Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
I understand. I think we have different views on this, however. I wouldn't go around making obvious jokes that are "racist" in a public forum, and only with people who understand my intent, as otherwise I might genuinely hurt someone unnecessarily. In private however, I have made racist jokes. For example, I have black and Asian friends. My wife is also Asian. We make jokes at the expense of the other's race in jest quite frequently, but we obviously mean no harm by it. Stereotypes can sometimes be funny; but you shouldn't be making blanket statements on them in public as it'll cause unnecessary conflict.
However, speaking of the existence of racism, and even mocking it through sarcasm (I'm an aspiring racist, for example) is not seen as bad in my eyes. In fact, through mockery, I'm making it clear that being racist is stupid. I hope you can see the difference and that I am not trying to be insidious.
*Edit - You speak fine enough. No worries.
However, speaking of the existence of racism, and even mocking it through sarcasm (I'm an aspiring racist, for example) is not seen as bad in my eyes. In fact, through mockery, I'm making it clear that being racist is stupid. I hope you can see the difference and that I am not trying to be insidious.
*Edit - You speak fine enough. No worries.
Last edited:
"
If men had a deeply developed feeling of equity they would not oppress other men. Politicians would not cheat their electors; Parliament would not be a chattering and cheating box, and Charles Warren’s policemen would refuse to bludgeon the Trafalgar Square talkers and listeners. And if men were gallant, self-respecting, and less egotistic, even a bad capitalist would not be a danger; the workers would have soon reduced him to the role of a simple comrade-manager. Even a King would not be dangerous, because the people would merely consider him as a fellow unable to do better work, and therefore entrusted with signing some stupid papers sent out to other cranks calling themselves Kings.
But men are not those free-minded, independent, provident, loving, and compassionate fellows which we should like to see them. And precisely, therefore, they must not continue living under the present system which permits them to oppress and exploit one another. Take, for instance, those misery-stricken tailors who paraded last Sunday in the streets, and suppose that one of them has inherited a hundred pounds from an American uncle. With these hundred pounds he surely will not start a productive association for a dozen of like misery-stricken tailors, and try to improve their condition. He will become a sweater. And, therefore, we say that in a society where men are so bad as this American heir, it is very hard for him to have misery-stricken tailors around him. As soon as he can he will sweat them; while if these same tailors had a secured living from the Communist stores, none of them would sweat to enrich their ex-comrade, and the young sweater would himself not become the very bad beast he surely will become if he continues to be a sweater.
We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favour the development of slavishness. We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community.
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition? The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’."
* Are we good enough quote,
If men had a deeply developed feeling of equity they would not oppress other men. Politicians would not cheat their electors; Parliament would not be a chattering and cheating box, and Charles Warren’s policemen would refuse to bludgeon the Trafalgar Square talkers and listeners. And if men were gallant, self-respecting, and less egotistic, even a bad capitalist would not be a danger; the workers would have soon reduced him to the role of a simple comrade-manager. Even a King would not be dangerous, because the people would merely consider him as a fellow unable to do better work, and therefore entrusted with signing some stupid papers sent out to other cranks calling themselves Kings.
But men are not those free-minded, independent, provident, loving, and compassionate fellows which we should like to see them. And precisely, therefore, they must not continue living under the present system which permits them to oppress and exploit one another. Take, for instance, those misery-stricken tailors who paraded last Sunday in the streets, and suppose that one of them has inherited a hundred pounds from an American uncle. With these hundred pounds he surely will not start a productive association for a dozen of like misery-stricken tailors, and try to improve their condition. He will become a sweater. And, therefore, we say that in a society where men are so bad as this American heir, it is very hard for him to have misery-stricken tailors around him. As soon as he can he will sweat them; while if these same tailors had a secured living from the Communist stores, none of them would sweat to enrich their ex-comrade, and the young sweater would himself not become the very bad beast he surely will become if he continues to be a sweater.
We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favour the development of slavishness. We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community.
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition? The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’."
* Are we good enough quote,
That's the not point.
No. I didn't Lmao.
Again, I know I can't expect you guyz to understand but the comprehension of political, sociological, legal and scientific term is a little bit more complicated that seeking a definition in the dictionnary.
You guyz simply do not udnerstand what you are talking about at the moment.
As for me admitting being wrong, i've done this more in this thread alone that EVERY ONE here combined. So, humble yourself two second mate. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Give me good arguments, or do not talk.
It's not. It's simply a resistance movement, as in "RESISTANCE". You have been led to believe because of the propaganda of the west that Resistance means "clean movement". It's not the case. A resistance is a group that counter an oppressive regime, that's what the Hamas is and does.
Their method are criticizable, their status is not.
Which is EXACTLY what is at stake here. It's time to wake up Alfred.
Do you want Ukraine to capitulate and lose part of its territories, thus sending innocent Ukrainian under dictature ?
Neither.
It's a resistance movement.
No, but you are definitely building a stage for people like him to perform...
So the intent of making racist joke can be not to make racist jokes ?
No. I didn't Lmao.
Again, I know I can't expect you guyz to understand but the comprehension of political, sociological, legal and scientific term is a little bit more complicated that seeking a definition in the dictionnary.
You guyz simply do not udnerstand what you are talking about at the moment.
As for me admitting being wrong, i've done this more in this thread alone that EVERY ONE here combined. So, humble yourself two second mate. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Give me good arguments, or do not talk.
It's not. It's simply a resistance movement, as in "RESISTANCE". You have been led to believe because of the propaganda of the west that Resistance means "clean movement". It's not the case. A resistance is a group that counter an oppressive regime, that's what the Hamas is and does.
Their method are criticizable, their status is not.
Which is EXACTLY what is at stake here. It's time to wake up Alfred.
It’s Joever for Germany , Major companies are laying off big time , but stupid leaders will say we will send billions of € to Ukraine and it’s okay if the economy tanks 
Neither.
It's a resistance movement.
No, but you are definitely building a stage for people like him to perform...
So the intent of making racist joke can be not to make racist jokes ?
That's the not point.
No. I didn't Lmao.
Again, I know I can't expect you guyz to understand but the comprehension of political, sociological, legal and scientific term is a little bit more complicated that seeking a definition in the dictionnary.
You guyz simply do not udnerstand what you are talking about at the moment.
As for me admitting being wrong, i've done this more in this thread alone that EVERY ONE here combined. So, humble yourself two second mate. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Give me good arguments, or do not talk.
It's not. It's simply a resistance movement, as in "RESISTANCE". You have been led to believe because of the propaganda of the west that Resistance means "clean movement". It's not the case. A resistance is a group that counter an oppressive regime, that's what the Hamas is and does.
Their method are criticizable, their status is not.
Which is EXACTLY what is at stake here. It's time to wake up Alfred.
Do you want Ukraine to capitulate and lose part of its territories, thus sending innocent Ukrainian under dictature ?
Neither.
It's a resistance movement.
No, but you are definitely building a stage for people like him to perform...
So the intent of making racist joke can be not to make racist jokes ?
No. I didn't Lmao.
Again, I know I can't expect you guyz to understand but the comprehension of political, sociological, legal and scientific term is a little bit more complicated that seeking a definition in the dictionnary.
You guyz simply do not udnerstand what you are talking about at the moment.
As for me admitting being wrong, i've done this more in this thread alone that EVERY ONE here combined. So, humble yourself two second mate. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Give me good arguments, or do not talk.
It's not. It's simply a resistance movement, as in "RESISTANCE". You have been led to believe because of the propaganda of the west that Resistance means "clean movement". It's not the case. A resistance is a group that counter an oppressive regime, that's what the Hamas is and does.
Their method are criticizable, their status is not.
Which is EXACTLY what is at stake here. It's time to wake up Alfred.
Do you want Ukraine to capitulate and lose part of its territories, thus sending innocent Ukrainian under dictature ?
Neither.
It's a resistance movement.
No, but you are definitely building a stage for people like him to perform...
So the intent of making racist joke can be not to make racist jokes ?
That's the not point.
No. I didn't Lmao.
Again, I know I can't expect you guyz to understand but the comprehension of political, sociological, legal and scientific term is a little bit more complicated that seeking a definition in the dictionnary.
You guyz simply do not udnerstand what you are talking about at the moment.
As for me admitting being wrong, i've done this more in this thread alone that EVERY ONE here combined. So, humble yourself two second mate. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Give me good arguments, or do not talk.
It's not. It's simply a resistance movement, as in "RESISTANCE". You have been led to believe because of the propaganda of the west that Resistance means "clean movement". It's not the case. A resistance is a group that counter an oppressive regime, that's what the Hamas is and does.
Their method are criticizable, their status is not.
Which is EXACTLY what is at stake here. It's time to wake up Alfred.
Do you want Ukraine to capitulate and lose part of its territories, thus sending innocent Ukrainian under dictature ?
Neither.
It's a resistance movement.
No, but you are definitely building a stage for people like him to perform...
So the intent of making racist joke can be not to make racist jokes ?
No. I didn't Lmao.
Again, I know I can't expect you guyz to understand but the comprehension of political, sociological, legal and scientific term is a little bit more complicated that seeking a definition in the dictionnary.
You guyz simply do not udnerstand what you are talking about at the moment.
As for me admitting being wrong, i've done this more in this thread alone that EVERY ONE here combined. So, humble yourself two second mate. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Give me good arguments, or do not talk.
It's not. It's simply a resistance movement, as in "RESISTANCE". You have been led to believe because of the propaganda of the west that Resistance means "clean movement". It's not the case. A resistance is a group that counter an oppressive regime, that's what the Hamas is and does.
Their method are criticizable, their status is not.
Which is EXACTLY what is at stake here. It's time to wake up Alfred.
Do you want Ukraine to capitulate and lose part of its territories, thus sending innocent Ukrainian under dictature ?
Neither.
It's a resistance movement.
No, but you are definitely building a stage for people like him to perform...
So the intent of making racist joke can be not to make racist jokes ?
