

 Is there no middle ground? I mean I would disagree that anyone on the right is automatically or that "right = fascism" But I would not say right = fascist as if to say anyone on the right is a fascist..  You may have some conservatives who are on the right economically but not socially, and some "liberals" who are also on the right economically and not socially.  using the Merriam-Webster definition of fascism I would say far right would be fascism but not just "right"

I think it is not really a fear of conflict  but just what you associate the thing with. If ALL you associate with guns is violence then you more most likely to be in support of stricter gun law.. which many liberals tend to live in large cities, that may already have strict gun laws, and as such their only relation to guns is violence.. Now, I have been shot four times, some might say YOU SHOULD BLAME THE GUN, no I blamed the men who shot me.. I had a friend that once thought ONLY COPS should have guns and that civilians should not. When I spoke of the fact that only 0.2% of gun owners will shoot themselves or others, and 99.8% will shoot no one.. he started to listen and now he is at the range almost every week, met his wife there..  it did not happen overnight, the first time I took him to the range he did not even want to hold a gun after the safety course.. but is a good shot.

I think that is what has to be done, introducing them to people outside of just violence.. letting them know a different side of it.. of course if they live in a city with strict gun laws that will be different. IN NYC you cannot carry your gun around and as such you have to just use the guns at the range.

.. I rambled there as I often do when speaking of guns so you do not have to address this anecdotal comment

"when did I say to wait for anything? I've made it abundantly clear that I want justice NOW.
you keep intentionally misrepresenting me and being dishonest about my position, you're strawmanning me as if telling you not to squabble is the same as saying blacks need to just "wait" in prison.

I don't want to squabble with you over the best way to get innocent people out of prison, because we already both fucking agree that innocent people don't need to be in prison, so why fucking fight over it?
We need to stop bickering and go get them out instead of fucking around.

YOU'RE THE ONE WAITING.
YOU'RE THE ONE HOLDING THEM UP.
INSTEAD OF TAKING ME AS YOUR ALLY AND GETTING THE JOB DONE, YOU CHOOSE TO SIT ON YOUR ASS AND DEBATE ME.

I can't be more clear than this, because you don't accept reality. you play games."

When I spoke of the issue of race, on the other piece and us facing that .. your next comment spoke of the left not having the time to squabble over leftist values..  since the main thing I mentioned in that was racial justice unsure what other "value" you were referring to the left squabbling over

I am not trying to take you as my ally, as I said the left is a big movement that can walk and chew gum at the same time, class and race both must be addressed. Actually I am quite active in my local ACLU, I work with several local groups on prison reform, justice reform etc.. so  because I take the time to actually answer replies to me means I am not doing anything else.. shakes head.. talk about reaching

"you didn't understand my point again, so I'll ignore this paragraph and reword my point.

1. I'm talking about using the law to arrest fascists.
2. I don't support institutions like the NYPD.
3. I hate the police and would like to see state thuggery abolished outright, in favor of a more progressive form of law enforcement, that involves rotation of authority and mandatory oversight board.

I would prefer a world where civilians carry guns, and expected to use them in self defense, and other citizens would be willing to fill in the gap without police.

I don't agree with any power structure that values one individual over another because of a meaningless badge, the police do not hold a monopoly on justice."

1 - yes, I Said already if they broke a law I have no issue with this.. but in America of course it is not illegal to have an ideological view of fascism .. I think that is a dumb view, but  I do not trust the government generally with any view that is stupid means prison time. Now if they are calling for violence, arrest em as that is a crime.

2- I assume you mean their tactics, if so I agree with you. Or did you mean as a police department?

3- ah you meant police department in general, I am not opposed to em I just think they should try to pick them primarily from local populace.

I do not know if you know about NYC but many of the comes that may be on patrol around here come from Staten Island, and other shall we say less diverse places? That is not to say of course that some of them do not, but the lowly cops follow their bosses which are rarely from around here.

"Yep, I don't believe in a democratic republic, and i reject the hierarchical system of government that I was born into.
I want boards and committees of people in each community, rotating power frequently, so nobody has it for very long enough to do major harm.
There should be no president.
The War criminals who have held the title of president should be tried and sentenced for their crimes, just like any war criminal.

our society is to lazy or dumb to charge criminals for committing crimes."

I have no issue with the general concept, but unsure generally how that would work, when you are speaking of no central authority or committee to work as the go between these tens of thousands of committees from around the country and the global scale. Do you have an author or some book on the type of society? sounds a bit like communialism  aka where communism took much of its early ideas from.. of each individual community governing themselves fully.. of course Communism then installed a central planning community as the go between between these communities and the global market.

"I choose obstruction and violence to fight back against injustice.
If the wealthy won't pay your enough for your job, then don't work for them, find other people who agree with your cause and form an alliance to take care of each other and produce food so that you can be independent of the masters.

The law says now that you can't be forced to work. This is a lie because if you don't work then the state will take your property or harm you in some way.

Remember that the wealthy need you more than you need them. You produce the wealth, not them.

if they attempt to take your property from you, defend yourself with deadly force. This is why gun ownership is important for the left."

Sounds good in theory,of course since 52% of the country makes less than 32K a year they sadly cannot afford to leave a job just because they do not like it because they have mouths to feed.. but they should seek a better job  or look for something better. I make it a priority when I have to hire guys for a job to pay their union wages and sometimes more than their union wages

"precisely. This is why democracy is garbage.
if my candidate does not win, then I am oppressed and at the mercy of the majority.

I reject the entire system, and I reject my lot in life to be a perpetual victim."

Um, that says little about "democracy".. in general outside of the most authoritarian regimes there is no election system where a candidate has a 100% chance of winning.. so even in your ideal hmm voting style I imagine you will allow more than one candidate to run for an office and as such there would be no 100% chance of them winning

"If congress will not represent me, then I reject congress. The system that does not support equality and justice is a system that is to be dismantled.

Even if America was a Democracy, we would be left with Hillary Clinton.
Not Bernie, and Not Jill Stein.

Neither the current system or a direct democracy would yield acceptable results. "

As we live in a society, that has many different opinions and ideas, I imagine any legislative body with representatives from around this country will have many people of varying ideas .. the House generally is a better determination of that than the Senate since they are elected from local offices

"This is you, doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
Telling the wage slaves to wait until the first group wins.

You are telling black people to wait for prison reform while you fix our elections lmao"

You tried it, failed but you tried it.That comment had nothing to do with doing solely one thing.. please try harder next time  That was me speaking of how wage fights historically has happened, your argument is to get rid of the whole class system... that is a far larger fight and in that fight you would have to address the issues with class, wealth, race, gender etc.. my point from the start is the left is an actual movement that you can tackle all of these issues at the same time vs saying .. I will only focus on class and the rest wait.. no, part of an actual movement is you have part of your group doing this, part of your group doing that, part of your group doing that but collectively you are fighting all of these issues.. That has been my point from the start.

Nice try, though.. [Before that,  I actually enjoyed your overall comment.. no name calling, kept to policies and tactics.. ]

[[Posting this on both replies - - After Sunday 11/24/19 I will be off for another month again, so will either try to wrap this up before then or just reply to it in late December/January when I check back on here.. ]]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-22 22:10:32 +0000 UTC]

even if I think the words are in a few cases.. juvenile like..

You just couldn't help yourself huh? Had to slip that in there.
Just further attempting to instigate hostility with passive aggressive comments.

It is not misrepresenting you, it is saying I do not have the privilege to wait for the entirety of the class issue to be addressed to then focus on the other issues

Yeah it is misrepresenting me, because you're using my white privilege to criticize me for an opinion I don't even have.
You're literally just making shit up about my opinions, and you keep saying the same lie over and over.

I'm not going to eat up your horse shit because you say it a whole lot, make a new point.

Here is a 2014 University of Michigan Law School which looked up the sentencing disparities based on race but also looked up economic similarities (all three of these studies looked at class aka economic situation as well as race)

I'm having difficulties finding the areas of these studies where people of the same economic background are being sentenced more harshly.
What I'm seeing is on average black males are charged more harshly, however it also states that black males are more likely to be in poverty and stay in poverty.

and since poverty has a direct link with criminal behavior, I think it's fair to assume that more impoverished black males = more criminals.

The problem is wealth distribution. I don't think the sentencing is the racial component but rather the wealth inequality is the reasoning for these sentencing disparities.

lets do a thought experiment and assume for a moment that perhaps the police, or the judges were targeting black males based on skin color, and not economic status alone.
What laws would you invoke or propose to eliminate this situation?

If a black male commits a violent crime, you can't just let them out to equalize the statistics.
How would you remove a biased judge?
What can you do about police who hold absolute power and authority?

if you eliminate racism completely, what will you do when black men are found to be committing more crime than white men? due to poverty.

The actual problem, in my humble opinion, is wealth inequality.
Wealth inequality that seems to disproportionately affect black people, but in my opinion I don't think the cause is contemporary racism, but rather it's a product of previous generations.
Wealth is accumulated through property assets, and for the majority of American history, Black people weren't allowed to own property or generate wealth for themselves.

to put it simply my solution is reparations and social services to reduce crime at the lowest economic level.

 I have said several times I think the class fight is important, and also said within that class struggle is a racial struggle and that is why we should address em both not just one and then say the other has to wait

as i have said many times that the other shouldn't have to wait. and you intentionally ignore me every time i say it, which has probably been about 10 times.

But I'm willing to be honest in my bias, that I do belief that class struggle is a bigger issue because it's the reason for race struggle, in my opinion systemic racism is a symptom of wealth inequality. If not then the truth would be that racism has no reason and that there is no way to actually stop people from being racist.
I like to believe that there are solutions.

The problem with focusing on racial justice over class justice, is that racial justice only benefits the one race your fighting for.
Where as class justice benefits ALL races and ALL people, while simultaneously supporting racial equality.
Marching in the streets for black rights does not appeal to white people as much because it doesn't benefit them.
Marching in the streets for income equality can get all races involved and working together against their common enemy, and sow the seeds of support for issues like more focused and direct racial justice.

Nobody has to wait though, you need to stop making my argument for me constantly, it's really fucking obnoxious of you.
The issues that need to be addressed now, are to be addressed now, like our border crisis, foreign wars, healthcare, prison reform.
I just thinks it's battle to tackle these issues from a mind set that benefits and encourages everybody.

 Is there no middle ground? I mean I would disagree that

I made it clear that there was a middle ground, go re-read my post or i'll just sum it up for you.
moderate / centrists are the middle ground.
The entire system is a middle ground basically because as i said: it's a SPECTRUM.

<-------------------->
You can be anywhere on this spectrum, in the middle, to the left, to the right, in the middle of the right, in the middle of the left, in between them and so on.

But if you lean to far one way then you move further from the other.
if you're racist you can't be a leftist, it's antithetical to egalitarianism.

You can be right leaning without being racist, it depends on your beliefs.

from my opinion, neo-liberals are moderate / right leaning centrists.
social democrats are mid left.

the deeper left is socialism, then communism and Anarchy.

Being right leaning means you lean towards fascism, but is does not mean you are like goosestepping in the streets lol
A mid right would be like your generic every day conservative, and deep right would be nazis, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists, Islamic extremists.
and tankies, who are authoritarian fascist communists.

.. I rambled there as I often do when speaking of guns so you do not have to address this anecdotal comment

I'll address it briefly. The people who hate guns are the people who are comfortable and safe with their existence right now.
Rich people and privileged middle class people who fear violence because it will disrupt their carefree life.

The Rich does not want the poor to be armed, that much is clear.

Here's my anecdotal story: I grew up extremely poor in rural America. I couldn't get an education, I've went hungry, I've seen violence and desperation up close and it's ugly, I've seen white police officers harass and humiliate poor white people and black people.
I've witnessed sexual abuse by people in positions of authority, and was silenced for speaking out.

I've had guns my whole life, and I see them as a means for survival, not just for protection from threats, but also to provide for us through hunting.

People who have ALWAYS bought food from a supermarket and tell rural Americans to just use bows to hunt.... they have no idea how ignorant and disgusting they are. as if somebody should be forced to provide for their family with an inferior and more difficult tool, just because it makes city people uncomfortable.

People who fear guns are the ones who have experienced the least amount of violence. They'll wish they had a gun when they need it.

 your next comment spoke of the left not having the time to squabble over leftist values..  since the main thing I mentioned in that was racial justice unsure what other "value" you were referring to the left squabbling over

I said "values" that is plural, meaning many.
You said "value" which is singular, and you incorrectly believe that I'm singling out racial justice as irrelevant or some stupid nonsense.

You bring up points that I debunked and repeat the same argument on nonstop, it's super obnoxious, like you can't read, or you refuse to accept an argument that does not cater to you.

I'm not sure how I can be more clear to you, that when I say we should stop fighting, i'm talking about literally this, what we are doing right now, this moment, in these comments, on deviant art.
This is bullshit.

You and me both could be out their challenging and criticizing Fascists and Nazi's, people who don't hold the same values as us.
But instead we are """squabbling""" over the best way to achieve the same thing.

I believe in racial justice.

You believe in racial justice.

Yet we are fighting with each other. The far right does not have this infighting. They all just get in line and follow each other. The right doesn't argue among themselves because they recognize us as their common enemy.
I acknowledge that I'm part of the problem because I'm engaging in it, but I'm at least aware. You don't seem to be aware or unwilling to accept that we are both not doing anything for our cause by bickering.

shakes head.. talk about reaching

for fucks sake, spare me.

Now if they are calling for violence, arrest em as that is a crime.

I think fascism is by default calling for violence. racism is an indirect threat of violence in the future.

Communism then installed a central planning community as the go between between these communities and the global market.

and it resulted in failure and oppression.
if you take the authority away from people, then they will be less likely to oppress others, that much is simple.

52% of the country makes less than 32K a year they sadly cannot afford to leave a job just because they do not like it because they have mouths to feed.

Yeah I didn't forget about them, i said it in my main comment. form a group, find other people who have similar views and opinions, form your own community and refuse to work for the person oppressing you.
a community of 50-100 people can sustain themselves for long enough to hurt the profit of a business, and hopefully the business will renegotiate terms.

Strikes, Unions, and refusing to work.

they should seek a better job  or look for something better.

This is naive, ignorant, and offensive. You're assuming a better job exists. You're assuming the person is mentally capable of working a more advanced or complicated job.
You're assuming the person has the means to seek out this job or be hired for it.
a lot of people don't.

people are held hostage by their employees because they often have nothing else, and nowhere else to go.
I'm one of those people, stuck in a small town, and I hate every business here, I have no option but to work somewhere I don't like or else I can't support myself and live. none of the jobs i can get are going to offer me the pay i think i deserve, and I'm not skilled or intelligent enough to be a programmer.

many of these places discourage unionization and will outright fire people who consider a union.

I imagine you will allow more than one candidate to run for an office and as such there would be no 100% chance of them winning

perfect system.
direct democracy, no electoral college or republic nonsense. whoever gets the most votes wins.

publicly funded elections only. No corporate money (Violation will result in prison time and banning from future elections)
No lobbying or else prison.

The candidates will be evaluated on their job at the end of their presidency.
If the candidate improve the country or it stayed the same, then they pass.
If the country was made worse by their actions (not random disasters of course) then they fail.

If a president has failed, and in some way reduced the freedom or made the standard of living worse for anybody, then he serves a short prison sentence, and is never allowed to hold a public office again.

anybody who voted for him should be banned from voting for at least 99 years.

We need a democracy that PUNISHES voters for not voting for the correct candidate.
It needs to be made clear that voting is an important right in America and it's not taken lightly.
people will need to take time to really think about who they vote for.

Ignorant, uneducated, malicious voters are one of the main reasons America is such a terrible awful place. The blame lies on the American people.

Nice try, though.. [Before that,  I actually enjoyed your overall comment.. no name calling, kept to policies and tactics.. ]

Yet you still found a way to slip in a comment about me being juvenile. way to go.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-11-23 12:08:55 +0000 UTC]

[[[Once again, I will try to be as concise as possible to wrap this up before tomorrow night, as after that I will be off for almost a month at least]]

"You just couldn't help yourself huh? Had to slip that in there.

Just further attempting to instigate hostility with passive aggressive comments."

Not at all, simply saying I reply to every part of your comment

"Yeah it is misrepresenting me, because you're using my white privilege to criticize me for an opinion I don't even have.
You're literally just making shit up about my opinions, and you keep saying the same lie over and over.

I'm not going to eat up your horse shit because you say it a whole lot, make a new point.":

Incorrect, I disagreed with your methodology, that was separate from the issue of White privilege with respect to the argument in of itself.

"I'm having difficulties finding the areas of these studies where people of the same economic background are being sentenced more harshly.
What I'm seeing is on average black males are charged more harshly, however it also states that black males are more likely to be in poverty and stay in poverty.

and since poverty has a direct link with criminal behavior, I think it's fair to assume that more impoverished black males = more criminals."

That is not what the studies concluded, they looked at those charged with the same crimes and saw the difference in sentencing on average between Whites and Blacks, even looking at economic situations in the last three studies, as well as the Michelle Alexander book I believe I either referenced here or on the other post since we are talking about the same thing on both post so cannot remember where I referenced that book which looked at economic as well as crime.

"The problem is wealth distribution. I don't think the sentencing is the racial component but rather the wealth inequality is the reasoning for these sentencing disparities."

I would disagree since even when looking at similar economic backgrounds you see the disparity in sentencing between the races.

"lets do a thought experiment and assume for a moment that perhaps the police, or the judges were targeting black males based on skin color, and not economic status alone.
What laws would you invoke or propose to eliminate this situation?

"If a black male commits a violent crime, you can't just let them out to equalize the statistics.
How would you remove a biased judge?
What can you do about police who hold absolute power and authority?"

 - No one said if a Black male commits a crime you let them out to equalize the stats, what we do say is if that Black male commits a violent crime that they should not get on average around 15-20% more time than their White counterparts

- In Several states judges have had their records reviewed when it was shown their sentencing practices appeared to have a racial bias.

- With respect to the 3, I do not believe any group has absolute power or authority, some are given more leeway than others, in the case of police, a CRB often is easier to remove them than a departmental review.

"if you eliminate racism completely, what will you do when black men are found to be committing more crime than white men? due to poverty."

This is America, we will never get rid of racism completely. Though the issue is not crime, the issue is sentencing. Anyone who breaks the law, if it is an imprisoning offense should be sent to prison, that does not mean that one group should be sentenced to longer time than another group based solely on their race

"The actual problem, in my humble opinion, is wealth inequality.
Wealth inequality that seems to disproportionately affect black people, but in my opinion I don't think the cause is contemporary racism, but rather it's a product of previous generations.
Wealth is accumulated through property assets, and for the majority of American history, Black people weren't allowed to own property or generate wealth for themselves.

to put it simply my solution is reparations and social services to reduce crime at the lowest economic level.""

You asked for the Data, the data was provided, several hundred pages so I did not expect you to read though em all, but within those they addressed what you asked for, the racial disparity in sentencing, even accounting for economic similar backgrounds of the defendant.

Yes, I said wealth/class is a problem, but even within that is a racial issue within the class issues.

- - depending on your exact reparations plan I may agree or not.

"as i have said many times that the other shouldn't have to wait. and you intentionally ignore me every time i say it, which has probably been about 10 times.

But I'm willing to be honest in my bias, that I do belief that class struggle is a bigger issue because it's the reason for race struggle, in my opinion systemic racism is a symptom of wealth inequality. If not then the truth would be that racism has no reason and that there is no way to actually stop people from being racist.
I like to believe that there are solutions.

The problem with focusing on racial justice over class justice, is that racial justice only benefits the one race your fighting for.
Where as class justice benefits ALL races and ALL people, while simultaneously supporting racial equality.
Marching in the streets for black rights does not appeal to white people as much because it doesn't benefit them.
Marching in the streets for income equality can get all races involved and working together against their common enemy, and sow the seeds of support for issues like more focused and direct racial justice.

Nobody has to wait though, you need to stop making my argument for me constantly, it's really fucking obnoxious of you.
The issues that need to be addressed now, are to be addressed now, like our border crisis, foreign wars, healthcare, prison reform.
I just thinks it's battle to tackle these issues from a mind set that benefits and encourages everybody."

I did not say focus on one "over" the other, I said that within that class issue, there is still a racial disparity among similar economic classes, at which will not just go away when you address the economic component. I am not speaking just of prison reform, or justice reform, even in healthcare reform the level of care and pain medications several studies have shown has a racial disparity, my view is all of these things must be addressed and not in an orderly fashion, though with an entire movement at which different components addressing different aspects of the fight with the eventual goal being something resembling equity, since I do not think we will be "equal" in the dictionary sense of the word.

"I made it clear that there was a middle ground, go re-read my post or i'll just sum it up for you.
moderate / centrists are the middle ground.
The entire system is a middle ground basically because as i said: it's a SPECTRUM."

<-------------------->
You can be anywhere on this spectrum, in the middle, to the left, to the right, in the middle of the right, in the middle of the left, in between them and so on.

But if you lean to far one way then you move further from the other.
if you're racist you can't be a leftist, it's antithetical to egalitarianism.

You can be right leaning without being racist, it depends on your beliefs.

from my opinion, neo-liberals are moderate / right leaning centrists.
social democrats are mid left.

the deeper left is socialism, then communism and Anarchy.

Being right leaning means you lean towards fascism, but is does not mean you are like goosestepping in the streets lol
A mid right would be like your generic every day conservative, and deep right would be nazis, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists, Islamic extremists.
and tankies, who are authoritarian fascist communists."

I Was addressing the "it's simple" portion where right was automatically equated with fascism, and left with egalitarian. The comment portion that followed that did not leave much room for an actual middle ground. In this comment you have expanded your answer to include a wide array, in that first comment, well the comment of the poles this clarification was not evident. so on this comment, thanks for expanding on your previous comment.

"I'll address it briefly. The people who hate guns are the people who are comfortable and safe with their existence right now.
Rich people and privileged middle class people who fear violence because it will disrupt their carefree life.

The Rich does not want the poor to be armed, that much is clear.

Here's my anecdotal story: I grew up extremely poor in rural America. I couldn't get an education, I've went hungry, I've seen violence and desperation up close and it's ugly, I've seen white police officers harass and humiliate poor white people and black people.
I've witnessed sexual abuse by people in positions of authority, and was silenced for speaking out.

I've had guns my whole life, and I see them as a means for survival, not just for protection from threats, but also to provide for us through hunting.

People who have ALWAYS bought food from a supermarket and tell rural Americans to just use bows to hunt.... they have no idea how ignorant and disgusting they are. as if somebody should be forced to provide for their family with an inferior and more difficult tool, just because it makes city people uncomfortable.

People who fear guns are the ones who have experienced the least amount of violence. They'll wish they had a gun when they need it."

For me it depends on the reason behind their "hate".. I can see, as I am sure you can, how a parent who losing their child to gun violence would grow to hate guns.. as we see those parents from Sandy Hook going around the country trying to, not ban guns, but pass some stricter regulations, many of which I do not agree with.

But besides a tragic connection, they [liberals] live in places with already strict gun laws so they see where they are as right.

They can try and take em, there are more poor folks with firearms so that would not be a easy fight.

I grew up in the city, but my USMC father and his family are pretty much all military started teaching all of his kids to shoot at the age of six, I have been on many shooting ranges, my personal favorites are in Texas where my uncle live because they are far less restrictive on what you can shoot comparative to ranges here in the city. Personally, with respect to your use of hunting.. on my page in the info I have "3F-H-S" Which is also the tattoo I have across my my pointer-middle -ring and pinky finger.. for me that means everything that every person should learn, Fish, Farm, fight - Hunt - survive.. so I tend to be against any gun and ammo bans because, only 0.2% of people with guns will shoot themselves or someone else so blaming the 99.8% who will harm no one never makes much sense

Note: the 0.2% comes from CNN saying 1/4 of Americans own guns so 320M people in America, 80 Million gun owners.. around 130K people are shot a year, 22K of those are suicide/self inflicted so that is where I took the 0.2%.. though technically 0.2% would be 160K but easier to round that than typing 0.17

... rambled again.. so you do not have to address most of that as I am trying to see if this can be wrapped up before tomorrow night so you do not have to wait a month before the next reply and then a month between replies

"I said "values" that is plural, meaning many.
You said "value" which is singular, and you incorrectly believe that I'm singling out racial justice as irrelevant or some stupid nonsense.

You bring up points that I debunked and repeat the same argument on nonstop, it's super obnoxious, like you can't read, or you refuse to accept an argument that does not cater to you.

I'm not sure how I can be more clear to you, that when I say we should stop fighting, i'm talking about literally this, what we are doing right now, this moment, in these comments, on deviant art.
This is bullshit.

You and me both could be out their challenging and criticizing Fascists and Nazi's, people who don't hold the same values as us.
But instead we are """squabbling""" over the best way to achieve the same thing.

I believe in racial justice.

You believe in racial justice.

Yet we are fighting with each other. The far right does not have this infighting. They all just get in line and follow each other. The right doesn't argue among themselves because they recognize us as their common enemy.
I acknowledge that I'm part of the problem because I'm engaging in it, but I'm at least aware. You don't seem to be aware or unwilling to accept that we are both not doing anything for our cause by bickering."

I was more so speaking to the when the main thing in that comment was about race, and the reply is about the left does not have time to squabble over values.. you can then see how someone would think that is what you were speaking of since that is the only thing replied to - -but since you were not quoting the text like now you could have been addressing something else but that was not clear.

"for fucks sake, spare me."

hm

"I think fascism is by default calling for violence. racism is an indirect threat of violence in the future."

It isn't though, like many political ideologies depends on the school of fascism.. Mussolini said fascism could best be described as corporatism because it is a merger of corporation and State.. some American fascist believe in a strong central leader, corporation with few regulations etc without outright calling for genocides etc.. now other schools believe in the Nazi style fascism of kill this or that group that does not fit our agenda etc

I think, if they are calling for violence then arrest em.. I do not want the European laws with respect to, in a few of the countries declaring yourself a fascist could get you fined.. eh

"and it resulted in failure and oppression.
if you take the authority away from people, then they will be less likely to oppress others, that much is simple."

The issue with Communism was less the central planning committee (community was supposed to be committee in my comment ..central planning committee.) But the oppression

I honestly think Communism would not have had as bad as a name if Trotsky had taken over after Lenin as Lenin wanted.. instead Stalin made deals with generals and bribed them with a lot of land and money so they would vote for him instead of Trotsky.. Trotsky was much more of a listen to the people and called out Stalin for years.. before Stalin sent thugs to track him down in Mexico and murder him

52% of the country makes less than 32K a year they sadly cannot afford to leave a job just because they do not like it because they have mouths to feed.

"Yeah I didn't forget about them, i said it in my main comment. form a group, find other people who have similar views and opinions, form your own community and refuse to work for the person oppressing you.
a community of 50-100 people can sustain themselves for long enough to hurt the profit of a business, and hopefully the business will renegotiate terms.

Strikes, Unions, and refusing to work."

I agree with the striking and unionizing, collective works since if is it just 50-100 in a company of thousands.. and they are not organized that company will just fire them and hire scabs.

they should seek a better job  or look for something better.

"This is naive, ignorant, and offensive. You're assuming a better job exists. You're assuming the person is mentally capable of working a more advanced or complicated job.
You're assuming the person has the means to seek out this job or be hired for it.
a lot of people don't."

That is neither naive, ignorant or offensive, I said seek, whether or not they will find is another matter but it is neither naive, ignorant or offensive to say if you are unhappy in your current job then try to find one at which you would be happier or more appreciated at. Are you assuming  a person is incapable of working a more advanced or complicated job? every situation is different and with most people having access to the internet or cellular phones, nowadays you [not you as in you] can place your resume on job sites and try to find a more satisfactory job.

"people are held hostage by their employees because they often have nothing else, and nowhere else to go.
I'm one of those people, stuck in a small town, and I hate every business here, I have no option but to work somewhere I don't like or else I can't support myself and live. none of the jobs i can get are going to offer me the pay i think i deserve, and I'm not skilled or intelligent enough to be a programmer.

I am speaking of people in general, if anyone is unhappy in their current job, they can look for another, not speaking of quiting current until/in case they do/donot find a new on.

"many of these places discourage unionization and will outright fire people who consider a union."

That is why NYC has no walmarts.. Walmarts have been trying to get into NYC for decades but NYC has labor laws that says if you employ more than 50 people they have a right to unionize and Walmart wants a waiver for the labor laws.. so far they have not been bale to get it... so far.

I imagine you will allow more than one candidate to run for an office and as such there would be no 100% chance of them winning

"perfect system.
direct democracy, no electoral college or republic nonsense. whoever gets the most votes wins.

publicly funded elections only. No corporate money (Violation will result in prison time and banning from future elections)
No lobbying or else prison.

The candidates will be evaluated on their job at the end of their presidency.
If the candidate improve the country or it stayed the same, then they pass.
If the country was made worse by their actions (not random disasters of course) then they fail.

If a president has failed, and in some way reduced the freedom or made the standard of living worse for anybody, then he serves a short prison sentence, and is never allowed to hold a public office again.

Yes, I said the person with the most votes should win the presidency several times, but you kept saying democracy is a failed concept.  but okay, I agree, as I said with the person with the most votes should win aka direct democracy.

" anybody who voted for him should be banned from voting for at least 99 years.

We need a democracy that PUNISHES voters for not voting for the correct candidate.
It needs to be made clear that voting is an important right in America and it's not taken lightly.
people will need to take time to really think about who they vote for.

Ignorant, uneducated, malicious voters are one of the main reasons America is such a terrible awful place. The blame lies on the American people.":

100% NO. Banning someone from voting for life because 1 president they voted for failed..

I am seriously saying PLEASE do not say I did not say life I said 99 years.. since we start voting at 18 .. any "99 year" voting ban would be the rest of their life.

"correct candidate"... that is for them to decide, to vote for who they think will be the best candidate. so I will pass on any voting bans.. no thanks, I have seen the history of this country when you stop whole swaths of people from voting. I admit I am of the view even prisoners and felons should be able to vote.

Sadly Americans do not learn much about their actions.. the media does not report our mass slaughtering of folks around the world..

"Yet you still found a way to slip in a comment about me being juvenile. way to go."

I did not say you were juvenile in that comment, I literally said I enjoyed your comment, no name calling and kept it on policies and tactics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-11-25 03:58:26 +0000 UTC]

Incorrect, I disagreed with your methodology, that was separate from the issue of White privilege with respect to the argument in of itself.

The root of your criticism seems to be that because I'm white, I can't see it a certain way and therefore my methodology is ignorant or not working in some way.
My methodology isn't even really a problem when you actually listen to what I have to say instead of dismissing me outright for being white.
You'll need to reread it is all i have to say because you need to make a different argument or come to a different conclusion, because your arguments are basically strawmanning my opinion.

That is not what the studies concluded, they looked at those charged with the same crimes and saw the difference in sentencing on average between Whites and Blacks

is it not accounting for prior convictions? which can influence sentencing.

I would disagree since even when looking at similar economic backgrounds you see the disparity in sentencing between the races.

most of these studies don't seem to focus on economic backgrounds, but rather just disparity in general.
You need:
-Same economic background
-Same crime
-Same prior convictions or none at all

They don't seem to track the variables needed to determine if it's racial or economic in general.
I'm sure the disparity among millionaires and poor people charged for the same crime, is a much much much larger gap, regardless of race.

 - No one said if a Black male commits a crime you let them out to equalize the stats, what we do say is if that Black male commits a violent crime that they should not get on average around 15-20% more time than their White counterparts

Then what do you propose to do about it? What law? What change?
Do you want to give white people 15-20% more time? or reduce each black persons sentence by 15-20% regardless of the crime?
What about people who receive multiple life sentences, how do they factor into the averages?

- In Several states judges have had their records reviewed when it was shown their sentencing practices appeared to have a racial bias.

So what is your solution?
Fire them?
Remove them by force?
What law would you peacefully invoke to make change?
What do you honestly think you can do about it?

This is America, we will never get rid of racism completely.

That's a really defeatist attitude with unsettling connotations.

 that does not mean that one group should be sentenced to longer time than another group based solely on their race

But that's not what is happening. you have only showed that there is a trend of higher sentences for one race. but you haven't shown where each individual judge is outright charging people more on the basis of skin color.
You haven't given a solutions...

depending on your exact reparations plan I may agree or not.

My solution doesn't involve making white people give money to black people, nobody would get on board with that. And it's not legal either.

a small portion of tax dollars should go to repairing and providing aid to low income neighborhoods. education funding, welfare, such like that.

there is still a racial disparity among similar economic classes, at which will not just go away when you address the economic component.

I believe it will, so I disagree heavily.

since I do not think we will be "equal" in the dictionary sense of the word.

Does that make you a racist then? if you think one group will always be superior over another?

right was automatically equated with fascism, and left with egalitarian.

Yes in my opinion that right is define by how close to fascism they become, and the left is defined by how close to egalitarianism they become.
The more egalitarian you are, the farther left you are.
The more fascist you lean, the father right you are.

A regular conservative is not a fascist, but they lean more towards fascism, than a liberal.

I was more so speaking to the when the main thing in that comment was about race, and the reply is about the left does not have time to squabble over values..

if you are incapable of understanding then so be it. I've explained it many times.

I'll try to convey my point with a little play:

Norwegian: Oh my God! That Nazi is running around stabbing Jewish people! We should stop him!
American: I agree with you completely! That Nazi is doing something wrong, and we should execute him for his crimes!
Norwegian: Now wait a minute, we shouldn't execute him, then we would be just as bad. a life sentence would be far more appropriate.
American: We don't have time to squabble over values.

*The Nazi continues to stab people and run amok while they argue about what to do with him*

I said seek, whether or not they will find is another matter but it is neither naive, ignorant or offensive to say if you are unhappy in your current job then try to find one at which you would be happier or more appreciated

Well what if they seek and don't find one then?
You don't elaborate or expand upon anything you say, it's infuriating.

When they are stuck in a dead end job, and they are unhappy, and they SEEK a better job, but can't find a better job. Then what? They just do nothing? be miserable?
No fuck the system, tear is down, kill the capitalists, cut their fucking heads off fuck.

The means of production belong to the workers, not the rich. Fuck the rich.

That is why NYC has no walmarts

Fuck wal-mart the whole country needs unions for every business. 
All companies should be owned by the workers, not a select group at the top.

but okay, I agree, as I said with the person with the most votes should win aka direct democracy.

Then you're halfway there.

The next step is realizing that the person with the most votes is not always the best candidate.
even if it's my fucking guy okay, get it? understand?

You're such a stickler you can't understand basic concepts. What if an Evil person gets the most votes? What if a Nazi gets the most votes?
Then Democracy fails you.

Democracy is not just automatically good, democracy can be really bad for a nation. The majority (the 51%) can be tyrannical towards and oppress the minority.

Do you understand that? Can you tell me that you understand how democracy is bad sometimes?

Hillary got the most votes, so in a democracy she would win.
Well what do you get with a Hillary Clinton presidency? Dog shit.

 that is for them to decide, to vote for who they think will be the best candidate. so I will pass on any voting bans.. no thanks

I don't see how banning racists from voting could lead to anything but positive results.

Sadly Americans do not learn much about their actions.. the media does not report our mass slaughtering of folks around the world..

and yet you think they should get to decide who rules the country?
They are clearly idiots who can't think correctly or make good decisions, why let them make choices that affect me?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-12-25 16:00:22 +0000 UTC]

As stated previously that I would be gone a month for work, so I am free until around the 3rd of January then will be off again for about 2-3 weeks.

I will try to be concise and wrap this up by then because I do not want this going on forever.

"The root of your criticism seems to be that because I'm white, I can't see it a certain way and therefore my methodology is ignorant or not working in some way.
My methodology isn't even really a problem when you actually listen to what I have to say instead of dismissing me outright for being white.
You'll need to reread it is all i have to say because you need to make a different argument or come to a different conclusion, because your arguments are basically strawmanning my opinion."

Nowhere in my statement did I say because you are white you cannot see a certain way ... nor did I dismiss what you said because you are White.

if you read anything I said, I disagreed with your methodology, and nowhere in there was the reason stated for my disagreeing with the method was because of your race.

"is it not accounting for prior convictions? which can influence sentencing."

They did look at even those with similar prior convictions...

"most of these studies don't seem to focus on economic backgrounds, but rather just disparity in general.
You need:
-Same economic background
-Same crime
-Same prior convictions or none at all"

One of the studies linked, albeit was a few hundred pages and I did not expect you to read it, but in the citations part of  it specifically looked at similar backgrounds, crimes and prior convictions as well as those with no prior history of convictions... It is also what specifically Michelle Alexander's book the New Jim Crow focused on which I Referenced earlier.

"They don't seem to track the variables needed to determine if it's racial or economic in general.
I'm sure the disparity among millionaires and poor people charged for the same crime, is a much much much larger gap, regardless of race."

Except that they did..

"Then what do you propose to do about it? What law? What change?
Do you want to give white people 15-20% more time? or reduce each black persons sentence by 15-20% regardless of the crime?
What about people who receive multiple life sentences, how do they factor into the averages?"

There is no law to stop subtle racism, because as the studies show those judges are not generally doing it to be malicious or looking at the defendant and saying because you are Black I am giving you X.. but as the studies show and as the police study linked earlier showed.. it is just a presumption that the Black individual is more dangerous and thus leads to them being given longer sentences on average.

But what we can do is bring attention to, and then some judges may wonder the reason if they ever looked back on their cases why this defendant got far more crime.

the study also looked at life sentences only in relation to if one group say were given life sentences at higher rates for this or that crime comparative to others, as well as the three strikes statute

"So what is your solution?
Fire them?
Remove them by force?
What law would you peacefully invoke to make change?
What do you honestly think you can do about it?"

My solution would be for the judicial reviews to occur instead just when something happens, have it happen every so often, be it every 2 years... 5 years .. most judges never go under review since this is usually governed by the State.. some states have it you go under review every X years, but most states have no such rule as such their cases are only ever review when a gross injustice is done and a review of their cases are ordered.

There are already laws on the books in several states, these laws should pass in all states, but most politicians do not think about judicial review when drafting their laws regarding their judicial appointments or elections.

You do not have to remove em by force, a judge has to have a law license, their license to operate can be revoked, and thus they lose their position without the need of force.

"That's a really defeatist attitude with unsettling connotations."

I do not think it is a defeatist attitude, I do not think a land founded on genocide and built by slavery will every rid its self completely of racism. As in not a single person is racist.

"But that's not what is happening. you have only showed that there is a trend of higher sentences for one race. but you haven't shown where each individual judge is outright charging people more on the basis of skin color.
You haven't given a solutions..."

That is literally what is happening, that they looked at many factors, the main factor is racial disparity on those sentence disparities.

I have given several things I would like to see happen, but I am not an elected official and as such can only contact my elected official, which I do quite often while working locally with several political groups and the ACLU to make the law more fair and just/

"My solution doesn't involve making white people give money to black people, nobody would get on board with that. And it's not legal either.

a small portion of tax dollars should go to repairing and providing aid to low income neighborhoods. education funding, welfare, such like that."

I've no issue with that, as long as it is a clean bill.

"I believe it will, so I disagree heavily."

That's fine, but the idea if there is an even playing field economically that they would just eradicate racism, I disagree so we will have to agree to disagree on that

"Does that make you a racist then? if you think one group will always be superior over another?"

So you remove the the majority of the sentence and that is what you got from that.. shakes head.

"Yes in my opinion that right is define by how close to fascism they become, and the left is defined by how close to egalitarianism they become.
The more egalitarian you are, the farther left you are.
The more fascist you lean, the father right you are.

A regular conservative is not a fascist, but they lean more towards fascism, than a liberal."

That is based on the British parliament view of left and right generally of which I am of the view extremes of right or left are bad.. vs just extreme right is bad and the further left is more egalitarian of which the extreme left can also lead to some terrible outcomes for the people

"if you are incapable of understanding then so be it. I've explained it many times.

I'll try to convey my point with a little play:

Norwegian: Oh my God! That Nazi is running around stabbing Jewish people! We should stop him!
American: I agree with you completely! That Nazi is doing something wrong, and we should execute him for his crimes!
Norwegian: Now wait a minute, we shouldn't execute him, then we would be just as bad. a life sentence would be far more appropriate.
American: We don't have time to squabble over values.

*The Nazi continues to stab people and run amok while they argue about what to do with him*"

I Disagreed with your premise, it is not about my not understanding it, it is about my disagreeing with it. I have said that several times and seems you are unable or unwilling to grasp that.

"Well what if they seek and don't find one then?
You don't elaborate or expand upon anything you say, it's infuriating.

When they are stuck in a dead end job, and they are unhappy, and they SEEK a better job, but can't find a better job. Then what? They just do nothing? be miserable?
No fuck the system, tear is down, kill the capitalists, cut their fucking heads off fuck.

The means of production belong to the workers, not the rich. Fuck the rich."

Then you work your current job, while still seeking. There are many factors to this, such as if you live in a small town your prospects may be more limited than someone who lives in a big city with respect to finding a new job.

yeah, because killing the capitalists will greatly increase your job prospects from a prison cell..

That is why NYC has no walmarts

"Fuck wal-mart the whole country needs unions for every business. 
All companies should be owned by the workers, not a select group at the top."

I would agree with unionization, I would disagree that all companies should be owned by workers. My general view is as long as you are treating your workers with dignity, as in fair pay, benefits etc then I have no issue with a privately owned company. I own my own company but I ensure my few permanent workers, as well as those I bring on for larger jobs are more than compensated for their labor. Though for large companies, I do like the German model where  1/3 of the board seats must be chosen by the workers.

"Then you're halfway there.

The next step is realizing that the person with the most votes is not always the best candidate.
even if it's my fucking guy okay, get it? understand?

You're such a stickler you can't understand basic concepts. What if an Evil person gets the most votes? What if a Nazi gets the most votes?
Then Democracy fails you.

Democracy is not just automatically good, democracy can be really bad for a nation. The majority (the 51%) can be tyrannical towards and oppress the minority.

Do you understand that? Can you tell me that you understand how democracy is bad sometimes?

Hillary got the most votes, so in a democracy she would win.
Well what do you get with a Hillary Clinton presidency? Dog shit."

Nowhere did I say the person with the most votes will be the best candidate, but in a democracy, you chose a system, which would generally work better for the voters, a system where their votes actually matter is the best system. As such a system where the person who gets the most votes, and wins would be a far better system than the slave origins electoral college system we have now.

You operate under a view that the person who gets the most votes will then be able to just do anything.. and that the balance of powers does not exist.

Nowhere in my premise did I say Democracy is perfect... seems you are setting forth a premise and attacking your own premise since most of that ^^ is not actually replying to a premise I set.. you are setting up your own premises, and then addressing em

"I don't see how banning racists from voting could lead to anything but positive results."

Who defines that? Who is the one picking who will and will not be able to vote?

I am generally of a view that all citizens, at least 18 (though I know there are some who say the age should be lowered to 16 but that is not currently the minimum age)  should be able to vote, every race, religion, incarcerated and not.

"and yet you think they should get to decide who rules the country?"
show me where I Said that.. I didn't

"They are clearly idiots who can't think correctly or make good decisions, why let them make choices that affect me?"

I tend to find to learn what America does you have to look at foreign news outlets .. most stations in America on network TV and other platforms are pulling for a team..  very few are actual journalist who are not rah rah Team Dem or Rep.. and just report the facts without a motive

As stated, I tried to be concise and will try to be more so in my reply to try and wrap this up before January 3rd since I have another big job and do not want to come back every few weeks to reply

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-12-25 17:16:24 +0000 UTC]

That is based on the British parliament view of left and right generally of which I am of the view extremes of right or left are bad.. vs just extreme right is bad and the further left is more egalitarian of which the extreme left can also lead to some terrible outcomes for the people

I disagree, I think extremes can be good or bad. I'm a leftist, so i believe the left is the moral and practical side. If you are against the far left, then you are in essence helping the far right nazis. It's a war of ideologies, and sitting in the middle only benefits Nazi's.

I Disagreed with your premise, it is not about my not understanding it, it is about my disagreeing with it. I have said that several times and seems you are unable or unwilling to grasp that.

You did not at first. you simply didn't understand it. 
If you disagree with my premise, then your opinion is that people should argue instead of take action. YOUR opinion is that we should allow a nazi to run around stabbing people and do nothing about it while we argue.
Your side, your opinion, sitting in the middle, doing nothing. You are part of the problem in my opinion, people like you are why nothing gets done, you would rather talk about Nazi's than join the far left who wishes to stop them.

People like you would condemn Anti-Fascist groups for being to aggressive. 
But you would allow for fascists to exist and poison the well.

but in a democracy, you chose a system, which would generally work better for the voters, a system where their votes actually matter is the best system.

I didn't choose democracy, it was forced upon me. and My vote doesn't matter. the Electoral college negates leftists in Ohio. My vote is worthless.
I was born into democracy, i had no choice.

I'm replying directly to you, I'm not attacking my own premise.

you chose a system, which would generally work better for the voters, a system where their votes actually matter is the best system. As such a system where the person who gets the most votes, and wins would be a far better system

^^^ These are your words. You said this to me.

I disagree with all of it.

1. I didn't chose democracy, a democracy that for most of my countries history women were now allowed to participate in. I'm glad women have a choice now, but it's clear that in a winner take all system like this, our choice still doesn't matter.

2. The System clearly doesn't work better for the voters, The VOTERS can pick BAD / CORRUPT people, and they do regularly. They also vote for racists. So clearly voting is not beneficial.

3. A System where racists and billionaires get the most votes and therefore win? If that is true democracy, then I don't want it. it's just as bad as a dictatorship because it leaves everybody else to get fucked.


Not everybody should get to vote plain and simple, because they vote incorrectly, and that incorrect vote is the reason democracy is failing and destroying our nation. We cannot have corruption, it is destroying America. And the VOTERS are the real problem. Idiot, uneducated worthless dumbass poor people who vote wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-12-26 12:55:19 +0000 UTC]

"I disagree, I think extremes can be good or bad. I'm a leftist, so i believe the left is the moral and practical side. If you are against the far left, then you are in essence helping the far right nazis. It's a war of ideologies, and sitting in the middle only benefits Nazi's."

Yet the far left has also mass slaughtered people in the name of their ideology... extremes are rarely good, be it the far extremities of Fascists or communists which may kill groups that do not fit into their world view.. in some cases religion or just those who speak against their extremities.. as Stalin ordering the killing of Trotsky.

"You did not at first. you simply didn't understand it. 
If you disagree with my premise, then your opinion is that people should argue instead of take action. YOUR opinion is that we should allow a nazi to run around stabbing people and do nothing about it while we argue.
Your side, your opinion, sitting in the middle, doing nothing. You are part of the problem in my opinion, people like you are why nothing gets done, you would rather talk about Nazi's than join the far left who wishes to stop them.

People like you would condemn Anti-Fascist groups for being to aggressive. 

But you would allow for fascists to exist and poison the well."

From the start I disagreed, you kept saying my disagreement was because I did not understand.. I have understood and disagreed with it. ... Where did I say we should allow Nazis to run around stabbing people? that is the most full of it statement you have made thus far.... the rest of that statement continued on the full of nonsense statement.

"I didn't choose democracy, it was forced upon me. and My vote doesn't matter. the Electoral college negates leftists in Ohio. My vote is worthless.
I was born into democracy, i had no choice.

I'm replying directly to you, I'm not attacking my own premise."

I did not think I had to clarify that "you" meant society.. I guess I did have to clarify...

you chose a system, which would generally work better for the voters, a system where their votes actually matter is the best system. As such a system where the person who gets the most votes, and wins would be a far better system

"^^^ These are your words. You said this to me.

I disagree with all of it.

1. I didn't chose democracy, a democracy that for most of my countries history women were now allowed to participate in. I'm glad women have a choice now, but it's clear that in a winner take all system like this, our choice still doesn't matter.

2. The System clearly doesn't work better for the voters, The VOTERS can pick BAD / CORRUPT people, and they do regularly. They also vote for racists. So clearly voting is not beneficial.

3. A System where racists and billionaires get the most votes and therefore win? If that is true democracy, then I don't want it. it's just as bad as a dictatorship because it leaves everybody else to get fucked."

1- ... as stated, I did not think I had to clarify that you meant society.. not you as an individual

2. the electoral system is a terrible system, it should be abolished but smaller states will never vote it away. A compromise would be to allocate the votes proportionately which would make it fairer than what it currently is.

3. Billionaires get the most influence, they have one vote. Though will America join other industrial nations and removing money from their politics and having fully public elections, we shall see.

"Not everybody should get to vote plain and simple, because they vote incorrectly, and that incorrect vote is the reason democracy is failing and destroying our nation. We cannot have corruption, it is destroying America. And the VOTERS are the real problem. Idiot, uneducated worthless dumbass poor people who vote wrong."

I disagree, but I am looking at it from the perspective as a group that were denied the right for so long.  I do not trust the government so much to trust their hand on determining who should be allowed to vote.

This was far shorter, maybe we will wrap this before the new year.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-12-29 08:28:36 +0000 UTC]

"a system where their votes actually matter is the best system. As such a system where the person who gets the most votes, and wins would be a far better system"

Based upon absolutely nothing.

Democracy sounds nice, but it's actually garbage. if your voters are ignorant, stupid, naive, and malicious, then NO a system where votes actually matter is not ideal.

Why don't you understand that democracy is only as good as it's majority. If the majority of your country are malicious assholes, then your democracy is predicated upon Evil, and no longer protects people who serves a greater good. fuck it.
I don't want democracy if Nazi's can vote.

1- ... as stated, I did not think I had to clarify that you meant society.. not you as an individual

Well it's pretty fucking stupid of you to be honest. The word "You" is a personal first person word. it does not mean society as a whole. Why would you think that "You" means society lol? What is wrong with you.
you can't just use words incorrectly then pretend like it's my fault for not being a damn mind reader.

The government already chooses to allow you to vote, but the majority can at any time vote to take it away from you if they so choose. In a democracy your rights can be trampled on by the majority.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2019-12-30 14:28:58 +0000 UTC]

[[I tried to be as concise as possible to hopefully end this before the new year]]

"Based upon absolutely nothing.

Democracy sounds nice, but it's actually garbage. if your voters are ignorant, stupid, naive, and malicious, then NO a system where votes actually matter is not ideal.

Why don't you understand that democracy is only as good as it's majority. If the majority of your country are malicious assholes, then your democracy is predicated upon Evil, and no longer protects people who serves a greater good. fuck it.
I don't want democracy if Nazi's can vote."

based upon history, where only a select elite few had the votes and elected the people.Those people rarely cared of the interest of the citizens because that is not who elected them. Democracy is not a perfect system, I doubt any system is perfect,

But the system where the people actually have a vote in who elects them, is a far better system than one when they have no vote at all.

Though that is why we are constitutional republic and not a pure or simple democracy.

Everyone, citizen, should be able to vote in my view. I do not yet trust the government to list their "undesirables" and yet that is who would be the ones excluding groups from voting.

"Well it's pretty fucking stupid of you to be honest. The word "You" is a personal first person word. it does not mean society as a whole. Why would you think that "You" means society lol? What is wrong with you.
you can't just use words incorrectly then pretend like it's my fault for not being a damn mind reader."

The English language is stupid? Look up the word "you" in any dictionary [the two most used dictionaries in High Schools and colleges are Merriam Webster and Cambridge] but use whichever you wish and you will see it can be used as a singular or plural pronoun, referring to an individual or a group. I used it as a plural pronoun referring to a group aka members of the society. As such the word was not used incorrectly.

"The government already chooses to allow you to vote, but the majority can at any time vote to take it away from you if they so choose. In a democracy your rights can be trampled on by the majority."

Though America is not a simple democracy, we are a democratic republic or a constitutional, where a simple majority must also abide by your protections in your governing document, the U.S.C. so far harder to simply be at the whim of a pure majority no matter what.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fat-Punisher In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-12-31 21:12:43 +0000 UTC]

But the system where the people actually have a vote in who elects them, is a far better system than one when they have no vote at all.

I disagree. A system where Nazi's are the majority vote is Far FAR FAR worse than a system where everyone BUT Nazi's can vote.
I'm a utilitarian and your "principles" are part of the problem.

You quote MLK saying that moderates and liberals are the true obstacle in the way of progress, while you refuse to radicalize. You ARE part of the problem that MLK talked about.
You are the moderate who can't even take a simple stance like "Neo-Nazi's shouldn't run my country."

It's you being spineless, or so idealistic that you can't see the forest for the trees. a System where Nazi's have power is a system that will literally see you fucking hanged, I don't think that every person just has this abstract notion of power, some people don't deserve power if a system is to work.

If Nazi's weren't allowed to vote, we would likely have a different president right this very moment.
Sexist men are a big reason why democracy fails, and why we've had 45 / 45 Male presidents, and why black women have been excluded from congress for so many decades.

I used it as a plural pronoun referring to a group aka members of the society. As such the word was not used incorrectly.

Why can you just admit to being wrong?

When you say "You" to ME you are talking to ME. I am not society as a whole, you are speaking to me and me alone, and using the word YOU.

YOU ARE WRONG. QUIT BEING AN ARGUMENTATIVE KNOW IT ALL CENTRIST JACKASS

("waahhhh I'm going to ignore everything you said because you called me a jackass, i have no real argument so i'll just complain about civility in my reply" -You in the next post for sure)

the U.S.C. so far harder to simply be at the whim of a pure majority no matter what.

The constitution is just a piece of paper. it protects nobody, and it's routinely violated by those with wealth and power.

The only way to protect yourself is to buy a gun, and ensure that you protect yourself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Fat-Punisher [2020-01-02 08:01:10 +0000 UTC]

I, will once again try to be concise since I did not want this dragging into the new year but since we are here I do not want it dragging on forever.

"I disagree. A system where Nazi's are the majority vote is Far FAR FAR worse than a system where everyone BUT Nazi's can vote.

I'm a utilitarian and your "principles" are part of the problem.

You quote MLK saying that moderates and liberals are the true obstacle in the way of progress, while you refuse to radicalize. You ARE part of the problem that MLK talked about.
You are the moderate who can't even take a simple stance like "Neo-Nazi's shouldn't run my country."

It's you being spineless, or so idealistic that you can't see the forest for the trees. a System where Nazi's have power is a system that will literally see you fucking hanged, I don't think that every person just has this abstract notion of power, some people don't deserve power if a system is to work.

If Nazi's weren't allowed to vote, we would likely have a different president right this very moment.
Sexist men are a big reason why democracy fails, and why we've had 45 / 45 Male presidents, and why black women have been excluded from congress for so many decades."

That is the problem, you go straight to NAZI as if there is no grand middle ground between US voters and NAZIs.. 

Well the MLK was with respect to racial issues, he said that the White moderates were a greater stumbling block to Black progress.. he was not simply referring to hm modern view of just moderates and progress [just did not want to misquote him without that context]. So a man who fought for getting everyone the right to vote would have an issue with my saying  there should be few obstacles in making sure every citizen can vote, doubtful.

"Why can you just admit to being wrong?

When you say "You" to ME you are talking to ME. I am not society as a whole, you are speaking to me and me alone, and using the word YOU.

YOU ARE WRONG. QUIT BEING AN ARGUMENTATIVE KNOW IT ALL CENTRIST JACKASS

("waahhhh I'm going to ignore everything you said because you called me a jackass, i have no real argument so i'll just complain about civility in my reply" -You in the next post for sure)" 

How it is it wrong when you can look at the dictionary yourself and see the definition? hmm

Just because you thought it could only be used as a singular pronoun, does not mean that is how I was writing it....

I'll disregard the typical juvenile name calling so will move on.

"The constitution is just a piece of paper. it protects nobody, and it's routinely violated by those with wealth and power.

The only way to protect yourself is to buy a gun, and ensure that you protect yourself."

That does not change the fact that it is more than just a majority means they will get what they want

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Mark570 [2019-06-13 15:07:31 +0000 UTC]

I would disagree, when mixed with authoritirian as it sadly has been under the regimes we called communism then I would agree.. but at its roots of a communalist lifestyle, I do not think it is a total failure. Just that society is too large, and far too varied for that in the modern world.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mark570 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2019-06-15 20:31:33 +0000 UTC]

Communism is DEATH!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Mark570 [2019-06-15 23:51:14 +0000 UTC]

as it has been used in the modern times, I would agree.. as it has strayed far from its communalist origins.. that and is often paired with authoritarianism which is where it often goes wrong

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Bound-to-please [2019-04-06 10:44:20 +0000 UTC]

I personally am no communist, but get called it enough when I advocate for a social democracy as every other industrial nation on earth has.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to TheAugmentedScyther [2018-05-11 13:04:52 +0000 UTC]

Communism's origins comes from communalism . I missed the aspect of, when looking just at the socioeconomic of the ideology at which mass murder was a must.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheAugmentedScyther In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-05-14 01:47:05 +0000 UTC]

Oh, great. You're one of those people... you do realize when the "revolution"/mass murder starts, the "intellectuals" are the first ones to get the bullet, right? Have fun getting sent to a concentration camp along with your family only to be worked to death and then shot in the fucking head when you outlive your usefulness.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to TheAugmentedScyther [2018-05-14 15:35:09 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I am one of those people who understand in the actual sense the Marxian view of socialism has not yet come, .. just because you call yourself a communist or socialism does not mean you allow the workers a voice in their society, nor does it mean that authoritarian type regimes as you saw under Stalin and Mao live up to the nature of their stated goals.

.. nor, does it mean you look at the 21st century understanding of a concept from the 19th century through the same lenses.


"Have fun getting sent to a concentration camp along with your family only to be worked to death and then shot in the fucking head when you outlive your usefulness.
How sweet, thanks.. smh

So, if that will be all?

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to ancylostomiasis [2016-09-16 07:37:37 +0000 UTC]

:thummbsup: That is a nice way of putting it. I do not know about the common man but on the abstract an equal society sounds great in practice eh..

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ancylostomiasis In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-09-17 06:32:39 +0000 UTC]

That Emanon in your username, does it mean anything?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to ancylostomiasis [2016-09-19 00:43:04 +0000 UTC]

not really, just "no name" backwards.. I have gone by Emanon since I was 7 offline and on .. pretty much only family and close friends call me by my  birth name

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ancylostomiasis In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-09-19 01:02:57 +0000 UTC]

OK, just out of curiosity. Sorry to disturb you.

One of my favorite manga did the same trick on its main protagonist and I thought you know about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to ancylostomiasis [2016-09-19 18:39:13 +0000 UTC]

I am unfamiliar with manga. But yeah, back in the days when websites made you put first and last name so I have used Emanon Eranatos as a pseudonym online since I was 7 back in those old AOL chatrooms

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bound-to-please In reply to EdenianPrince [2019-03-28 14:22:46 +0000 UTC]

The same can be said of capitalism. Half the world is starving and yet some are awash with money and resources. This isn't the argument of the "politics of envy" just common human decency. And common sense. If we lift up those on the bottom, then all we have to do is focus on what we want, not what we need. That could include becoming rich, if that is your thing.

I often find it surprising that many of those who come from small towns that pride themselves on their community spirit, hospitality and "neighbourliness" are some of the strongest opposes of more communal political ideas...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to EdenianPrince [2014-12-19 01:36:38 +0000 UTC]

As the artist comments stated, this was based off of what someone called me..an arrogant communism..

I find communism, or its base roots communalism works fine on small scales but as he number of people get larger and larger .. from what I see it tends to work less and less... at least from the large previous communist states that has been in the last century or so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Kevin2097 [2014-08-19 02:04:14 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kevin2097 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2014-08-19 09:07:42 +0000 UTC]

Hmm

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kevin2097 In reply to Vengefulpadre [2014-08-19 01:16:06 +0000 UTC]

And children want freedom against adult domination!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vengefulpadre [2014-07-20 14:08:51 +0000 UTC]

I think, with respect to communism [well certain schools of communism] it can work on smaller scales, given its communalism history - - it can work on small scales but as your population grows, and people in larger and larger groups want different things - it tends not to work with its original intentions on mass groups.

I consider myself a democratic socialist, while there are certain schools of socialism that I may actively oppose such as certain parts of Libertarian socialism and such.. but in general I think most people understand that longevity works best with a sort of mixed market system - there are things that I do not think should be run for profit - health care, education, prison etc... then there are things in which private business should take the lead and not the government.

thanks for the fave.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1