Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I have a better proposition. Serious this time.
Was Jacques Chirac racist ?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discours_de_Jacques_Chirac_du_16_juillet_1995_au_Vélodrome_d'Hiver
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_bruit_et_l'odeur_(discours_de_Jacques_Chirac)
Or was he having racist biases from time to time ?
@Logiko
Was Jacques Chirac racist ?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discours_de_Jacques_Chirac_du_16_juillet_1995_au_Vélodrome_d'Hiver
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_bruit_et_l'odeur_(discours_de_Jacques_Chirac)
Or was he having racist biases from time to time ?
@Logiko
What if -- it is ironic 
I believe most jokes have a truth to them though. Like if you constantly joke about how hot some lady you saw on the street is to your partner chances are you're very likely to be a cheater that wants to fuck that lady.
Same with racist jokes. I doubt people who make constant jokes about things like the black crime rate or black people loving chicken are going to be good people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Steaming horseshit served up by one of the best bootlickers of our day…any comment @Ravagerblade?
Steaming horseshit served up by one of the best bootlickers of our day…any comment @Ravagerblade?
I do not agree with that. I gave you a clear explanation why.
Oppressive remarks are not the result of inherently bad mindset but the product of material conditions of existence that shape said mindset.
That's why targetting inherent mindset depoliticize the problem and prevent us to look at the structural issues of society.
>The short activist answer is yes, he was. This answer allow us to target the problem and the subject directly for efficiency.
> The better answer is no he wasn't and just had massive racist biases due to effect of imperialism and systemic racism. This answer allows us to have a more materialistic look at the situation.
I believe we all have a potential to do good as long as we push ethically the system to create good people
Oppressive remarks are not the result of inherently bad mindset but the product of material conditions of existence that shape said mindset.
That's why targetting inherent mindset depoliticize the problem and prevent us to look at the structural issues of society.
>The short activist answer is yes, he was. This answer allow us to target the problem and the subject directly for efficiency.
> The better answer is no he wasn't and just had massive racist biases due to effect of imperialism and systemic racism. This answer allows us to have a more materialistic look at the situation.
I believe we all have a potential to do good as long as we push ethically the system to create good people
Bolsonoro is screwed btw ?
@NAMELESS and all of the brazilians in this forum -- do something ! Invade the prison and bring him to Chile ! NOW !!!!
Yes. But you'd notice that in your own words you said "constant racist jokes". And took specific examples.
My take was ironic in the sense that the joke is anti-racist and whatnot. Wether it's by being sly or so hardcore that it just cannot be true due to context or whatever.
I agree.
Even though I don't understand what materialism has to do with this.
But it could also be said that he was a racist but became nicer to get elected.
Because if we look at the current president which we know more than Chirac then...
Emmanuel Macron would have many cards but I'd need time to gather them all.
After being elected : https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/ar...de-racistes-par-la-gauche_6458667_823448.html
Before being elected when he was fooling people into thinking he was also kinda leftwing :
https://www.lemonde.fr/election-pre...-crime-contre-l-humanite_5080621_4854003.html
@NAMELESS and all of the brazilians in this forum -- do something ! Invade the prison and bring him to Chile ! NOW !!!!
Yes. But you'd notice that in your own words you said "constant racist jokes". And took specific examples.
My take was ironic in the sense that the joke is anti-racist and whatnot. Wether it's by being sly or so hardcore that it just cannot be true due to context or whatever.
I agree.
Even though I don't understand what materialism has to do with this.
But it could also be said that he was a racist but became nicer to get elected.
Because if we look at the current president which we know more than Chirac then...
Emmanuel Macron would have many cards but I'd need time to gather them all.
After being elected : https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/ar...de-racistes-par-la-gauche_6458667_823448.html
Before being elected when he was fooling people into thinking he was also kinda leftwing :
https://www.lemonde.fr/election-pre...-crime-contre-l-humanite_5080621_4854003.html
Oh I love that stuff! It's that moment when I stop being a leftist and I become a madman.
Nop, it does not. But that's my own physicalist value system, you won't see many leftist or even people have that kind of very anti-essentializing take.
I consider people's action as points in time and space. For me it's is absolutely nonsensical to call a murdered someone who murdered another one time or a thieft for someone who stole something another time. If the actual problem is not a set of continuous present actions, I don't see any logical reason to project the label.
All of actions are the result of structural pressure and choices (even if I don't really believe in choices, but that's too far for this debate). So when we push a label on someone, let's say we call them a "murderer". Well, what we are actually doing is project what they did in the past.... on the present AND the future, thus essentializing the action of the person thourough their entire existence while depoliticizing the subject around the systemic parameters that pushed said action to begin with.
I do it myself. I call netanyahou a genocider for example. Simply because I have no choice, the contextual pressure forces me to have this radical essentializing stance to make efficient points.
But in reality, Natanyahou is a product of imperialism, the apartheid and the jewish ethnostate. He is a product of many systems of domination and his choices are conditionned by all of them when he pushes his war. This is why, while netanyahou needs to pay for society, what really must happen is the end of all the system of dominations in Palestine and the current colonist state of Israel that create those behaviors in the first place.
(edit, technically, I'm right since Netanyahou is STILL doing a genocide, the logic will stand as long as he does this)
Materialism allows us to have a more structural approach of things like racism behaviors and stuff. Instead of looking at them like just the product of bad behavior like liberals tend to do.
We look at them as the product of the systems of dominations and exploitation. (systemic racism, capitalism etc.)
My first answer is to make a point with people in an efficient way and to be understood, the second is to be more accurate politically.
(but you will still see materialist on the left that will use the simple "they are racist" to go faster with arguments, we simply understand that they mean it in a different way than liberal or soc dems)
What is important to do, is to look the global picture. The pattern. With Macron, the pattern are all leading us to believe that while he tries to appear like a progressive liberal in public, he is actually pushing a radical conservative politic overhaul.
Nop, it does not. But that's my own physicalist value system, you won't see many leftist or even people have that kind of very anti-essentializing take.
I consider people's action as points in time and space. For me it's is absolutely nonsensical to call a murdered someone who murdered another one time or a thieft for someone who stole something another time. If the actual problem is not a set of continuous present actions, I don't see any logical reason to project the label.
All of actions are the result of structural pressure and choices (even if I don't really believe in choices, but that's too far for this debate). So when we push a label on someone, let's say we call them a "murderer". Well, what we are actually doing is project what they did in the past.... on the present AND the future, thus essentializing the action of the person thourough their entire existence while depoliticizing the subject around the systemic parameters that pushed said action to begin with.
I do it myself. I call netanyahou a genocider for example. Simply because I have no choice, the contextual pressure forces me to have this radical essentializing stance to make efficient points.
But in reality, Natanyahou is a product of imperialism, the apartheid and the jewish ethnostate. He is a product of many systems of domination and his choices are conditionned by all of them when he pushes his war. This is why, while netanyahou needs to pay for society, what really must happen is the end of all the system of dominations in Palestine and the current colonist state of Israel that create those behaviors in the first place.
(edit, technically, I'm right since Netanyahou is STILL doing a genocide, the logic will stand as long as he does this)
Materialism allows us to have a more structural approach of things like racism behaviors and stuff. Instead of looking at them like just the product of bad behavior like liberals tend to do.
We look at them as the product of the systems of dominations and exploitation. (systemic racism, capitalism etc.)
My first answer is to make a point with people in an efficient way and to be understood, the second is to be more accurate politically.
(but you will still see materialist on the left that will use the simple "they are racist" to go faster with arguments, we simply understand that they mean it in a different way than liberal or soc dems)
What is important to do, is to look the global picture. The pattern. With Macron, the pattern are all leading us to believe that while he tries to appear like a progressive liberal in public, he is actually pushing a radical conservative politic overhaul.
Hitler wasn't a nazi dictator rather his actions were I guess 
So whatever crimes you do, i.e assault, vandalism, arson, murder, rape, stealing etc., you should never get charged if you only commit said crime once and say you're sorry after.
