This is why I hate liberals

I don’t want to live in a classless society, but I think there should be a minimum standard of living… a minimum class. Poverty should be illegal. Beyond that, I don’t give a hoot how rich people get or whose throats they cut to get there. I’m not trying to undermine meritocracy or incentives to succeed nor rewards for success. I’m just saying the bottom rung shouldn’t be on the ground and the only reason it is on the ground is to enrich the rich in order to have disparity of wealth and power.

Why not? There goes rap music and all the Polish jokes. Pejoratives aren’t a problem and you guys are getting carried away imo. Calling someone names has intent and that will manifest in all sorts of ways to skirt the law. We need to address the underlying problem so that people will stop intending to hurt other people rather than banning the ways that intent can manifest.

I don’t believe that. Politics is a dualism: Do you assert moral absolutes or do you not? Do you believe adversity engenders prosperity or do you not? Are you an individualist or collectivist?

If you’re an individualist, what’s best for you? Is it better for you if the population is sick, poor, and stupid so that a few lucky souls can be unimaginably wealthy? Is it better for you to dodge buckets of feces flung from windows or if undeserving people have toilets? It boils down to making one’s own life miserable in order to punish those who don’t deserve because they didn’t earn. Is your own prosperity more important or is the punishment of the undeserving more important?

Start at 10:22 and it might fall into place for you:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU[/youtube]

In the video, the older kids didn’t get philanthropic, but realized what a camera means (realized being generous is another form of social comparison).

This:

Kind of contradicts this:

Are you in favor of moral absolutism or not?
Or are you only in favor of your moral absolutism?

And why can’t adversity say in some circumstances engender prosperity, and in others poverty, why does it have to be all or nothing?
A lot of political policies and positions need context.
And can’t you have too much, or too little of most things, if not all things?
I would say we ought to find the right amount of adversity, for the right person or people at the right place and time. Extreme adversity can break you, but extreme comfort can atrophy you.

This is what I get when I try to watch the video:

Or, is it that the whole the whole ‘this should belong to rant’ thing is just another case of a confusion , which produces the symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau, of the seeming insoluability of living in a post modern world.

At one time all those nice bible thumping Southern sprawling hypocrites were solid Democrats. What made them turn 180 degrees to the right?

That is not a case of a hypothetical situation , and it certainly needs no rocket science to figure out: it is a case of the resilience of facto wrath against somebody, or someone who represents ancient dualities coming back as if from some bastion of power.

The 20 th century’s provocative , and social political revision, of creating new meanings out of diminished ones
by may be signaling the opportunities for closure in terms of compensation for educational and health care preference, as part of a general backlash.

The question of where this is going , in aiming further then simply further political success, has no substance as of now for a definitive conclusion to be drawn.

I’ve always wondered, Meno, whether this split between left and right is universal–that we see it across all political systems–or if it’s a myth we invented in the West that became real because we believed in it.

As I understand it, left means those who think it’s the government’s job to make life better for everyone. Right means those who think it’s the government’s job to ensure everyone’s freedom so that individuals can make their own lives better (or whatever they want to do with their lives).

Right means “stay out of my affairs”… but still, do your job in Washington… fight wars to preserve my freedom… uphold the law (as stipulated in the Constitution, don’t change it)… go ahead and collect tax if you have to. The right says that the government should be nothing more than a referee, not a baby sitter.

Left means “regulate everything I do”… keep everyone in line… make sure no one breaks the status quo as defined by today’s political correctness. We’re making a perfect world and everyone must fall in line. It’s not uncommon for lefties to be pitted against each other because while they agree on the point of making the world a perfect place, they’re often shocked to find they can’t agree on a common definition of “perfection”.

And don’t get me started on the leaches. 90% of self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives are just leaches. They don’t truly believe in, or understand, the principles underlying liberalism or conservatism. They only know which party is more likely to support their personal agenda. For example, it’s no shock that most right-wingers against gay marriage are uneducated religious fundamentalists; their homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with the principles of conservatism–of minimizing government and maximizing freedom–but because it’s God’s way. They’re motivated by their religious convictions, not their political convictions. They just leach off their political affiliations, whichever one seems most likely to support them, in order to force their hand on others.

Where was I going with this? Oh yes, myth or reality? Why are these the only two stances to take on government? There are plenty of other countries whose major political contentions revolve around religion–perhaps in India, left means Muslim and right mean Hindu (I mean, it doesn’t, I don’t think, but what if?)–and the struggle between more government intervention and less government intervention is seen as just a minor issue fought over by just a small handful of weirdos.

But what is the “symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau”? I’m not sure I see you’re point.

There’s nothing like a bit of civil unrest to keep the masses busy with…

So winning attitudes all round… or my interpretation of it ^^^ , anyway.

Perhaps the failed Nationals and the minorities who feel failed should be given special treatment, to enable them to have a decent footing in life… at the very least.

I wonder if he did… when she mentioned prior mention of his suit. :astonished:

…and whilst waiting for the underlying problem to be addressed, the public continue to suffer at the end of someone’s abusive ramblings and rants? Or is the initial responsibility of the government, to protect the public… you obviously haven’t been on a tram in Croydon/seen the footage of what can occur on a tram in Croydon? :open_mouth:

But what is the “symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau”? I’m not sure I see you’re point.

To collude is to make secret agreements, and in this present political milieu it reminds of behind the door type of bargaining, trading favors.

In business practice, this is not much of a eye-raiser, but in terms of commingling of political and business
interests, it is strictly a matter of potential criminal illegality.

The trend of late, at least from the 1960’s onward, for the legal system, generally, is to liberalize interpretation of the black-letter of the law, by using what they call policy consideration, so as to account for the changing public sentiments which have changed.

This is at the bottom of the Kavanough Supreme Court nomination fiascal, he is a presumed ultra conservative, and there are people in Congress, Republicans for the most part, who don’t care a bit about a Democratic take over, because they know, if there is an earth shaking issue between the parties, and it reaches the Supreme Court, the matter will be disposed favorable to the Republicans. This is a mileau, which cares more about interpretation then tacit, under lying agreement.

I think that’s the tactical workings of it.
But it’s a lot more to this tactic, it presumes a centered position, which folds back to an initial position of a middle , centrist ground, to which the reactionary republicans want to steer the U.S. back, which ostensibly would create a collusion between an internationally tacit agreement, looking like a present international consensus, and if it succeeds, the present administration can view this as a successfully presenting an Independent form of governance, which has changed the meaning and scope of Judicial and Executive governance.

Congress , sandwiched between the two, would be demeened to the role of a kind of institutionalized rubber stamp.

@Serendipper

To reiterate: wilderness sparsely populated by nomads, does not a country make.
If it’s not a country, it’s no man’s land, if it’s no man’s land, anybody can settle, and do as they please with it, including make their own country.

  1. A nomad can occupy land, but he can’t own land, because he hasn’t mixed his labor with it.
    Mixing land with labor is kind of how humans mark their territory.
    It’s a way of letting everyone know it’s yours, like putting your signature on it.
    You’re also investing something in the land, and you should be able to make a return on your investment, not someone else, even if you temporarily leave it.
    Property doesn’t make much sense without labor.
    If they can’t own land individually, they can’t own land collectively, so it’s up for grabs.

  2. Nomads without a government aren’t a collective capable of thinking and acting as a unit, therefore they can’t claim anything as a unit, including land, the way settlers with a government can.

People shouldn’t be punished for what their ancestors did.
If my ancestors murdered some of your ancestors, should I be murdered?
Or if my ancestors took something from your ancestors, should I return it to you?
After generations of it being in our possession, we’re far more familiar with and invested in it than you.

But brown people are still a minority, white people are the majority, so our happiness matters more, because there’s more of us.
All other things being equal, hundreds of millions of heads are better than millions, so our insight into and say in things matters more.
Our ancestors built this country for us, so we’re far more acquainted with and adapted to it, so again, our insight into and say in things matters more.
Also, our countries are kind of admittedly better than yours (that’s why you’re coming here), so you need us more than we need you.
White people are selling their countries short, if anything, minorities should go way, out of their way to accommodate us, not the other way round.

In that case, why defend and maintain yourself and your property at all?

If more men like Trump come to power, pretty soon it’ll be arrogant minorities and progressives who’ll be punished.

Genetics play a major role in determining human variability.
People with common genetics, are more likely to share other things in common, as well as care for one another.
Race is extended family, just as we often prioritize our families interests ahead of other families, we often prioritize our races interests ahead of other races, even unbeknownst to ourselves.
Or just as we prioritize our species over others, or other sentient mammals over unsentient unmammals.

Indigenous is a spectrum.
Whites have been here for many centuries now.
We may be a little less indigenous than so called ‘native Americans’ (Euramerican hybrids, mestizos), but we’re far more numerous than mestizos, and we’re far more numerous, and indigenous than Asian immigrants, so if anything, we should be entitled to more privileges over both mestizos, and Asian immigrants.

On the contrary, it’s a form of weakness to forbid yourself from verbally attacking people who verbally attack you, because we’re essentially saying your life and opinions matter more than ours.
I say either we can all verbally attack each others race, or none of us can.
That’s fairness, fairness is strength.

I’m not saying we should have laws against hate speech, necessarily, just if we’re to have any, they should protect whites just as much, at least, if not more.

A brown person is going to put brown peoples interests over my peoples.
I’d rather have a white person with from a working class background represent me.

I would like to see what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth.
That being said, if you can work, but won’t, you’re not entitled to room and board.
And if you can’t support kids yourself, than you shouldn’t bring them into this world.

Murdering, raping or stealing from a brown person is a crime to me, but a small business only hiring WASPs, because he feels more comfortable with WASPs, or a cop predominantly scoping out Mulatto and Latino neighborhoods, because they’re more likely to commit crime, is not a crime.

Yes but a lot of bad behavior committed by Mulattos and Latinos is probably due to their biology and culture, and they’re responsible for their culture.
You’re thinking it’s because we expect (or is it because they expect themselves to be bad?) them to be bad, but I’m thinking it’s probably mostly, or wholly because more of them are bad…which’s not to say all, most or even many of them are bad, just a larger small minority of them than the small minority of us.
I will say this in Mulatto and Latino peoples defense, Jews, whites and Asians may commit more white collar crimes than the them, but white collar crimes are so much more difficult to ascertain, of course.

Depends on the Asians, I don’t think white people commit more crimes than west Asian or south Asian immigrants, I would imagine west Asians and South Asian immigrants commit more crime.
As for east Asian immigrants, I’m not entirely sure about them, I heard white women for instance commit less crime than any other demographic.

However, whites are more inventive, for good and bad, than other races, for whatever combination of reasons, east Asians may score a little higher in iQ, overall (whites are better with linguistic iQ), but they’re not a very creative people.

Reducing race to color makes it sound superficial, it’s not.
Virtually every cell in my body has more in common with an Irishman or Italian than it does an African or Asian.

While we have come a long way sociotechnologically in some regards, and there is less work to be done to feed and take care of everyone, there’s still is work to be done, and there probably always will be.
I don’t see us progressing towards some sort of star trek communist utopia anytime soon, in fact I’m expecting the opposite.
With high sociotechnology, you take a few steps forward in the short term, and often a few steps back in the long (global warming, nuclear warfare, etcetera).

While I support what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth, and less frivolous productivity, so we can spare the environment, If we allow people who don’t work to prosper as much as people who do, they will pollute us with their inferiority, which will be a few steps back.

If you’re white, self hate can also be deeply indoctrinated, you may not know you harbor it, but you do.

There’s almost no difference between democrats and republicans.
Both are corporatists, globalists and imperialists.
Both are anti-white and anti-male.
At least Trump, who is not a traditional republican, isn’t anti-white and anti-male, and more of a pacifist and protectionist.
He’s also pro-gun, which’s of utmost importance in a democracy.

“Beating the old lady”? That is your idea of family love?
I can see what culture you’re definitely not part of.

Since there is no logic or reference to my own in your rambling so I only learned you think some one who prefers his woman over his guests is by inference a monster. A predictable enough socialist/muslim morality. You claim conservatism but you were always transparent as an invertebrate. Slither back under your rock.

“Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool.”

No, be nice and your daughter gets raped. Sorry.
What arrogance you see is just intelligence. We won’t be punished for it.

Why I hate liberals is cause they adapt to the stupidest persons because otherwise it is unfair. They never learned that to make things okay you have to honour the smart.

Immigrants from dumb countries are actually abused by people respecting their level of intelligence. They came here so they could learn to think. But as soon as they came the liberals said learning science is fascistic. Some teachers literally said that! So “brown” people never got the chance. And now they make sure unsecure women talk like them to be immune to the virus of intelligence.

@Serendipper

We have to eat a lot of shit from minorities too.
We have to eat their racism.
Many of them are less educated, intelligent, more crime and terror prone.
Some of some of them are trying to undermine and destroy us.
Some of them have strange, unusual and disturbing customs, like forcing their women to wear burkas, and treating them like big children, or property.
Some don’t speak our language well, or at all.
Some have no comprehension of our laws, history and customs.
Many of them have five-ten kids per family, forcing us to overdevelop ourselves (I don’t want more pollution and population density), putting a strain on our environment and resources.
The illegals especially take some of our jobs from us.
And don’t say we won’t do them, Europeans built and maintained their countries without (illegal) immigration.

She has more rights than I do, so how can she say she doesn’t feel like a part of this country?
Because she’s been subjected to a little racism now and then, likely mostly because she and her ilk can’t stop blabbing about how much more she’s entitled to from us because she’s brown?
Because she’s heard mulattos with a ‘fuck da police’ attitude wind up being shot dead?

And racism goes both ways.
Nowadays whites are probably the least racist race.
And races ought to look out for their own more anyway, so long as they don’t take it to extremes.

Her speech is describing her plight.

And on college campuses, universities and philosophy forums, where facts and reason ought to count for more than fiction and feelings, she should be exposed for it.

I probably can’t become a citizen of her country, and I probably wouldn’t want to, because it’s arguably inferior.
We have more to offer than them, and yet they still complain.

Gasp you fascist pig!
How dare you force them to learn our language and customs when we should be learning theirs!

True, but it’s unfair to treat other peoples better than they treat us.

Right, other races, with the exception of Jews and east Asians (not including south east Asians) appear (of course iQ tests are limited, but that doesn’t mean they’re arbitrary either) to be less intelligent than us, but we tend to select the cream from the crop (smart, wealthy, educated…), so some (but not all) west, south, south east Asian and even some African migrant populations like Nigerians end up outperforming whites.

From my research, iQ is somewhat correlated with education and wealth.

Ashkenazi Jews appear to be as much or more white than west Asian.
I’ll accept them as white, so long as they genuinely think of themselves as white, and fight for, or at least refrain from opposing our interests.
Jews who’ve been caught opposing us, need to be exposed, and have their power stripped from them.

You seem to be pissed at whites in general, not just the white overclass.
Many or most of my threads in SG&E have been economically oriented, but other issues like race and gender need to be addressed as well.

@Serendipper

For me, preserving our biological heritage is more important than preserving our cultural heritage.
There’s some things about our culture I’d prefer to do away with, like its current emphasis on materialism.

In a republic, we try to balance individual rights with majority rule (democracy).
I’m not telling whites or anyone else who they can/can’t elope with, but I want to restrict future immigration to whites only, or eliminate it.

Fair enough, I’m just expressing my viewpoint, other whites are free to accept, or reject what I have to say.

Just because birds of a feather flock together, doesn’t mean they hate, fear or have contempt for other birds.

That being said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being proud of your race and its achievements, so long as you don’t take it to the extreme of regarding others as subhuman.

Agreed, I was just trying to be nice.
Felt bad for telling that brown lady to go home…just wish she’d quit her bitching.

We should be able to use racial slurs in pubic, but we should be careful not to seriously offend.
I’m very much in favor of free speech, really I am, I just got triggered by that brown lady.

Not only does mass immigration hurt us in some, or many ways, but it hurts the 3rd world, because all the bright lights are going to be extracted from it, leaving it with nothing but dims.
And dims are going to cause trouble, and then we’ll have to spend trillions of dollars trying to clean up their mess.

No, I’m not in favor of moral absolutes and I don’t see a contradiction, though I am a hypocrite and have no qualms with the admission. Nevertheless, my hypocrisy has no bearing on truth. That would be a tu quoque argument.

Moral relativism. What’s good for me might not be good for you, so each case is judged independently instead of generalized absolute rules applying robotically/mindlessly/mechanistically to everyone.

The proof is here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svbhTDVVyQc[/youtube]

and I want to suggest you first of all
00:02
that a person who believes in absolute
00:12
laws is liable to be quite dangerous
00:20
because he puts rigid structures in a
00:27
place of higher honor.

the Chinese have a word which has to be
00:59
the gift and the essential virtue of a
01:03
good judge; good judge in the law courts
01:06
in this word like this you know this
01:15
pronounced Li there are several kinds of
01:17
Li in Chinese but this one means an
01:20
innate sense of fair play of equity
01:24
which can’t be written down in laws; it
01:27
can’t be formulated. They also have a
01:33
word for laws that can be formulated
01:35
which is Zhu: it looks like that

and that’s a picture of a bronze
02:02
cauldron with a knife beside it because
02:07
in very ancient times when people
02:10
brought sacrifices to the sacrificial
02:12
cauldrons, the rulers caused the laws
02:16
to be engraved on the cauldron so that
02:18
they would read them, and the sages said
02:22
that is a bad idea because the moment
02:25
the people know what the laws are in
02:27
literal terms, they will develop a
02:29
liturgist spirit: they will start
02:31
haggling over words, so although there
02:39
has to be the Zhu, the formulated law, a
02:43
good judge must know a lot more than the
02:46
written law; he must have a sense of
02:47
equity because every case that comes to
02:51
his attention is really different.
02:52
There’s no way of describing
02:54
exhaustively all the possible
02:56
relationships between man and man and so
03:00
a judge has to have this sort of rule of
03:04
thumb like a good gardener has to have a
03:06
green thumb which is something beyond
03:07
anything you can read in a book so Li
03:15
is the sense of justice. Zhu would be
03:21
belief in absolutes, in that you must
03:25
never do so-and-so or you must always do
03:28
so-and-so: thou shalt, thou shalt not, so a
03:33
person who holds to absolute rules will
03:37
be an inflexible fool when it comes to
03:40
the test. He is reliable up to a point,
03:43
but this is what you get in bureaucracy.
03:47
I’m sorry to say it, but there is a
03:49
specially offensive kind of usually
03:53
female secretary of some government
03:56
department
03:57
who is utterly unreasonable; totally goes
04:01
by the book and will not under any
04:03
circumstances do anything one way or the
04:05
other beyond the letter. Well people like
04:09
that have a certain use, but they have
04:12
the same sort of use as machinery;
04:14
machinery which is foolproof, which does
04:16
the same everything every time and it
04:18
can’t be changed, but there must always
04:20
be some boss over this kind of person
04:22
who can consider the case from a
04:25
different point of view and say “well
04:27
obviously in this case the rules are
04:28
unreasonable and they have to be altered.”
04:32
So you see a person who takes the laws
04:36
absolutely seriously becomes inflexible
04:39
and therefore mechanical and therefore
04:42
inhuman. Now it’s like the Roman
04:45
Catholics when they get on this bit
04:48
about birth control or divorce or
04:50
something like that, they get utterly
04:52
inflexible and they seem to enjoy being
04:54
inflexible because they think it’s a
04:57
mark of tough mindedness.

People who follow absolutes are machines who must always have a boss over them who can consider situations from another point of view… and who himself cannot have moral absolutes lest he also be a machine.

Sure there are times when adversity engenders strength, like lifting weights to build muscle, but the lifting takes minutes while sleeping and eating account for far more time invested in growing muscle. The coddling is more important than the challenge and that’s what Charles Atlas noticed upon looking at animals piled-up in the shade at the zoo, doing nothing, never lifting weights, yet being really strong. artofmanliness.com/articles … les-atlas/

If it were true that adversity engendered prosperity, then the poorest neighborhoods would be churning out successes while the rich neighborhoods would be dens of crack dealers; poor schools would be academic and athletic champions because of the abundance of adversity; and never watering your garden would land you on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. Simply being lazy and neglectful would cause the necessary adversity required to raise well-adjusted children. That’s just a nonsensical philosophy! If anything is correlated to success, it’s coddling. The very fact that humans exist is testament to the coddling of the universe by being uncharacteristically nice to us the last few hundred thousand years with such stable weather. Look around… isn’t it odd that earth is so even-keel?

It’s true that we can’t just sit in the nest being nurtured forever and we need some stimulation, but that’s something entirely different than the attribution of success to the challenge when recovery is far more important. Conservatives have made a main point from a minor aspect while trimming away entirely the most important part.

Conservatism is indeed the religion of hate. Not only have they set adversity on a pedestal, but they champion complete lack of management in favor of the invisible hand of “the market”, as if an ungoverned garden were more fruitful. It’s funny how there is no situation in nature where if we take a laissez-faire lazy attitude do we get results on par with our expectations, but somehow it’s a “common sense” notion concerning economics.

Yep, and that’s why I don’t agree with “What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger.” Before I heard of Nietzsche, I knew whoever said that was an idiot because what doesn’t kill me, leaves me half-dead. I can think of no situation upon being brought to the brink of death that I could somehow emerge stronger because of it. More calloused, yes, but not stronger. Just like lack of fear is not bravery, so is lack of feeling not strength.