[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/chat/ - Chat

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.


Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
Link to another board
Link to a post on another board
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]

This field is for editing and deletions.

File: 1512543672869.png (698.65 KB, 940x540, image.png)

SJWs and the LGBT Community Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827490Locked[Last 50 Posts]

I'm not a fan of SJW's, let's just get that out of the way. I find many of their ideas misguided and/or toxic, but there's one thing that frustrates me the most about them: their claims to the LGBT community.

As I imagine many of us have seen, many SJWs make hug claims like "76 genders" or "non-binary trans person" and the like.
Now, I personally couldn't care less about what you call yourself, but I have an issue when you go out on the web and start acting like you speak on the behalf of an entire community. And, while I'm not necessarily trying to devalue a person based on what they call themselves, it is in fact harmful when someone (let's say Milo Stewart or Riley Dennis) or the like go on the internet and try to paint the LGBT community in the ways they claim to be factual, it is a complete disgrace and can harm the image of the LGBT community.

This is anecdotal, but I consider myself bi-curious, and while I have told some of my family about my feelings, I know that until I am 100% sure that I am bi, I ought to keep it to myself and really evaluate if this is truly a part of who I am. I cannot speak for everybody, but I'm just guessing that this is a similar process others have gone through as well in relation to being bi or gay. Some just know they are, others are experimenting and trying to figure out who they are as people, and that's where I land.

Now, take being trans. Being trans is something I could argue had an even larger impact on your life than being gay or bi, because at least you can keep being gay or bi hidden, where as being trans is basically transforming your entire body via hormone therapy and surgery, which of screwed with the wrong way, can have cancerous results. In other words, saying and feeling that you are truly trans is very serious business, because a gender transition can have the largest impact on your physical well being and health, and is a long and lengthy process that can be an emotional roller coaster. I don't know what it's like to be trans, but I'm only guessing based on observing friends of mine who are trans. I even had a best friend a couple years ago who was trans, and his process seemed very emotionally rough and lengthy.

With this in mind, having seen my best and beloved friend go through this, it thus pisses me off when I see SJWs falander the labels "non-binary" or "trans" like it's the new trend. It not only demeans the seriousness that being transgender has, but also makes legitimate trans people look like a joke, and as someone who does care about the LGBT community being respected just like anyone else, it angers me to my core that the SJWs are ruining the image of trans people who may be suffering from dysphoria and are trying to fix themselves.

I apologize for this text wall, but I was thinking about this earlier and needed to get this off my chest. Feel free to tell me what you think.


File: 1512543928885.jpg (113.49 KB, 1080x739, starlight_and_trixie_by_ramira…)


Underrated post.
This post was edited by its author on .

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827493

File: 1512544147265.png (266.53 KB, 1240x1194, image.png)

I'm glad you think so, Toy. I had a feeling you'd be one of the first to respond

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827502

File: 1512545110263.png (407.88 KB, 1280x1280, tumblr_orlbpkhmeF1urx9mvo1_128…)

The concept of sexuality is cancer and the sooner we abolish it the better.

Also SJWs don't exist, they are a boogie men the right has created from screencaps of stupid leftists.
This post was edited by its author on .


File: 1512548436345.jpg (82.97 KB, 960x504, DJaV4jI.jpg)


SJW is an outrageous strawman of the worst kind of leftist made up by the worst kind of rightist. They'll milk it to the point of pushing our civilization over the edge if they can and thus far they're succeeding.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827510

You do realize not JUST right wingers use the term, right? Skeptics on the left use the term as well as a derogatory term against people like these

But regardless of WHAT you call them, they are a cancer on society and, as I stated and you seem to ignore the main point of my post, a cancer on the LGBT community.

Anonymous 827517

File: 1512550926105.png (46.45 KB, 990x734, bothsides.png)

By that, I'm going to assume you mean the potty-trained YouTube fedoralords who make hour-long "commentaries" in their slow drawling voices about how x, y, and z aren't misogynist like some loon on the HuffPost claimed they were and lowkey try to paint themselves as the voice of reason and enlightenment just because they can falsify the most outrageously obvious fallacies. Because knowing you, that's probably what you're exposed to.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827520

I never once implied they were "enlightened and glorious in intelligence," I'm just mentioning it as an example that not just right wingers use the term.
Almost everyone uses the term SJW to describe these tumblr dwelling idiots, I'm sorry to say, but unless you have a more suitable term for them other than "radically ridiculous lefties" then I don't know what to tell you
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827521

File: 1512552913359.png (970.07 KB, 800x986, my_little_pony___luna_____why_…)

These tumblr dwelling idiots merit no more attention than chemtrail theorists or the drunk 80-year-old antisemite you hear ranting from his dilapidated front porch. They are all insignificant dregs and whatever stance they take will have at best a microscopic bearing on the direction of social policy in this country. They are utterly irrelevant as anything but a strawman and anyone who tries to alarm you over such trivial idiocy is likely trying to divert attention from something far more insidious.

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827522

File: 1512553391360.png (940.06 KB, 1451x1042, 1504325640496.png)

This, although the the drunk 80 year old antisemite currently has their candidate as the US president.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827523

Ok, since you want to go into that, SJW's go on about all kinds of stuff, right? Let's just take white Privlege, for instance. It's not just tumblr dwelling idiots who are saying this, it's major politicians on the left who are.
Look at Sally B. Brown, Chairwoman for the Idaho Democratic Party, said if she were elected to the chair of the DNC, she would "shut down white people and have them shut up when black people are talking."

Or what about Bernie Sanders during a debate with Hillary Clinton, stated "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto."

Now, these are only 2 I can name off the top of my head, but considering this kind of rhetoric has infiltrated mainstream legging politics, I think that should be a bad sign that "SJW" rhetoric is more rampant. I personally don't care about skin color, but it's clear these people do, and it's downright ridiculous and racist

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827524

File: 1512553807891.png (70.55 KB, 500x372, tumblr_inline_ogtpg3ZCyH1swb8c…)

>Or what about Bernie Sanders during a debate with Hillary Clinton, stated "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto."

This is just objectively true tho, the redlined housing for low income black families is a fucking nightmare and no white person knows what it's like to live in those. Obviously you can talk about rural areas with no jobs in like kentucky or something, but it's absolutely no the same thing.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827525

Oh, so NO white people at all live in ghettos or low end trailer parks, huh? Or have to live in homes infested with rats? I call bullshit.
Again, this may be anecdotal, but my father grew up in dirt poverty in a ghetto and he had rats crawling around his home. I think he would know what it's like. Poverty effects everyone, dude, not just black people
This post was edited by its author on .

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827526

File: 1512554654153.jpg (421.05 KB, 748x742, 1469743720761.jpg)

You're confusing low income housing with specific black ghettos. Look up red-linening dude, a lot of your misconceptions about poverty will be appeased.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827527

Ok, so let's just say for the sake of argument that Redlining is a major problem and Bernie was only half right, what of Sally Brown? Do you agree with her rhetoric and wanting to reform the DNC into an SJW hellhole?

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827528

File: 1512555266859.jpg (217.16 KB, 1000x836, tumblr_oq1cp94vYc1qiy34zo1_128…)

If we can discuss how Sally Brown (who is a chairman of a party that has no power in that state) is being potentially dumb, we can talk about how every single republican representative of the southern US states are attempting to repeal the affordable care act, even though they are the states that benefit most from it (and welfare for that matter, did you know Kentucky is the largest benefactor from welfare in the country? Not a whole lot of them blacks in Kentucky is there?). Or how they are continuing to slash education in those states despite continually preforming the worst academically.

But no, the chair of the democratic party in Idaho is who we need to focus on.

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827529

File: 1512556928481.png (142.14 KB, 500x573, tumblr_inline_oigrn6J15T1swb8c…)

Actually went too look this up, can't find where kentucky was number one, however 21% of their population is on welfare, which is around mid tier as far as Im concerned.

However I did find this


Keep in mind, this is a conservative source.

Look at those states who have the most people on welfare. Not a whole lot of blue states. Also some states with no a lot of minorities, such a Maine or South Dakota. Guess who is in charge of those states, and guess who wants to increase taxes on the poor and repeal all kinds of welfare?

but I'm sure angry tumblr people are the REAL problem

Elicoor13 827530

where are you going on the internet where you're encountering all this shit on sjw's? is it all just via outrage farmers on youtube? like, most of the internet doesn't seem to care about sjws apart from those kinda people. i only mention this because this is your second thread talking about them, and i find it odd.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827534

I'm only discussing it because I was trying to make a point that I do care about the LGBT community, and I don't appreciate these people making a mockery out of it with their fantasy nonsense.
But no, apparently I'm STILL made to look like an idiot to you guys cause every time I make a thread about this, you purposely go out of your way to make me look like an ass.
Cause somehow, we go from talking about the the LGBT community to the "big bad republicans."
How the hell does that work?
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827544

This is something that's been a problem for a while. SJWs are also horribly mean to anyone who dares go against them, in the LGBT or non-white area.
Not much to add to your lot, though.
>m-muh sjw professors did nothing wrong muh gender is nonbinary behead those who speak out against women listen and believe bigot

Anonymous 827545

Except that there's plenty of white folk living in poor areas.
Seriously, it's like these morons have never once actually visited these areas.
Sure, some are just black. Some are not, though. There's a fuckton of white people in this nation, and not every one is living a nice life.

Anonymous 827546

More likely, you've managed to get lucky and avoid the areas they're rampant in.
Namely, Tumblr, Reddit in many cases, and certain hobbies. They tried to take video games, video games gave them the boot.

A good example of SJW activity, though, is the recent Magic: The Gathering bullshit, with that one guy accused of "harassment" despite there being no evidence of such conduct, besides one single video six months old.

Anonymous 827607

>Trigglypuff is the most pressing civil concern rn
>Pay no attention to the thousands of CIA dollars paid to psyops shills to instill neo-Fascism, some autist at school is screaming again
>People listen to the screeching and the people doing the screeching never invalidate themselves because people are too stupid to detect the flaws and inherent neuroticism in these people's """"beliefs""""

algol 827609

File: 1512584124481.jpg (3.81 MB, 1728x2592, leninvaporwave.jpg)

Source on the CIA psyop funding? There's no doubt that there's various CIA/FBI infiltration and surveillance in these groups though the CIA/FBI tends to be your kind of "ruthless and bloodthirsty centrism with a law & order flavor" as far as what kind of political goals they'll have. I mainly know with these guys, it's various billionaires such as the Mercers funding the breitbart crowd, Spencer getting support from another billionaire and another group of billionaires trying to fund that kind of "hoppean libertarian/fascism fusion" sort of thing.
The mercers are the only names I can recall off the top of my head though.
This post was edited by its author on .

Reaver 827610

The funny thing is i've never even seen a SJW in that sense of the word, and i'm pretty much constantly around students and universities.
Hell i've even tried provoking sjw-ish types and anti-sjw-ish types to see if there wasn't even a little grain of accuracy to this sort of stuff outside of the internet, but both groups shrugged it off completely as nonsense (though as a researcher i have to admit i wasn't rigorous or even structured in my approach, it was pure play).

So i can only say that, while i agree with what you say on the condition that it really were to be as such, i have never actually encountered this sort of stuff despite even seeking it out and exploring across various fields, departments, universities and borders.

So really it seems to me like boxing with your shadow in terms of how real a problem you are fighting and/or talking about, at least for the situation on this side of the pond (that excludes Britain too fyi, haven't cooperated or worked there).


Koch brothers for the libertarians, no? (~15 billion)
And Soros for liberals. (~50 billion)

Also Rupert Murdoch for generic conservative bullshit, but that's outside of the US mostly.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827612

I just know that someone has been artificially inflating that movement because many potential protractors behave like shills and the movement has grown in such a way and at a rate that can't be natural.

Its utility to the state is twofold too. Where they succeed, state power increases. When people call them out on what they are, the elites can use it to paint all serious critics of the oligopoly as antisemitic fascist tinfoil hatters by association, so no one can challenge them. It's foolproof.
This post was edited by its author on .

algol 827615

Soros seems kinda complicated since he's supported various anti-communist and anti-socialist movements(in communist and socialist countries), moderate islamic movements, liberal and anti-conservative movements.
If you really look into what he puts money too, he seems to be a supporter of liberal democracy in a loose sense but is extremely situational in what he supports.
One group that could be supporting them is the Russians. I know that's a meme with "zomg it's the russians" but it seems that inflating racial tensions is something they do with trying to promote outrageous BLM and right wing racist stuff at the same time.


File: 1512584833218.png (560.87 KB, 1008x792, trixie_and_starlight_glimmer_b…)

I understood where you were coming from at least, so you're not completely alone here.

Also, related:

Reaver 827622


Soros isn't that easily understood, no, but he fits in the list as one of many ideological funders.
Practically he's one of the biggest international players of such a kind too, in part because he coordinates others and as such has access to their wealth and power.

But yeah, he's mostly a liberal democratic / stability / peace / multilateralism sorta guy.
I'm not a fan, but that's because of some recent personal collisions with his activities, as i've helped certain referenda achieve victory here via some work of my own, whereas mr. Soros decided to fund the other side.
My side won, but not by enough margin to have a proper mandate, thus my side lost and i am still quite peeved about that.

Anonymous 827623


What the hell are you even trying to imply here?

Anonymous 827624

SJW's are non-existent all the sudden?

Reaver 827625


Pretty sure the point is that it's not "all of a sudden" but rather that someone figured out to actually check beyond the internet for once.

Plato's internet-enabled cave is comfy but if you try you can actually just rise out of it as if it is a slightly-too-comfy chair.

algol 827626

>sjw's and marxists control the universities!
<I go to university and I've never met these people
>But marxists control all of higher learning!
<Do you go to college?
>No but I know what kind of people are at universities better than you do!


File: 1512585831888.png (631.87 KB, 883x732, 1527375__safe_screencap_starli…)

I assume it's the whole 'bad things happen but since worse things exist they aren't important enough to talk about.'

The thing is that OP makes a good point. I'm trans, and it's hard to get any one to take the situation seriously when you have people going, "I'm a half-fox spirit kin. Respect me." Like... There is a huge difference here but the average person doesn't know that. They just see two people trying to pretend to be something they aren't. So while those of us with a legitimate, documented condition struggle for recognition, the skeptics point to these people that want to be treated like a tree spirit or whatever and go, "How is this any different?"

Yet we're supposed to be like, "Aww, it's okay. We respect your right to express yourself!" when we get clumped into the same group as people who just like to LARP as a tiger. It's incredibly frustrating.

Reaver 827628


Devil's advocate:
I'm on the other side of the ocean, in a different culture and language.
Might be stuff is different here (...and apparantly in most neighboring countries? Maybe i should go to Sweden, that's supposedly SJW-central).
This post was edited by its author on .

algol 827629

It's just funny that none of the "colleges are leftist indoctrination factories!" people here are people who actually go to college.


File: 1512586075361.gif (2.09 MB, 640x360, 1143537__safe_meme_smiling_ani…)

Talk to Reverend. He has some stories to tell you.

Reaver 827632


Fair, very true.
Our strongest anti-muslim groups come from rural areas... with next to no muslims.

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 827641

File: 1512587484799.png (982.62 KB, 1475x1150, 642779__safe_princess+celestia…)


Tis true, neither my Environmental Engineering textbooks nor my Architecture textbooks prattle on about systemic oppression of women and minorities yet there does seem to be a distinct subset of university students who talk about that sorta thing a lot. Methinks they are not the ones in the STEM fields though.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827642

SJWs utterly lack the destructive potential of rising factions like the alt-right. Anyone stupid enough to get duped into Marxist bullshit by the flailing monkeys at uni deserved every bit of the brainwashing and shouldn't be allowed to participate in democracy in the first place, and likely will never have an impact anyway. Their spastic hatred will invalidate them in the eyes of the intelligent civic-minded person without fail, mark my words.

SJW mentality at this point is so self-negatingly retarded that giving it any form of attention is actually giving it power. They will destroy themselves. I can't say the same of some other lot.

Reav 827656


Can't say i've seen them in law, history or the languages either (as i'm querying my memory these fields too seem free and are added to the list: philosophy, politicology, psychologie, economics).
Though there were some of something called "liberal arts and sciences", which was an American programme, but even they were nothing close to the stuff that i see online.
Weird people though, even by my standards.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827660

>m-muh CIA tinfoil conspiracies
Look, I hate the CIA. I'd be fine defunding the lot.
If you've got a movement to do that, I'd be game for getting in with that.
But, all the same, SJWs are still active, they're still doing shit, and frankly, it hits me more directly when they, for instance, ruin MTG.
>and the movement has grown in such a way and at a rate that can't be natural.
This is because it didn't grow "naturally".
It took advantage of the shittery of SJWs, the left, and extremist groups like Antifa.
Beat a man too long, and you shouldn't be surprised if he starts to hate you.

Bit of a worry, for me, as I see the left going towards an implosion soon, and I suspect the damage that comes from that little bang might further help the alt right.

Anonymous 827661

Potential and current practical effect are two very different things.
We can point to things the SJWs are doing now.
I agree that the Alt Right is more dangerous, potentially, in the same way the communists are more dangerous, potentially. But, SJWs are still going to be a problem shanking the foot now.

Anonymous 827663

I go to college.
A college in Alabama, no less.
Yet, still, I've had some classes with a rather sharp left-wing bias. And I'm straight up in the middle of the southland.

Granted, it ain't as bad as, say, Harvard. But it's being preached in certain classes. You have to stick with pure, non-social sciences and practical fields in order to avoid it. Stick to the STEM fields, and you'll likely be fine. Reason I ran in to it was I was trying for a psychology degree.

algol 827664

>liberal arts and sciences
If I remember right, this whole program comes from the kind of education 1700's british nobility would receive. At most colleges it's a department while at a liberal arts school, it's a major.
Essentially you take classes on literature, history, general humanities stuff but with a bit more philosophy and a focus on greek/roman classics. As well though, you have more mathematics and hard science classes than you'd normally get in a humanities focused class.
The idea was to make a student into a "generally cultured and educated" person who can speak reasonably on any topic. Then you'd go for some sort of masters if you wanted to specialize in something.
I'm surprised there's a liberal arts college out in your area since it's sort of an anglosphere thing. Though it's probably focused at more upper class students since you kinda need the wealth to where you can get a general rather than career oriented education.

I've thought that in another life, it'd be interesting to get a liberal arts degree. I've heard they're harder than you'd think since a bachelors at a prestigious liberal arts school is like getting a sophomore level education in 5 different degrees.
It's odd, the time's I've taken psych classes; one teacher was pretty apolitical while the other one was some kind of christian conservative. The only time I've even encountered far-left people were a few students with only one of them being an SJW type. For the most part, an-caps and ron paul type people are a lot more common on the 3 colleges I've been to.

As far as professors, the most common type I've encountered were your sort of middle aged christian conservative type. A few basic democrats here and there(though I have to emphasize that a basic democrat is very different from an SJW) and some of the stem teachers were your kind of center-right business focused conservatives.
This post was edited by its author on .

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 827667

File: 1512592405984.jpg (296.03 KB, 1280x1819, 1135362_safe_oc_oc_colon_anon_…)


>this whole program comes from the kind of education 1700's british nobility would receive.

Kinda, what you're thinking of is the seven traditional liberal arts, typically known as the Trivium and Quadrivium:
This post was edited by its author on .

algol 827668

Ah yeah, that's it. I'm thinking though, american and anglosphere liberal arts colleges essentially took form in the 1700's though. I don't know much about college systems though, I just remember that's around when university systems took a form that'd actually be familiar to modern people.

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 827671

File: 1512593824141.png (323.97 KB, 650x630, 1471586840080.png)


About that time yeah. It had it's start in the renaissance with the re-introduction of previously lost knowledge filtering back into Europe through middle eastern trade routes. But what really allowed it to happen was the invention and spread of the printing press, stereotype and other such machinery reducing the cost of books and of course an accompanying rise of literacy.
And if you want to get really nit-picky the Black Death also had a hand in it as the depopulation of Europe allowed for much social mobility, the rise of the middle class and planted the seeds of the industrial revolution which would require much science, engineering, skilled and semi-skilled labor.
Europe as we know it now really was made by the black death. Only the 30 years war and world war 1 have a hope of approaching it's importance but then you can probably find more than a few people who will blame those quite squarely upon the black death too.
This post was edited by its author on .

algol 827673

Ah yeah. I know universities have technically been around since the middle ages but higher education outside of tutoring didn't become a widespread "This is just a thing you do if you want to be respected" sort of deal until much later.

It's funny, I've seen the peasant wars and anti-nobility unrest of the 1500's blamed on the black death as "The peasants were suddenly a lot more valuable after depopulation so they gained unprecedented rights and privileges. When the re-introduction of roman law and transition from feudal relations to private property relations occurred; the peasants were basically fucked and started revolting to get their old privileges back."

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 827680

File: 1512596056836.png (503.35 KB, 1200x1600, 139810580869.png)


Ya, China could have had an industrial revolution perhaps 500 years before Europe had there's but for one thing: There was no need to industrialize because labor was so cheap. Just picture a hundred or so Chinamen standing around outside the ancient Chinese equivalent of Home Depot waiting to build you a house like the Amish raise a barn and you get why it wasn't necessary and indeed would have been detrimental to industrialize.
That was China's Catch 22 for centuries, they invented pretty much all the neat little automata's that made modern life possible but almost none of them moved past being anything other than a novelty because why continually develop firearms when you have tens of millions of screaming Chinamen to throw at your enemies? Why build a tractor? Men that weren't working the fields were just as liable to turn to banditry if they had nothing better to do. Idle hands and all that.

>the peasants were basically fucked and started revolting to get their old privileges back.

The English longbowman is an interesting study in that. I think it was Edward the Third decreed that all Yeomen had to spend an hour practicing with the longbow every Sunday after church for the explicit purpose of being called up as levies in times of war. Not something you would have done with your knaves or peasants outside of extreme situations. Of course with that responsibility came the chance for riches and glory that a knave or peasant wouldn't normally have had any chance at too.
Mercenaries really became a thing about that time too. Proper men-at-arms were a valuable resource, not to be wasted unnecessarily so if you could hire some foreign scum to act as your forlorn hope in exchange for riches and glory so much the better. Of course if you banked on all of them getting killed and not having to pay out only to have them survive there was a good chance they were going to sack your home as payment, that happened to Rome on more than a few occasions over the years. But ya know, sometimes ya gotta roll the dice.

Anonymous 827697

File: 1512599481838.png (146.87 KB, 498x766, rarity_vector_by_8_xenon_8-d59…)

I'd think metallurgy was the larger issue.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827796

This is the point I've been trying to make all along, but hey, I'm just the "big bad republican" that nobody respects, so of course, anything I say is gonna get ridicule, even if the ridicule is not even related to the topic, I.e. GOP passed a bad tax bill, so your opinions about SJWs are invalid bullshit.

And relating the university discussion:
I am a freshman in college right now, and fortunately, I've avoided the bulk of SJW-types, but I know that they're there.
For instance, during my freshman orientation, we had to attend 2 auditorium speakings; one made reference to "white Privlege", and the other made comments about "rape culture." Both points that dripped with SJW rhetoric. On top of that, I have a Spanish tutor who actually got along with very well, but some of my hope for her went down the drain when I found out she lead a discussion group that talked about things like "micro-aggression, white Privlege and male patriarchy." She said all of this unironically, which just made me disappointed.

So, while most of these idiots may not be in the STEM fields, like business, economics and so on, I know they're still on campus and for the most part, I just avoid them.
This post was edited by its author on .

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo 827813

We done here now?

Anonymous 827824

File: 1512609737146.png (76.58 KB, 223x215, You like it too.png)

What's the point of this thread? Not even being an asshole, I don't really see why you made this thread.

anonymous 827827

dude you gotta engage with people with countering opinions

it doesn't make sense to avoid them

Anonymous 827831

File: 1512610036125.jpg (142.83 KB, 290x376, Snow day.jpg)

>colleges are far left brainwashing centers

Well, I can at least confirm that OSU wasn't.

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827845

>For instance, during my freshman orientation, we had to attend 2 auditorium speakings; one made reference to "white Privlege", and the other made comments about "rape culture." Both points that generally corresponded with empirical reality
Fixed that one for you. Just a little help from your local, non-binary, comrade~

Charonikenne Buttertractizami the Cat!StarMyMnao 827846

File: 1512611002240.png (48.29 KB, 640x400, ancom girl 2.png)

Heh... kid... you don't know the first thing about shit... I rmember when I was like you.... clueless... now look at me... i own the turnips.... no i don't... everyone owns the turnips... check out this vape cloud you fucking fascist...

>implying following the profit motive will lead to happiness

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo 827847

Bags, why are you anonymous?

Mewtini!LELnin/wow 827853

File: 1512611583700.png (555.37 KB, 642x598, Flirting levels at maximum.png)



!ScyphTlOY6 827885

Only shut in weebs play that game so it's more likely an alt right brainwashing device.


File: 1512613489064.png (165.8 KB, 840x952, img-2767719-1-hEoAKvv.png)

Rape culture is not a thing, oh my god.

And can we give this shit a name other than 'white privilege' cause it's not accurate. While statistically white people may not face as many stigmas as far as government bodies are concerned, none of us actually ASKED for special treatment, so can we come up with a term that implies it's a type of segregation that is not really wanted but still traditionally enforced without consultation?

Charonikenne Buttertractizami the Cat!StarMyMnao 827890

File: 1512614318852.gif (972.74 KB, 350x188, tumblr_n4pgy4kk1z1tv612co2_400…)

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827892

Oh I do.
I do it all the time whether it be in person or online (I come here, afterall). But sometimes, arguing all the time just gets exhausting and you need a break, you know?

Well, I was originally meant to just talk about LGBT issues, but of course, the first moment I uttered the word "SJW", I got a mixed bag

I can agree with this for the most part. But hey, if we're going into this territory, why not we talk about a group that actually gets the best place in society: the Asian demographic. Everyone that's aplplicable to "white Privlege" is actually more applicable to how Asian families live on average in the US:
They get the highest college enrollment
They make the highest salaries
They get killed the least by police
They even pay lower mortgage rates!

Now, I personally couldn't care less about skin color or race, but when bullshit arguments like this come into play, it's only relevant to mention a non-white racial group that does the best on average. Guess it's time to relabel it "Asian Privlege" now.

The alt-right is just as cancerous, so I'd stick away from that too
This post was edited by its author on .


File: 1512614617292.png (1.01 MB, 1280x720, Trixie_confused_by_Granny's_pu…)

Yeah probably.

It's fucking Zootopia all over again but without furries.

anonymous 827900

yeah i feel
politics talk is fucking exhausting

Anonymous 827901

File: 1512615112921.png (265.13 KB, 344x428, explosion.png)

I can't say I've seen enough people making light by over-zealously calling themselves trans. I don't browse tumblr, though.


File: 1512615302807.png (843.02 KB, 1280x720, Trixie_rolls_her_eyes_at_Starl…)

I mean it basically is. You got people calling men predators and acting like they are predisposed to rape and they need to be 'trained' how to not be garbage.

It's fucking offensive.

Anonymous 827905

File: 1512615509858.jpg (59.35 KB, 514x780, brooding.jpg)

Those men should probably keep their hands to themselves if they don't want to get in trouble.

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827908

File: 1512615763603.jpg (973.63 KB, 2000x1345, really makes you tink.jpg)

>the Asian demographic. Everyone that's aplplicable to "white Privlege" is actually more applicable to how Asian families live on average in the US
Let's do a thought experiment here, why might this be the case? How did an economic group, that at the beginning of the 20th century dealt with fierce economic, and social, hardships go from being mostly low skill labor to being the most advantaged demos in the US? I wonder what could have possibly happened?
This post was edited by its author on .

algol 827912

Everyone has different kinds of privilege and everyone has oppression.
Your oppression and privileges vary depending on your exact right now situation in the greater context of your interactions.

Because wait for it.

Privilege and oppression are contextual. You could even say intersectional.
The key though, if we avoid liberal idealism, is that privilege and oppression exist within the moment that they occur. So it's based on your situation. There is no such thing as a blanket "racial/gender/orientation/helicopter privilege and oppression" that acts as a ghost permeating all levels of society. Your privilege and oppression is based on how you, your material being, your capital, your social signifiers/whatever the fuck; interact with the specific situation you're currently in.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827913

File: 1512616176634.jpg (61.88 KB, 850x400, image.jpeg)

Oookay, so your best example of this is one of the most racist presidents the US has had in the 20th century?
LBJ's great society didn't exactly help the black comminity, but instead crippled them and made them reliant on government welfare. I'm sorry to tell you, but LBJ doesn't help your case in terms of racism, friend.
LBJ has a huge share in the responsibility of what is ACTUALLY keeping the black community poor: the welfare state

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827914

So in other words, Privlege could just be the circumstances you are in, not so much what gender or race you are

algol 827917

Well gender and race can interact with the situation you're in.
Let's say you're applying for a job. If your name is Jamarcus, you're less likely to be accepted at a lot of jobs.
If your name is Connor, you're likely to be treated as an outsider by your neighbors if you move to the bad part of baltimore.

This though would depend on what specific job you're applying for and what specific new neighbors you have, their attitudes and whatnot.
This post was edited by its author on .


File: 1512616607728.png (125.36 KB, 540x444, 1511995624583.png)

Those men don't represent their gender any more than a black person who robs a gas station represents their race.

Anonymous 827919

File: 1512616781907.png (60.15 KB, 173x187, That fucker.png)

Yes, but they represent themselves.

skinnytrips(mobile) 827920

No that's a picture of LBJ signing the 1964 Immigration Act that removed quotas for country of origin from the US immigration system. Prior to this act immigration from countries like China, Japan, and Thailand (as well as India) was massively restricted, so the populations were fairly small. After the legislation the US saw a wave of mostly wealthy, and some upper-middle-class, immigration from Asia. This means that within the Asian American community there is a large overrepresentation of first, and second, generation immigrants. So it follows that the group of people, and their children, who had enough money to move everything they own across the largest body of water on the planet, are in a better economic position than the average white person. This in no way discredits the racial discrimination that is still common in the US, and doesn't say anything about white privilege not being the case in the US (which it is).


File: 1512616848096.jpg (55.54 KB, 526x657, 1500521605999.jpg)

Yep. They do.

So there is no 'rape culture'. Just individual rapists that should be punished as individuals.

Anonymous 827922

File: 1512616944941.png (103.25 KB, 285x274, 1435707947078.png)

Those aren't conclusions that follow from that at all, but I'm not going to try to change your mind.

Anonymous 827923

You can't engage with countering opinions in college. Doing so will get you kicked out for complete and total nonsense that is most likely made up, because these types of people are pathological liars, on top of it all.

These are people who believe that there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.
That should tell you all you need to know.


File: 1512617034074.png (440.67 KB, 1280x720, Trixie_%5C-wait%5C-_S01E06.png)

So it's okay to label all men potential rapists but not okay to call all black people potential criminals?

algol 827925

On a broader level, there are people who make light of rape, cops that treat the accuser more aggressively than the accused, people that find prison rape funny, the idea of rape as punishment, etc.
There are absolutely gendered ideas around rape and a lot of funny stuff with how society treats consent. The thing about "rape culture" is though that it's not a ghost affecting each and every person in society(which society isn't even a real thing) as an invisible force but the actions of individuals.

Where it gets to be something more on the level of a cultural thing is when the likelihood of people reacting in that way increase or decrease. Say the whole "she dressed like a slut thing". It has effects that are in a gendered manner and has effects on a broad part of the population even though it stems from individual reactions.

Say, whether someone is treated as "well she dressed in a provocative way" is a circumstance that happens because of how individuals around the rapee react. The likelihood of this occurring though is absolutely a numbers game in the sense that a society which is more okay with that attitude, makes that circumstance more likely to occur.

skinnytrips(mobile) 827926

Also For those trying to brush rape culture off consider that we still very much live in a culture that positions much of the blame regarding rape on the victim in order to not have to make any broad changes to the culture. We still live in a world that asks "Why were they out so late?" or "Why did they drink so much?" and even sometimes "Why did they dress that way?". While overhauling the justice system to presume guilt would be stupid, it is laughable to claim that our current culture doesn't both a) have and obvious rape problem, and b) have a problem wrestling with said problem so at some point it isn't as big of a problem. We largely live in a culture where even telling the police that you have been a victim of sexual assault, when you have been, can end in only more harm for yourself.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827927

Ok, but that's assuming black and brown people have names like that. What about black or brown people who do so happen to be named "Connor" or "Thomas"?
Does it really have to do with the race? Or just having names that are not as common?

Soo, you can be nice to one racial group but not others and that gives him a pass? Again, LBJ should be declared a void figure in terms of "combating racism" for the reasons I provided. And actually, if anything, being white can actually get you into a hard spot in cases, I.e. Affirmative action. This basically entails that even if a black student may have a lower SAT than their white counterpart, affirmative action policies will lean more towards the black student simply because "muh white guilt."
Dont believe me?


Also, I love the rhetoric that you're spewing because I can tell you this, you're not sounding any different than the lefties I know in real life, just puppeting the same contrived garbage and walking about like a zombie, saying what your "non-binary" Kin have fed you. It's predictable at best and pathetic at worst, and much of what you have been spewing has been debunked time and time again.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827929

That's exactly the conclusion you take, unless you're the type to label all blacks criminals, all arabs terrorists, all jews conmen, and so on.
Which is why collectivism is fucking retarded.

Anonymous 827930

Joke's on you, I know two black guys named Conner, and one white guy named Marcus.

algol 827932

Well the names themselves have racial signifiers. It's because race is attached to say, the name Dontarius, that it ends up effecting someones life in that way.

Of course, a dontavian might be considered more hip or be treated in a semi-positive way by college liberals. On the other end of the coin, a dontavian might be pulled over more often by the police.

The actual way in which these thing occur is between individuals but culture generally effects the likelihood of individuals reacting in certain ways, not in an invisible ghost influencing people sense, but in a "more likely to meet people with certain views" sense. That's why say, a gay person might be treated better at college than at their home town, the percentage of people with anti-gay views could be different between the two.

Anonymous 827933

File: 1512617907585.png (113.41 KB, 232x320, Chuckle.png)

I wish I had zombie other-kin friends.

Anonymous 827934

>well the names themselves have racial signifiers
This is 100% wrong. This is something only collectivist retards who do not understand the difference between race and culture think.
Culture does not equal race.
Biases to a culture do not necessarily mean biases to a race.
I can say "I dislike arabic culture" without saying "All arabs are bad".

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827939

I can agree. The only time I have ever heard someone believe culture = race is from a white nationalist moron. Not to say Algol is a white nationalist, but collectivism takes different forms, but they all have in common the cancerous idea that racial groups are a monolith. This is toxic to our development as a society
This post was edited by its author on .

algol 827946

The signifier used here is "Jamarcus is probably a black person because Jamarcus is a name more commonly used by black people"
When Jamarcus applies for a job, the only information the employer might have on him is his race. Since Jamarcus is a name that is tied to culture IN THE MIND OF THE INDIVIDUAL READING THE NAME. THIS IS THE MOST KEY PART OF THE ENTIRE CONCEPT. Whether you or I think "Jamarcus is a black name" is irrelevant to if the employer thinks Jamarcus is probably a black guy.

The individual effecting Jamarcus' situation is the only thing that matters here in describing how it works. Where it becomes a larger cultural thing is in the likelihood of people reacting in a certain way. If Jamarcus has a 10% or 70% chance of a prospective employer judging him in a racial way because of his name is important in the long run of how Jamarcus' life will play out.

So in short, Jamarcus is a black people name as long as a large enough amount of people believe that Jamarcus is a black name.

Note, I'm being descriptivist here rather than prescriptivist.

algol 827948

I'm still not certain if you're serious though.
Are you going to say that there's no racial signifier to being named Malik, Chen or Abbas? The idea that race and culture have no correlation is something you'd have to convince yourself by theorizing without a basis in observation.

Yes you can say that culture and race are separate but the idea that "A guy named Chen Li. I have gained zero information about his likely race." Like, come the fuck on dude.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827949

Precisely. Ultimately, while the angles may be different, racial collectivists are working from the same set of assumptions.
It only works if you think that black people are a monolithic entity that are inherently tied to one set of culture.
They are not.
Where you say "BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT JAMARCUS, THEY DO NOT WANT BLACK PEOPLE", I say "Because they do not want Jamarcus, they do not want people of that particular culture.".
A black man named Frank would be fine.
You're assuming racism where none necessarily shows itself, because you view culture as an inherent part of race.

I mean, just reading those names, I have no idea who they could be, because I've known a white man named Malik, I've known a white man named Chen.
I've never known anyone named Abbas.
>The idea that race and culture have no correlation
This is not what I said.
But correlation does not equal causation.
England is populated predominately by white people. Does that make English culture "white"? Does that mean anyone who doesn't like Englishmen a racist against white people? Does that mean that anyone who decides they do not like someone with a british accent is doing so due to their race?
Of fucking course not, that's retarded.

I can make a guess about the guy's race, in the same way that I am making a guess about the guy's culture. Do you think that people think no differently of a guy named Chen vs a guy named Hirioshi? Japan and China are vastly different, yet they're the same "race". You're assuming a racial issue where none presents itself.
You're assuming that because Xs come from Y, that anyone who dislikes Ys must dislike Xs, despite Ys being an entirely different matter from Xs. Xs growing up elsewhere from Y, you might like. Perhaps it's just that you dislike Y, not X.

algol 827950

Like. Let's step away from privilege, race, whatever.

The person who holds a view uses that view to make decisions.

This view has then altered the likelihood of their decisions.

If has the view that the color of water is xyklarn, he then goes around calling it xyklarn. He's a ridiculous person and no one else can understand him. Once everyone starts saying water is xyklarn, that's now a part of the language.

So if a person thinks that Jamarcus is a black name, he makes decisions on the basis that any Jamarcus he sees is a black person.

If enough people start thinking Jamarcus is a black name, that means a person with the name Jamarcus is more likely to be assumed to be black.

Like, this is basic shit about how humans work on an individual and group level.

Anonymous 827951

The thing is, Jamarcus isn't necessarily a black name.
Jamarcus is a name from a particular culture.

You're assuming that because Sharpie makes markers, all markers must be Sharpies, not to mention that all Sharpies must be markers..
This post was edited by its author on .

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827952

And you're ok with sharing similar views to that of Richard Spencer? Or racial collectivists as a whole?
I mean, I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't think I'd ever have the audacity to share similar views to that of racists. Not to say that you yourself are racist, but racial collectivism is just as toxic as economic collectivism.

Edit: I thought you were Algol, my apologies
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827953

I'm assuming that was directed mistakenly, right?

algol 827954

The culture of a jamarcus is tied to race because Jamarcus it is more likely that a person seeing that name would think Jamarcus is black rather than think he's white.

If a person doesn't want a black person specifically(i.e they're prejudiced against the race rather than the culture or name), they're going to deny a Jamarcus because that culture is more common among black people.

Do you really think people have prejudice against specific names? Like, they don't like the name Katy? No, they're prejudiced against the race or the culture or both. If they're prejudiced against a race, they're going to be prejudiced against cultures in which that race predominates.

Whether or not white jamarcusi exist is completely irrelevant here. Jamarcus himself doesn't matter when it comes to the racial signifiers of his name. The racial signifiers are attached by people other than Jamarcus.

If there's 1 Jamarcus or 1 chen, that's irrelevant if there's only 1 to 100 black jamrcusi or asian chens.

You're applying AND/OR logic when I'm discussing probability logic. Humans mostly think in probabilities when they make decisions.
This post was edited by its author on .


File: 1512619617497.png (449.83 KB, 1280x1302, 1501284288461.png)

You should always name your kid Bob, Steve or Ron anyway because if you look at basically any company if you ask for the head of any department it's almost ALWAYS going to be one of these names.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 827956

Saying its a black culture name and not a black name is just being a smartass, that's a horrible analogy. You can't learn if you're heated.

algol 827957

I have to repeat. Jamarcus can't do shit to determine whether his name is considered black or not. Jamarcus himself is irrelevant in this equation.

How other people react to Jamarcus' name is the only thing that determines if Jamarcus' name has racial or cultural signifiers.

Jamarcus could always change the way he dresses or speaks. How people react to Jamarcus' new clothes determines the racial, cultural, whatever signifiers of his wardrobe rather than the clothes themselves.

Like if I wear a plaid shit, whether that's appropriate wear for work isn't determined by the shirt. It's determined by the coworkers and customers.
This post was edited by its author on .

algol 827962

Say you have 3 prospective employers.

2 of them consider Jamarcus to be a black people name.
1 of them considers race and culture to be separate.

1 of the 2 people is a racist.

All things being equal, all 3 would be willing to hire a connor. Connors race doesn't matter here.

Therefore Jamarcus is less likely to get a job due to his race than connor.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 827963

Do you really think it's better to automatically assume people are racist, just because they do not like a name? Do you really find it so much more likely that people are prejudiced towards a particular race, rather than simply prejudiced towards a particular culture?
People do not hate others simply because of physical aspects.
They hate others because of actions. Because of things they can tie to that person. You've got the thinking backward here, is your larger issue, ithink.
You think in racial terms, and thus find only racial answers for your racial problems. You look and you see bigots because to you, race comes first, not culture.

People are not racist because they hate people with black skin.
They are racist because they link a particular culture that they hate to those with black skin.

Thinking in probabilities is your issue. It's what makes you a collectivist. The worst of groups, I might add. Collectivists are responsible for the largest sins of mankind.
But, anyway, the problem here is that you refuse to consider the individual. You refuse to consider the effect of the person, rather than a perceived "race" grouping that doesn't even exist in the real world.
This is why I brought up China and Japan. Very, very different peoples. Yet they have the same 'race'. Same for Nigeria and Kenya. These are not one unified people. Nobody on this earth is. There's different cultures all around the world. If I hate the British, that does not mean i hate all white people.
You can't learn if you're a faggot, either, but that won't stop me from trying to teach you.
It is a black culture name. This is an objective fact.
This is true. Jamarcus is ultimately irrelevant for the other individual's interpretation or reaction on his name.
Of course none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Because we aren't disputing that people can react to what you wear.
For instance; If you're a manlet with a beard and some problem glasses wearing a plaid shirt, I'm going to assume you're a hipster.
Likewise, if you wear baggy pants hanging far too low with your underwear hanging out and gold chains around your neck, I'm going to assume you're some street thug.

Anonymous 827964

That's because they're easy to remember.
Easy to remember names are more likely to be remembered when promotion time comes around.

Charonikenne Buttertractizami the Cat!StarMyMnao 827965

if jamarcus applied for a job i'd be expecting a roman soldier to come in

algol 827966

>Do you really think it's better to automatically assume people are racist, just because they do not like a name?
Completely and utterly fucking irrelevant to my argument.

I'm arguing a descriptivist point describing how oppression works on a more macro scale than the individual. I have yet to make any value claims. I'm describing a mechanism.
Do you understand what prescriptivist and descriptivist mean?

Can you find a single prescriptivist claim I've made? I've made none in my argument thus far.
This post was edited by its author on .

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827967

File: 1512620689424.jpg (136.88 KB, 786x831, P4hrvUx.jpg)

Gonna marry an asian lady and name my kid Jamiquille 2 own the libs.

Anonymous 827968

Why do they consider it a "black people name"?

All things being equal, if all three of them are ultimately going to hire a connor, regardless of if he's black or white, why are the first two 'racist'? Surely they'd judge him on his skin color, and refuse to hire him, too.

Here's a bigger question, though:
Why is it okay for you to simply decide "THEY ARE RACIST"?
Why is it okay for you to judge people you've never met with no evidence to be racist?
This is why i absolutely despise the left.
They're so quick to judge. So quick to condemn things they've not even bothered to consider. They've not even bothered to so much as give a penny's thought to.

Not all black people are named "jamarcus". Not all white people are named "frank". Some black people are named "Jamarcus". Some are also named "Conner". Some white people are named "Frank". Some are also named "Sven", or "Alphonso", or "Allen", and so on.
Names reflect cultures, yes. You're needlessly pinning race to those cultures, though. Not all blacks are alike. That's a very biggoted, racist thing to think.

Anonymous 827969

I'm arguing that names are ultimately cultural, and therefor it is fucking retarded to automatically assume because a name means you're less likely to be hired, it's not about race.
You have taken a position against this.
You're making the assumption here, you dick sucking homosexual assmonkey of a burnt out tire factory.

Just because you pretend otherwise, because god forbid someone actually pin you down on your biggoted racist argumentation,.

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827970

File: 1512620924350.png (113.66 KB, 500x411, tumblr_inline_oi99958bIw1swb8c…)

This post is getting unfairly lost in this thread, dragon anon literally got owned by his professors in school and is now mad at the liberals and jews because of it. This is great, I really want to know more about this.

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827971

I don't like League, but man that is cute as heck.

Anonymous 827972

Never even dealt with a professor arguing racial collectivism. I was lucky enough not to have racist biggots as professors.

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827973

File: 1512621116548.png (434.59 KB, 790x540, 1451650250633.png)

>I was lucky enough not to have racist biggots as professors.
Gosh darn, I think all of my professors were bigots. That's how i got that liberal brainwashing, son of a gun!

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827974

Spoken like someone who never actually took the time to learn the critical theory to understand the modern social sciences. Good thing you dodged out on that LIBURL BRAINWASHIN my dude.

Meisterburg!oRT4jqzTBU 827975

I feel ashamed that my thread has derailed into this...

Anonymous 827976

Nice deflection.

Judging people by the color of their skin, rather than their merits is the very definition of racism.
'Least unless you're using the new-age redefining-to-fit-my-agenda shit of "M-MUH POWER PLUS PREJUDICE".

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827977

I mean lets lay it out on the table. How many classes did you take in critical-theory or postmodern philosophy anon-kun? I mean you have read the literature right?

Anonymous 827978

There's a lot of collectivists on Ponychan. Side effect of most the individualists fleeing a rather authoritarian administration way back in the day, at several points, culminating into MLPchan, which ultimately fell prey to the same issues, until such a time as with no population we ended up merging for whatever reason with Ponychan. The last few individualists left for that, having still carried old, painful scars of that place.
There's still a handful, mind. Old guard of MLPchan, who for whatever reason, stayed behind.
But they're few and far between, and the Ponychanners far outnumber them.

I miss mlpchan,

algol 827979

>Why do they consider it a "black people name"?
I don't know, they decide.
For the purpose of this argument, they consider Jamarcus to be a black person name. If they instead considered Frank to be a black person name, then in our miniature society, Frank is a race associated name.

Only 1 of the three people are being discriminatory in this manner. 2 of them consider Jamarcus a black person name, only 1 of those 2 discriminates against Jamarcus based on race.

Yes, races aren't monolithically culturally. If there is a race associated culture though, you'll have the situation of.

>person discriminates against culture

They discriminate against that culture but not people of that race with different cultures.
>person discriminates against race
They discriminate against people of both that culture and all people of that race.

If the only information you have available is "They discriminated against a person of a race associated culture" then without any further information, there's a 50% chance that they did so for racial reasons.

Can you find a quote where I said that 100% of people not giving Jamarcus a job are doing so for racial reasons?
You're putting words in my mouth and accusing me of arguments I don't make. Can you actually address my arguments about the mechanism of how oppression occurs or are you going to keep arguing against the points you wish I was making?

>You're making the assumption here, you dick sucking homosexual assmonkey of a burnt out tire factory.

And now you're throwing a tantrum like a child. While conveniently enough, increasing the likelihood of discrimination against gay people by socially linking homosexuality to insults.
Until you can directly quote any of these claims you accuse me of making, and learn how to change a topic in a discussion like someone interested in a good faith, I'm going to rest satisfied that you're unable to put forth an argument to any of the claims I've made in this thread.

Come back when you learn how to discuss things like an adult.

Anonymous 827980

File: 1512621540592.png (55.36 KB, 400x400, 1405843256575.png)

>m-muh crit theory and postmodern philosophy
>u-ur just an uneducated brute, so I can dismiss your arguments, because u didn't go to college like me for my liberal arts major payed for by mommy's money

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827981

File: 1512621565252.png (515.79 KB, 636x541, tumblr_oyz17mVwIT1rvj4qqo2_128…)

Nah I don't SEE color. In fact I made my self color blind my injecting chemical X directly into my veins, mixed with appropriates amount of soy first. I don't even know what color is your fuck, everyone is purple for all I know.

Way to shame me you fucking sick shitlord.

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827983

>a-a-all those f-fucking idiots asking me if I've read those "physics" text books trying to tell me that the gravity is real.
Nice deflection anon-kun, if you need a reading list I can hook you up.


File: 1512622186420.png (843.02 KB, 1280x720, Trixie_rolls_her_eyes_at_Starl…)

You're going to reply to this post in a mocking manner and not even correct the word 'paid'?


Anonymous 827985

It's a pretty easy "why". Because of the cultural link.
These names didn't come out of nothing.
The same as why Sven is a Nordic name.

Strange way of phrasing it. I guess you're meaning that of the two who consider Jamarcus to be a "black people name", rather than the full three, one of them considers race and culture to be separate.
Which makes no sense to me, as that'd necessarily mean that it isn't a "black people name".
Unless you're saying that you can believe it to be a "black people name" and not discriminate. Which is yet weirder still.
But, whatever, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Problem is, race is merely tied to locations, for the most part. But there's lots of places in the locations you have a race. Not all blacks are Nigerians, not all Asians are Chinese.
So, while "Sven" might be white, his culture is not "white culture", is it?
It's Nordic culture. Because thats' where he's from. That's where his name came from. Same for Cheng, Kobiyashuru, Muhamed, Jose, and so on.
These are cultures of nations, not race, that dictate these names. If you stuck white man in Asia, with Chinese culture, Cheng'd be a 'white' name, by your reckoning.

But why do they discriminate.
You seem to fail to realize, racism doesn't come from nowhere. It isn't something we're naturally inclined towards as humans. This isn't something that comes up out of the blue.
They discriminate against a race because of a culture, because they use your own thinking.
Because they see that culture as "black".
Because they see Jamal as a black name. Just like you do. You've got the same mentality, you should be able to understand this. They're simply doing the reverse of your thought process, here.

There is a 100% chance they did it because of the culture. Because if the culture did not exist, they would have no reason to discriminate.
Again, you assume racism to come from nowhere. To be something that just "is".

Your stance is that Jamarcus is being discriminated against on racial grounds. The number of people not giving him a job are irrelevant.
Please, do not be an insufferable assmonkey faggot half-failed abortion about this shit. The reason I 'throw a tantrum" as you put it is because I cannot stand dishonest argumentation. And you are swiftly running head first into dishonest argumentation to protect your own bigotry, I must assume.

There's nothing to gain by being such an asshound. You aren't interested in good faith. That much is clear. So, why are you here? Why do you continue to post? Do you think you'll sway anyone, playing the fool, dancing around the issue, and never taking a real stance? Do you think I'd just accept your dishonesty at face value? Do you think I'd just allow you to do as you damn well please, hopping around, never actually addressing a thing, because you're a coward without principles, and never call you on it?

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827986

I'm sorry I'm shitposting on like 4 fronts right now. Polanon isn't worth my time right now.


File: 1512622356219.png (903.64 KB, 1280x720, Trixie_%5C-saying_that_didn't_…)

Whenever anybody says Nordic I automatically think of Skyrim and gym equipment.

Anonymous 827988

I can't type when I'm angry.
Though, to be honest, their posts aren't what's made me mad. It's Algol. Keeps jumping around, refusing to take a stance.
If you cannot stand by your principles. You do not have principles. Algol seems to have none.

Anonymous 827989

I'm not even from /pol/.
I hate both of you racial collectivists. Collectivists of all sorts are scum, responsible for the worst crimes committed by humanity.

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 827991

You got anything extra, or are you just gonna autistically screech because people aren't agreeing with your prepackaged Sargon talking points? Shouldn't you be out, like, saving western civilization from us dirty collectivists. Also do you want your copy of One-Dimensional Man in print, or ebook. I have a copy I could ship you, I'd just need an address~

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo 827992

What the living hell is the definition of 'collectivist' to you, anyways?

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 827993

File: 1512622750846.png (123.74 KB, 371x265, lewd.png)

>Collectivists of all sorts are scum, responsible for the worst crimes committed by humanity.
People being misguided by disguised aristocrats is not what i would call collectivism.

Anonymous 827994

Funnily enough, that's what I am aiming towards doing.
Keep your eyes out, I'll be in politics one day.

Send it to me in audiobook format and I'll listen while driving.
Grouping individuals together, often to judge them, or for a percieved "greater good". This is an easy definition that's fairly small, I'd wager there's some extra bits, but I think it explains the question enough,.
You say something like "white men are rapists", you're a collectivist. You say "Jews are a danger to society and must be eradicated", you're a collectivist.
Misguided they may be, but they're misguided through collectivism.

Name me one individualist genocide.
Go ahead, I'll wait.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 827995

You chose to die on this hill of downs syndrome. Like, you haven't provided one credible source to defend the completely random ideas that culture has no association with race, or that all associations based on race are equally invalid and malicious, but only when you want them to be I guess? You have none, you attacked the idea of knowing what you're talking about so you wouldn't have to, and these people are only responding to you because the site is dead.

Anonymous 827997

As I had stated earlier: Culture has an association with race. But correlation does not equal causation.
Nordic culture is not "white culture".
Japanese culture is not "asian culture".
Nigerian culture is not "black culture".
Judge them on their individual merits.

algol 827998

>Your stance is that Jamarcus is being discriminated against on racial grounds. The number of people not giving him a job are irrelevant.
My stance is that Jamarcus is discriminated against on racial grounds if the person discriminating would normally discriminate against all members of that race, regardless of culture. That's why if 1 person discriminates on culture while another discriminates on race, the end result is that 2 people discriminate against Jamarcus but only 1 did so on racial grounds.

Let's say a person doesn't like a culture. They notice that people of one race predominate in that culture. So if they shift towards racial grounds, they'll discriminate against people of other cultures of that race.

An example would be if Mark and Jamarcus are both black. A racist discriminates against both while someone who dislikes the culture would discriminate against only 1 of them.

Jamarcus in my hypothetical example has a 1/3rd chance of being discriminated against on race and a 1/3rd chance of on culture.
He's only discriminated against on race if the person discriminating is doing so for racial reasons. It's hard to think of a more clear definition than "Person hated people of that race so he discriminated against them."

Are you arguing that discrimination on racial grounds doesn't even exist? All I need to do is bring up an example of one person with racist views admitting they discriminated based on race. Shouldn't be hard to find.

I've yet to get to if it can be proven or not. It can't be proven with 100% certainty. I've yet to make claims about what kind of laws it would have. So far you're angry as hell because I've described a process.

I'm just asking you to attack my argument. I claimed that if an individual discriminates because they dislike people of a certain race, the other person is discriminated against. That's the only situation I've put forth in which Jamarcus is discriminated against. How hard is this when the definition is almost circular?

Anonymous 827999

File: 1512623201584.jpg (28.95 KB, 500x370, 7d253cd6a3fa9ea0867d29f2382069…)

Greeks were the real whites.
Unfortunately, I never end up saving these images, thinking I'll never have a chance to post it.

But, suffice to say, the real cradle of civilization was not the barbarians in Germany, Scandinavia, or Britain. It was in Greece.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828000

Nobody argued against that, this isn't a philosophical discussion, everyone else is talking about the reality of people's perception and what needs to be done about this real tangible concept not going in everyone's equal favor because of shitty reasons that don't need any more invalidation from people that don't even understand the topic they're attacking.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo 828001


algol 828002

I think you're being far too collectivist here.

Nordic culture is white culture to the individual who believes this.
Nordic culture is not white culture to the individual who doesn't believe this.

There is no true/false answer with "is nordic culture white culture" because culture does not exist in a real sense like an individual does. We can say "70% of individuals in this region believe that nordic culture is white culture" and that's as close as we can get. Because only individuals exist in a material sense, society and culture have to be treated as sets of individuals rather than singular entities. Because of this, we have to treat societies and cultures with percentages and sets rather than blank true/false statements.

If anything, what I just said is individualist in the extreme.
This post was edited by its author on .

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 828003

File: 1512623364412.png (203 KB, 840x740, 1480904253857.png)

>Name me one individualist genocide.
I'd say hitler hating jews and then convincing everyone that jews are the problem because it was an easy scape goat for the economy, and then promptly attempting to kill all the jews would be a pretty good example of an individualist genocide. Unless you think collectivism is any group of people who agree with each other and do shit because of it, which in that case every person who has ever lived is a collectivist and this is really stupid.


File: 1512623445062.png (631.87 KB, 883x732, 1527375__safe_screencap_starli…)

I grew up with this shit on TV constantly.

Nordic Track | Television Commercial | 1991

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828006

So uhh what happened to refusing to play along with words being put in your mouth? Was it too easy to pass up?

Anonymous 828007

Again, racism doesn't come from nowhere.

Sure. Because of the culture. Not the race. Thus, and this is how you cure racism by the way, they're not going to be bigoted to a person who does not exhibit the cultural problems they link to a race. It will take more effort to trust that person, I'll grant you, but this is how you shatter racism. Because it's based on a shoddy foundation that certain cultures are inherently "black".
Incidentally, this is why we have terms like "wigger".

Again, racism doesn't come from nowhere.

In both cases he's discriminated by culture. Especially since we do not know Jamarcus's race, just his name. The guy supposedly judging by his 'race' is actually judging by his culture, because he does not even know what the race is.

No. It exists. It's based in cultural reasons, though.

I'm angry because you're suggesting a problem that relies on your judgement of individuals for something you do not even know for certain is based on racism.
I'm angry because you're setting up an issue reliant on lopping all black men together, not by their skin color, but by a single name that happens to be linked to a race.

The situation you set forth is not based on race, though.
It's based on name.
Names are not race.
You cannot see the skin color of a name.
Names are cultural.

Anonymous 828008

File: 1512623650398.gif (1.13 MB, 156x183, TrigglyPuff-rage.gif)

You know, it's difficult dilemma. On the one hand, SJWs really deserve to be gassed. But on the other hand, murder is wrong, and SJWs are technically still human beings.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo 828010

File: 1512623733147.jpg (30.92 KB, 523x452, spook_pleases.jpg)

Anonymous 828011

The foundation of this argument is that "Jamarcus" is a black name, and therefor, judging "Jamarcus" by purely the name is racism. Despite that, without knowing who Jamarcus is, you cannot determine race. You can only determine culture.
Individual belief doesn't matter when we're talking about cultures like this. What are you on?
Culture just means the standards, ideals, and behaviors of an area or people.
It isn't collectivism unless you judge an individual on his culture.
Is this why you've had so much trouble in this argument?
Do you genuinely not know what culture is?

Anonymous 828012

>hating the jews
You just described a collectivist position.
Good job, you gave an example of yet another collectivist genocide.

Anonymous 828014

Fuck, thinking on it, by this retarded logic saying "black" is collectivism. Saying "female" is collectivism. Saying "human" is collectivism.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 828016

File: 1512623973869.png (915 KB, 1280x1657, tumblr_inline_onase3duuY1symc6…)

>Fuck, thinking on it, by this retarded logic saying "black" is collectivism. Saying "female" is collectivism. Saying "human" is collectivism.
Are you saying he's wrong?

algol 828017

>I'm angry because you're suggesting a problem that relies on your judgement of individuals for something you do not even know for certain is based on racism.
I don't know for certain if it's based on race. That's the entire point about me bringing up percentages, it's impossible to know 100%. Which is why I brought up your whole culture/race split. If a name is tied to both a culture and a race in various things in societies, it brings up more uncertainty. That's why if in our equation, we tag Jamarcus with just black and he's discriminated against then it's racial discrimination. If we tag it with both a race and a culture tag, then we only have at best a 50% certainty that Jamarcus was discriminated against on race.

As I suggested earlier, one of the few ways to increase the certainty is if the person discriminates against people of several cultures. Say a Chen, mark, Sven and a Jamarcus. If they're all of one race, then the certainty of it being racial discrimination increases.

>I'm angry because you're setting up an issue reliant on lopping all black men together, not by their skin color, but by a single name that happens to be linked to a race.

I think you're not understanding this. Jamarcus and black were pulled out of a hat. We could have Tony and gay, Li and asian, bubba and southerner, wears blue pants and likes hockey.
The point is that the individual associates the two facts.

I'm presenting a logic. The jamarcus and black are placeholders for variables.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828018

The foundation of this argument doesn't favor you at all and you honestly should have changed it when you had the chance. You cannot determine that Jamarcus is anything but black by identifying that its a "black culture" name. There's nothing left to extrapolate other than race and everything that goes with it. Nonblacks born into black culture are not named Jamarcus.

algol 828020

>Do you genuinely not know what culture is?
Can you name an example of culture that doesn't involve "A large group of people"
When we add subculture, class, music tastes, hobbies, etc. to this then we have something much more complex. Even within a culture, we don't find monoliths.

Can you touch, taste or feel a culture? Can you argue for why the idea of culture as a collection of individuals, only being able to be measured as you would a collection of individuals, is wrong?

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828021

fuck, there are almost definitely black people brought up in white culture named Jamarcus, how is this the topic of the night?

Anonymous 828022

Yes. Unless you're using a really stupid definition of collectivism.
Chance, not certainty.

Chance, not certainty.

And the argument would still stand. Because "Tony" does not make a gay. You can be gay and not named li, and moreover, you cannot determine if someone is gay just by "Tony". Thus, if someone's judging a name of "Tony",even if they're bigoted, they can only judge by the culture. They may well be judging the culture by their bigotry, but "Tony" is not linked to homosexuality, it is linked to a culture that is linked to homosexuality.
No, you cannot determine that Jamarcus is anything.
That's it.
Nothing else.
You cannot determine if he is black, as that parameter was never set.
A white man can be named Jamarcus.
See >>828014


File: 1512624471858.png (1.01 MB, 1280x720, Trixie_confused_by_Granny's_pu…)

I have never even heard the name Jamarcus in my life. Is this really the best 'black' name you people could come up with?

Anonymous 828024

There are most definitely white people brought up in black culture named Frank.
What of it?
This is irrelevant.
>how is this the topic

Skinny!Trips0zvVM 828025

>you people

Anonymous 828026

Same here, actually. Should've used Tyrone, or Jamal.
I've known three Tyrones.

Anonymous 828027

Incidentally, I had the same issue with Conner.
I've known two black conners.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828028

But they aren't. And let's say you could somehow show me one white person named Jamarcus. How could that possibly change other people's perception of Jamarcus as a black name and the racially motivated consequences it has on Jamarcus' job application? Consequences that even this hypothetical white Jamarcus could feel the repercussions of?

The Shucc!YoRdlEjxQ6 828029

File: 1512624687504.jpg (91.88 KB, 500x513, tumblr_ogtumfN4wv1u3f6fao1_500…)

>Yes. Unless you're using a really stupid definition of collectivism.
Are definitions themselves not a collectivist idea? I don't think we have so much hate if we didn't collectively agree on what hate is. In fact, imagine how little racism there would be if people didn't collectively define cultural boundaries, and everyone just existed in peace without worry of hating an other.

Seems like the concept of defining things is the real culprit here.

Anonymous 828031

File: 1512624780453.jpg (72.18 KB, 960x890, 1508940849419.jpg)

Those consequences you explain happening to white Jamarcus are exactly my point.
They're based on the name.
Names are not race.
Your name does not determine the color of your skin.
Thus, it's cultural.
Stirner please.


File: 1512624885801.png (165.8 KB, 840x952, img-2767719-1-hEoAKvv.png)

Yeah. I mean I can see that. But Jamarcus is just so fucking random.

Like someone was trying so hard to come up with a racial stereotype they had a seizure and attempted to say 'Jamal' and 'Marcus' at the same time.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828033

How many times do I have to say that people associate the name with race and that pointing out whatever you want to point out makes no difference? And yeah, friendly reminder that white Jamarcus is just hypothetical and not a real person. This analogy really doesn't support the invalidation of black-associated names or their consequences at all.

Anonymous 828034

Why do people associate it with a race?
Because a particular race has that name often.
Why does that race have that name often?

algol 828035

Giving "normal situation" examples so that the idea of situation dependent discrimination can be understood better. The situations given are placeholders for "here is a situation where some sort of discrimination occurs" so that the concept can be explained better.
When you pressed me, I put forth a formal argument to try to go deeper into what I'm talking about.

>They may well be judging the culture by their bigotry, but "Tony" is not linked to homosexuality, it is linked to a culture that is linked to homosexuality.

Alright so you got me.
So instead of X is tagged to Y
It's X is tagged to Y is tagged to Z when it comes to names.

X is tagged to Y is tagged to Z
So then in the Jamarcus example, Jamarcus is tagged to a culture that's tagged to a race.

Stop being so hung up on names. Whether it's a shirt, a name, a culture, doesn't fucking matter. You can tie music fandom to ice cream preference here. If a bunch of people hate that music fandom, they might stop serving that ice cream type so they stop coming around.

This entire argument, my point has never been that "Jamarcus is a black name". It's that "Most people in our culture believe jamarcus is a black name" Whether I or you think Jamarcus is a black name isn't going to effect whether the culture treats Jamarcus as a black name.

algol 828036

So let's say that Antonio Scarramucci exists in a culture with a high percent of individuals who hate italians.
Even if he could easily find a job after changing his name and culture, do you really think his difficulty in finding a job would have nothing to do with his race?


File: 1512625188584.gif (2.09 MB, 640x360, 1143537__safe_meme_smiling_ani…)

I think the most amazing part of this thread is that everyone has agreed Jamarcus is absurd yet people keep saying it with a straight face.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828040

Is your next line going to be something like
>How do we get rid of racism?
>Destroy all culture
because I really don't feel like watching you stretch these real issues out as thin as possible to wrap around your cock and masturbate with about your anti-culture pseudery.

Anonymous 828041

File: 1512625334756.png (118.82 KB, 243x312, 1418244312431.png)

In the same way that Sven is treated as a nordic name, yes.
My position is that not wanting to hire people named "Sven" doesn't mean you're racist towards white folk.
"Italian" is not a race.
So, yeah, his job difficulty has nothing to do with race. It's entirely cultural. Incidentally, he could solve it by simply changing his name. Not even necessarily legally. Just change how it is writ. "Anthony", for instance. We did this rather hilariously in the United States during that huge bit of welcoming immigrants. We'd hear their names, write it down, and instead of being Baejersvuld, the name was 'Bakersfield". >>828037

Anonymous 828042

>how do we get rid of racism
I explained that earlier.
Show racists that a race is not linked to a culture.
Best way to get rid of 'em is to get them a X race friend.

🐈🐈Katicus🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls 828046

Getting a racist to open up to the idea that some of X are okay and that they're mostly bad in groups does not solve racism. These are literal baby steps for racists with little life experience that often lead nowhere substantial. Getting someone an X race friend to solve their racism is a meme, not an actual phenomenon.

Anonymous 828058

File: 1512642378222.png (467.67 KB, 1293x912, 1512609994319.png)

>how do we get rid of racism
Evidence suggests that the more contact people have with blacks, the more racist they become against blacks. If this is true, then we can eliminate racism against blacks by ethnically cleansing the country of blacks.

algol 828059

>italian is not a race
If I think it is then it is to me. If enough people think italian is a race, then it's a race. Part of why italian is pertinent here is that southern europe was considered racially inferior in the 19th century. So italians were considered a race back then, wop and whatnot, while because enough individuals stopped considering them different from other whites and attitudes around whiteness changed, otalian is no longer a race.

Whether a race exists or not and what's defined as a race is based on the circumstances of a situation. See for example, jews being both white and non-white depending on situation.

i.e race is real in the same way the idea of rights or gender roles are.

algol 828060

It's collctive because if you deny that a group such as a culture is made of individuals and also claim that cultural traits exist in a true/false fashion rather than a tendency or percent matter. Then you're denying the variation of individuals within a group. You keep saying that "it's collectivist to say that all people of a race are the same" while doing the exact same thing to culture.

Say for example "70% of culture x likes music y" is based on observing the traits of the individuals. "The people of culture x likes music y" treats a group of people as a singular object. Treating a group of individuals as one object is the very definition of a collective.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 828108

This assumes the nonsense "Implicit association test" has any real hold on racism at all.
I do not believe it does. It seems to me to be completely worthless nonsense.
Rather, it looks to me like that score jazz has more to do with the exposure to black people in general.
I mostly base this on my personal exposure to the south. I do not believe people are so much as a quarter as racist as the media has you believe down here, for the simple reason that everyone knows someone who is black, everyone has a black friend, everyone goes to the store and deals with a black clerk, everyone passes by a black in the market.
Even the rare few I've met who've said shit like "All niggers are crooks" consider a few to be exceptions to the rule. The only actually racist people I've ever met are living out in the countryside, where there are no blacks around.

Anonymous 828111

I am not saying all people of a culture are the same, you retard. Does help explain why you cannot understand such simple concepts, though.
Cultures are generalizations. Stereotypes are rarely wrong about a group, but rarely correct about an individual. This is because stereotypes hold their basis in culture.

Mostly depending on what benefits them the most to claim, but yeah. People prop up races when it suits them. See "Hispanic", despite the Spanish being white. If anything, though, this ought to prove how nonsensical and easily shattered racism is, to begin with. Nigerians and Kenyans might both be black, but that doesn't mean they're anywhere near the same, as I had said before.

Depends on where you take rights to come from. If rights come from the concept of self ownership, then no, you cannot just 'decide' a right exists.
As to gender roles, they're literally cultural.

Anonymous 828116

Like I said, they aren't all the same in culture. Stereotypes come from culture, and stereotypes are rarely true for the individual, but usually true of a group.

algol 828124

Rights only apply in the sense that they're enforced. So you lose a right to ownership if your right isn't enforced, pretty sensible.

You can look at say people in afghanistan fighting for their right to beat the shit out of their wives. Most people are fighting for some sort of right, but of course people disagree on what should be rights and what shouldn't.

The key point with it is that a culture is a group and is defined by the group. A group is made up of individuals. So let's say, "Honor is based on family relations" is considered an important part of a culture. This isn't so much a true/false statement as much as "Enough individuals within that group believe this to where it can be considered a part of that culture. If only 60, 70 or 80 of the people in that culture believe it; it's still probably fair to say that the more is important in that culture. Since mores in a culture aren't true/false, if the proportion of people in that culture who believe in family honor became 20%, it's not suddenly a new culture. It's now a culture that's changed.

In the same way, the definition of the culture is determined by individuals. If say, a group of people are considered to form a culture and their views within it split hard enough, they might be considered to be two separate cultures now. Whether these two groups are considered one group or two is determined by if enough individuals in other cultures believe them to be one or two cultures.

Anonymous 828126

Rights cannot be enforced, they can only be restricted. This is because rights are not law, they are morality.
You do not lose your right to ownership because it's been suppressed. Someone is simply violating your right.
It's best interpreted as a moral reason for revolution or resistance.

I don't see the relevance on this culture jazz.

algol 828128

Well morality has a cultural basis.
Regardless, a population that's unable to assert its rights will quickly lose them. Wouldn't you agree that this is why gun ownership shouldn't be outlawed?

Anonymous 828129

This line of thinking only works for certain kind of rights. There's a distinction between negative and positive rights. Positive rights, such as freedom from theft or the right to a trial, require actions on the part of others. These rights, by their nature, require enforcement.
Negative rights only require others to not interfere. Examples are the right to hire workers, free speech, unionizing, etc.

Anonymous 828163

File: 1512700356890.png (602.38 KB, 793x794, c480c4dc4de7c49143c4edb2447806…)

True, but these are arguing from the morality of self ownership, which comes from ultimately natural inclinations of man, spotted throughout the world. We all have a self-preservation instinct, we all care about the self firstly.
You are right, though. A population that cannot protect its rights will quickly find those rights suppressed. That is why gun ownership is so valued. Funnily enough, people misunderstood the 2nd ammendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It isn't that the people have a right to bear arms, as it is, the right to bear arms is necessary for a secure and free state, which necessitates the bearing of arms. Or, if you will, people have the right to oppose a tyrannical government. Bearing arms is a means to oppose a tyrannical government. Therefor; The people have the right to keep and bear arms.

See above for more or less the reasoning those are 'rights'.
Though, "freedom of theft" is not a right. Ownership of property is a right, and theft violates that ownership. Rights can be violated by others.

In any case, as to the right of a trail, being that you have the right to self-ownership, and thus should not be imprisoned unjustly, a fair trial is necessary to prove that you can be justly imprisoned. It's the same concept as the NAP, when it comes to this lot. It is okay to violate the rights of others that have violated your rights, more or less.
I feel like those anarchists are about the only people who really understand the whole 'rights' concept.

algol 828171

>Though, "freedom of theft" is not a right. Ownership of property is a right, and theft violates that ownership. Rights can be violated by others.
I think he means freedom from theft. So in a sense, the right to freedom from theft is necessary to secure a right to ownership.

algol 828172

>It is okay to violate the rights of others that have violated your rights, more or less
This seems to be an obviously dangerous way of thinking. If a person violates your rights, they lose their right to a trial for instance. Then of course, you have the situation if the only basis is "people lose rights when they violate others rights" where the mere assertion of violating the NAP is all that's needed to do any matter of brutality to a person, since that person loses a right to a fair trial, defend themselves, etc. As well, littering can be punished with enslavement or state mandated dog rape since the person who littered now loses any rights they had. It's easy to meme on this line of thinking and put forth absurd examples of how it would make for a nightmarishly violent society.

If you interpret it in the hoppean sense, then it needs serious "except this" corollaries or else there's no way to justify a non-tyrannical legal system.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 828174

File: 1512701911849.jpg (44.73 KB, 640x640, C_Z5KlsXcAA-oXv.jpg)

algol 828176

That's the thing about the memeable nature of the ridiculously rothbardian ancap society. Most folks don't consider it a fair, just or free society if you can be turned into a sex slave and then shot for starving to death.

Anonymous 828182

From theft is what I meant to say, anyway. I read it as that the first time. Regardless, same concept. Freedom from theft is not a right, ownership of property is a right. People that violate your rights do not get those in kind, and thus, if you will, "violate the NAP" making it morally acceptable to punish them.
I agree. Though, as far as the trial thing, you first have to prove that they've done so, which is the point of the trial.
The concept is more or less the same, however. It's just that there's degrees to it, unlike as the anarchist suggest, where it is okay to McNuke someone who's trespassed or who's dog shat on your lawn.

algol 828184

>Freedom from theft is not a right, ownership of property is a right.
If you don't have a right to be free of people stealing your property, then you don't have a right to government protection of your property. Positive and negative rights are often codependent in this way.

The thing you're pointing out with the trial though, still comes down to one of the big issues of memeing on the NAP, if a person who violates the NAP loses all rights, then there's no difference in the legal principles behind punishing littering vs punishing murder and there's no limits on what the state could do to either person. If you go rothbardian and have privatized legal systems like the anarchists suggest, you can easily end up with "Mcdonalds corporate court fines you do a lifetime of slavery in the salt mine for wasting 3 dollars of product while employed." Of course in the anarchists situation, the answer is always "pay money to be represented in a different court" or whatnot. Then you get into the general issue of your legal rights being roundabout determined by your wealth in ancap world.

Ancaps though, they don't even really understand how private property and markets are maintained. It's about the most ridiculous ideology a person could try to implement in the real world imo.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous 828185

You don't have the right of government protection of your property. You have the right to property.
In my mind, the role of the government should be to protect your rights. I believe this to be the reason government exists.
You do not have the right to your rights being protected. But, you have the right to protect your rights. Like I said, "rights" are about morality. Thus, you have the right to organize with others to protect your rights. Which in turn is where governments come from. That's why we humans have made them.
'Least as I can see. Historically, perhaps that's less accurate, as often it's more thugs exercising control over others. But, I'd argue that's less a government as it is just thugs enslaving others.

That lot seems to fall in to the whole "fair trial" thing.
Like I said, I believe a fair trial is necessary, as otherwise, your rights are being unjustly violated. You need to prove you have a case for violating the rights of someone else. In order to do that, you need to prove they violated someone else's rights.

Ancaps are dumb, in any case. I do not agree with their rather one-directional thinking. I use the NAP as an example of the concept involved, as it were. I do not agree with the 'degrees' if you will. Someone who's dog shat on your line does not deserve a McNuking.

algol 828189

The whole thing with degrees is why while the NAP can serve as a legal principle, it can't be "The only allowed legal principle. No other legal principles can ever be applied." since unless there are other legal ideas at work, there's no reason for it not to go full insanity.

Anonymous 828191

Not sure what you mean exactly. Mind expanding on it?
I just mean to use the NAP as a means to, essentially, violate the rights of others.
Which is only to say "It's okay to imprison a thief".

Anonymous 828192

The NAP itself doesn't indicate what degree of force is appropriate for responding to NAP violations. E.g., McNuking somebody for trespassing.

Anonymous 828193

File: 1512705939396.jpg (65.74 KB, 901x960, 1420658260759.jpg)

True. I suppose that's my fault for falling for ancap memes.
Though, still, not saying what degree is kind of part of the issue.

Anonymous ## Mod 840406

Moved to >>>/ef/37717.

Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]