>>34508774 yeah everytime your little reddit buddies show up trying to start an argument they get thoroughly fucked in the ass. when it comes down to facts and logic without the "muhfeelings" bullshit then you people generally have no ground to stand on.
>>34509818 That the status quo has social, political and economic issues and we should constantly be moving to improve society in any way possible. Being stuck in the frame of mind that what we have currently is 100% correct does not open the road to an improvement in society and in fact could be dangerous.
This also does not mean that any solutions to the criticisms pointed out by left wing academics in regards to our system may be right either, it just means that we should all be educated, have an open mind and realise that things could be improved socially
>>34508774 I love Zizek and am a NatSoc who may turn communist, but only in a society without LGBT people, but specifically T; what modern SJWs advocate is the greatest threat to the social order today.
>>34510244 You can't pin it on that useless left-right paradigm because it's modeled on principles that exist outside of it. Liberals always accuse it of being far right because of its economic tenants, while conservatives accuse it of being far left because of its social tenants.
No, it's because the number of Nazis/White Supremacists far outnumber the number of leftists on this board, since this is the only place on the internet where they can post their views and not get immediately banned.
>>34510149 The point was to get right wingers to engage leftists. I think their experience with leftists is limited to the idiots on tumblr which is akin to judging right wingers by Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones, so hopefully they'll gain some exposure to leftists, maybe read some Marx and get a grip on the ideology.
>>34509514 I have to interject a small some here. I think it would be an uneducated assumption to say that right-wing political thinkers don't speak as much as left-wing. A few examples are: Mark R Levin, F. A. Hayek, Milton Freedom, and Thomas Sowell. I could also say books like Liberty and Tyranny, The Road to Serfdom, Throw Them Out, (and on the verge of nut job) Stop the Coming Civil War. I would say that it's easier to access a certain political sides politic depending on location around the US, upbringing, and radio/internet talking heads/news groups a person listens too.
>>34509278 Tell me, how is Slavoj Zizek not a complete charlatan? Do you know something I don't? I've watched talk after talk that he's given and while I like his personality and speaking voice there doesn't seem to be a lot of actual content. Do I have to read his books? Where is the real information?
>>34509141 >It is physically impossible for /pol/ to be an echo chamber.
You are 100% wrong.
Instead of upvotes /pol/ operates on bumps but are functionally similar.
Threads that are too challenging, too boring, or that contradict the echo chamber are ignored and sink to page 10 quickly.
The only threads that contradict the echo chamber and survive are the blatant troll threads. For a non-racist, non-fascist to get replies here they have to purposefully antagonize people into replying or dumb down their points to such a degree that /pol/ will reply in order to mock them.
/pol/'s bump based system rewards antagonism, maintaining the status quo, entertainment and simple OPs. it isn't an upvote system but it might as well be.
Libertarianism being centered around an entirely free market is oversimplifying it. FreeER markets are the logical conclusion of a lot of libertarianism's tenants, but libertarians are more concerned with individual liberty and non-coercion.
"Regulation" has proven to not work because of a conflict of interest. Most libertarians I've met agree that it would be more logical to attack the problem at the source; the government that grants so many benefits and bailouts in the first place to the corporations. It's a one size fits all solution.
I enjoy the left-wing critiques of society and media. I even like a lot of the SJW-ish analysis. When they say a particular piece of media is intended to play to fantasies of white males or something, I tend to agree. When they say that art is the production of ideology, I tend to agree with that as well. They are the best at analyzing the system from an objective, rational perspective.
The problem I find is that their idea for replacing the status quo is always bad. What law does the leftist propose to replace the law of nature and competition? They are literally trying to abolish nature. When I was a kid this sounded fine. Nature is gross and unfair, etc. Humans are animals though. Humans aren't ruled by rational thought.
I used to think conservatives were the ones who thought humans were something special, created by God to rule over other life forms. Conservatives don't really believe that, though. They just think such a belief is necessary in society so that order will prevail. Liberals are the ones who think humans are exceptional among all life. They think the motivations of human behavior can be deconstructed and re-built as long as the new ideas are "reasonable". In reality, it's like someone who has no idea how a car is built deciding to take it apart and build the same pieces into a better car. You can never do it. You just break the car and end up with a bunch of random junk. I want to be a liberal, it's really nice to believe in progress. I just have a really hard time of it anymore.
Non-leftwing nationalists of /pol/, answer me this.
What are you hoping to achieve? Okay, so your country is completely free of Jews, gays and non-whites. What now? How is your race any better off if they're still under the slave-driving capitalist system? And on that note, as long as any kind of capitalist economics are maintained your nation is still going to be run by the elites you're hoping to drive out through the seeds of capitalism that have been planted all over the world.
Why do you identify with nationalism if you don't think worker liberation is important?
>>34508774 I'm left wing one most issues (but not all), for example I hate feminism and I hate people who push for gun control but I also hate the capitalist system, because big business tends to have too much influence over government. Personally I think we need a system similar to that of Switzerland, which would be a socialist direct democracy.
I like to think that I'm fairly liberal. >America's welfare as it is now is acceptable. Drug tests to receive it are more than appropriate though. Some people could do with a bit more, and some people could do with a bit less, but no one's starving from it. >Gays should marry, but schools don't have the right to tell someone of a particular religion what they should or should not think is wrong. There is logically no difference between telling someone that they're wrong for drinking and telling someone that they're wrong for being gay. >Schools should be completely open to any non-violent religious expression(or lack thereof), and should avoid having anything to do with teaching the students their morals or trying to influence their ambitions. >Judging applicants based on their race for important positions and competitive school seats results in a lower quality of results. It doesn't matter if you're White, Indian, Black, or Hispanic. If you're the best person for the job, you deserve it.
However, most of my friends seem to think that these things make me a neo-nazi with homophobic tendencies. I don't have the heart to tell them that I'm not particularly religious.
Mr. Perry is facing a felony indictment stemming from his efforts to force the resignation of the Travis County district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg, after she was arrested on a charge of drunken driving in April. Mr. Perry is charged with threatening to veto funding to the district attorney’s public integrity unit unless she quit, a threat that he ultimately carried out. The veto blocked $7.5 million in state funds for the unit.
>>34511003 Libertarianism is a very american ideology and I'll hand it to you that your government is fucking retarded with bailouts to corporations, but that's actually a symptom of a belief in the free market in the first place. Complete financial deregulation leads to dodgy decisions on a grand scale and to economic bubbles.
If those banks and corporations were to have failed without government intervention, the entire economic system and the world would be fucked (which in my opinion is inevitable, but that's for a different discussion). It's hard to speculate about what would happen at the end of a catastrophic economic depression, but I don't think the immediate outcomes would be very good. There would probably even be a blacklash against capitalism and the free market which are required for you to continue your libertarian beliefs
>>34511033 I think everyone here on /pol/ would love to be liberal, no one wants to be seen as a "Nazi who wants to exterminate 6 gorillion Jews", but anyone with an ounce of logic and rational thought just cannot bring themselves to do it. Once youve swallowed the red pill theres just no going back.
>>34511394 The only reason the banks got so big in the first place is because the government (and by extension, taxpayers) were their personal safety blanket. There is no conceivable way that those banks would have ever gotten that large without the government's assistance, and even if they did, they would still be accountable to their customers, who can voluntarily choose not to do business with said bank.
>>34511105 I'm leftwing but to me national socialism is inherently socialistic economically, and while there would be an element of capitalist slave-driving it would not be anywhere as bad as modern neo-liberal societies
>>34511394 so how do you explain the SEC pushing derivatives and our legislature passing a law in 2005 that gives derivatives specific privileges in bankruptcy that cost the banks that failed billions (trillions)
Don't worry, I don't expect an answer because I know you can't give one.
'leftist' seems like a bit of an overstatement. this implies that I am a die-hard communist or socialist. I'm actually quite capitalistic. Consider myself like Bill Gates, a left-leaning capitalist who understands the proper role of government and the proper roll of free-market capitalism.
>>34508774 I'm same guy as >>34510801 Since you lefty here's some advice.The only real enemies you have on /pol/ are the Stormfags & European fascist FIS assets. They're the only honest-to-God fascists. Nearly everyone else is in on a sick joke, so you better get a sense of humor.
>>34511299 Hello unpaid Wendy Davis shill or paid DNC shill (not sure which)
>>34511105 I would fully support a Nationalist leaning Communist government. Unfortunately every time I bring up the subject all I get is
>HURR NATIONALISM AND COMMUNISM ARE LITERALLY INCOMPATABLE.
With no deeper discussion on the subject being allowed by other Communists. All this, despite the fact that Stalin basically ran the USSR similiar to such a model, and it was pretty much one of the most successful Communist regimes in history.
>>34511288 Confirmed for 16 years old >>34511291 Not sure you can prove a negative by appealing to the "good nature" of a group. Also you shouldn't be able to bump your thread at all, it usually moves it lower on the page list.
>>34510773 >Threads that are too challenging, too boring, or that contradict the echo chamber are ignored and sink to page 10 quickly. Bullshit. Highly argumentative threads are the ONLY ones that stay on the first page.
Have you been here for a week? This place is not even close to being an echo chamber. Every single thread is riddled with arguments, personal attacks, toxic aggression etc.
I'm pretty left-wing. I don't consider myself SJW because I'm not obnoxious, but I am pretty much completely left wing. I come here because every once in a while I find arguments that make me question my beliefs, but not really enough to change my mind, at least not yet.
I think the fundamental problem /pol/ has is that everyone here seems obsessed with identity politics, which is weird considering this is the internet and an anonymous image board. Why the fuck is identity topic number 1?
>>34508774 Sure thing. I am a radical leftist, but it is pointless t o post on this shit board. If you want any real discussion of anything, it is best to look someplace else. That said, I do find this board quite funny, in a Fox News sort of way.
>>34511959 And yet most most threads involve some kind of pride, shaming, or blaming a demographic for the problems in the world. I agree ideology is useful, but analysis is also important. If you're going to discuss current events, it's not a good idea to make everything about ideology.
I sympathize with the state and a planned economy, and I hate the corporate oligarchy that has ruined this country (who also, ironically, are the biggest supporters of multiculturalism and immigration). I just dont understand why with Communists its either fully open-borders or absolutely nothing at all. Whats wrong with a homogenous Communist state that supports the traditional family unit ?
I will check out his work though. Thanks for the reccomendation.
>>34512035 A non-government created bubble is a different story because people have the voluntary choice whether or not to get caught up in said bubble.
The 2008 housing bubble was, plain and simple, caused by two government subsidized organizations giving ludicrous loans to people who could never afford to pay them off, for reasons that essential amount to MUH FEELS. This is a different story because the bubble was formed entirely with taxpayer money, in a manner that was NOT voluntary.
>>34512088 Pretty much this. Funny how the main criticism in this thread by leftists against /pol/ is that we are all supposedly idiots, but if they are losing arguments on a daily basis what does that make them?
I think everyones problem here is that everyone has their own definition of what right and left wing economically are.
My definition of left wing is state controlled industries, regulation of the market and as a result of this, greater government income which is spent on social issues and national interests
Right wing economics to me is the belief that the market should not be regulated, that wealth should be in the hands of individuals which would eventually trickle down to poorer people (thus no need for social spending) and that no (or very little) industry or company should be in the hands of government.
To me, national socialism is a lot more economically left according to my definitions. A completely free market doesn't really have any notions of nationalism
>>34512272 Ya, I'm gonna need a source on that statement. What you said pretty much amounts to
>UH, UM, THE EVIL WALL STREET PEOPLE, UM, THEY GOT TOGETHER AND, UM, MADE THE HOUSING BUBBLE.
I do not watch Fox News, and the government subsidized housing loans are the commonly accepted reason why the bubble took place. After all, it is called the HOUSING bubble. I fail to see how banks play a part in this outside of being the medium in between the home buyers and their subsidized loans.
>>34512350 See there you go again, just calling an entire board stupid for no reason. The reason you lot lose here is that you seldom produce any real evidence of your own to support your argument, or fail to refute the massive amounts of evidence given against you. All the while doing little more than insulting everyone who disagrees with you. Theres a reason why /pol/ ideology is spreading across all the other boards on 4chan, the lurkers have seen enough.
The problem with leftists is that they are not satisfied with sharing a space with other people, they must either completely control a space and shut-down the opposition, or they will complain about being excluded themselves.
There are a sizable minority of leftists on /pol/, but since they don't control the board (yet), they don't count as existing from the left-wing point of view.
>>34510773 >Threads that are too challenging, too boring, or that contradict the echo chamber are ignored and sink to page 10 quickly. >too challenging >for /pol/
If by challenging you mean all those peso rights threads, we don't want that shit on our comps plain and simple.
>contradict the echo chamber.
Ya lost me here bro. Maybe you mean if I've already debated 3 different communists and 2 different pro-Israel anons, 2 muslims, a satanist, an atheist, a Catholic, a Muslim, a genetic denier,an AnCap, and a MSM only "opinionated" anon in one day, I don't feel like doing it again for the Fifteenth time - So I pass over the fat acceptance thread. If that's what you mean then yeah. This place is a constant swirl of debate and disagreement - the opposite of an echo chamber.
Let's be honest here, 90% of Nazis, Libertarians, Reactionaries and etc on /pol/ are actually leftist on real life. It's just that being a leftist on the internet, where everyone is a leftist already, it's no fun, so i roleplay as a Traditionalist conservative instead.
>>34512647 Even though you called me an idiot I actually agree with you, I still respect full blown SJW's for having an interest in the well being of others and a desire to better the world. And you're right, an inclusionary ideology is always better than an exclusionary one.
I think we have pretty similar points of view but I find it really hard to still embrace either socially conservative or socially liberal ideas. I know I don't really believe in capitalism and think it's flawed as shit but in terms of certain social issues I'm not really that sure.
>>34512665 >Ya lost me here bro. Maybe you mean if I've already debated 3 different communists and 2 different pro-Israel anons, 2 muslims, a satanist, an atheist, a Catholic, a Muslim, a genetic denier,an AnCap, and a MSM only "opinionated" anon in one day, I don't feel like doing it again for the Fifteenth time - So I pass over the fat acceptance thread. If that's what you mean then yeah. This place is a constant swirl of debate and disagreement - the opposite of an echo chamber.
>>34512747 Nice shifting of the goalposts, but we dont have a hivemind here on /pol/. The only commonality is that typical leftists lose every key argument they make here.
>>34512592 >What's anarcho-communism? >Implying it isn't just as stupid if not worse than libertarian-communism
>American democracy is just like Soviet democracy. >Soviets >Actually letting individuals vote We have this thing called 3rd party choices like the Green party or someone who isn't affiliated with anyone.
>Go be a faggy 12 year old democrat somewhere else >Implying I am Democrat Go Jew someone else you fucking dipshit
>>34510560 If you create a new state, then there would not be a deprivation of rights because by that time eugenical policies would eradicate the conditions - anyone who first moves there does so voluntary
>>34510727 I like listening to his talks as background noise but I'm not entirely sure how anyone could like his speaking voice, but you're pretty much right. I've read around 10 or 12 of his books and even the ones that are supposed to be deep tomes of Hegelian philosophy or calls to unite the left under the dialectical materialism banner... quite literally all of it might well have come from a random content generator peppered with the same repertoire of jokes and footnotes he's used in previous books.
>>34512592 >Well, you can only vote 2 political groups. Blatant bullshit, you've never participated in an American election, or your education has failed you because you are stupid. Not ignorant, but stupid.
I just believe in personal freedom and have a responsible distrust of large organizations (because they are more often then not a threat to personal liberty). It just so happens that actually believing in freedom make me someone on the ultra far left for some reason. If people were not such huge hypocrites when it came to liberty the world would be a better place.
Oh also, I'm not sure what the situation with the Zizek/WN plagiarism currently is (like if he has responded yet) but for another Zizek redpill, look at his cringe-inducing douche comments he wrote for the Abercrombie & Fitch mailorder catalog at some point in the 90s -
>>34513021 >believing in trickle down economics >being so unnationalistic you support foreign companies being able to buy out vast areas of land because muh economic freedom >trusting corporations to give a fuck about the environment or workers rights >allowing the rich to get unbelievablely rich
>>34512742 Gotta remember. 1. Most people are afraid to get dirty by associating w/ those they find distasteful; 2. divide and conquer works really well - so well, that I've seen legit dumb people pull it off like magic
Separate but equal status for everybody, the right of self determination for everyone - even whites.
>Okay, so your country is completely free of Jews, gays and non-whites.
Not free of anything, Jews just don't run our banks and media anymore, promoting degeneracy and destroying capitalism by printing endless fiat currency. Nationalism is no longer a crime, and eventually different groups will be able to have White enclaves, black enclaves, Latino enclaves, Jewish enclaves, Christian enclaves, Marxist communes, like native reserves for all the races and cultures destroyed by corporatism and marxist theory, also Metropolitan cities.
>What now? How is your race any better off if they're still under the slave-driving capitalist system?
My race is fine. I just don't want my children to be ashamed of it and have to hide their pride. Capitalism is also the most productive system ever put into use - ever. I'm guilty of a pinko Canard here, I put put in a Gradualist Georgian system of economics as a hold over for a few generations as we slowly dismantle the institutions of socialism and achieve 'true free markets'. It will take a few years of dismantling the state run Prussian system of schooling, and Jewish control of the media, in order to educate the populace on the benefits of smaller government and more powerful local government, and industry and the privatization of services.
>And on that note, as long as any kind of capitalist economics are maintained your nation is still going to be run by the elites you're hoping to drive out through the seeds of capitalism that have been planted all over the world.
There always was and always will be "elites" and different classes of people, your marxist fantasy does not trump human nature. A gold standard currency would inhibit their power and cause their influence to shrink.
>>34513520 They generalize because liberals support the very environment where such people end up developing.
In a more authoritarian and brutal society these types of people wouldent even dare speak out against the order provided to them by men who would beat the shit out of them and kill them if they would say otherwise.
>>34513648 I only say that because I have seen it happen time and time again no matter what the subject. Just because I am pointing something out does not mean I am by default biases. You have no support for your assertions.
>This is /pol/, facts are ignored or substituted with whatever opinion or version is most convent to already held beliefs.
The closest I've seen to that is someone holding a 50 year old study on race as being more relevant to a 100 year old one - because it fucking is. Aside from that someone disputing the '1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted' or 'gender wage gap' memes by demonstrating how they fudged the data is not "ignoring facts"
>>34513520 I may be guilty of generalizing from time to time, but when I call someone a libshit I am usually indicating that they are poor examples of actual intelligent liberals that are open to real debate.
More often than not I don't use it when referring to someone on /pol/.
>>34513818 >You have no support for your assertions. What a loaded statement. Go search the archives for literally any gun debate threads. If you can still seriously say that facts are ignored here by anybody but the most rabid do gooders then you must be delusional.
>>34513824 Mein bruder. I don't see why commies need to go to war against some tiny minority that happens to be better off than them
>>34510632 Fuck you Michael Savage should be the patron saint of /pol/ but nobody here will listen. He's Ron Paul with a dose of Hitler. Hates Muslims. Is a race realist. Michael Savage is a god, and hosts the greatest political talk radio of our time.
>>34509141 This post is a fucking joke. The standard of argument here is pathetic with absolutely no citation or true attention to philosophy ever given. We have a fucking philosophy sticky that NOBODY pays attention to.
For example, what is the most common response to someone's argument that we don't agree with? We simply quote them in green text and post a picture of a sly kike. This is not an argument, it is a conscious rejection of argument. Don't pretend any level of intellectual discourse EVER happens here; this is entirely false and it would be a fucking mockery of the truth to state or imply anything to the contrary.
Of course /pol/ is an echo chamber; you don't need accounts, upvotes, or moderation to create a perpetual sycophantic circle-jerk of an environment; all you need is enough propaganda and loud voices shouting down any dissenters with gay kike pics. Then you have created the "echo chamber" wherein everyone agrees and those who do not realize that the vast majority of us are imbecilic children who cannot be convinced of any logic contradictory to the /Pol/ Approved Narrative™.
Don't think so highly of yourself, it is sickening.
>>34514041 >Of course /pol/ is an echo chamber; you don't need accounts, upvotes, or moderation to create a perpetual sycophantic circle-jerk of an environment; all you need is enough propaganda and loud voices shouting down any dissenters with gay kike pics. Then you have created the "echo chamber" wherein everyone agrees and those who do not realize that the vast majority of us are imbecilic children who cannot be convinced of any logic contradictory to the /Pol/ Approved Narrative™. Regardless of if that's true (it's not) that's still not what an echo chamber is. An echo chamber needs to be enforced. You being an uppity nigger and leaving after your feelings were hurt isn't an enforcement. It's you actively deciding you don't want to participate. And since you're still here it's fairly obvious that no one is making you leave.
>>34514103 >>34514132 here Most of the internet only has the "college liberals" aka SJWs that I wouldn't hit a wet dog in the ass with. They're terrible and disgusting people.
Most of /pol/ confuses "not being a retarded feminist" with "omg so red pill omg" so it seems like there aren't leftists here but I see quite a few of them. There's just no need to say anything about it since there's no identity politics possible on 4chan. Which, again, is why I'm even here, I fucking hate that shit.
>>34514041 Some people post happy merchant, some people argue, some demonstrate their point. This thread is an example of the fact that /pol/ isnt an echo chamber. Go into any other and you will find just as much argumentation.
>>34514168 Don't worry, I said something negative about /pol/ so I absolutely will receive gay kike pics, unless the stormfront defense force is out for the night. Are you really implying that discussions that typically take place here reach anywhere near the label of "intellectual?" We have fucking 9/11 troof threads and chemtrail threads for fuck's sake, it is clear the majority of people here are decidedly anti-intellectual.
>>34514041 >For example, what is the most common response to someone's argument that we don't agree with? We simply quote them in green text and post a picture of a sly kike.
Proof? Sly Kike is a typical board meme, it's not an argument but something used to piss people off. This is an image board after all, and every board has some kind of mascot that litters its posts.
>Then you have created the "echo chamber" wherein everyone agrees and those who do not realize that the vast majority of us are imbecilic children who cannot be convinced of any logic contradictory to the /Pol/ Approved Narrative™.
Unless it's an Israeli/Palestinian thread, the kike pics only pop-up maybe once or twice. Most threads continue in the same fashion of argument and counter-argument.
It's obvious you barely browse /pol/, and you reek of an oversensitive redditor or /lit/fag.
>>34514340 Right. Any discussion you dont agree with is anti-intellectual. If people want to discuss 9/11 or chemtrails they can, its their right. And people here will argue for or against them over and over again.
Funny how you accuse /pol/ of being an echo chamber when it sounds like you DO want an echo chamber that mirrors your own worldview.
I've seen a liberal fuckton of debate in my 2-3 years on this board, and I feel like anyone who says its an echo chamber is either new or reads too much into the racist comments and automatically assumes we're all right-wing here.
>>34514602 >If you had read my post you'd know that getting mad and leaving of your own accord is not what makes an echo chamber. That's not the mechanism by which the echo chamber is enforced. You have poor reading comprehension and a low IQ score; you are no longer valuable enough to hold my attention. Goodbye.
>>34514705 You've obviously never been to any type of truly open-forum environment before. The range of acceptable discussion topics here is extremely narrow and it is hard to see this if you are steeped in it.
>>34514666 >strawman lol thes ppl r so dum >this nigger seriously defending chemtrail threads LOL Not him, but I will continue to defend any and every thread that is open to actual discussion and debate of a topic regardless of whether I agree with that topic or even if I believe it to be completely batshit insane.
As someone sympathetic to many radical-left ideals (although progressively less so over the past 2 years) it's a lot to do with the fact that almost everywhere leftists flock to (I've spent extended amounts of time lurking revleft, leftist tumblrz, sites focusing on more academic discussion of left wing topics, &c.) there are small cliques who establish the parameters of acceptable discourse and the only people who post are either hacks regurgitating acceptable talking points or are actively censored.
Revleft is a very acute example because even amongst potential allies (social democrats, parliamentarians/entryists, mutualists), active participation in the main discussions gets restricted once you've admitted to (or are accused by a mod of) taking a not-revolutionary-enough stance.
So, quite similarly-minded people are confined to the "Opposing Ideologies" forum where they can only communicate with trolls and more right-wing ideologies seeking (in vain as you'll witness in any example thread) to engage the (often bizarre) stances of people on the site.
>>34514759 Who is calling for moderation you dumb fuck? Chemtrail threads are for dumb fuckers who have never read a book.
These threads are wildly popular every time they are posted, hundreds of replies long. This demonstrates that /pol/ is full of dumb fuckers who are decidedly anti-intellectual, ergo they are not capable of intellectual debate.
Liberal reporting in. /pol/ has challenged many of my beliefs, but in the end I am still an economic and social liberal.
I think the great conspiracy is that conservative and liberal policy are somehow diametrically opposed. In reality, all Americans want the same thing: a beautiful and free America, strong enough to protect her interests abroad and wise enough to safeguard generations of future Americans.
I get deeply upset when conservatives and liberals alike assume that compromise is impossible because the other side "aren't true Americans." Do you think that the Founding Fathers agreed on every policy issue?
Compromise is life, and every year that the Senate and House is deadlocked due to bullshit partisan tactics is another wasted year of governance for the American people.
>>34512747 There really isn't an equivocation to be made between reddit and pol. I was on the fucking geology sub on reddit, of all places, and people were self-censoring and being downvoted to shit because they had the gall to say something as benign as "fracking caused earthquakes aren't a problem, most of them are too small to be felt." The politics sub and atheist sub have RUINED THAT FUCKING SITE with their political elitism hive mind garbage - NO OTHER OPINIONS ARE TOLERATED. NOTHING LIKE THAT GOES ON HERE. Nothing like that at all. You can say what the fuck you want - liberal or conservative or anarcho-bullshitist or whatever. I think the problem with OP and this thread is that when a redditor sees a place that isn't absolutely dominated by leftism their knee jerk reaction is to say that it MUST be a right wing echo chamber. We'll let me tell you something - NOTHING is more of an echo chamber than fucking reddit. That site is a cancer. The liberals can stay there as far as I'm concerned - thank God for pol.
That's because we used to be a fucking NEWS board. We really only care about philosophy IN ACTION.
Leftists are perpetually buttmad at us for dismissing their untested political theories on the basis of their past failures. We literally don't care about motivation political or otherwise until we see it in action.
We aren't an echo chamber though as we welcome all groups to come in and hurl shit at us for hurling shit at them - more to the point is that our opinions are simply too diverse to be an echo chamber - we don't rally around our members with support or resoundingly support any cause. Which would be a base requirement for an echo chamber.
>Of course /pol/ is an echo chamber; you don't need accounts, upvotes, or moderation to create a perpetual sycophantic circle-jerk of an environment; all you need is enough propaganda and loud voices shouting down any dissenters with gay kike pics. Then you have created the "echo chamber" wherein everyone agrees and those who do not realize that the vast majority of us are imbecilic children who cannot be convinced of any logic contradictory to the /Pol/ Approved Narrative™.
I think the only thing that supports a /pol/ approved narrative is that the right wingers can debunk the left wingers' facts and statistics and left wingers cannot do the same - except to point to vapid philosophical reasonings and arguments tangentially relevant to, and precariously applied to the topic at hand - which 9/10 times is a news story or historically relevant event.
>Michael Brown was shot by a racist cop for being black..
This requires practical working analytical skill to dissect and digest - not philosophical knowledge or pedantry.
>The media is pushing as narrative and fucking lying here's why…
Here's what contributes nothing to the thread:
>I think that Michael Brown is a victim of an oppressive racist society...
>>34515091 >You are by saying that we shouldn't have any chemtrail threads. Who the fuck said this? Once again, your reading comprehension skills are quite poor. You can't discern the meaning behind a statement or judge its intent.
>>34508774 Leftists and even mainstream liberals show up occasionally, but no one ever listens or engages because they usually resort to calling us a bunch of idiots instead of providing reasoned arguments. Fact is, most of /pol/ and Tumblr-style SWJs are in many ways opposite sides of the same coin. There is a strong tendency on both sides to take the worst, most extreme, arguments and frame them as, "This is what X actually believe." Both sides can be btfo by anyone with decent rhetoric, an actual education, and some sense of history. Take feminism vs MRAs for example. Here's Karen Straughan, Naomi Wolfe, and some random radical lesbian anarchist discussing the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z7nteHMPJ8
>>34515241 >whaa you guys have chemtrail threads >you shouldn't have chemtrail threads >but don't do anything to stop chemtrail threads >just magic chemtrail threads out of existence I don't think it's possible to please you here or anywhere else on the internet.
>>34515186 I'm a right-winger myself and I'm on here very often. I don't hate any of those three groups, although I do hate the black subculture I believe can be rightly called niggerism that encourages young people to commit crime and pass their pussy/cock around like it's a party favour.
I will call a nigger a nigger, just like I'll call white trash white trash, but men like Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell are intelligent black men.
>>34511148 The big issue is the size of the US. And I'm afraid of the US being broken down into smaller states too quickly, because that could cause instability globally, and threaten the persistence of the resulting countries.
>>34510725 >Do you guys think there's a correlation between holding rather extreme political beliefs and a lack of pussy? If there is any, it's that the knowledge it takes to actually hold those beliefs and be able to debate someone on them is less time you have to go stick your dick in some (likely STD-ridden) whore.
Sad but true, and it illustrates a counterpoint to OP perfectly. Liberals are USED to being in a fucking hugbox 24/7 - could you imagine living in a place like San Fransisco or NYC as a liberal? Think about the people they interact with and the media they are exposed to. That is probably as much of a hugbox as one could ever hope to find.
They bring the hugbox mindset, a smug sense of superiority backed by exactly nothing, to pol. They are instantly overwhelmed with both logical and well worded criticisms, and being called a fucking retard or a faggot. They see a bunch of threads talking about topics FAR beyond the normal range of PC garbage they are exposed to. I'm sure it DOES look like an echo chamber to them.
I for one welcome it, stay awhile OP. You might learn something, you might teach something. Keep an open mind - isn't that what you people are all about anyway?
>>34516011 The problem is that you only see the hugbox liberals because they flame themselves out. You don't notice the rest of us, and assume we're like you. We're not. But often we share points in common.
Don't mistake my agreement with something as a political alignment. You wouldn't vote for me if I ran for office but we can hate on whores, feminists, niggers, immigration, and Obama all day long and you'd never notice a thing out of place.
4 chin /pol/ is a joke. This is there hugbox their circle jerk their daisy chain. They are the edgiest because each little finger that crawls up their sphincter encourages them to be more bold. When the entire fist enters that become echo puppets desperately searching for anything that can encourage their ego.
>>34516207 No I get that. I wasn't saying that. But a lot of liberals do indeed come across that way. It's an interesting phenomenon, how this board gets accused of being right wing, when people like you are a part of us. I see plenty of leftist ideas posts and beliefs, and yet this board is consistently portrayed as being right wing in media. I find that fascinatingly disingenuous.
>>34511033 >I want to be a liberal, it's really nice to believe in progress. I just have a really hard time of it anymore.
But doesn't any look at history debunk this? Whether it's egalitarian per-agricultural societies, ancient empires that run on slavery and military expansion or the feudal systems of the middle ages. Isn't the idea that we can't "progress" in complete disregard to all the times were we have?
>'Tone Policing' >Ceasing participation in a debate on an anonymous image board because someone taking an opposing stance has said something you didn't like or in a tone you do not agree with >Standing on some sort of moral high ground >On 4chan
Yeah. It flies in the face of the freedom of speech and expression of ideas this board culture has came to embrace. We don't do that here. Hugboxes and echo chambers and activists do. So when you try and use SJW tactics here, it shows a dearth of intellectual strength and fidelity. Basically it would be the equivalent of refusing to talk to the moderator of a real world debate because you don't like his tie. The conversation ends by your action. You actually do lose the debate.
>>34516372 I get pretty pissed at 99% of the references to 4chan for the same reason. As much as moot is a jew and mods are faggots I love the fuck out of this shithole.
Honestly I spent years on the straight dope message boards and then one day stumbled here because of some animu and just never left. Every time I look anywhere else it's just so much fucking bullshit. People having screennames and identities and "you all know me, but listen to this" like they're some kind of message board god... fuck I hate it.
This place would have to be at least 10 times worse than it is to even approach how shit 99% of the internet is.
>>34514008 I made that statement based on public perception of them. I have ordered his book Stop the Coming Civil War because A) it is interesting to read on a persons train of thought on how America is going to go Civil War 2.0 B) I respect the mans opinion and even though I may not see eye-to-eye with him all the time I do take his opinion more than just a grain of salt
>>34516144 Jeez, the main point i was trying to make is that /pol/ and SWJ are actually alike in that they far too frequently resort to ad hominem as their main attack. And this provides a convenient excuse to refuse to engage with the other side. And this is stupid. I'd actually like to see less poo flinging and more liberals posting here pointing out some of the bullshit that passes for received wisdom on /pol/. But it's not happening.
>>34516392 Your problem is that your view of history is clouded by your own ideology. Think about it this way - to slave based societies, THEY were the most progressive. Slavery was an efficient method of maximizing agricultural production, and slavery was more humane than genocide. They were MUCH more prosperous and advanced than the hunter-gatherers or nomads before them, even though by a modern definition hunter gatherers were more "progressive" in the sense that they were eglatarian. You forget that agriculture is no longer so labor intensive - we no longer have need of slaves. Progress as you define it really isn't progress in the absolute sense of the word, you are just imposing your own values on society and calling it "progress."
Why is most of the civilized world including most of Europe , Canada and Australia more progressive and functional while America is shitted up and asshat backwards by stupid right wing fuckers like the Republicans and TEATURDS /pol/?
>>34511297 >>America's welfare as it is now is acceptable. Drug tests to receive it are more than appropriate though. Some people could do with a bit more, and some people could do with a bit less, but no one's starving from it.
Disregarding the invasion of privacy argument, the problem with this is that it doesn't work and is a waste of money.
>>Schools don't have the right to tell someone of a particular religion what they should or should not think is wrong. >>Schools should be completely open to any non-violent religious expression(or lack thereof), and should avoid having anything to do with teaching the students their morals or trying to influence their ambitions.
Aren't these two contradictory?
>>Judging applicants based on their race for important positions and competitive school seats results in a lower quality of results. It doesn't matter if you're White, Indian, Black, or Hispanic. If you're the best person for the job, you deserve it.
I disagree with affirmative action on principle, but interestingly enough minority students who get in as a result of affirmative action tend to have better results.
http://diverseeducation.com/article/54320/ (I know it's not the best source, but couldn't find a better one)
>>34516828 I of course don't know of what specific events you speak, but in my experience 90% of the people that accuse others of using an ad hom fallacy do not understand it at all.
>he called me a dick >ad hom! no faggot. If I said, >>34516828 is a huge fucking faggot and therefore, as with all faggots, you can ignore him, because he's practically a woman, and we all know how fucking dumb women are... well, that'd be an ad hominum.
But, >faggot Is not an ad hom, just an insult.
Again, dunno if you are like this, but in my experience most people mistake insults for ad hom.
Im a socialist, and a nationalist. My views on a lot of things are not what people would commonly call left wing however. For example i think people should not only be able to have guns, but training should be mandatory. An armed populace who were properly taught gun safety from an early age is nothing but beneficial to the greater good.
Liberal here - picking Warren would be a huge mistake for us. She would split the liberal party into the far-left and moderate left, just like the Tea Party has buttfucked the Republicans chances at a President for the foreseeable future.
Hillary is the biggest tent that liberals can muster and she's our best option. Cory Booker from NJ would be an excellent second choice, although two black presidents in a row would cause conservatives everywhere to suicide.
>>34517184 You call it progress, I call this regression.
I've taken a liking to the DE view of history in that whig egalitarian ideology is broken and seeks to devour the world under the guise of social progress.
Are people in fact more free when they are ostracized or silenced by the vocal population than the State? The way I see it is it is more akin to the Scarlet Letter while you people cry 1984 when government resistance is met on your rampage "forward".
My point was that it's bullshit to believe the conservative mantra that "this is the way humans are meant to be and as such 'progress/change' is impossible / imposing unnatural structures upon humanity" that >>34511033 seemed to present. As any look at history will show great amounts of change.
>>34517442 >probably not start world war 3. See this is exactly what she scares the shit out of me. I think she would, just prove women are as strong as men; or, that she wouldn't (if we should) just to prove women are more peaceful than men. I just have associated her in my head with identity politics shit and I hate it.
Probably irrational bullshit, but I sweat a little every time I hear her speak.
>>34517140 I know exactly what ad hominem means and it's exactly the kind of arguments liberals on /pol/ tend to make. "The only reason you guys believe this stuff is because you're a bunch of basement dwelling NEETs who are scared of the changes taking place in today's society," is very typical of liberal posters here. And no one seems very inclined to engage with those people. And this refusal to engage is what I called tone policing. I'm not defending it, I'm describing it. I've explicitly said that I'd like to see more liberal posters arguing actual issues because I think it would improve the board.
>>34517498 I dunno. Given her background as SecState, I think she's more likely to at least try the diplomatic route than sending in Marines or ordering air strikes. Also the Clintons always got along well with the international community, so if we do need to exercise hard options at least we'll have some multilateral consensus.
>>34508774 Žižek was the first philosopher to redpill me on how much ideology controls the way we think, vote, etc. Not even just hating liberals/conservatives, etc. but even the more subtle things like environmentalism being a form of ideology. Despite being a leftist, Žižek fucking loathes treehuggers because he considers them slaves to ideology.
Anyway, as hipster as it sounds, I feel like anyone who can define their political views in words like liberal or conservative does so with the implication that the solutions to society's/America's/the world's ills are contained within their brand of ideology, which leads to cognitive dissonance when presented with ideas that conflict with their ideology. People, left or right, are literally afraid to reject or, in severe cases, begin to question their own viewpoints simply because those same views are attached to an ideology with which others also identify. Leaving a community with which you've had positive feedback is rarely pleasant
I guess this doesn't really answer the question of whether I'm a leftist or right-winger, but I guess the tl;dr answer is that it's not really important for me. Not because I don't care, but because I don't profess to believe that I know the answers to societal problems, problems which entail layers of complexity that neither I nor 99 percent of humans can even begin to address. I sympathize with most SJW causes, but not to the extent that I personally identify as a 'feminist' or what have you. I lean to the left on a majority of issues, but I won't consider myself a 'leftist'. However, my conclusions are only based on my readings and research, which could, at any time, be weakened or even rebutted by new and more relevant information. If and when that time comes, I don't want to be afraid to alter my viewpoints. I don't want to become attached.
>>34517498 She has the least chance of starting shit from my perspective.
She is very strong and well connected, not some rookie politician. She has spent the last few years going around the world making those back room deals already, and people are afraid of her.
She is the perfect person to play the current global climate because she helped engineer it.
From a purely pragmatic viewpoint america would be best off with her as president. If we insist on doing all these regime toppling pipeline manipulation, and fucking with china and russia, you want someone whos been in the game a long time and has a cool head and a steady hand.
You get some kind of idealist in there and they are likely to ruin everything.
>>34517592 As a liberal, I don't engage with people like you because when I announce I'm a liberal, all I get is people flying off the handle insisting I defend every dumb fucking thing ever done by anyone who self-describes or just sorta seems like or conforms to a strawmanned version of a liberal. You do it in your very post.
>liberals are such idiots, i don't know why they won't engage with me It's not a really big mystery dude.
Hillary isn't going to get any support from Obama; the two families aren't friends. And god knows if it's a contest between two white chicks, the black vote will go to the one who Lord Barack nominates.
>>34517870 I really dont know why anyone would self identify as a liberal or a conservative. Those are pre-packaged stances on things, anyone who isnt all over the place is not thinking and probably shouldnt be allowed to vote anyway.
>>34517864 >you want someone whos been in the game a long time and has a cool head and a steady hand. Is that Hillary though? Sec of State is not a military position. On one hand, that's maybe good, because she's not deeply invested in the military industrial shit. But... ehhhhh.
>Also the Clintons always got along well with the international community, so if we do need to exercise hard options at least we'll have some multilateral consensus. I don't like the thought of >bush clinton clinton bush bush obama obama clinton a lot. I don't think it helps us look like a meritocracy when we have dynasties like this.
>>34517870 >liberals are such idiots, i don't know why they won't engage with me
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when liberals post like that, /pol/ refuses to engage with THEM. And it's stupid.
I've also said this: >There is a strong tendency on both sides to take the worst, most extreme, arguments and frame them as, "This is what X actually believe."
So I feel your pain when you talk about having to defend every dumb fucking thing. There's plenty of shitposters on /pol/. /pol would be the first to admit this. I'm saying over and over again that I'd like to see more arguments about actual issues rather than poo flinging, but you turn around and accuse me of flinging poo.
>>34518094 This. If Warren even decides to run, the "liberal" press would shut her down in a heartbeat as being too extreme. "Better vote for Hillary, because a vote for Warren will just drive the independents into the arms of the GOP", will be relentlessly driven into the mind of the American public. Just like they did with Jerry Brown when Bill ran in '92.
>>34518376 >I'm saying that when liberals post like that, /pol/ refuses to engage with THEM. And it's stupid. I dunno... I don't think it is. I do get flustered a lot on /pol/ when I say "I'm a liberal" and get shit, but honestly after I get over it I don't think too much more about it. After all, saying "I'm a liberal" doesn't actually say anything at all, it just serves to pointlessly align me with a nebulously-defined group. Arguments should stand on their own.
/pol/ does tend towards a double standard here, though. Anyone seeking to identify with a group instead of just speaking their mind directly should get shit on.
See you in another thread anon. I've got twitterers to troll.
>>34518615 Don't say "I'm a liberal." Remember, we're all Anons here. Just call out the bullshit arguments on issues for being bullshit. I do this all the time when /pol/ is being particularly stupid or extreme and never get called out for it.
Though I think most people would be content with "don't fix what isn't broken", I get the feeling what you're arguing is moot in nature. It's the exact reason why we have the bipartisan liberal vs conservative crowds in the first place.
>>34518148 I dont think you are understanding. The wars are going to continue because the US must control the pipelines into europe. Thats a given. Thus far we have been handling a lot of it by avoiding blatant direct involvement, she is at the heart of that, as is many of the elite. Back when the leviathan natural gas field was discovered off of israel one of the first things she did was try to campaign to get the rules regarding who owns what water in the event that two nations have coastline where the normal definition of the extent of natural waters (which extends a fixed distance from your coastline) overlap, bringing who owns what into question. The purpose, seemingly obviously, was to ensure israel could control that gas field.
It was her husband who ultimately is responsible for the issue in ukraine right now because back in the 90s he pushed very hard to set in motion an expedited push to bring that region into the west using european and NATO connections and resources.
She is behind or involved the various color revolutions in arab spring.
She is part of the caste that shapes the current geopolitical climate and the worry is that while these people have plans and are skilled at manipulating things, some newbie may overstep his bounds and take his 'president' position a little too seriously and destabilize things somewhere.
With her as president we would have a president whos actually allowed to do things and is not just a puppet, that would be refreshing.
>>34519047 Write bills, spearhead projects, lead committees, the kinds of actually-doing-stuff things one should be doing who wants to rule the nation and not just be a "voice". Do you want a leader who is just a voice? We had that with Bush, it just means someone you didn't elect will be the one actually doing things.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.