Politics

[Peter]

What a stupid fucking reductive statement. The far-right are just as bad as the far-left, extremism in general is bad and I think most of us can agree to that.

Either you missed my post above, you you flat out ignored it. Either way i made it very clear what was going to happen in this topic if things like this happened. See you in a week.

 

[shredingskin]

How the heck does having border security get equated with being racist? What a stupid thing to say.

Well, at least you see the error in your ways.

BTW, the main "source" of Trump-Russia collusion is the Steele dossier, that as far as now is unconfirmed at best, the best part is that Hillary used a firm that claims to have used "high rankings inside the kremlin" and british secret service. Literally what they are suspecting Trump of doing has been done by Hillary, paid by the DNC and no one gives a shit. Hillary lobbied for russians to get Uranium. And think what you want, but doing shady things as a business is not as bad as doing it as an elected official.
Guess who was caught using bots in the last election ? Democrats, no one gave a shit, media spun it as a "social experiment".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#What_the_DNC,_Clinton_campaign,_and_Steele_knew
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

I don't have a horse in the race (hell, a protectionist like Trump is actually worse for my country's economy, though he was very open and helpful in a lot of topic interceding with the FMI), it just makes me mad the ignorance of people, and willfull blindness, makes me realise that most don't think. If you want to look for corruption with Trump start with Exxon, not with some bombastic Russia collusion story. They're being so condescending to people it hurts my brain that people actually like to be taken for a ride, someone remember "jack the ripper" kavanaugh today ? Or was it just the "orange man bad" reason of the day ?

 

[Raymonf]

Also, if you want to talk about corruption, you should shift your focus to the Clintons, who are at least a thousand times more corrupt than anything related to Trump.

On the other hand, I believe both the Clinton and Trump are just as corrupt. If someone has worked their way up to presidency, there's a good chance they've done some shady stuff in the past.

The division between Americans today... it appears to be much stronger, especially with the internet becoming more and more accessible. ?

 

[Oregon Pacifist]

On the other hand, I believe both the Clinton and Trump are just as corrupt. If someone has worked their way up to presidency, there's a good chance they've done some shady stuff in the past.

The division between Americans today... it appears to be much stronger, especially with the internet becoming more and more accessible. ?

I can definitely see where you're coming from; that a person can't come into a position of great political power without at least some skeletons in the closet. But I think Trump is a saint compared to the Clintons, at least from what we know. Did you know that the GOP donated $0 to Trump's presidential campaign? That's completely insane considering he was the Republican nominee. Also, the entire entertainment industry (run by Satanists and pedophiles) has been against him from the start. You can really judge a man by his enemies.

 

[Raymonf]

But I think Trump is a saint compared to the Clintons, at least from what we know.

There's been quite a bit of talk about Russian involvement with the election and even post-election recently, possibly to create the divide that exists now. Having two sides instead of one America is how you get your own people to turn against each other.

As of right now, there's no concrete public proof that Trump was involved with Russia (or maybe I just don't read the news enough), but the Russians can do a lot with what they have. I'm probably saying enough to get myself 屌柒'd by Mr. Putin.

With that being said, I must disagree, though I respect your opinion.

the entire entertainment industry (run by Satanists and pedophiles)

No comment there. I have nothing against Satanism, but I do know that a lot of people in the entertainment industry have done some pretty shady shit relating to their sex life.

 

[Oregon Pacifist]

There's been quite a bit of talk about Russian involvement with the election and even post-election recently, possibly to create the divide that exists now. Having two sides instead of one America is how you get your own people to turn against each other.

As of right now, there's no concrete public proof that Trump was involved with Russia (or maybe I just don't read the news enough), but the Russians can do a lot with what they have. I'm probably saying enough to get myself 屌柒'd by Mr. Putin.

With that being said, I must disagree, though I respect your opinion.

No comment there. I have nothing against Satanism, but I do know that a lot of people in the entertainment industry have done some pretty shady shit relating to their sex life.

Well, the mainstream media has been talking about Trump/ Russian collusion for over 2.5 years now practically non-stop. You'd think that if the president of the United States was a foreign agent and that it heavily compromised national security, we'd have some sort of proof of it by now.

I don't have anything personally against Satanism or those who practice it. It's when those people hurt innocent other people when I have a problem with it. The dark hole that is the lack of morality of Hollywood has no bottom, and I'm just not going to even go there.

But people need to learn that it's ok to disagree, as long as we're all civil about it. It's just crazy. If you walk down the street with a "Make America Great Again" hat, you're almost guaranteed to be punched/ pushed/ cussed at/ spit on. This type of behavior is totally unacceptable, and you NEVER see it occur the other way around (Trump supporters harassing Bernie Sanders supporters for instance).

 

[Raymonf]

you NEVER see it occur the other way around (Trump supporters harassing Bernie Sanders supporters for instance).

I mean... some pretty crazy shit happens due to politics.

But people need to learn that it's ok to disagree, as long as we're all civil about it.

+1 to this, though.

 

[Oregon Pacifist]

This thread:



On a more serious note, we should all try to see both sides of the discussion, regardless of political affiliation. We're all human and we should do our best to spread positivity into the world.

 

[DigitalDuck]

That "supporting LGBT" is just PR. When he became president, he also banned Trans people from joining the military. Actions speak louder than words to me.

Well then. it's okay is Trump has spiteful views towards women then, cool. And Trans people need to get "mental health" help? What a horrendous outlook.

Trans people require surgery and constant medication. People who need surgery and medication are usually considered ill, and ill people are not allowed to join the military.

This is another one of those issues that's misdirection, though. By arguing whether or not trans people should be allowed in the military, you're implicitly accepting the military itself. Do we really want more people joining the military? I think the US spends far too much on military as it is, and even in the UK I'd rather have a defence force than a military.

How the heck does having border security get equated with being racist? What a stupid thing to say, if you want me to compare, Canada have as much as, if not more multiculturism whereas the US is more described as a "melting pot". It's just a different vibe and culture. I never felt safe whilst in the US, whereas in Canada I never felt more safe than when I went to Japan. If the US went with Canada's policies then that's fine and well but Trump isn't doing that, he's wanting to build his own utopia where no Mexicans are allowed to the party.

Mexicans are allowed as much as anyone else. In your own words, "What a stupid thing to say."

Also, your claims about Clinton is no more different than the "fake news" about Trump.

Something we agree about. Except you seem to think one is fake and the other is not, despite there being little evidence for either.

I'm not clinging to headlines, I'm just, you know, looking at the news. Maybe you need to do that too. Just a thought. You're clearly a Republican, so why did you pretend to be "Independent" (clearly bullshit). Even an "outsider" like me can see that.

He's probably far-right too, like 96% of the population.

The politics of your country have eked over into our own anyway (what with Brexit and all and the people all for it trying to get all buddy with Donald Trump and crew).

Yeah, that's the reason people support Brexit. Nothing to do with the fact that the European Commission make laws that we have to follow, and that we have zero way of voting for them (we can only vote for the European Parliament, who cannot make laws, only say "change it" and hope the Commission agrees). Nothing to do with the fact that immigration is largely uncontrolled across the continent and it's having negative effects on crime rates, employment rates, wages, NHS waiting times, and various other parts of life. Nah it was just that they like orange guys in blond wigs.

Also people supporting Brexit have access to a time machine, that's why they voted for it before Trump was even a primary candidate for the US presidency. Fucking time travellers, always ruining everything.

But people need to learn that it's ok to disagree, as long as we're all civil about it. It's just crazy. If you walk down the street with a "Make America Great Again" hat, you're almost guaranteed to be punched/ pushed/ cussed at/ spit on. This type of behavior is totally unacceptable, and you NEVER see it occur the other way around (Trump supporters harassing Bernie Sanders supporters for instance).

There's a lot of hate towards Sanders supporters from Clinton supporters, actually. It's where all the "Bernie bro" stuff comes from, and he was kinda cheated out of the nomination through shady means. Things could've gone a lot differently if it was Trump vs. Sanders (for better or worse) - a lot of Sanders supporters voted for Trump after that happened.

 

[Kodama]

He's probably far-right too, like 96% of the population.

Most of the population actually leans slightly left... it's just that mainstream democrats have gone SO far to the left that people who only lean slightly left look far right by comparison...

There's a lot of hate towards Sanders supporters from Clinton supporters, actually. It's where all the "Bernie bro" stuff comes from, and he was kinda cheated out of the nomination through shady means. Things could've gone a lot differently if it was Trump vs. Sanders (for better or worse) - a lot of Sanders supporters voted for Trump after that happened.

This is definitely the case. I believe Sanders would have curbstomped Trump. America was ready for someone who was anti-establishment, which is why both Trump and Bernie were so popular. When Clinton cheated Bernie out of the election, his salty fans went right to Trump. And honestly they made the right choice. But what really pissed me off was Bernie showing such support for Hillary after all that shit, playing the orange man bad card instead of looking at things objectively...

 

[Raymonf]

But what really pissed me off was Bernie showing such support for Hillary after all that shit, playing the orange man bad card instead of looking at things objectively...

If he didn't do that his party would probably not be too happy about that. So yeah, it's shadiness all around.

sidenote: I love "orange man bad"

Edit: I found a thing:

 

[shredingskin]

Now democrats are pushing killing babies till the point of birth.
Nice fellas.

 

[Kiba]

^ It's just tit for tat vis-a-vis Kavanaugh and any other conservative Trump is bound to appoint unto a clear conservative majority to the Courto Supremo. Hence, libs (out of social media induced radical paranoia), fearing an overturn of Roe v. Wade, want to shore up abortion law at the state level... exactly what conservatives have always wanted in the first place -- for abortion to be a state issue, thereby ending the neverending spite and rage over every single presidential election and Court appointee. Roe v. Wade was a stupid, divisive, undemocratic decision, just like 75% of all decisions the Supreme Court has ever made: anti-free speech precedents, imprisoning workers' rights and anti-draft leaders, escaped slave nonsense, all the way back to ignoring John Adams' totalitarian treason laws. So, the sooner voters per state decide what kind of society they want to pay for, the sooner the good old U.S. of A-holes can reunite around our common stupidity, instead of having stupidity forced on us from above. We need an era of good feelings again. Just relax, focus on self-improvement, vote wisely, get along. Peace isn't hard.

"Vote for me, and when I become president I will make all of your dreams come true."

lulz Actual Trump campaign speech quote. My favorite political quote ever. He shoots straight at the most absurd bull's eye, every time. There was literally a Muppet Babies episode warning kids about the dangers of over-the-top false campaign promises in politics. And a Saved By The Bell. And a Clarissa Explains It All. And, well, every 90s TV show, really.

 

[DigitalDuck]

So away from stuff that doesn't matter and onto stuff that does:

Amelie Zhao Learns To Love Big Brother - USSA News

Amelie Wen Zhao, a young Chinese woman who moved to the US, had a dream of becoming an author. She spent years chasing this dream, eventually fulfilling it getting an offer from a big publisher; here's her own description of what she chose to write about:

I write fantasy, but my story draws inspiration from themes I see in the real world today. As a foreigner in Trump’s America, I’ve been called names and faced unpleasant remarks — and as a non-citizen, I’ve felt like I have no voice — which is why I’ve channeled my anger, my frustration, and my need for action into the most powerful weapon I have: my words.

BLOOD HEIR is an examination of what makes us different from those around us — be it the horrific ability to manipulate blood or the many reasons why my characters are a band of outcasts — and how we internalize others’ fears of the things that make us stand out. It is a journey of self-acceptance, and a realization that we cannot change who we are or what we are born with, but we can choose what we do with what we are given. It is a story of friendship and love that extend beyond prejudices. And above all, it is a call to action: a message to young readers that it is our choices, not our birthright or race or title, that ultimately define us. Each of us has the choice — and more than that, the responsibility — to stand up and fight for what we believe is right.

We live in a world where I see so many others hurting, like me; where I see fear used as a weapon by those who choose to hate; where I see the age-old monster of prejudice drawing lines between those who are different. My pen is my sword, my words are my voice, and I hope BLOOD HEIR will be a guiding light to those who need it most.

So who would have a problem with this? "Progressives" of course! See, the PR blurb says this:

In a world where the princess is the monster, oppression is blind to skin color, and good and evil exist in shades of gray... comes a dark Anastasia retelling that explores love, loss, fear, and divisiveness, and how ultimately it is our choices who define who we are.

Apparently this is anti-black racism, according to other Twitter-checkmark authors. At one point in the book, there is a slave auction, and one of slaves sings a swan song before dying. Apparently this is anti-black racism too, despite neither of the characters in question being black.

As a result, Zhao was harrassed by a mob demanding that her book not be published because she's a racist, and a subset of those have been attacking the publisher too for daring to consider publishing the abhorrent words of an evil bigot.

Zhao, clearly not used to these mobs, capitulated and let them get their way. This book will now not be published without major revisions, and this artist will no longer be able to express herself the way she feels.

To quote Ray Bradbury: "The real threat is not from Big Brother, but from little sister (and) all those groups, men and women, who want to impose their views from below. If you allow every minority to grab one book off the shelf, you'll have nothing in the library."

Don't let the bastards grind you down. Don't let the mob silence you. When you can no longer speak, you can no longer live.

 

[Raymonf]

Now democrats are pushing killing babies till the point of birth

My two cents: If severe birth defects are detected and you still let your baby suffer by being born and thus feeling all of the effects, you're not a parent - you're a monster. But this is related to morals, and obviously my morals are different from yours.

(At birth, babies can't "think" since their brains haven't developed enough just yet.)

But, I'd love to hear your side. What makes "killing babies" so bad, if they're never going to be able to lead a normal life that doesn't involve discrimination and being unable to live without a caregiver at all times? Genuine question, not even being ironic.

 

[Raymonf]

Don't let the bastards grind you down. Don't let the mob silence you. When you can no longer speak, you can no longer live.

+1

I agreed with the article all the way to the end, until I saw "Progressives on social media did". Those people aren't progressives, they're Tumblr social justice warriors. They're the worst kind of netizen - those that get offended over every tiny detail that may or may not offend someone. sigh

 

[shredingskin]

The bill talks about the future "mental health" of the mother as a reason to kill the baby, something literally uncomprobable and unscientific.
I don't mind eugenics, and you can have a point till first trimester that the baby doesn't have the brain attached to the spinal chord, but after that you can't say that there's not neuronal activity.
With that reason we should start killing poor people, disabled, basically anyone that "doesn't leads a normal life". And there are ways to killing people that also don't produce pain, it's the same argument (and our brains don't stop developing till the mid 20s. And kids 2 yr old don't have memories, that doesn't make ok to kill them).

Call me old fashioned, but killing babies is not moral in my book (metaphoric book, I'm atheist), sorry, this is trully immoral in my book. It's not "her body" it's a DNA specific living being.
Also, why go to very specific case scenarios when trying to justify something that is clearly unmoral ? always they go with rape, death on labor, that the cases are minimal ? There's a reason for that I guess.

 

[Kiba]

My two cents: If severe birth defects are detected and you still let your baby suffer by being born and thus feeling all of the effects, you're not a parent - you're a monster. But this is related to morals, and obviously my morals are different from yours.

(At birth, babies can't "think" since their brains haven't developed enough just yet.)

But, I'd love to hear your side. What makes "killing babies" so bad, if they're never going to be able to lead a normal life that doesn't involve discrimination and being unable to live without a caregiver at all times? Genuine question, not even being ironic.

I have no wish to interrupt your fascinating conversation, so if you want to skip my usual 2 Canuckistani cents, please do by all means.

Few people's morals are different; just their experiences and definitions are. First you have to define 'severe birth defects'. Some are fatal, others not, all detectable long before the fetus is viable 90% of the time (roughly 26 weeks, 6 months). If non-fatal, these can range from cleft palates and missing limbs to Trisomy 21, none of which would prevent someone from having a decent life. There were ~25,500 cases of babies born with severe birth defects in the U.S. last year, none in New York because most New York abortions are in the early weeks of pregnancy and New Yorkers have above average prenatal care. This is one reason why this latest New York bill is being met with disdain nationwide as a blatant political statement, as it is a solution in search of a problem. The New York bill also stipulates that the subjective, not medical, factor of the mental health of the mother can allow the late-term abortion of a viable fetus. Well, firstly, there's no such thing as "mental"; there are only brains in social relation, and the science of medicine ought to be an objective, empirical project, not instruments in the service of fantasy. The other reason for the widespread public disdain I describe below. However, I'll say first that the widespread disdain in not only in the U.S., but globally. The only nations that allow unlimited, unregulated late-term abortions are China, North Korea, Vietnam, Canada, and the Netherlands, and some U.S. states (since the U.S. is a federation, state laws vary). Every other modern nation draws the line at 24 weeks at the latest because that's about when survival outside of the womb occurs in almost every case, so the right to bodily integrity of the mother is no longer valid, and most societies would consider it illogical to claim a separate body should be valuated solely by the subjective beliefs of the mother at the point of biological divergence. And modern law is predicated on equality before the law, specifically equal protection, of all individuals so defined biologically.

As for establishing moral standards in law for social reasons (social structure being the purpose of laws in the first place), the reason why "killing babies" is bad is because it deprives viable individuals of life, which can only be a societal, not individual decision, or else individual variability erodes social trust. The downstream effects of individual choices on mass human behavior is a major consideration when legislating. Humans are nothing if not logical animals, so we are sensitive to inconsistency. We evolved to be sensitive to inconsistency in order to regulate social norms because coherent social conditions maximize the survival game of groups long term. There are numerous psychological reasons for this -- trust mainly, for future planning and expectations about how each person and offspring shall be treated by others. For example, if by establishing a system that ignores biological fact in favor of subjective judgement about the definition of personhood, you will have a population with extremely variable expressions of morality. This is the opposite of a society. When premature babies are born at, say 25 weeks, they typically survive and, of course, are treated as full human persons by law and enjoy all the protections thereof. If the government simultaneously say another set of parents and doctors can define away the personhood and human rights of a child born at 37 weeks, it shatters the social contract wherein the parents of the 25 week old baby can feel secure that other members of their society will protect their offspring. While on the other side, the parents of the 37 week old human can't possibly trust those in disagreement with their definition that prioritizes the subjective opinion of the mother. It's a psycho-social evolutionary impossibility for parents on opposite sides of this definition divide to treat each other as trusted moral agents, and so that marks, by definition, the end of any long term unifying social or political cooperation. Exactly like how those who in, say, 1850, regarded black people as subhuman non-persons could not have any common ground with abolitionists. This brings me to the second psycho-social problem that arises due to inconsistency in law: that it is not at all easy to limit freedom to define personal worth to a few relatively minor issues (popularly conceived). The veneer of civilization is quite thin, and it doesn't take much for the darkness in the human imagination to spread to every aspect of society, and the more advanced the social contract, the more fragile. Again, humans are logical animals who crave consistency in order for social groups to survive. If you devalue life at one late stage of existence, particularly if that devaluation contradicts reasonable protections in law for other biologically individual lives at the same stage, other values upheld by the social contract start to fall apart. All values are linked, and humans are hypersensitive to contradiction to the point of pressuring others to conform. So, we have special laws to disincentivize domestic violence against pregnant women, laws concerning government funding of prenatal care for premature babies, laws to guarantee healthcare for all -- including preborn fetuses, to say nothing of the innumerable traditional cultural respect shown to pregnant women, etc, the list of considerations for legislation is almost endless. I mean, first of all there are logistical limits: a government cannot promise something as a right for which they cannot guarantee positive action by those relevant professionals who regard it as a duty to perform. In other words, you can't enslave doctors and force them to do what they may not agree with. Late-term abortion will be an inherently cooperative venture until late-term abortionbots are invented (and they are absolutely being worked on by somebody right now), but even then you have to have workers build and maintain them. I mean, you can't have pie-in-the-sky laws. Laws need to be based on concrete realities about action and production. So, if a society goes in the direction of subjective definitions of personhood to which legal protections attach themselves, there won't be any non-subjective limits anymore, and that would include all kinds of modifications to Enlightenment values such as (and these arguments are already gaining widespread popularity among youth) -- "I don't value such and such a group of people. Well, IQ statistics show that there is a racial hierarchy! Only people with IQ 120+ should vote! Sterilize the poor!", or "Everyone has a right to healthcare, even if there are only a limited amount of doctors, among whom only some think they have a duty to help absolutely everyone!", thus redefining democracy into whatever arbitrary genetic or economic oligarchy can generate an ephemeral plurality, initiating a definition of government no longer of and for all organically, but of and for a restricted number of qualities on the fly. This is related to my last point below.

So, everything I've talked about so far pertains to the social contract, laws reflecting empirical definitions, and so forth. Your main point was about the utility of eugenics. I would point out, given what I wrote above, that one major problem with eugenics is its social consequences. At a social level, groups that do not admit imperfection from birth by design or necessity have no medical science. Civilization is almost definable as societies that tolerate more imperfection by design. This is a logical enough archaeological fact to understand. Without social pressure to understand experienced suffering, there is no drive to overcome suffering, but merely to avoid it. Dogmatically valuing life from a reasonable empirically defined point as a social condition for equality is designed to maximize the survival of the group in the long term game. There needs to be a proper balance of perfection and imperfection unto a majority of healthy people who must tolerate compassionately the inconveniences imposed by the unhealthy in order to be driven to new medical knowledge as well as maximize compassionate behavior and minimize arrogance on an individual basis that benefits social cohesion overall. Thus, in extreme cases of non-viability, we would all agree it is merciful to let such persons die, yet defining away individuals' personhood is not necessary in such a case, as you implied. When we're talking about viable individuals with relatively minor to moderate disabilities, it becomes much more difficult to convince the majority of people that these lives have less or no value compared to others, and this is a fixed psycho-social evolutionary behavior of human animals that won't change, and exists for good reason in order incentivize progressive social interaction. The eugenics concept is predicated upon the idea that life ought to be as subjectively perfect for the individual as possible, whereas it is objectively true that even a moderate amount of suffering and variability is a positive good for the species. I don't think it's necessarily surprising, therefore, that the governments that impose social contradiction are among the least democratic and least religious (religion being another machine of democracy besides a government), so without military force they will probably relatively quickly lose social cohesion in the long run if they don't face revolutionary change first. It's like Mao said, the function and secret of lasting government is to resolve contradictions, not create them, or else it will trigger revolution eventually.


Anyway, it's time for noodles.

 

[paddyj]

My two cents: If severe birth defects are detected and you still let your baby suffer by being born and thus feeling all of the effects, you're not a parent - you're a monster. But this is related to morals, and obviously my morals are different from yours..

To be born with a birth defect doesn't render your life meaningless and I'd hate to think someone who has overcome struggles like that in their life has seen your post. The parents of children with disabilities are incredibly caring and selfless.

 

[Kodama]

To be born with a birth defect doesn't render your life meaningless and I'd hate to think someone who has overcome struggles like that in their life has seen your post. The parents of children with disabilities are incredibly caring and selfless.

This, my god, this...

Just because your life may be harder than other people's doesn't mean life isn't worth living. And even if it was, only the person living that life can decide that...